English translation — תצא ג

A.

In connection with the verse¹

"You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together,"

it stands in the Mishnah

(Tractate Bava Kamma²)

: "One ox and every animal are the same..

If so, why is ox or donkey stated? Rather, the verse spoke of the common,"

and the Gemara³

explains that "kilayim of plowing is derived from ox ox from Shabbat"⁴

(as it is written⁵

your ox and your donkey and all your cattle,

Rashi).

In the details of the law one finds a dispute among the early authorities:

The Rambam rules

"One ox and donkey and one any two species that one is impure and one is pure..

is lashed from the Torah"

(and explains,

"But from the words of the scribes two species that are kilayim in crossbreeding

(d.

h.

any two species

(pure or impure))

are forbidden to plow with them together and to lead them and to drive them")

The Rosh writes on this

"And his words are not plausible",

and he rules,

that even if both are pure or both are impure,

one also transgresses from the Torah.

And the foundation of the dispute is in the interpretation of the Mishnah in Kilayim⁸

The Mishnah says⁹

"Kil'ei behemah are permitted to raise and to keep, and they are forbidden only to crossbreed ..

(And the next Mishnah continues)

Behemah with behemah and chayah with chayah ..

Tamei¹⁰

with tamei and tahor with tahor, tamei with tahor and tahor with tamei are forbidden to plow etc."

learns the Rosh,

that "the Mishnah

(the second Mishnah)

includes together impure with impure pure with pure pure with impure and impure with pure",

that is

that is

that the prohibition of "kilayim of plowing"¹¹

also exists by impure with impure and pure with pure.

The Rambam however learns

(in the commentary on the Mishnah),

that the first several cases

(of the second Mishnah)

follow in continuation to the prohibition of mating from the first Mishnah,

and only the cases "impure with pure and pure with impure" relate to the conclusion of "forbidden to plow etc."

And the explanation according to the Rambam is — and particularly according to his version in this Mishnah¹²

that it begins "In what matters are these words said"

(that they are prohibited only "for breeding")

"An animal with an animal, etc.,

But an unclean with a clean ..

are prohibited

(also)

to plow, etc.'"

And one may say,

that also an old reasoning exists in the matter and the cause of the dispute is not

(only)

from the aspect of the interpretation of the Mishnah,

but from the aspect of the reasoning,

And on the contrary — from their dispute in reasoning emerges the dispute in the interpretation of the Mishnah

(and the establishment of the version in the Mishnah).

2.

At first glance one could learn,

that the dispute consists in the interpretation of the principle "the verse speaks of the present" which the Mishnah says in Bava Kama

(also)

regarding kil'ayim of animals:

According to the Rosh,

when one says "the verse speaks of the present",

it means completely,

<b>only</b> because it is "present".

That

is,

one cannot exclude anything,

to negate from that which the Torah says "in ox and in donkey",

the prohibition applies to all animals.

In contrast, according to the Rambam,

is although that one says "the text speaks of the common occurrence",

it is not plausible to say that there is no teaching at all from that which the verse is <b>specifying</b> and does not say simply "kilayim" and the like.

Therefore the Rambam says,

that one learns from this¹³

regarding the general category,

that it must be one pure and one impure.

(like "falling into a pit" and "double payment" and the like)

all hold that this means <b>all</b> domestic animal and wild animal and fowl,

and that which the Torah brings ox and donkey is only because of "the text speaks of the common occurrence",

is however kilayim different:

By "falling into the pit" and the like,

is the

(main the)

matter — payments for damage

and the like from <b>the homeowner</b>¹⁴

there is no rationale to distinguish between <b>types of animals</b> that one caused damage¹⁵

But not so by kilayim

(plowing),

where the content of the prohibition is the joining of the &lt;b&gt;two species&lt;/b&gt; together,

and the Torah is precise to write

(not "your animal" simply,

as by kilayim of breeding&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

but)

"with an ox and a donkey" — one learns from this,

that this is only in a species pure and impure].

But upon careful examination, one cannot learn thus,

because it is contrary to the simple meaning of "the text spoke in the present circumstance",

to say that there is a precision.

And in addition to this: the Rambam explains the mishnah in Bava Kamma,

regarding kilayim of plowing¹⁷

that this means <b>any </b>two species of animals

(also tahor and tahor and tamei and tamei),

only he adds "and this is rabbinic, but from the Torah it is not forbidden ...

except a tahor animal and a tamei animal only, similar to ox and donkey"; consequently it is understood,

that also according to the Rambam the principle "the text speaks of the commonplace" applies to all species¹⁸.

One cannot

attribute the reasoning of the opinion of the Rambam to the explanation of "the text speaks of the commonplace"¹⁹.

3.

In the reason for the prohibition of kilayim of plowing, one finds differing opinions:

Some say²⁰,

that the prohibition is "from the root of the prohibition of mating animals of diverse kinds"²¹,

because "the way of every tiller of the soil is to bring his pair to one stable and mate them"²².

And some say²³,

that "the reason for this commandment is the matter of the suffering of living creatures."

And based on this it is possible to say,

that in this consists the dispute of the Rambam with the Rosh:

According to the Rosh, this is "from the root of the prohibition of mating diverse kinds",

because ultimately plowing together leads to mating; and consequently the prohibition is valid for both species together,

exactly as with kilayim of mating.

But according to the Rambam, this is from the aspect of tza'ar ba'alei chayim —

And therefore the prohibition is

(from the Torah)

Only by tahor with tamei,

in the example of an ox and a donkey,

Because specifically then there is thereby the reason "that this one brings up cud and this one does not chew cud and thinks that the other eats and there is pain of living creatures"²⁴.

Or,

as the Chinuch explains,

that the reason for this pain is "that the species of animals and birds have great concern to dwell with those not of their species, and all the more so to do work with them",

and the main pain is "in two species that are like an ox and a donkey, where one is tahor and the other is tamei, whose natures are very far from each other".

It is however difficult to learn that the entire prohibition of kilayim of plowing is only because of tza'ar ba'alei chayim,

since in the Torah the verse "lo tachrosh etc." stands among the verses of kilayim²⁵

(kilayim of the vineyard and kilayim of garments)²⁶,

and also in the Mishnah²⁷

are the laws

(of kilayim of plowing)

in tractate Kilayim and in one category with "kilayim of crossbreeding"¹¹.

And especially since the Rambam himself explains in Moreh Nevuchim²⁸,

that the reason for kilayim of plowing is "for if one gathers together

both of them times one of them shall mount the other"²⁹.

D.

And one could say,

that their dispute is whether the matter of kilayim of plowing is a part of kilayim of crossbreeding,

or this is a law in and of itself"*²⁹

The Rosh holds that kilayim of plowing is the same concept as kilayim of breeding,

and the Rambam holds that it is a concept in its own right³⁰.

And the explanation of the dispute

(whether kilayim of plowing is the same concept as kilayim of breeding)

: kilayim is its content — "mixture",

"blending"³¹

According to the Rambam, the prohibition of kilayim of crossbreeding is connected with a mixture which is recognizable and visible — as a result of the act of crossbreeding a fetus is created with a unique appearance and bodily characteristics etc., a new species which comes specifically from the grafting of two species³²

; but not so by kilayim of plowing, the matter of the mixture does not affect and is not recognizable in the plowing etc.

And therefore according to the Rambam — each being a matter in itself — there is a difference between kilayim of crossbreeding

(that they are by all two species),

and kilayim of plowing

(specifically a pure species and an impure species).

But the Rosh holds,

that by both,

both by kilayim of breeding and by kilayim of plowing,

the prohibition is the <b>action</b> of joining two species — and consequently by both the same law applies.

H.

The above explanation is however not entirely smooth according to the Rambam:

From that which the Rambam rules that a)

"It is permitted to bring two species into one enclosure, and if he sees them mounting each other he is not required to separate them"³³,

b)

"One who transgressed and mated his animal, the offspring from them is permitted for benefit"³⁴,

c)

The prohibition from the Torah is specifically when he does the action with his hands³⁵

— it implies,

that regarding kilayim of mating, the definition of the prohibition is not connected with that from which offspring are born in which the matter of the grafting is recognizable and revealed,

but rather the very act of grafting

(the mating)

is forbidden³⁶.

And accordingly, kilayim of plowing is not in the category of kilayim of mating,

it is "from one source",

as is also implied from that which the Rambam includes them in <b>one chapter</b>

(in the laws of kilayim³⁷)

— because in both the definition of the prohibition is the same — the action of joining.

And one must say the reason for the distinction between them:

The content of the prohibition of kilayim is,

that one joins two things which are opposite to each other,

through the action of man it becomes an object of kilayim³⁸

But the manner of their mixture,

is not equal in all cases,

it depends on the manner of the connection:

By animal crossbreeding,

where the connection is in the utmost and in the language of the verse³⁹

and they shall become one flesh,

for every two species there becomes an object of kilayim — a mixture,

because <b>the connection</b> of <b>each</b> species the Almighty established specifically "according to its kind"; but by kilayim of plowing,

since their connection is only in a matter that is <b>external to them</b>,

they are not kilayim,

unless the work etc. is done with two types⁴⁰

of pure and impure,

which are opposites also in matters that are external to them

(regarding human consumption etc.)⁴¹

— then it becomes a mixture⁴²

— kilayim⁴³.

6.

The explanation of the dispute in the inwardness of the matters:

One finds in Chassidus⁴⁴

two explanations of the prohibition of "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together":

a)

"The matter of the prohibition of "Do not plow with an ox

and a donkey together" is to distance the husk of the donkey so that it should not receive from aspects of holiness"⁴⁵.

b)

The prohibition is because "ox" is of the aspect of gevurot and "donkey" is of the aspect of chasadim — and "it is forbidden to mix them together"⁴⁶.

These and those are words of the living God⁴⁷,

and it can be said,

that the two explanations are in accordance with the dispute between the Rambam and the Rosh:

According to the opinion of the Rambam,

that the prohibition of "lo tachrosh" is specifically with a pure species with an impure species,

is the reason for the prohibition that "kelipah" should not receive from holiness

and an impure species has its root from the 50 gates of impurity&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

; so when one does work with a pure species together with an impure species — the impure species can "receive" from the pure species].

According to the opinion of the Rosh,

that the prohibition is valid with all species,

even pure with pure and impure with impure,

is the reason for the prohibition because there may not be the mixture of attributes which the Most High created — opposites.

7.

Based on the above, another matter will be sweetened: It is understood that a mitzvah,

holiness,

addition of light — can make peace between opposites,

as per what is said, "He makes peace in His high places," Michael the prince of water and Gabriel the prince of fire, and they do not extinguish one another⁴⁹,

but — not, heaven forbid,

(addition of suckling)

reception in the husk,

for which tzitzis,

priestly garments, etc. — permits only kilayim <b>shatnez</b> — which wool and linen are <b>opposite</b> each other,

but both are permitted,

And then there can be even more — an advantage,

like the priestly garments "for honor and for beauty" specifically through wool and linen <b>together</b>⁵⁰.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Teitzei 5741)