Makkot — Daf 21b

יש חורש תלם א' וחייב עליו משום שמונה לאוין החורש בשור וחמור והן מוקדשין וכלאים בכרם ובשביעית ויום טוב וכהן ונזיר בבית הטומאה

חנניא בן חכינאי אומר אף הלובש כלאים אמרו לו אינו השם אמר להם אף הנזיר לא הוא השם:

גמ׳ (אמר רב ביבי אמר ר' יוסי פושט ולובש לובש ממש או) אפי' מכניס ומוציא בית יד אונקלי שלו מחוי רב אחא בריה דרב איקא עיולי ואפוקי רב אשי אומר אפילו לא שהה אלא כדי לפשוט וללבוש חייב:

יש חורש תלם וכו': א"ר ינאי בחבורה נמנו וגמרו החופה בכלאים לוקה אמר להן רבי יוחנן לאו משנתנו היא זו יש חורש תלם אחד וחייב עליו משום שמונה לאוין החורש בשור ובחמור והן מוקדשין וכלאים בכרם האי חורש דמחייב משום כלאים היכי משכחת לה לאו דמיכסי בהדיה דאזיל

א"ל אי לאו דדלאי לך חספא מי משכחת מרגניתא תותה אמר ליה ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן אי לאו דקילסך גברא רבה הוה אמינא מתני' מני רבי עקיבא היא דאמר המקיים כלאים לוקה

מאי רבי עקיבא דתניא המנכש והמחפה בכלאים לוקה רבי עקיבא אומר אף המקיים

מאי טעמא דר' עקיבא דתניא (ויקרא יט, יט) שדך לא תזרע כלאים אין לי אלא זורע מקיים מנין ת"ל ((ויקרא יט, יט) בהמתך לא תרביע) כלאים שדך לא (תזרע כלאים)

אמר ליה עולא לרב נחמן ולילקי נמי משום זורע ביום טוב א"ל תנא ושייר

א"ל תנא קתני שמונה ואת אמרת תנא ושייר אמר רבא יש חילוק מלאכות בשבת ואין חילוק מלאכות ביום טוב אמר ליה עדא תהא

איתיביה אביי ואין חילוק מלאכות ביום טוב והתנן המבשל גיד בחלב ביו"ט ואכלו לוקה חמש לוקה משום אוכל גיד ולוקה משום מבשל ביום טוב שלא לצורך ולוקה משום מבשל גיד בחלב ולוקה משום אוכל בשר בחלב ולוקה

IT IS POSSIBLE [FOR ONE] TO PLOUGH BUT ONE FURROW AND BECOME LIABLE [THEREBY] FOR EIGHT PROHIBITED ACTS: IF HE PLOUGHS WITH AN OX AND ASS [YOKED TOGETHER]1 AND THESE WERE [ANIMALS] OF THE SANCTUARY;2 [THE PLOUGH BEING DRAWN OVER] DIVERSE MIXED-SEED3 [SOWN] IN A VINEYARD,4 DURING THE SABBATICAL YEAR,5 ON A FESTIVAL-DAY,6 [THE PLOUGHER BEING] A PRIEST7 AND A NAZIRITE8 AND THE PLOT BEING SITUATE ON A DEFILED AREA.9 HANANIA B. HAKINAI SUGGESTS ALSO THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN WEARING THEN ‘LINSEY-WOOLSEY’10 SAID THEY TO HIM: THIS [LAST] IS NOT OF THE SAME CATEGORY. SAID HE TO THEM: NOR IS THE NAZIRITE11 IN THE SAME CATEGORY.12 GEMARA. [AND HE TAKES IT OFF AND PUTS IT ON.] Said R. Bibi as citing R. Assi: Not [necessarily] actually taking it off and putting it on, but even if he only put his hand in and out of the arm-hole.13 R. Aha the son of R. Ika illustrated it [as requiring] to get into the coat and to get out of it. R. Ashi says: Even if he only wore it long enough to put it on and to take it off he becomes liable.14 IT IS POSSIBLE TO PLOUGH BUT ONE FURROW AND BECOME LIABLE. Said R. Jannai: A decision by vote was taken at a certain [Rabbinical] Convention15 that he who [only] covers over diverse seeds [with earth] makes himself liable to a flogging.16 Said R. Johanan to him: Is that not [learnt in] our Mishnah: — IT IT POSSIBLE TO PLOUGH BUT ONE FURROW AND BECOME LIABLE [THEREBY] FOR EIGHT PROHIBITED ACTS; IF HE PLOUGHS [WITH AN OX AND ASS YOKED TOGETHER AND THESE ARE THE CHATTELS OF THE SANCTUARY . . . ] OVER DIVERSE SEEDS [SOWN IN A VINEYARD etc.]? Now, how does he make himself liable by ploughing for [sowing] diverse seeds unless it is by covering them over [with the clods] as he proceeds [with the plough]?17 — He [R. Jannai] replied: Had I not picked up the shard for you, you would not have found the pearl beneath it.18 Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: Had not that great man19 praised you, I should have said, Whose is the view expressed in the Mishnah? It is R. Akiba's, who said that one who preserves diverse seeds incurs a flogging.20 Which statement of R. Akiba [have you in mind]? — [The following, as] it is taught: One who weeds or covers over diverse-seeds is flogged; R. Akiba says: Also one who preserves [them].21 What is R. Akiba's reason? — It is as taught [in the following]: Thou shalt not sow thy field with two-kinds-of-seeds;22 I [know that it is forbidden] to sow, whence [say I, that] preserving [is debarred]? From the instructive [order of the] wording. Two kinds of seed in thy field [there shall] not [be].23 Said ‘Ulla to R. Nahman: And why not [mention24 also] that he would be flogged for sowing25 on the festival-day? — Said R. Nahman to him: [The Tanna] ‘teaches and leaves out [some].’26 Said ‘Ulla to him: The Tanna teaches eight prohibited acts and you tell me ‘He teaches and leaves out [some]’? — But said Rabbah:27 The [principle of] ‘distributive liability28 for different kinds of work’ is applicable to Sabbath, but no [principle of] ‘distributive liability for work’ is applicable to Festivals. Said he to him [Rabbah]: Let it remain at that! Abaye, however, raised an objection against him [saying]: But is not the principle of ‘distributive liability for different kinds of work’ held applicable also to Festivals? Is it not taught: One who on a festival-day boils the sciatic-sinew in milk and eats it incurs a flogging on five counts, [i] for eating the sinew,29 [ii] for [unnecessary] cooking30 on a festival-day. [iii] for boiling the sinew in milk,31 [iv] for eating meat with milk,31 firstlings they may not be worked at all, even separately. (V. Ex. XIII, 12-13; Deut. XV, 19.) and the plough was drawn over to cover them, v. Shab. 73a. the plough to cover them over amounts to sowing; if he did scatter them too, he would also have that to his guilt, but not to be included here in the example of accumulated-offences in one single act. Sabbath by ploughing involves the supreme penalty (which would cover all counts) and no flogging is given in such cases. Cf. supra 13b and Rashi Pes. 47b (top). (Cf. p. 148, n. 9.) [The reading adopted here is that of the Yalkut; cur. edd. read: Does it mean he actually takes it off . . . or even if he only puts his hand in etc.’] 1933) Vol. III, p. 85; v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.). p. 407, n. 11. seeds, as against the decision of the convention.] them in or manuring them. It will be noticed that this would be action, and make him liable to a flogging. Preserving, however, might be taken to mean merely leaving alone, allowing the forbidden growth without uprooting it (as was expected). From the wording of the citation here, it is doubtful whether R. Akiba imposes a flogging even for a mere passive preservation. The Tosef. Mak. IV, 5, and Kil. I, 8, distinctly says that preserving as such makes him ‘a transgressor of a forbidden act’ — vag, tkc rcug — but not liable to a flogging for inaction. V. Aruch s.v. ;j, and particularly the commentary of R. Shimshon (of Sens), on Sifra, Lev. XIX, 29. also J. Kil. VIII, 1. V. Friedmann, M. op. cit. a.l. [The opening clause of this Baraitha is explained in M.K. 2a as introducing the view of R. Akiba. Thus: ‘one who weeds or covers ... is flogged, because R. Akiba says that also one who preserves them is liable.’ The Rabbis, however, who disagree with R. Akiba in the case of preserving, will also differ from him in the case of covering.] things) that are forbidden here, its purpose must be ‘Of kil'ayim have none’! cooking. This principle is inferred in the case of Sabbath, from Ex. XXXV, 2-3, where verse 2 forbids work on the Sabbath on the pain of death (kareth, or sin-offering, as the case may be), while verse 3 singles out the kindling of fire as if in a category by itself. One of the explanations given is that verse 3 indicates the ‘distributive principle’ for Sabbath, namely, that if one did many kinds of work (forgetful that it was a Sabbath day) he is liable on as many counts as the different categories of work he had done during that spell of forgetfulness. (V. Shab. 70a and parallel and Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 420, n. 3.) R. Jose derives the same point from another text. No such authentic indication is available in the law of the Festivals. XXXIV, 26; Deut. XIV, 21 — as forbidding cooking, eating, or even all manner of use thereof.