Siman 297

Kilayim of seeds are forbidden by the Torah in the Land of Israel, and this refers to sowing two types of grain together, or two types of seeds, or vegetables, or grain and vegetable, or grain and seed, as it is written: "Your field you shall not sow with kilayim." And even though we expound this regarding the grafting of trees (Kiddushin 39a), and as I wrote at the beginning of siman 295, nevertheless, a verse does not depart from its plain meaning. And outside the Land of Israel it is completely permitted, and they did not decree outside the Land of Israel as they decreed regarding kilayim of the vineyard. And the reason is because it is permitted for benefit; therefore, they did not decree outside the Land of Israel regarding this (ibid.), and as I wrote there.

And behold, the matter is simple in the Shas and poskim that kilayim of seeds in the Land of Israel is prohibited by the Torah. However, Rashi, of blessed memory, in Shabbat (64b) in the Mishnah of the garden bed, and similarly in Bekhorot (54a), wrote that kilayim of seeds is of rabbinic origin. They have already wondered at his words (Tosafot ibid. and Mishneh LaMelekh chapter 1). It appears clearly that Rashi, of blessed memory, had some specific approach in this. It appears in my humble opinion that the truth is so, for behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his book Kesef Mishneh at the end of chapter 4 of Kilayim, raised a difficulty regarding several leniencies that the Sages applied to kilayim—is it not a Torah prohibition? He answered that from the Torah it is not prohibited except to mix the seeds together and to sow, and only by rabbinic decree did they prohibit also placing one species adjacent to its fellow, if not within known boundaries; therefore, in this they were lenient, see there. For so implies the plain meaning of the verse, "your field you shall not sow with kilayim," meaning that you shall not sow them together. Furthermore, since we rule like Rabbi Yoshiya regarding kilayim of the vineyard that one is not liable until one sows wheat, barley, and a grape seed with a single hand-motion, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 296, if so, deduce from it and within it also regarding kilayim of seeds, that it specifically requires two species with a single hand-motion at the time of sowing.

And this is the system of Rashi, of blessed memory. Therefore, in the garden bed there, which deals with the proximity of one species to another, he wrote that it is of rabbinic origin. And similarly in Bekhorot there, similar to new wine and oil which are vines and olives, it also deals there with the proximity of one species to another. And there is clear proof for this, for in Kiddushin (39a) we say: Rav Yosef mixed seeds and sowed. Abaye said to him: But did we not learn in a Mishnah that kilayim in the diaspora is forbidden by the words of the scribes? He said to him: It is not a difficulty; this refers to kilayim of the vineyard, while that refers to kilayim of seeds, etc. And Rashi explained regarding Abaye, that he thought that they also forbade kilayim of seeds in the diaspora just as they are forbidden in the Land of Israel by the Torah. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote himself that it is from the Torah, but only because there it deals with one who mixed the kernels and sowed, and therefore it is rightly of Torah origin; however, in the proximity of one species to another, it is only rabbinic (and this is the system of the Bartenura in chapter 3, mishnah 4, see there).

But nevertheless, the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, are perplexing, as he wrote this regarding the Rambam, and he certainly does not hold thus. For even though from his wording at the beginning of the first chapter of Hilkhot Kilayim it is possible to interpret it so, as he wrote: One who sows two species of seeds together in the Land of Israel is lashed, as it is said, "your field you shall not sow with kilayim." And whether one sows, or weeds, or covers—for example, if one wheat grain and one barley grain, or one bean and one lentil, were lying on the ground and he covered them with earth, whether with his hand, or with his foot, or with a vessel—he is lashed. And whether one sows in the ground or in a perforated pot; but one who sows in a non-perforated pot is struck with makkat mardut. Thus far his words. For ostensibly it implies specifically when he sowed both of them together, or weeded them, or covered them immediately.

And in truth it is not so, and he only cited the primary case of kilayim, but the same law applies to one who places one species adjacent to another, for so he wrote explicitly in chapter 3, law 9. This is his wording: How so? His field was sown with a species of grain and he sought to sow another species of grain beside it, etc., and if there was not between them this required measure, it is forbidden; but he does not receive lashes unless they are close within six tefachim. If his field was sown with a vegetable, etc., and he does not receive lashes unless they are close within a tefach. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that in placing grain adjacent to grain within six tefachim, or a vegetable to a vegetable within three tefachim, he receives lashes, for it is from the Torah. Furthermore, the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, is not so, for they challenged Rashi regarding that case of the garden bed and wrote that it is from the Torah, and similarly in Bekhorot ibid. And a garden bed is certainly only a mere adjacency. Therefore, the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, are puzzling. And what he questioned—why they were lenient—is not a difficulty at all, for Rashi wrote there regarding the garden bed that even in kilayim of the vineyard, which is from the Torah, they were lenient because the Torah only insisted upon a mere distinction; see there. And we have already explained this at the beginning of siman 296; see there.

The Rambam wrote there: It is forbidden to sow kilayim for a gentile, but it is permitted to tell a gentile to sow kilayim of seeds for him. It is forbidden to maintain them in his field; rather, he must uproot them, and if he maintained them, he does not receive lashes (as there is no action involved). It is permitted for an Israelite to sow kilayim of seeds with his own hand outside the Land, and even to mix the seeds initially and sow them outside the Land is permitted, and these matters are words of tradition. The Ra'avad and similarly the Tur in siman 296 raised a difficulty: how is it relevant that it is permitted to tell a gentile to sow kilayim of seeds, and how could he maintain them? For behold, it is forbidden to maintain them, as he himself wrote. There are those who wished to say that his intention was that the field belongs to a gentile, but it is not so, for behold, he wrote "to sow for him," and so it is explicit in the Smag, negative commandment 279, see there. But the explanation is simple: that the prohibition to maintain it is only after they have taken root, and therefore it is permitted to tell a gentile to sow them, and before the rooting, he shall sell it to a gentile or give it as a gift (Bach and similarly in the Kesef Mishneh). And in truth, this is the very intention of the Rambam, who wrote this law that it is forbidden to maintain after this ruling, meaning: it is permitted to tell etc., but it is forbidden to maintain, rather he must sell immediately, and when he did not do so, he uproots them etc.

The Ra’avad, of blessed memory, further raised a difficulty: Is not telling a non-Jew regarding other matters besides Shabbat a question in Bava Metzia (90a) whether it is permitted regarding other prohibitions or not, and it was not resolved? And how is it permitted to tell him to sow for him? And one cannot say that the Rambam ruled on the question leniently, for in chapter 16 of Issurei Biah he himself wrote that it is forbidden to tell a non-Jew to castrate an animal. And also here in law 6, he wrote that it is forbidden for an Israelite to allow a non-Jew to graft kilayim trees for him. However, from this there is no difficulty, for in that case the reason is because the son of Noah himself is commanded regarding this, as he wrote in chapter 10 of Melachim, and we have already explained this at the beginning of siman 296, see there. But from castration it is difficult, and he likewise ruled in chapter 13 of Sechirut regarding muzzling a cow, see there, where he ruled for a prohibition. And it appears to me that the Rambam holds that the question regarding telling a non-Jew was only raised concerning a matter where the prohibition is effected immediately, such as castration and muzzling the mouth of a cow. But in the sowing of kilayim, the prohibition is not completed until after taking root, and if he removes them from the earth, the prohibition is nullified. And even though an Israelite is lashed for this, this is because the Torah so decreed, just as with the labor of Shabbat, where immediately when he sows on Shabbat or places a pot on the fire he is liable for stoning (see Menachot 56b where this is explicitly stated) because we say that one who does this intends to leave it there until the completion of the labor; but nevertheless, the essence of the prohibition is not immediate. Therefore, it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to sow for him. And one should further add that he will be forced to sell it, as I wrote in the previous section, and therefore the prohibition of telling a non-Jew is not applicable here. And that which is forbidden in grafting is because he himself is commanded, and there is "before a blind person," etc. (And this is what the Rambam wrote regarding the permissibility in the diaspora being from the words of tradition, and why did he need this, for it is dependent on the land? Rather, so that we should not say that since it is compared to kilayim of animals like the grafting of a tree; and so it is explicitly stated in the Smag there, and examine it closely).

There is no prohibition regarding kilayim of seeds except for seeds fit for human consumption or for animal consumption if it is the custom of the land to sow fields with them. However, bitter herbs and similar roots that are only fit for medicine and the like are not subject to the laws of kilayim of seeds (see Kesef Mishneh chapter 4, halacha 4, and examine it closely). The Rambam wrote in chapter 1, law 6, that it is permitted to sow seeds and tree seeds together (except for grapevines), and similarly it is permitted to mix tree seeds and sow them together, for there is no kilayim in trees except for grafting alone. Thus far his words. And the reason is that "your field" is written and not "tree," and there is no prohibition of kilayim of seeds in their seeds, and therefore it is also permitted with seeds. The Ra'avad disagreed with him based on the Yerushalmi in the first chapter regarding one who hides turnips and radishes, see there. And it is not a valid objection, for there it was not prohibited because of sowing but rather because of grafting, see there (Kesef Mishneh). Kilayim of seeds are permitted for eating and for benefit, like the grafting of a tree and unlike kilayim of the vineyard. It is permitted to sow from the seed of a vegetable that was sown in kilayim and grew in kilayim, for the Torah only prohibited the act of sowing and maintaining it, whereas with kilayim of the vineyard it is written "lest it become sanctified," and it is prohibited for benefit, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 296.

The Rambam wrote there: Seeds are divided into three types. The first is called grain, and they are the five species of cereal. The second is called kitniyot, such as beans, peas, lentils, rice, millet, sesame, poppy seeds, vetch, and the like. The third is called garden seeds, and they are the other seeds that are not fit for human consumption, but the fruit of that seed is human food, such as the seed of onions, garlic, leeks, turnips, and the like; and flaxseed is included in garden seeds. When all these types of seeds are sown and sprout, the entire sprout is called "deshe" and is called "yarak" as long as the seed is not recognizable. There are garden seeds that are typically sown in fields, such as flax and mustard, and these are called types of seeds. And there are garden seeds that people typically sow only in small garden beds, such as turnips, radishes, beets, onions, coriander, celery, bitter herbs, and the like, and these are called types of vegetables. Thus far his words.

And according to his words, the difference between vegetables and seeds is that "seeds" refers to anything where that which is eaten is sown, such as all types of legumes where the legumes themselves are sown. "Vegetables" refers to that where the seed is not fit for eating and only that which grows from it is fit for eating, and most types of vegetables are thus, as is known. Nevertheless, the Rambam says that they are only called vegetables either as long as the seed is not recognizable, or that which one does not sow in entire fields but rather in small garden beds. However, anything from which one sows large fields and the seed is recognized, they too are called seeds. Therefore, flax and mustard, even though the seed is not like the produce, nevertheless, since one sows entire fields of them, they are called types of seeds; and his source is not known to us.

And behold, in chapter 3 (mishnah 2) we learned: Smooth peas are a type of seeds; "camel" peas are a type of vegetable. And the smooth ones are smooth and small, and the "camel" ones are large. And yet the Rambam counts peas among the types of kitniyot, and how could they be transformed into a vegetable? Unless we say that the seed of this one is not like the seed of that one, and also from the "camel" ones they only sow in garden beds. And also in the Yerushalmi there, it says regarding this mishnah and the one preceding it—as we learned: Any type of seeds one may not sow in a garden bed, and any type of vegetables one may sow in a garden bed—the Yerushalmi says: Mustard and smooth peas are a type of seeds; if one sowed them for their vegetable, one may not place them upon a garden bed (meaning, even though he sowed them for their vegetable, the status of seeds is not nullified from them). "Camel" peas and the Egyptian bean that one sowed for seed, one may not place them upon a garden bed (for when sown for seed, the status of vegetable is nullified from them); if one sowed them for their vegetable, one may place them upon a garden bed (and according to this, that which we learned regarding them the law of a vegetable, this is when he sowed them for their vegetable). And other garden seeds that are not edible, even though one sowed them for seed, one may place them upon a garden bed. Thus far its words. And so it is in the Tosefta, chapter 2, halacha 9, see there. And according to this, there are other rules regarding vegetables and seeds, and they are as follows.

For other garden seeds that are not eaten, they are always a species of vegetable, and he did not mention that when one sows fields of them they become a species of seeds. However, regarding this it can be said that the intention is that one does not sow fields of them, and therefore mustard is a species of seeds because one sows fields of it, according to the words of the Rambam. And he did not mention flax because it is a simple matter. And from the Yerushalmi it is clear that peas are also from the species of garden seeds that are not eaten, for it compares them to mustard. Also, from that which it says "and other garden seeds that are not eaten," it is explicitly clear that peas are also among the garden seeds that are not eaten, yet the Rambam counted peas among the species of kitniyot. However, in any case, according to the Yerushalmi that they are among the garden seeds that are not eaten, they are not called by the name "vegetable" in the case of mustard and all species of peas except when he sowed them for the vegetable; but when he sowed them for the seed, they too are a species of seeds. And mustard and smooth peas, even when he sowed them for the vegetable, they are a species of seeds. And all of this is not like the general principles of the Rambam, and it requires further study; perhaps he had other versions of the text.

The sages taught in the Mishnah at the beginning of the second chapter: Any seah that contains a rova of another species, one must diminish it; and anything that is shaatnez in a seah combines to a rova. A rova is a rova of a kav, and a seah is six kavim; it follows that a rova is one twenty-fourth of a seah—twenty-three parts of this species and a twenty-fourth part of another species. And even if it is not from one other species but from many species, since they are kilayim in this seah of grain, they all combine to the rova that exists, and he is obligated to diminish the rova until it is less than one twenty-fourth. He is not obligated to winnow all of it. And it is obvious that to mix even one seed intentionally is forbidden (Yerushalmi); rather, here we are dealing with a case where it became mixed on its own, as is the way of grains that become slightly mixed with one another. Therefore, the Tanna says that if he wishes to sow that seah, he must see to it that there is not one twenty-fourth part of other species. The sages had a tradition that with one twenty-fourth part the kilayim will be noticeable, but not with less than this. Therefore, they forbade one twenty-fourth because of marit ayin, for according to the Torah there is no prohibition here at all since he does not sow them with the intent that they be mixed, and the Torah only forbade when one wishes to sow kilayim; it was only by rabbinic decree that they forbade it because of marit ayin, and the sages measured that with this amount there would be marit ayin (Tosafot Yom Tov).

This is the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 2 and in the Shulchan Aruch, section 5: Seed with which another seed was mixed—if it was one part in twenty-four, such as a seah of wheat that was mixed with twenty-three seah of barley, it is forbidden to sow the mixture until one diminishes the wheat or adds to the barley. And if one sowed it, he is lashed. And anything that is kilayim with the seed joins together to the one part in twenty-four. How so? Twenty-three seah of wheat with which two kav of barley, two kav of lentils, and two kav of beans were mixed—one may not sow the whole until he diminishes the seah of the mixture and picks out part of it, or adds to the wheat, for the barley, the lentils, and the beans are all kilayim with the wheat. Thus far his words. And in the Yerushalmi it asks: how is it permitted to add to the wheat? Behold, we maintain that regarding all prohibitions, if one increased them unintentionally they are permitted, but intentionally they are forbidden. And it answers that since here it is only because of marit ayin, it is permitted; see there. And it appears to me that this was only necessary if he adds at the time of sowing, but prior to the sowing this is not needed, for behold, there is not yet a prohibition here (as the Taz wrote in Orach Chaim, siman 626, at the end of subsection 2, regarding a mixture of chametz before Pesach, that one may increase upon it before Pesach; see there, and so wrote the Ataret Zekenim in siman 447, letter 4; see there).

It is a self-evident matter that when they measured one-twenty-fourth, this refers to seeds equal in their quality and quantity, such that when the seeds grow, the growths will also be one-twenty-fourth. This applies to edible seeds where the sowing is like the growth from them, and these are all types of grain and all types of legumes. However, for seeds that are not eaten, where the seed is thin and the growth from them is great, if we were to measure by quantity in the sowings against the wheat or the barley or other types of grain and legumes at one-twenty-fourth, would not the kilayim be very much in their growth? For this reason, the sages gave another measure, and thus we learned there: In truth they said, garden seeds that are not eaten join together at one-twenty-fourth of what falls into a beit seah. That is to say, one-twenty-fourth of the amount of seed required for a place where one sows a seah of wheat, and this is a small amount in quantity since the seeds are very thin. Consequently, with flax, where the seeds are much coarser than the sowing of grain, there is a leniency in this when measuring from what is required for a place where one sows a seah of wheat, and from this one-twenty-fourth; and it will be a large measure in quantity against the wheat. This is also explained in the Mishnah there and in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, and they wrote that of mustard one sows a kav in every beit seah, and therefore when there is one-twenty-fourth of a kav in a seah of wheat, one must diminish it or add to the wheat; and flax requires three-quarters of a kav in every beit seah, and in this manner one measures other seeds.

And all this is when he did not intend to mix, and also did not intend to sow the two species that were mixed; but if he intended to mix a seed with another seed or to sow the two species, even if it were one wheat within a pile of barley, it is forbidden to sow it, and so too anything similar to this. And it appears to me that if he mixed intentionally, even one wheat, and afterwards he cannot identify it, he is obligated to find it, and there is no nullification for this, for there is no measure for kilayim, as will be explained in siman 299 regarding kilayim of garments, and the same applies to all types of kilayim. (The Rambam wrote this law in chapter 6, halacha 6, and the Ra'avad disagreed with him, for his words contradict one another; and according to what I have written, there is no contradiction here at all, as the Kesef Mishneh wrote, and the words of the Rambam are clear, and examine this carefully).

One who sows a species of the species and did not know at all that there was another species within them, but when it grew he saw kilayim in it—even though according to the core of the law we have no concern with it, for behold he did not know at all, and it is not even similar to when another species was mixed in without intent where in any case he knew of this before the sowing, but here he did not know at all—nevertheless, the law is also as the law that has been explained: that if there is one part in twenty-four in the field, behold he must pluck until he diminishes it because of appearances, lest they say he sowed kilayim intentionally, whether the other species that grew was grain in grain, or legumes in legumes, or grain in legumes, or in other seeds. And if that which grew was less than this, he does not need to diminish (and in this there is no novelty at all, and it appears to me that it comes to teach us even when there is grounds to suspect him, and as will be explained; and delve into this).

In what case are these things said? At a time when there is room for suspicion. But at a time when things show that this is not by the intent of the owner of the field, but rather they grew on their own, we do not obligate him to diminish them. And these are things that damage the grain. How so? For example, grain in which isatis aftergrowths grew—and this is a type of seed used for dyeing—and similarly fenugreek, which is a certain type of legume whose seed is for human consumption, and types of weeds grew in it, for this damages the fenugreek; excluding when he sowed them for animal fodder, for this is not a loss, since the weeds are also good for the animals. And similarly anything like this, where it is recognizable to all that this is against his will and he will eventually uproot them himself. And by what is it known that the fenugreek is for human consumption? For example, if it was sown in garden beds and has a border around it, and for animals one does not make garden beds and borders. And similarly, the place of the threshing floors where many species grew because seeds from all the species remained there, we do not obligate him to uproot, and there is no issue here of maintaining kilayim, for the matter is known that he does not want any plant to grow in the place of the threshing floors, as this is a loss to the threshing floor. However, if he removed some of them, we say to him: uproot everything and leave only one species, for if not so, it appears as if he reveals his intent that he desires the maintenance of the rest, and he is like one who maintains kilayim. And it appears to me that so too with isatis and fenugreek in which weeds grew, if he uprooted some, he must uproot all of it until there does not remain one part in twenty-four for this reason.

We learned in chapter 1 (mishna 8): One may not plant vegetables inside the stump of a sycamore—and this is a wild fig tree that was cut down and its roots remained in the ground—and one may not graft rue, which is a herb called "ruta," onto a white "kira," which is a species of spice tree, because it is a vegetable on a tree. And ostensibly this is from the prohibition of grafting, and why did the Rambam write this law of not planting vegetables in the stump of a sycamore in the laws of kilayim of seeds in chapter 2, law 11, and similarly in the Shulchan Aruch in this siman, section 10? For behold, in siman 295 is its place. However, on the Rambam it is not so difficult, for he wrote the laws of kilayim of seeds together with the laws of grafting in chapter 1; but on our teacher, the Beit Yosef, it is slightly difficult, and it is only because he followed after the wording of the Rambam and his arrangement.

The Rambam wrote there: One who hides a bundle of turnips or radishes or the like under a tree, even under a grapevine (it is soft and easy to take root), if some of the leaves were exposed, he need not be concerned, for he does not desire their rooting; but if they are not a bundle, or if the leaves were not exposed, he must be concerned because of kilayim. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch, section 11. And regarding the kilayim, Rashi wrote in Eruvin (77b) that it is kilayim of the vineyard, and so it is explained from the words of the Bartenura at the end of the first chapter of Kilayim, see there, and also the Rash wrote this explicitly, see there. But according to the Rambam, it is impossible to say so, for he wrote "under a tree, even under a grapevine," and regarding all trees, kilayim of the vineyard is not applicable. Rather, according to the Rambam, it is because of grafting. And in his Commentary on the Mishnah there, he wrote because of "your field you shall not sow with kilayim," and his intention is clearly regarding grafting, which we learned from this verse; for regarding kilayim of seeds, it is impossible to say so, as there is no kilayim with a tree and seeds except through grafting. And here too, it is like grafting, since he hides them under the tree, the turnip and the radish enter into the roots of the tree, and it is a vegetable in a tree, and this too belongs to grafting, as in the previous section.

Behold, the Rambam required specifically a bundle and that some leaves be exposed, for in this it is recognizable that he does not desire their rooting, but if one of these is missing, it is forbidden. And the Ra'avad disagreed with him, that one of them is sufficient, see there. And also Rashi, of blessed memory, explained in Shabbat (50b) and in Eruvin there that because of Shabbat he mentioned exposed leaves, but regarding kilayim it is permitted even when the leaves are not exposed. And the Tosafot there brought in the name of the Aruch that in all of them specifically exposed leaves are required, see there. And I wonder at our teachers who explained that the prohibition is only with a vine because of kilayim of the vineyard, for in the Yerushalmi chapter 1 (halacha 9) it is explicitly explained like the Rambam, as it says there: What are we dealing with? If because of seeds in a tree, why do I need a vine? Even other trees. If because he does not desire their rooting, why do I need turnip and radishes etc.? From that which Rav Chiya taught: such as a bundle of turnip and a bundle of radishes, it follows that the reason is because he does not desire their rooting. Thus far its words. And it is known in the Yerushalmi that "lo havi" is like "ela" (rather). And behold, it concludes that it is specifically a bundle and because he does not desire their rooting. And the Yerushalmi is not understood, for is it so that regarding seeds in a tree one does not need to desire their rooting? (This is stated) in wonder. Rather, certainly both are one reason, and it asks two questions: one, why do I need a vine? And the second, why do I need turnip and radishes? Only regarding rooting it uses the phrasing "he does not desire their rooting," and it is the way of the Yerushalmi to speak in concise language. And it concludes that it mentions turnip and radishes only because the permission is only in a bundle, and a bundle is only relevant to turnip and radishes, as it is their way to bind them like the way of vegetables that they bind, and "vine" is not meant specifically. This is the explanation of the Yerushalmi. And according to our teachers, it must be said that when it says "if because he does not desire their rooting," the reason is not because of seeds in a tree but because of kilayim of the vineyard, and it is specifically a vine. And it is not understood, for rooting is not the opposite of seeds in a tree, for even in grafting we require rooting. And it is possible to say that regarding kilayim of the vineyard the term "rooting" applies more, because it is written "the fullness of the seed which you shall sow," and "the fullness" means that they took root and grew, and "the seed" refers to rooting, as we say in Pesachim (25a): it is written "the seed" etc., sown from the beginning upon rooting, see there.

The Rambam wrote there: A field that was sown and the crop was harvested, and the roots remained in the ground, even though they do not produce a sprout except after several years, one may not sow another species in that field until he uproots the roots. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch, section 12. And the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, criticized this, for this is not found anywhere; rather, in the Mishnah (chapter 2, mishnah 5) they said: A field that was sown with hemp or arum, one may not sow and come upon them, for they only produce after three years. That is to say, when he sowed them and they did not sprout, for we do not say that they became wormy and the seed has already perished, since sometimes they remain under the earth for several years and sprout. But when he sowed and already harvested the produce, there is no longer any concern. See there.

There is further evidence to bring for the Ra'avad from that which we learned in a Mishnah there (43): If his field was sown with wheat and he reconsidered and decided to sow it with barley, he must wait for it to rot and turn it over, and afterward he may sow, see there. Behold, this is all when the produce has not grown and been harvested; and similarly regarding several laws of this type. However, the Rambam, of blessed memory, follows his own reasoning in his commentary on the Mishnah regarding hemp and arum, that it deals with after they have grown and have already been harvested. This is his wording there: Hemp and arum etc. it is already known that it grows when they cut it and its roots remain, and they grow after two or three years etc. and there are types of plants that one sows and harvests and afterward it grows a second time and a third time, such as grass etc. Thus far his words. According to this, he spoke well when he said "and he harvested the seed and the roots remained in the ground," meaning a seed such as this where the roots remain in the ground, and he was not referring to types of grain, for with those the roots do not remain in the ground. And in truth, regarding wheat and barley it is not so, as he himself explained afterward. The Rambam did not see fit to explain in detail but rather in generalities: anything where the roots remained in the ground. And his intention is clear with the help of Heaven.

And afterwards he wrote the law of wheat and barley, and this is his wording: If his field was sown with wheat and he changed his mind to sow it with barley, before the wheat sprouts, he should wait for it until the wheat is spoiled and becomes wormy in the ground, approximately three days if his field was saturated, and afterwards he should turn them over with a plow and sow the other species. And it is not necessary to turn over all of it until not a single wheat remains that was not uprooted, but rather he plows the field in the manner that they plow it before the rain so that it will be saturated. If the wheat sprouted and afterwards he changed his mind to sow it with barley, he should turn it over and afterwards sow them. And if he brought his animal into it and it grazed upon the sprout, it is permitted to sow another species. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch in section 13. And this is from the Mishnah and Yerushalmi there (and what the Ra'avad wrote, that in the Tosefta it says "either it becomes wormy or he turns it over," depends on a variation of versions there in chapter 1, halacha 12; and the Rambam's version is "he shall not turn it over until it becomes wormy," and the Ra'avad's version is "if he did not turn it over etc." see there).

We learned at the beginning of Shekalim: On the first of Adar, they make an announcement regarding kilayim. And at the beginning of Moed Katan, we learned that on Chol HaMoed, they go out regarding kilayim. This is the wording of the Rambam at the end of chapter 2: On the first of Adar, they make an announcement regarding kilayim, and every person goes out to his garden and to his field and they clear them of kilayim. And on the fifteenth of it, the messengers of the beit din go out to inspect. At first, they would uproot and cast away, and the homeowners were happy that they were clearing their fields for them. They ordained that they should declare ownerless the entire field in which they find kilayim, and that is if they find in it one twenty-fourth of another species; but if it is less than this, they do not touch it. And the messengers of the beit din return on Chol HaMoed of Pesach to see the late-ripening grain that has emerged. And kilayim that have blossomed—they do not wait for them, but rather they go out against them immediately and declare the entire field ownerless if it contains one twenty-fourth. Thus far his words. And from the Gemara (Moed Katan 6a) it is clarified that for early-ripening grain they go out in Adar, and for late-ripening grain, meaning grain that was delayed, they go out on Chol HaMoed Pesach. And all this is when they have not yet blossomed; but if the kilayim have blossomed, there is no fixed time for this, neither Adar nor Chol HaMoed, but rather even earlier, immediately when they see that they have blossomed, the messengers of the beit din go out and declare the field ownerless. And in the Rambam as well, it must be explained thus (and he ruled according to the resolution that here it refers to early-ripening grain, etc., because in the Yerushalmi it is established thus; and see there for another explanation of late-ripening grain).

There are species among seeds where one species is divided into many forms due to the change of locations and the labor with which they work the land, until it appears like two species; and even though they do not resemble one another, since they are one species, they are not kilayim with one another. And there are among seeds two species that resemble one another, and the form of both of them is close to being one form, and nevertheless, since they are two species, behold these are forbidden with one another. How so? Lettuce with cliff-lettuce, and endives with field-endives, and leeks with field-leeks, and coriander with mountain-coriander, and mustard with Egyptian-mustard, and Egyptian-gourd with the remutza-gourd—which is bitter until they sweeten it in remetz, which is hot ash—are not kilayim with one another.

And so too wheat with zunin, which is a species of inferior wheat that is different in its form, and therefore it is called zunin like a zunah who has departed from the straight path; and barley with shibolet shual; and spelt, which is called argas, with shipin, which is called karin; and beans with sapir, which is called hilzen frucht; and parkadan with tofach, which are species of small seeds from the species of legumes whose grains are round and white; and white beans with she'u'ot, which is a species of bean that gladdens the heart (Yerushalmi, beginning of chapter 1); and kishut with melafefon, which are the melons mentioned in the Torah; and cabbage with tarubtor, which is a species of cabbage whose leaves are small; and beets with le'unim, which is another species of cabbage. And all these species are not known to us, and all that we have reckoned one with the other are not kilayim with one another because of the reason that has been explained. However, radish with nefussim, which is a different species of radish; and mustard with lapsan; and Greek gourd with Egyptian gourd or with the remutza gourd—even though they resemble one another, they are kilayim with one another. And so too regarding a tree where there are two species that resemble one another in the leaves or in the fruits, since they are two species, they are kilayim, as I wrote in siman 295.

And so too the reverse: there are seeds and trees that even though they are two species in their nature, since the leaves of this one resemble the leaves of that one with a great resemblance, or the fruits with a great resemblance to one another, until they appear as two varieties of one species, they did not concern themselves with them for shaatnez one with the other. How so? Turnip with radish are not shaatnez with one another because their fruits are similar; and according to the opinion of the Ra'avad in chapter 3 they are shaatnez, see there. And turnip with rape are not shaatnez with one another because the leaves are similar with a complete resemblance. But radish with rape, even though the leaves resemble one another and the fruit resembles the fruit, behold these are shaatnez, since the taste of this fruit is very distant from the taste of that fruit. And so too all similar cases to these. And the explanation of all this we have explained in siman 295 in section 14 and section 15, see there, for seemingly the rules contradict one another.

The measure of distancing one species from that which is not its species is not equal in all matters, as we learned at the end of the second chapter: grain with grain, the distancing is a beit rova; vegetable with vegetable, six tefachim; grain with vegetable and vegetable with grain, a beit rova. This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 3, law 7, and in the Shulchan Aruch, section 16: How much does one distance between two species of seeds that are kilayim with one another? Sufficiently so that they are distinct from one another, but if they appear to have been sown in a mixture, this is forbidden. There are many measures in this distancing, all according to the size of the sown field and according to the abundance of leaves and the spreading of the roots. How so? His field that was sown with a species of grain, and he sought to sow beside it another species of grain in another field, he distances between them a beit rova, which is like ten cubits and a fifth of a cubit by ten cubits and a fifth of a cubit square, whether from the middle or from the side. And if there was not between them like this measure, it is forbidden, but he does not receive lashes until they are close within six tefachim.

If his field was sown with vegetables and he sought to sow another field of vegetables at its side, even gourds, he must distance between the two fields six tefachim by six tefachim square, whether from the side or from the middle, and less than this measure is forbidden, but he does not receive lashes unless they are closer than within a tefach. If one of the two fields was sown with grain and the second at its side was vegetables or gourds, he must distance between them a beit rova. In what case does this apply, that he must distance it with these measures? Between two fields. But if his field was sown with vegetables and he wanted to sow at its side a row of vegetables of another species, it is sufficient for him to make between the field and the row one furrow, its length being six tefachim only and its width like its depth (and see what I wrote in section 53).

If his field was sown with grain and he wishes to sow within it a row of vegetables, even a row of gourds whose leaves are long and become entangled, he distances between them six handbreadths. And if the leaves of the gourd extended and entered into the grain and became entangled in it, he must uproot from the grain that is before the gourd until the leaves do not mix. And it goes without saying that if he sowed a row of this species and a row of another species, it is sufficient for there to be one furrow between them. Thus far the words of the Rambam.

The explanation of the matter is that the nourishment of grain is three tefachim, and therefore one does not receive malkot until they are within six tefachim of one another, for then the nourishments intermingle, which is not the case when they are six tefachim apart. However, for the sake of distinction, the sages said that for a field of grain, the distance from it is a beit rova in a square. And behold, in the Yerushalmi (Chapter 2, Halacha 8) it is stated: grain with grain is a beit rova, provided that it is not enclosed on its four sides—meaning, that the wheat should not surround the barley on four sides like a person enclosed in a prison—until it is open on one side. And thus wrote the Rash and the Bartenura; see there. The Rambam omitted this, and there is one who wrote that his intention is also thus, since he wrote "and he sought to sow at its side," implying and not in the middle (Kesef Mishneh). And it is a great wonder, for he wrote "whether from the middle or from the side." And it appears to me that the Rambam holds that this is not the halacha, because afterwards it is stated there: Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Yosa, if so we say this Simonia valley, they should not sow within it but one species alone. And the Rambam explains that this is the meaning: that Rabbi Zeira rejected this law, and that which he said "if so we say" is as if to say "if so you say," it turns out that there they would sow only one species alone because all around was sown a species of wheat or another species, and this is not logical at all, and he rejected this law.

And such is the law when one wishes to sow vegetables in the other field, that he distances a beit rova, and he did not clarify at what point he is lashed. And it appears to me that here, even at less than six tefachim he is not lashed, and it is sufficient with three and a half tefachim, for the drawing of nourishment of the vegetable in his opinion is only half a tefach, as he wrote regarding vegetable with vegetable. And this is all between field and field, for then a great distinction is required; but if he wishes to sow in that same field a row of vegetables, even of gourds whose leaves spread out, even ab initio he does not require a distancing of more than six tefachim. And regarding the matter of lashes, it appears to me as I wrote, until it is less than three and a half tefachim. And if some of the leaves extended and became mixed, he should uproot from the grain that is before the gourd or other vegetable. And this is regarding grain and vegetable in one field; but two types of grain in one field, or two types of vegetable, for which it is sufficient for there to be one furrow between them, and he did not clarify its measure, it appears to me that it is four tefachim, for in the Yerushalmi (Chapter 2, Halacha 4) it says regarding the Mishnah that three furrows of a breakthrough make two amot by two amot, see there. And this is three furrows, and they are twelve tefachim, and it emerges that a furrow is four tefachim (as appears in my humble opinion).

And all of this is when one field was grain, but when one wishes to place a field of vegetables adjacent to a field of vegetables of another species, the distancing is six tefachim even for a gourd. And if the leaves lean over, he must uproot them, and there are lashes until there is a tefach between them, for the nourishment of a vegetable is only half a tefach; for this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in chapter 3, mishnah 3, see there. And the Rambam holds that in this the Rabbis do not disagree with him (see Kesef Mishneh), but the Ra'avad disagrees with him and holds that according to the Rabbis it is forbidden until six tefachim and he receives lashes, see there. It follows that according to the Ra'avad, the nourishment of a vegetable is three tefachim. And Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote in Shabbat (84b) that the nourishment of a vegetable is a tefach and a half, and therefore the final distancing is three tefachim, see there. And according to this, if they are adjacent to one another within less than three tefachim, he receives lashes. And that which we said, "six tefachim," refers to six tefachim by six tefachim in a square, and this is in two fields; but in one field, six tefachim of length is sufficient, and the width has no measure, and only this length makes a furrow, and according to the depth of the furrow so shall be the width. For the Rambam explains that which they said in the Mishnah (chapter 3, mishnah 3): If his field was sown with vegetables and he seeks to plant within it a row of another vegetable, etc., Rabbi Akiva says: a length of six tefachim (the furrow) and its full width, which is its depth. But the Rash and the Bartenura explained that this is six tefachim and its fullness, meaning like the fullness of the length. And the Ra'avad explained: like the fullness of the yoke with which he plows the furrow, and he brought proof from the Tosefta, see there (and it is at the beginning of chapter 2 and is a different matter, see there, and I do not understand the proof for here; and in the Yerushalmi it is proven not like the explanation of the Rash and the Bartenura, see there in Mareh HaPanim).

If one distanced between the two species with the distancing appropriate for them, and this species was leaning over the other species—whether grain leaned over grain, or a vegetable over grain, or grain over a vegetable—it is all permitted, for he distanced according to the law; except for the Greek gourd, since its spreading is extensive and it possesses a significant appearance to the eye, and therefore if it leaned, he must uproot from before it. Thus wrote the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch there. And since they did not also write "a vegetable over a vegetable," it would appear that if a vegetable leaned over a vegetable one must uproot, and there is no reason for this. However, in truth, it is a clerical error in the Shulchan Aruch, section 21, and it should say "also a vegetable over a vegetable." And so it is in the Rambam there, law 14, see there; and so it is explicitly in the Mishnah at the end of the second chapter, see there.

And just as distancing is effective, so too if a complete separation intervenes between them, such as a fence ten tefachim high, one may sow this species on one side and another species on the other side. This is what was taught in the second chapter (mishnah 8): And one may place [a species] adjacent to a pit (an uncultivated field that intervenes), to a fallow field (a plowed area that intervenes), to a stone wall (a fence of stones arranged without mortar), to a path (even a private path which is four amot), to a fence ten tefachim high, to a trench ten tefachim deep and four tefachim wide, to a tree that overspreads the ground (and its trunk is not three tefachim high from the ground), and to a rock ten tefachim high and four tefachim wide. In all of these, it is permitted to place this species on one side and any other species one desires on the other side.

And there are times when it is permitted to rely without distancing and without an interruption, as long as it is recognizable that they were not sown as one, as we learned in the second chapter (mishnah 7): If a corner of wheat entered into that of barley, it is permitted because it appears like the end of his field. And a "corner" is an ornament made like a triangle that protrudes with points. And this is what the Rambam wrote at the end of the third chapter and in the Shulchan Aruch section 25: If the angle of this seed was touching the side of the other seed within his field, this is permitted because they appear separated from one another; and it goes without saying if the angle of one seed was touching the angle of the other seed, because they appear like the end of a field, which is permitted without distancing and without separation. Thus far his words. For the Torah did not forbid kilayim of seeds when they are recognizable that each one stands by itself (and the Tosafot Yom Tov wrote in the name of the Kesef Mishneh that from the Torah it is only forbidden with a hand-drop, see there; and we have already explained in section 5 that this is not so, as is clear from the words of the Rambam, see there).

The Rambam wrote there in law 16, and in the Shulchan Aruch section 22: In what case is it stated that one requires distancing or a separating object? When he sows within his own field. But if his field was sown with wheat, it is permitted for his fellow to sow barley at its side, as it is said, "Your field you shall not sow with kilayim"—the prohibition exists only when he sows his own field with kilayim, for it was not said, "The land shall not be sown with kilayim." And not only this, but even if he sowed barley within his own field adjacent to wheat, and extended the barley seed until it reached the field of his fellow which is sown with barley, this is permitted, because the barley within his own field appears to be the end of the field of his fellow. Thus far his words. For in kilayim one follows only the appearance of the eye, and the reason we explained in section 5; see there. And it is simple that he is not permitted ab initio to sow barley within his own field adjacent to wheat even when the field of his fellow is sown with barley, but rather that ex post facto if he did so, it is permitted (and with this the objection of the Ra'avad is removed, as the Kesef Mishneh wrote; see there).

The Rambam wrote there in law 17: If his field was sown with wheat and his fellow's field beside it was sown with wheat, he is permitted to sow one furrow of flax beside his wheat that is adjacent to his fellow's field, for the observer knows that it is not the way to sow one furrow of flax, and this person only intended to test his field to see if it is fit for sowing flax or not, and it turns out like one who sows for destruction. However, it is forbidden to sow another species between these two fields which are of one species until he distances within his own. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch, section 23. And this is a Mishnah in chapter 2 (mishnah 7). And the reason that another species is forbidden is because it is fit to sow one furrow of them and it is the way of people to do so, and it does not appear like one who sows for destruction; and even if his intention is for destruction it is forbidden because it appears like kilayim. And also regarding flax, it is necessary that his intention be specifically to test the field, for so it is explained in the Yerushalmi there, see there (and so wrote the Rash). And I wonder why the Rambam did not explain this; and perhaps the matter is understood from it. And one should not ask: why do I need the sown field of his fellow? For even just at the end of his own field it should be permitted to sow one furrow of flax for the reason that was explained. For this is no question, because when it is not adjacent to his fellow's field there is no recognition that his intention was to test it, for it could be said that his intention was to sow an entire field of flax but that afterwards he changed his mind, and it turns out that at the time he sowed, he sowed kilayim. But when his fellow's field is adjacent to it, behold there was no room in it to sow more than one furrow, and it is proven that his intention was to test it. And according to this, there is no permission except when his fellow's field is adjacent and not distant, as is understood.

The Rambam further wrote there: If his field and his fellow's field beside it were sown with two species of grain, he may not sow mustard or safflower between them even a single furrow, because people are accustomed to sow a single furrow of these; but if the two fields are sown with two species of vegetables, it is permitted to sow mustard or safflower between them, for it is permitted to surround every species with mustard except for grain, because they do not damage it. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch, section 24. And this is a Mishnah in chapter 2 (mishnah 8) where we learned: One may not place mustard or safflower—which is a species of crocus—adjacent to a field of grain, but one may place mustard or safflower adjacent to a field of vegetables. And the reason is because they damage vegetables but not grains; therefore, with vegetables, it is apparent to all that he does not intend to maintain them, but not so with grains (the Rosh). And from the language of the Mishnah, it does not appear that this refers to being between two fields, for according to the reason, this is not necessary, as is understood. Nevertheless, our teachers explained it so, for it implies to them that it refers back to the previous Mishnah which deals with being between two fields; for if not so, they would not permit it even with vegetables where they form a separation. And according to this, the previous law explained that flax is permitted even with grain because it is not the practice to sow a single furrow of them, as has been written; and here it explained that with vegetables, even mustard or safflower is permitted because they damage them. And it is obvious that even with vegetables, a furrow of flax is permitted according to the reason that has been explained. (And it is clear that the Rambam retracted his commentary on this Mishnah, for there he explained the opposite, that they cause loss to grain and not to vegetables, and so wrote the Bartenura; and according to this, the laws contradict one another, as the Tosafot Yom Tov and the Kesef Mishneh in the name of Rabbi Y. Korkus labored over, see there. But the truth is as we explained according to the explanation of the Rosh, that it is the reverse: that they cause loss to vegetables and not to grain, for so it is explicit from the language of the Rambam who concludes regarding grain that they do not damage it; and examine this. And in the Yerushalmi: "Thus is the Mishnah: they do not surround," meaning between two fields.)

According to what has been explained, there are four permissions regarding kilayim of seeds: distancing, separation, and a recognizable mark such as the corner of a field or the field of one's fellow; and between two fields of two people, it is permitted to sow a furrow of flax, and between fields of vegetables, even mustard and safflower. All this we have explained regarding the sowing of entire fields. However, one who comes to sow at the outset one row of this species and one row of that species, there are entirely different laws regarding this. Similarly, one who comes to sow a single garden bed with several species, it will be explained before us that for vegetables it is permitted with the distancing that will be explained, but for seeds it is forbidden, as we learned in the Mishnah in chapter 3 (mishnah 2): All species of seeds may not be sown in a garden bed, but all species of vegetables may be sown in a garden bed. The reason will be explained before us. And now we will explain their laws with the help of Heaven; the Rambam explained them in chapter 4, and in the Shulchan Aruch from section 26 until the end of this siman.

This is the wording of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch: It is permitted to sow two rows of cucumbers side by side, and two rows of gourds beside them, and two rows of Egyptian beans, with a furrow between each and every species. However, one may not sow one row of cucumbers, and one row of gourds, and one row of Egyptian beans, even though the furrow separates each and every species, because the leaves of these species are long and extend and become entangled, and if one sows them row beside row, everything will become mixed and they will appear as if sown in confusion. Thus far their words. And this is a Mishnah in chapter 3 (mishnah 4), and it is explained there that this applies specifically when the two rows are together, but a row of cucumbers and a row of gourds and afterwards a row of cucumbers is not effective. The Rambam did not see fit to clarify this, as it is understood as a matter of course. The measure of a furrow we explained in section 33. And it appears that these three species that were mentioned—cucumbers, gourds, and Egyptian beans—are not meant specifically, and the same applies to two or more than three. There is one who says that when there are two rows of cucumbers together, then it is permitted to place even one row of gourds and one row of Egyptian beans adjacent (Tosafot Yom Tov there). But it appears to me that only one row is permitted to be placed adjacent, and not two rows of two species, for since we judge two rows as a field, one is not permitted to place a field's measure adjacent to it (and there is proof from the Yerushalmi there which says that Rav said that two species join together to forbid, see there).

And behold, these three species have long and entangling leaves, but regarding other vegetables, it has already been explained that a distance of six tefachim is required between one species and another. And what is the law when one seeks to sow from these three species within other vegetables? The Rambam wrote there: If his field was sown with a species of vegetable and he sought to sow within it rows upon rows of gourds, he uproots from the vegetable the place where he sows the row of gourds, and separates between it and the vegetable with a furrow, and leaves from the vegetable a width of twelve amot, and makes a second row of gourds and separates between it and the vegetable with a furrow, and so on until the place he desires. Thus, it is found that between every two rows of gourds there are twelve amot, but less than this is forbidden because of the leaves that entangle from here and from there with the vegetable between them, and it all appears as if it were sown in a mixture. Thus far his words. And this is from Mishna 6 in chapter 3 and from the Yerushalmi; see there.

The explanation of the matter is that the distance between gourds and vegetables is only a furrow, like the distance between cucumbers and gourds when they are two rows, as I have written. However, the distance from a row of gourds to a row of gourds is twelve amot; that is to say, not that the twelve amot must be empty of seed, for one is permitted to have vegetables there, but rather that the distance between row and row shall be thus. And the reason is that this is worse than cucumbers and gourds, where a furrow of separation suffices because both have large leaves, and just as this one is recognizable, that one is recognizable; this excludes gourds among vegetables, as the spreading of the vegetables is nothing compared to the spreading of the gourds. Therefore, when the gourds spread from both sides, the vegetables between them will become entangled and it will appear as a mixture. Therefore, a distance of twelve amot is required, for thus the sages estimated that at such a distance it will not appear as a mixture. And gourds is not meant exclusively, and the same applies to cucumbers and Egyptian beans.

They further wrote: If there was a row of gourds planted, even a single gourd, and one comes to plant grain beside it, he must distance a beit rova, for the leaves spread out and occupy a large area. Thus far their words. And behold, it has seemingly already been explained that for vegetables with grain the distance is a beit rova; rather, the novelty here is regarding a single gourd, and this is certainly only regarding gourds, cucumbers, and Egyptian beans, and this matter is explained in the Mishnah at the end of chapter 3, see there. And know that in everything that has been explained in this siman regarding the distance of a beit rova, it is not necessary for the entire beit rova to be fit for planting, for everything is included in the measurement of the beit rova, such as a grave, rocks, and the like, and it is a Mishnah in chapter 2 (Mishnah 10). And it appears to me from this that the distance of six tefachim specifically requires land fit for planting, for since the space is small, there is no recognizable distinction when it is not fit for planting.

We learned in the third chapter (mishnah 2): A furrow and a water channel that are a tefach deep, one may sow three seeds within them—one from here, one from here, and one in the middle; meaning, one on the edge of the furrow from here, one on its edge from the second side, and one in the middle. And so it is there in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, section 30. And behold, from the wording of the Rambam it is explicitly implied that in this case there is no need for the distancing of nourishment since there is a distinction. However, the Rash and the Bartenura explained that the width of the furrow is six tefachim and it requires a distancing of a tefach and a half for this, according to the measure of nourishment for their system. And I wonder, for if so, why is a furrow and a water channel needed for this? And it seems to me that the practical difference is regarding seeds, for in a garden bed one may not sow even with distancing, as will be explained, but in a furrow and a water channel one may sow. However, in the Yerushalmi there is one who disagrees and only permits one species; and if it is with distancing, why would it be forbidden? However, the Rash and the Bartenura wrote that a furrow is more inferior, see there. And according to this, what we questioned is settled, though the difficulty is apparent; but according to the Rambam, it is settled simply.

We further learned there (45a): A person may plant a cucumber and a gourd into one hole, provided that this one leans to this side and that one leans to that side, and the foliage of this one leans here and the foliage of that one leans there, for everything that the sages decreed, they only decreed because of appearances. That is to say, according to the law of the Torah, we are not concerned that the leaves mingle with one another as long as there is the required distance or a clear distinction; rather, the sages decreed because of appearances. Therefore, when one leans the leaves this way and the other that way, there is no issue of appearances. The Rambam wrote there: And so too, if one planted four species within the hole and turned them toward its four directions, this is permitted. Thus far his words. That is to say, when there is space within the hole for all the species according to the law.

The Rambam wrote there in law 6, and in the Shulchan Aruch section 32: One who wishes to sow his field bed by bed of each and every species must distance between each and every bed two cubits by two cubits, and narrows as he goes until there remains between them at the end of the bed only any amount, for they appear as if they were not sown in confusion. If he wished to make his field patch by patch of each and every species, he may not make within every beit se'ah more than nine patches, each patch of them being a beit rova; it results that the distance between patch and patch is close to ten cubits minus a quarter, for every beit se'ah is fifty by fifty. And what is the difference between the bed and the patch? For the bed is long and the patch is square. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad wrote: The place of the seed is called a patch. Thus far his words. And these are mishnayot in chapter 2; see there.

The explanation of the matter is that when one wishes to make long garden beds in the manner of garden beds, it is not necessary to separate with an empty space between each garden bed, except for a space of two amot by two amot, and this is at its beginning and its end, narrowing until only any amount remains. All the rest, one may sow one species in this garden bed and another species in the other. Even though the garden beds are very long, and it turns out that after the span of the two amot one species is attached to the other, since at its start there is a space of two amot in width—even though in the length of the garden beds the two amot also dwindle to nothing because it narrows—nevertheless, the distinction is recognizable from the fact that he distanced at the beginning of the garden beds two amot in width and in length. Therefore, even though in the length it narrows, it is nevertheless recognizable to every observer that there is no confusion here.

But when one wishes to sow square patches, and in each patch a different species, this is more stringent because it appears like confusion. They only permitted this in a beit se'ah, which contains fifty by fifty cubits, and it follows that when you divide it, there will be twenty-five patches of ten cubits by ten cubits. Ostensibly, it is possible to sow thirteen patches here and leave the remainder vacant as a separation. How so? For in each row there are five patches of ten by ten; from the first row he should sow the first, the third, and the fifth, while the second and fourth remain vacant to serve as a separation. In the second row, he should sow the second and the fourth, and even though the corners of the second patch of the second row and the third patch of the first row will touch each other, what of it? For they appear as a rosh tor, as is understood. In the third row, he should sow the first, third, and fifth; in the fourth row, the second and fourth; and in the fifth row, the first, third, and fifth. This would be thirteen karachot. Nevertheless, they only permitted sowing nine patches, and that is by not sowing in the second and fourth rows at all, but only in the first, third, and fifth—three patches in each row as we calculated—so that the separation will be clearly recognizable. However, in this they were slightly lenient, that the sown area is a bit more than the vacant area. That is, he sows each karachah that holds a beit rova, which is ten and a fifth cubits, and automatically the vacant area remains ten cubits minus approximately a quarter. That is to say, in each row of the three rows there are three sown karachot, each one a beit rova which is ten and a fifth, and there are three-fifths extra here; it follows that in the two vacant karachot this measure will be lacking, which is a fifth and a half-fifth for each karachah. In area, these are thirty parts of tenths, and a quarter is twenty-five parts of a tenth, and this is approximately a rova. He uses the term karachah here for both the sown and the vacant areas; even though the term karachah essentially refers only to a vacant place, nevertheless, here both are included. This is what the Ra'avad innovated, and he came to explain the words of the Rambam (as mentioned above).

And know that this is a great principle in kilayim of seeds: that just as they applied many leniencies regarding the proximity of one species to another if there is only a mere recognition, so too if there are many species in one place they were stringent, such that neither distancing nor recognition is effective, as in the case of the clearings that have been explained. And so too in the law of the garden bed that will be explained, that they only permitted five species and no more, even though one distances between them, as the Rambam wrote there in law 9 and in the Shulchan Aruch, section 34. This is his wording: But more than five species he shall not sow, even though he distances between them, etc. Thus far his words. And the reason is that from the great abundance, it will appear like a mixture of many species, and the Torah was concerned regarding kilayim only with the appearance to the eye.

The sages taught in the Mishnah (at the beginning of chapter 3): A garden bed that is six tefachim by six tefachim, one may sow within it five seeds: four on the four sides of the garden bed and one in the middle. If it had a border one tefach high, one may sow within it thirteen: three on each and every border and one in the middle, etc. Any species of seeds one may not sow in a garden bed, but any species of vegetables one may sow in a garden bed. And in Shabbat chapter 9 this Mishnah was also brought (84b) and it is derived from a verse. And it says in the Gemara there that it was established by the rabbis that five in six do not draw nourishment from one another. And it further says there: We learned of a garden bed in a wasteland, meaning that there are no garden beds around it; for if there were garden beds around it, we would not have permitted sowing five seeds because it appears like a mixture. And in this sugya the opinions are many, but here we will explain with the help of Heaven the approach of the Rambam in chapter 4, law 9, and it is in the Shulchan Aruch section 34. And the difference between seeds and vegetables, the Rambam wrote, is because with vegetables it is not the way to sow except a little, therefore they permitted it, which is not the case with seeds; and so wrote the Bartenura. But the rest of our teachers explained that with seeds the nourishment is greater than with vegetables, and seemingly it implies this explicitly in Pesachim (39b), see there. And it must be said according to the Rambam and the Bartenura that this is only regarding the specific detail spoken of there, namely with lettuce because it will eventually harden, see there; and also this is only a preliminary thought, see there. But the main difference between seeds and vegetables is for the reason that has been explained.

This is the wording of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch there: Types of vegetables that it is not the custom of people to sow except in small amounts, it is permitted to sow even five types within one garden bed that is six by six tefachim, provided that he sows four types on the four sides of the garden bed and one in the middle, and he must distance between each type a tefach and a half so that they do not draw nourishment from one another. But more than five types he may not sow, even though he distances between them, because many types in such a garden bed appear as if planted in confusion. Thus far his words. And it is clear from his words that he is permitted to fill all the sides and also all the middle, provided that a tefach and a half remains vacant as the measure of drawing nourishment. And it must be understood, for in chapter 3, law 10, he wrote that one does not receive lashes for vegetables until they are adjacent to one another within a tefach, as I wrote in section 30, see there. If so, the drawing of nourishment is less than a tefach and a half, and it must be said that the primary drawing of nourishment is less than a tefach, and only its spreading reaches a tefach and a half. And the system of Rashi, Tosafot, and the Ra'avad is that the drawing of nourishment is three tefachim. And from his words here it implies that even those on the sides require an interval of a tefach and a half, but from his commentary to the Mishnayot it implies that only from the middle one is this distancing required, but those on the sides, since this one goes to the east and this one to the south, etc., do not require distancing since there is a distinction, provided that he does not fill the corners, see there. (And in the Yerushalmi it is explained as I wrote here, for it says there: "tillage meets tillage, but a type does not meet its fellow to suppress it," meaning the tillage of the vegetable is six tefachim, and regarding this we are not concerned in a garden bed, but a type must not meet its fellow to suppress it, meaning to draw nourishment from one another; if so, in all of them distancing of the measure of drawing nourishment is required. And even though in a "head of a furrow" it is permitted without any distancing at all, nevertheless here with five types they were more stringent, and examine this.) (And also in Shabbat there it says that they do not draw nourishment from one another).

They further wrote: To what do these words apply? To a garden bed that is in a ruin where there are no seeds outside of it; but in a garden bed between other garden beds, it is forbidden to sow five species within it, for if one sows on every side of this garden bed and on every side of the garden beds surrounding it, everything will appear mixed together. But if he inclined the leaves in this garden bed to here and the leaves in the garden bed at its side to there, until they appear distinct, it is permitted. And likewise, if he made a furrow between every garden bed, it is permitted. Thus far his words. (And he holds that Rav and Shmuel in Shabbat ibid. do not disagree, and Rav admits regarding inclining the leaves that it is permitted, as the Kesef Mishneh wrote, and not like the explanation of Rashi there that they disagree, for according to Rav it is forbidden. And it appears to me that he was forced to this from Mishnah 5 of chapter 3, "and he inclines the hair of this one to here etc.," where it is explained like Shmuel, see there. And regarding what the Kesef Mishneh questioned, why he did not mention filling the corners, I am wondered, for behold he wrote that he should distance a handbreadth and a half, and automatically it is explained that he fills all the corners. And regarding a furrow, he wrote like Rav Ashi there. However, from the sugya there it appears that regarding cucumbers and gourds a furrow is not effective, see there, and why did he not mention this? However, he already wrote this law at the beginning of chapter 4, and in Shulchan Aruch section 26, and as I wrote in section 42).

They further wrote: It is forbidden to sow outside the parterre without a furrow and without an inclination, even opposite the corners of a parterre that contains no seed (even though he distanced it a handbreadth and a half), as a decree lest he sow four species in the four corners of the parterre and sow other species outside of it opposite the corners, and it will result in everything appearing mixed (and this is according to Rav there, and it is due to the stringency of a parterre because there are many species).

They further wrote: If the arughah was six by six and it had a border a tefach high and a tefach wide all around, it is permitted to sow in it even eighteen species—three on each border and six in the middle—and he shall distance a tefach and a half between each species. And he shall not sow the head of a turnip within the border lest it fill it (and there will be a mixture), and also more than eighteen he shall not sow for this reason. And it is forbidden to sow species of seeds in the arughah in this manner because they appear as kilayim; however, species of vegetables, since it is not the way of people to sow from them except a little at a time, this is permitted, as has been explained. And a border that was a tefach high and they sowed many species in it, as has been explained, and it was diminished from a tefach after it was sown in, it is valid, for it was valid from its beginning. Thus far his words. And all of this is explained in the Mishnah there.

And know that even though they were stringent regarding a garden bed in several details, as has been explained, in that they required a distancing of space even in a place that appears like a corner-point as I wrote, and this is what they said in Shabbat ibid., "there is no corner-point in a garden bed," and also they did not permit more than five species even with distancing; nevertheless, this is all because they were concerned about a mixture for the appearance of the eye. Therefore, with a significant distinction, such as sowing each species in a circle where each circle is divided from the other circle, and this is a distinction that everyone sees, they permitted it without distancing and with more than five species, as is explained in Shabbat ibid. And this is what the Rambam wrote in law 15 and in the Shulchan Aruch section 39, and this is his wording: One who wishes to fill his entire garden with many vegetables and not distance between them, makes the entire garden into square garden beds, even six by six, and makes in each garden bed five circles, four in its four directions and one in the middle, and sows a species in each circle, and sows four other species in the four corners of the garden bed; it turns out there are nine species in each garden bed and they appear separated from one another (meaning, even though they are completely adjacent, nevertheless through the circle the distinction is significant as I wrote), and he only loses that which is between the circles alone, which he leaves fallow so that the circles appear separated from the corners and separated from one another. And if he wished not to lose anything, if the circles were sown lengthwise, he sows what is between them crosswise, and if they were sown crosswise, he sows what is between them lengthwise, so that they appear separated. Thus far his words. And there are other systems regarding this (and see the gloss of the Ra'avad and the Kesef Mishneh).

From all these matters it has been explained that when there is between two species the distancing appropriate for them so that they do not draw nourishment from one another, we do not concern ourselves with marit ayin when they are only two species alone; and when they appear separated from one another, we do not concern ourselves with their drawing nourishment even if they are side by side; and in a place where there are many species, there are other laws, as has been explained regarding the arugah.

297 (2). The laws of kilayim of animals regarding mating and leading, and it contains 25 seifim. 1 It is written in Parshat Kedoshim: "Your animal you shall not mate as kilayim." And it is taught in the Torat Kohanim: Had it said "Your animal you shall not mate," I would have said that one may not take hold of an animal and stand it before the male (even of its own species); therefore the Torah says "kilayim"—I only spoke to you because of kilayim (which is not of its own species). I only have the rule of your animal upon your animal; from where do we derive your animal upon the animals of others (of an Egyptian), or the animals of others upon your animal, or the animals of others upon the animals of others? The Torah says: "My statutes you shall keep." I only have the rule of animal upon animal; from where do we derive animal upon beast, beast upon animal, impure upon pure, or pure upon impure? The Torah says: "My statutes you shall keep." And we learned in the final chapter of HaParah: Whether an ox or any animal, etc., regarding kilayim—meaning kilayim of mating and kilayim of leading, as it is written: "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together." And so too beast and fowl are like them. If so, why is "ox or donkey" stated? Rather, the verse spoke of the common occurrence. And even one who mates two species from the sea is lashed (ibid. 55a), as we derive "according to their kind, according to their kind" from the land; see there. And it is true that it is impossible to mate fish, as is stated in the Yerushalmi, chapter 1 of Kilayim, but other creatures of the sea can be mated (Tosafot ibid.). And it is simple that this applies both in the Land and outside the Land, for it is an obligation of the person (see Shach subsection 1, but it is not so, for that refers to leading).

**2.** And to place a hen upon eggs that are not of its species, such as upon goose eggs, or a goose upon hen eggs, is permitted, for in this the concept of crossbreeding does not apply, as it is merely warming. And so wrote the Tashbetz (Part 2, Siman 58), and this is his wording: And to place a hen upon pullet eggs or pigeon eggs, there was never mentioned any concern of a prohibition in the world regarding this; and even though regarding shaatnez there is no greater permission for birds than for animals, as we learned in the chapter "HaParah" etc., this is not included in crossbreeding, for she does nothing but things that add heat, and it is like one who hides them within flocks of wool. Thus far his words. (And I saw that it is written in the name of the Remez that there is "tza'ar ba'alei chayim" in this, but it is not understood, and according to the law it is permitted).

3. He does not receive lashes until he inserts with his hand like a brush into a tube. However, if he only brought them up one upon the other or incited them with his voice, they strike him with a makkot mardut, for it is a rabbinic prohibition. It is permitted to bring two species, male and female, into one pen, and even if he later sees that the male is mating with her, he is not obligated to separate them. And so we learned in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of chapter 8 of Kilayim: One might think he may not place males near females or females near males; the verse teaches: "Your animal you shall not mate as kilayim"—it is only forbidden to mate, etc., see there. The general rule of the matter: To perform the act of mating is a Torah prohibition and he receives lashes, and without an act, to cause the mating itself, such as bringing them up one upon the other or shouting at them, is a rabbinic prohibition. But to bring them into one pen is nothing, for it is not certain that he will mate with her and there is no act in this, and if he later mates with her, he does so on his own and not through the person.

4. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 that in a place where there is concern for the licentiousness of slaves, it is forbidden to bring them even into a pen. Thus far his words. And behold, in Bava Metzia (91b) it is stated: Rav Ashi said, they asked me this matter in the house of Rav Nachman the Exilarch: What is the law regarding bringing a species and its own species and a different species into a pen? Since its own species is there, does it follow its own species, or perhaps even so it is not permitted? And they resolved it as a prohibition, not according to the halacha, because of the licentiousness of slaves; see there. And all the poskim did not write this because they explain that this itself is "not according to the halacha" even when there is licentiousness of slaves. Only the Nimukei Yosef wrote there that in a place where there is licentiousness or where they are not people of Torah, it is forbidden; see there. And our teacher, the Rema, was concerned for this opinion, but omitted that which refers to those who are not people of Torah; perhaps because regarding several things where the Shas said those who are not people of Torah are forbidden, we are not concerned for it, as is known. However, it is a wonder, for if so, he should have informed us of a greater novelty: that even if its own species is also present, it is forbidden. And regarding all the poskim it is difficult for me, for it implies explicitly that the inquiry is only when its own species is also present, but a species and a different species alone is forbidden for everyone to bring in. And perhaps because from the Yerushalmi that we brought in the previous section, it is explained that it is permitted. Nevertheless, it requires further study. (And it is possible to say that when he intends to bring it in so that it shall mate, it is certainly forbidden, and the Yerushalmi deals with where there is no intention; and the Gemara that spoke of even its own species is because in such a case it is impossible for there to be intention, as is understood; and delve into this.)

5. The Rambam wrote in chapter 9 of Hilkhot Kilayim, law 2, that it is forbidden for an Israelite to give his animal to a gentile to mate it for him, and so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh in section 4 (and in the Shulchan Arukh he did not write "for him," see there). They wrote the reason is that telling a gentile to perform a labor is a shevut also regarding other prohibitions, as is stated in Bava Metzia (90a). This is also implied by the words of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote concerning this, and this is his wording: And so any telling a gentile, even regarding a negative commandment, is forbidden, unless the gentile does it for his own benefit. Thus far his words. These matters are perplexing, for if the prohibition is because of telling a gentile is a shevut, it should have said that it is forbidden for an Israelite to tell him to mate his animal for him, as they wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 338 regarding the prohibition of muzzling, and in Even HaEzer siman 5 regarding the prohibition of castration. But here, and above in siman 295 regarding the prohibition of grafting a tree, they did not hang the prohibition on the telling, but rather that it is forbidden for him that the gentile should do this. This is because the gentile himself is subject to the prohibition of grafting and mating, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 10 of Hilkhot Melakhim, except that he is not executed for these, see there. Thus, there is the issue of "before the blind do not put a stumbling block." According to this, even when he does it for his own benefit it is forbidden (and the Derisha indeed wrote this reason, and the words of the Shach in subsection 3 are like an error proceeding from a ruler, and many have already criticized him for this. According to this, the words of the Rema are also perplexing. See the Shach in subsection 4 who hesitated regarding the core of this law, and many hold that even for his own benefit it is forbidden. However, in any case, regarding mating and grafting it is obvious that it is forbidden. The change in language regarding grafting, where they wrote that it is forbidden to allow a gentile to graft etc., is because there the maintenance is forbidden, which is not the case regarding mating. See the Taz subsection 2 that they did not penalize him to sell it as they did with castration, because it is not common).

6. One who transgressed and crossbred his animal as kilayim, the offspring born from them is permitted for benefit. And so we learned at the beginning of the eighth chapter of Kilayim, that those crossbred are permitted to be raised and maintained; see there. And similarly, the crossbred animal itself is permitted. And that which comes from kilayim is not forbidden except for the altar. And the crossbred animal itself is also permitted for the altar, for that which a crossbred animal is disqualified for the altar is when a person mated with it. And it is a simple matter that the offspring is not permitted except in the case of a pure animal with a pure animal, but when one of them is impure, it is forbidden for eating even if the male was impure, for we are concerned for the seed of the father. However, according to what is stated in Bekhorot (7a), it is impossible for this law to exist, for a pure animal and an impure animal do not conceive from one another; see there. (And it requires further study regarding the Rambam and the Tur and Shulchan Arukh who mentioned this condition, since it is impossible otherwise; unless they hold that not everyone agrees with this, for in Bekhorot there it is according to a "there are those who say"; see there and examine carefully.)

7. This which the Torah prohibited, the mating of one species of animal with a different species, is not specifically when they are different from one another in their appearance and distance themselves from one another and do not mix with one another; rather, even if they are similar to one another in their appearance and grow up together and conceive from one another, since they are two distinct species, they are prohibited as kilayim. How so? The wolf with the dog, and the village dog with the fox, goats with deer, ibexes with ewes, the horse with the mule, the mule with the donkey, the donkey with the wild ass—which is the donkey of the wilderness—are kilayim with one another, even though they appear similar in their appearance and grow up together and conceive from one another.

8. This applies to two species, but within one species, even though there are differences between them—such as a wild ox with a domestic ox, or a ramakh, which is a species of horse, with a common horse—they are permitted with one another. And even though above in siman 28 our teacher, the Rema, wrote that some are uncertain regarding the buffalo, that perhaps it is a wild ox and a species of chayah and requires kisuy, see there, and how could it be permitted to mate it with an ox according to this view, for behold, a behemah with a chayah is kilayim? For it can be said that those who are uncertain about it are uncertain whether it is perhaps a wild ram (the Gra, subsection 14) and not a wild ox, for if it were an ox, it is obvious that it is not a chayah. And there he did not see fit to elaborate, and therefore indeed, the buffalo should not be mated with a behemah. But here it refers to a certain wild ox. Furthermore, the primary halachah even there is that it does not require kisuy, see there (and the difficulty of the Shach, subsection 5, is answered).

9. However, the goose with the wild goose are shaatnez with one another because the goose's testicles are internal and the wild goose's testicles are external, as its male organ hangs outside (Bava Kamma 55a). Necessarily, with such a change, which is the essence of the creature's formation, they are perforce two species. But due to another change, such as this one having a thick neck and that one a thin one, or this one being long and that one short, this is not a change and they are one species (ibid.). Therefore, regarding our chickens, among which there have emerged for years those larger than ours called Galanska or Preussische Hühner, nevertheless they are one species. And the koy is a doubt whether it is a chaya or a behema, and it is shaatnez with both of them. Similarly, the buffalo, according to the one who requires kisuy out of doubt in siman 28, is shaatnez with both of them, and one may only mate them with their own kind. And a koy with a buffalo is shaatnez, for the mind inclines more toward it being a behema, as I wrote there. And for all of these one does not receive lashes because they are a doubt.

10. The Tur wrote: Those that come from kilayim are not permitted with one another unless their mothers are of the same species, such as a mule whose mother is a donkey with a horse, or a mule whose mother is a donkey with a horse; but a mule whose mother is a donkey is forbidden with a mule whose mother is a horse, or vice versa, though one does not receive lashes for it. Similarly, a mule whose mother is a donkey is forbidden to be mated with a donkey, or a mule whose mother is a horse is forbidden to be mated with a horse, even though it is the species of its mother, for perhaps we are concerned for the seed of the father; but one does not receive lashes for it. Thus far his words.

11. The explanation of the matters is that there is one who holds that we do not concern ourselves with the seed of the father at all, but only with the seed of the mother. According to this, whenever the mothers are of the same species, even though the fathers are different, it is permitted to mate them. Similarly, a mule whose mother is a donkey may be mated with a donkey, and one whose mother is a horse may be mated with a horse. Conversely, whenever the mothers are of different species, even if the fathers are the same, it is kilayim and one is lashed. And for one who concerns himself with the seed of the father, there is a completely different law. That is to say, it is not necessary to state that when the fathers are the same in both and the mothers are the same that they are permitted in mating, but even if this one's father is a horse and its mother a donkey, and that one's father is a donkey and its mother a horse, they may also be mated, since in both of them there is a donkey side and a horse side. However, the Tur holds that it is a doubt whether we concern ourselves with the seed of the father or not. According to this, there is no permission to mate them unless they are equal in their fathers and in their mothers. And this is what he said: "for example, a mule whose mother is a donkey with a female mule whose mother is a donkey," meaning that automatically in both of them the fathers are horses, for every mule and female mule are from a horse and a donkey, and since their mother is a donkey, automatically their father is a horse. And there are no lashes unless the fathers and mothers are completely different from one another. Therefore, a mule whose mother is a donkey is forbidden to be mated with a donkey because perhaps we concern ourselves with the seed of the father and they are kilayim, but one is not lashed, as is understood.

12. And the words of the Rambam in chapter 9, law 6, are puzzling, for he wrote: Those born from kilayim, if their mothers were of one species, it is permitted to mate them with one another, and if they were of two species, it is forbidden to mate them with one another, and if he mated them, he is lashed; and similarly, if he mated this offspring even with the species of its mother, he is lashed. How so? A mule whose mother is a donkey is permitted to be mated with a female mule whose mother is a donkey, but it is forbidden to mate it even with a donkey; however, a mule whose mother is a horse is forbidden to be mated with a female mule whose mother is a donkey, and so too anything similar to this. Thus far his words. And it is not understood at all, for from the first clause it is clear that we do not concern ourselves with the seed of the father at all, yet in the latter clause he says that if he mated a mule whose mother is a donkey with a female donkey, he is lashed—behold, we do concern ourselves with the seed of the father. And they wrote that of necessity there is a scribal error (the Rosh wondered at him, and the Kesef Mishneh and the Bach wrote that there is a scribal error). However, we have explained, with the help of Heaven, the words of the Rambam with good taste and knowledge above in siman 16, section 27, see there. And the essence of the matter is that regarding the animal itself, we concern ourselves with the seed of the father, and therefore to mate this offspring with the species of the mother itself is kilayim; however, to mate it with a species that is similar to it on its mother's side, even though they are divided on the fathers' side, we do not concern ourselves with the seed of the father, see there for the reasoning of the matter. (And the words of the Shulchan Aruch in section 9: its beginning is the words of the Rambam and its end is the words of the Tur, and his intention is like the Tur, as he wrote "if their mothers were of one species," his intention is also their mothers' mothers as he concludes regarding the mule and as I wrote regarding the intention of the Tur; and what he wrote "even though their fathers are of one species," and the Shach in subsection 9 was hard-pressed, in truth the Gra wrote in subsection 18 that it should say "even though their fathers are of two species," see there and examine carefully).

13. Our sages, of blessed memory, said in Chullin (79a) that there are signs in mules to recognize whether their mother was a donkey or a horse; that is, if its voice is deep, it is a sign that its mother was a donkey, and if its voice is thin, it is a sign that its mother was a horse. Likewise, if the ears are large and the tail is short, it is a sign that its mother was a donkey, and conversely, small ears and a long tail, its mother was a horse. This is what the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote, and this is their wording: Therefore, one who wishes to mate a male mule with a female mule, or to pull with two mules, examines the signs of the ears, the tail, and the voice; if they resemble one another, it is known that their mothers are of one species and they are permitted. Thus far their words. For these are absolute signs. And one should not ask: if so, how do you find a case where it is forbidden? Let him look at the signs! It can be said, for example, where the ears and the tails were cut off and it is impossible to recognize by the voice (Derisha), or for example, where it is known that their mothers are not the same, for then even when the signs are identical, we do not pay attention to this (ibid., and it requires further study, for since our sages, of blessed memory, gave signs, is it not impossible for it to be otherwise? It appears more likely to me that indeed this is so, and so said our sages, of blessed memory, and the poskim, that without examining the signs it is forbidden to mate them, and therefore one must see the signs, and delve into this).

14. Just as the Torah forbade the crossbreeding of kilayim, so too it forbade the leading of kilayim—meaning, that two species should perform one labor, as it is written: "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together." And naturally, the same applies to any labor, for what difference is there to me between plowing and any other labor? Therefore, it is forbidden to perform labor with two species, such as to plow or to pull a wagon when they are harnessed together for the labor, whether one is impure and one is pure, or both are impure, or both are pure; whether a domestic animal with a domestic animal, such as a pig with a sheep; or a wild animal with a wild animal, such as a fallow deer with an elephant; or a wild animal with a domestic animal, such as a dog with a goat, or a deer with a pig, and the like (so wrote the Shulchan Aruch in section 10).

15. This is the wording of the Tur: Anyone who performs labor with two species is lashed, even if they are similar to one another and grow together, whether with two species of domestic animal or two species of wild animal, or a wild animal with a domestic animal, and even a wild animal or a domestic animal with a bird; whether both are impure or pure, or one is impure and one is pure. And even with a sea species with a land species it is forbidden to lead them, except that one is not lashed for it. But a human being is permitted with all of them to perform labor or to lead. Thus far his words. However, the Rambam there ruled that specifically with one impure and one pure is one lashed, but with both impure or both pure, even though regarding crossbreeding one is lashed, nevertheless regarding leading, the prohibition is only from the words of the scribes; see there. And the Rosh disagreed with him. However, his source is from the Tosefta of Kilayim, chapter 5 (halacha 4), as it is taught: One may not tie a horse to a mule, or a mule to a donkey, etc.; if he did so, Rabbi Meir deems him liable and the Sages exempt him. And the Semag explained that they exempt him from lashes, but a prohibition exists. And also, since the Torah wrote, "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together," it implies specifically pure with impure. But in the Sifrei, Parshat Ki Tetzei, it is taught: I only have an ox and a donkey; from where do we include other domestic animals, wild animals, and birds like them? The verse teaches, "together," in any case. If so, why was it said "with an ox and a donkey"? With an ox and a donkey you may not plow, but you may plow with a human and a donkey. Thus far its words. And according to the words of the Rambam, it would have been more appropriate to say: but you may plow with two pure species or two impure species (and also Rashi, of blessed memory, explained on the Mishnah at the end of the chapter "HaParah" regarding kilayim, whether for crossbreeding or for leading; see there).

16. We say in Makkot (22a): One who mates a bull of disqualified consecrated animals receives two sets of lashes; one who leads a bull of disqualified consecrated animals receives lashes, for it is one body and the verse treated it as two bodies. Riban explained: One who mates a bull of disqualified consecrated animals that was redeemed, even with its own species, receives lashes, for the verse treated it as two bodies, as it possesses the status of chullin in that it is permitted for consumption etc., and the status of kodashim in that it is forbidden for shearing and labor etc., such that he mates chullin with kodashim or kodashim with chullin. And likewise regarding one who leads, even if he leads it with its own species, and even if he leads it by itself etc., for it itself is kilayim etc. And I have not heard a proof from where we derive that chullin and kodashim are kilayim with one another, and it is a wondrous matter. Thus far his words. Rabbeinu Tam explained that it is because it is written regarding it, "as the deer and as the hart," see there in Tosafot. Therefore, regarding one who mates, he receives two sets of lashes, for he mates it with a female or with a male, and therefore there can be three species, which is to say that in itself it is two species, and with the second one if it is not of the species of chullin. But regarding one who leads, it did not say he receives two sets of lashes, for leading can be by itself. And in truth, if he leads it with another when the other is not of its species, he also receives two sets of lashes (as it appears in my humble opinion). And likewise according to the explanation of Rabbeinu Tam if the second is neither of the species of a deer nor of the species of a hart, as is understood.

17. This is the wording of the Rambam at the end of chapter 9: Although it is one body, the verse made it like two bodies because it was holy and became like holy and like mundane, etc., like an impure animal with a pure one. Behold, it says: "And if it be any impure animal, of which they do not offer, etc." From the oral tradition they learned that this refers to pasulei hamukdashin. Therefore, one who plows with an ox of pasulei hamukdashin or one who mates it, behold, he is lashed on account of kilayim, and this prohibition is from the words of tradition. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad wrote according to the explanation of Rabbeinu Tam; see there. And the Rambam did not write regarding one who mates that he is lashed twice, for according to him it is not found, since he holds that one is only lashed for an impure animal with a pure one; if so, whichever way you look at it, there is only one set of lashes here, and it must be said that his version of the text in the Gemara was not "lashed twice." And also according to the Rambam, it is obvious that this refers to pasulei hamukdashin that were redeemed, for this verse of "And if it be an impure animal" deals with after they were redeemed, as is found in Menachot (101b). And the Rambam himself brought this in chapter 1 of Issurei Mizbe'ach (and that which they said in Moed Katan 12a that one may not mate pasulei hamukdashin due to the concern of labor, this is before they were redeemed. And the Mishneh LaMelech wrote that according to the Rambam it deals with before they were redeemed, and that which is in Moed Katan is with its own kind, meaning to mate pasulei hamukdashin with pasulei hamukdashin, for in this there is no kilayim. And this requires further study, for the Ritva in Makkot there wrote explicitly that even in such a case one is lashed; see there. And also this verse is only after it was redeemed, and his words are wondrous to me; and delve into this).

18. The Rambam wrote: Whether one plows or sows, or pulls a wagon or a stone with them as one, or leads them as one, even by voice, he is lashed, as it is said "together" in any manner; but one who pairs them is exempt until he pulls or leads. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in section 11. And this is the explanation: for the Rosh already explained in the laws of kilayim that the Torah only prohibited when they are tied together, but when they are not tied together, even if they perform one labor—such as if he placed a board upon an ox and a donkey and they transport the board, and even if the person sits upon the board and they walk—we have no concern with it. And although the Tur understood the intent of the Rambam to be that he does not require them to be tied together, nevertheless our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his books Kesef Mishneh and Bedek HaBayit, rejected this (and so wrote the Bach). And in truth, this is the meaning of "pairs them together," meaning tied together; and the Rambam says that one who pairs them is exempt until he pulls or leads, meaning that if they are tied together and standing in their place and doing nothing, and also the person is not leading them, there is no prohibition in this at all. And it is a simple matter that it is not specifically tied to each other, but even if both are tied to one thing—such as if the ox is tied to the wagon from this side and the donkey is tied from the other side—it is like being tied together.

**19.** Nevertheless, there is one of the Rishonim who prohibited even when they are not tied together, and this is what our teacher, the Rema, of blessed memory, wrote. This is his wording: And some say that it is only prohibited to lead them or pull them when they are tied together, and therefore it is permitted for a rider to pull a dog by a rope alongside the horse; and there are those who disagree. Thus far his words. And this is the opinion of our teacher Ephraim in the Mordechai, chapter 5 of Shabbat, that the Torah prohibited it in any manner, even when they are not tied together, see there. And in the Yerushalmi it is explained according to the first opinion (the Gra, subsection 27). In truth, the "those who disagree" is a minority opinion, and it appears to my humble opinion that the reason our teacher, the Rema, cited the opinion of "those who disagree" is according to what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, understood in his great work, that the Rambam also holds this way. However, according to what he retracted in his works Kesef Mishneh and Bedek HaBayit, the opinion of the one who prohibits is a minority opinion. According to this, the butcher who sits in a wagon and leads an animal with him, if he holds the rope in his hand, one should not rebuke him; but when he ties the rope to the wagon, he performs a literal Torah prohibition, and this is "leading" in kilayim, and one must protest against them with a strong hand so that they do not do so (Taz, subsection 6).

**20.** And that which he wrote, that one who leads with a voice also receives lashes, even if we say that a voice is not considered an action, nevertheless, here where there is an action performed by means of the voice, it is considered an action. Furthermore, the Torah decreed here that the voice should be considered an action, for so it is explained from the words of the Rambam, that from that which is written "together," we learn it, that it applies even with a voice. And this derivation is in the Sifrei, and this is its explanation: since it is written "together," it implies in any manner that they are together. However, in Bava Metzia (90b) it is explained because the movement of his lips is considered an action, see there (and the Tosafot there wrote according to the first justification, see there).

**21.** Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 11: A gentile who drives kilayim, it is permitted for an Israelite to extend a greeting to him or to speak with him in a loud voice, for we do not fear that perhaps the animals will move because of his voice; for regarding all prohibitions, an unintentional act is permitted if it is not a pesik reisha. However, if an Israelite is walking with the gentile on the road and the Israelite's burden is on the gentile's wagon which he is driving as kilayim, the Israelite should not walk near the wagon, for sometimes the wagon gets stuck and he will shout at the animals to move quickly, and this is prohibited because of driving kilayim. Thus far his words. And we have learned from his words that only the Israelite should not walk near the wagon, but as for the gentile transporting the Israelite's merchandise by means of kilayim, we have no concern regarding it, since the Israelite did not command him to do so; and to command him is certainly prohibited, for telling a gentile is a shevut regarding all prohibitions, as I wrote in section 5.

22. And know that there is a dispute regarding what has been explained, that one who leads shaatnez incurs lashes, as to what is called "leading." For there is one who says that even if they are tied together and the person leads them without any labor, this is nothing, and it is called "leading" when he leads them and they are pulling something (Taz, subsection 5). And so it is proven in Tosafot (Shabbat 54b) who wrote, and this is their wording: And one should not say that it is forbidden to lead shaatnez even if it does not pull anything, for if so, it would be forbidden to walk and to move from its place an ox of disqualified sanctified animals, which is considered like two species, etc. Thus far their words. And there is one who wrote that if they are tied together, even in leading without labor, he incurs lashes (Bach). And certainly the primary view is like the first opinion; however, if they are tied with a rope and they carry the rope together, it is called labor (Tosafot and the Rosh, ibid.). And according to this, specifically when they are tied by their hair to one another, there is no prohibition in leading, but when tied with a rope or another thing, it is forbidden to lead them together. And in the Yerushalmi (Chapter 8, Halacha 3) of Kilayim, it says that there is no prohibition when one mounts a donkey upon a horse in mere riding, not in mating, such as a male upon a male, see there (and there is a dispute there regarding those tied by their hair to one another, and the versions are not identical; see the Beit Yosef and Ma'aseh Yom Tov).

23. A wagon that two species are pulling, it is forbidden to sit in it even if he did not lead them, because his sitting causes them to pull the wagon. And so too, it is forbidden for one to sit in the wagon and one to lead. And even one hundred who led as one are lashed, and so too all those sitting in the wagon. And R"I ruled that those sitting in the wagon are not lashed, but the Rif and the Rambam ruled that he is lashed (see Beit Yosef). And if one even tied two horses to one wagon, and even more than two horses, it is forbidden to tie another species with them even though the horses are able to pull it without the other species, for behold, it also leads, and there is also a liability of malkot in this as the Tur wrote, see there. And this is what we learned in the Mishnah there (Mishnah 3): and the third that is tied to the straps is forbidden. And the Rambam did not bring this law at all, and he follows his reasoning in the Commentary on the Mishnah that this is the explanation: the third wagon that is tied with the carriage, see there; for since he wrote that even the one sitting in the carriage receives the forty, it is automatically so (Kesef Mishneh), and it requires further study.

**24.** The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 15 wrote: A wagon pulled by a wagon-load of one species, one may not tie another species with a rope, neither to the sides of the wagon nor behind the wagon, because it pushes the wagon as it moves. Thus far their words. And it is an explicit Mishnah there. Therefore, one must be careful not to tie a dog under the wagon, and similarly a calf, a kid, or a lamb. Similarly, the butcher should not tie the animal to the sides of the wagon or behind it. Similarly, those who ride on horses to hunt birds should not tie the rope that the bird is tied to onto the saddle when it is made of wool because of shaatnez (Shach, subsection 13), for behold, he rides upon the saddle. And this law was also omitted by the Rambam, of blessed memory, and it is a great wonder. Perhaps it is because there is no novelty in this at all (but one cannot say it is because the Yerushalmi brings a Baraita where Rabbi Meir exempts, see there, for certainly the halacha follows the anonymous Mishnah; and furthermore, it says there that if it was assisting it, whether in an ascent or a descent, all agree that it is forbidden).

25. It is permitted to perform labor with a person and a domestic animal or a wild animal together, such as a person who plows with an ox or pulls a wagon with a donkey and the like, as it is stated: "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together"—not with a person and an ox or a person and a donkey. And we learn in the Tosefta chapter 5 (halacha 4) and in the Yerushalmi chapter 8 (halacha 2): Issi says it is forbidden to ride upon a mule based on a kal vachomer etc. They said to him: Behold it says, "And you shall cause Solomon my son to ride upon the mule" etc. He said to them: One does not respond from a decree. They said to him: Behold it says, "And David did that which was right in the eyes of Hashem" etc. Thus far the words of the Tosefta. And in the Yerushalmi it answers that it was the mule of the six days of creation, see there. And the poskim did not cite this, and the Rosh rejected the kal vachomer, see there. And nevertheless, it is difficult to disagree with the Tosefta and Yerushalmi. And behold, for the one who holds we do not concern ourselves with the seed of the father, it is not difficult at all, and we would say that Issi holds that we do concern ourselves; but for the one who holds we do concern ourselves, it is difficult. And one must say that they hold like the Tosefta, for they said to him and rejected the words of Issi from the verse "And David did that which was right" etc. And it is not similar to the disqualified consecrated animals which are forbidden as I wrote in section 16, for there the Torah called them now two bodies as I wrote there, which is not the case for a mule, which has only the name "mule." And the poskim hold that Issi is a single opinion and the sages disagree with him (see in the Even HaEzer who questioned the Rosh regarding his rejection of the kal vachomer of Issi) (and from the Mishnah at the beginning of chapter 8 it is proven not like Issi, for according to Issi it should have said "but not to ride," and delve into this).