Reference for Bava Metzia 181:13

אמר רב יהודה מין במינו מותר להכניס כמכחול בשפופרת ואפילו משום פריצותא ליכא מ"ט בעבידתיה טריד מתיב רב אחדבוי בר אמי

whereas flagellation is not incurred until muzzling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though two penalties cannot be imposed, that is only when incurred simultaneously. But these two are not, the one preceding the other. ');">¹³</span> R. Papa said: The following problems were propounded to me by the disciples of R. Papa b. Abba, and I gave stringent rulings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I answered them in the direction of prohibition.' ');">¹⁴</span> one in accordance with the law, the other not in accordance with the law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But merely with an extra degree of stringency. ');">¹⁵</span> They asked of me: May dough be kneaded with milk? And I ruled that it was forbidden, this being in accordance with the law. For it has been taught: Dough may not be kneaded with milk, and if it is, the whole loaf is forbidden, because it may lead to transgression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bread may not be eaten with meat, consequently it is altogether forbidden, even with non-meat foods. ');">¹⁶</span> Likewise, an oven may not be greased with tail fat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden fat. ');">¹⁷</span> and if it is, the whole loaf [baked therein] is forbidden, until the oven is heated through.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To glow heat to remove all traces of the fat. ');">¹⁸</span> The other problem they propounded of me was: May two heterogeneous animals [of opposite sexes] be led into a stable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question is whether this is a transgression of Lev. XIX, 19: Thou shalt not cause thy cattle to gender with a diverse kind. Does 'cause' mean to give the opportunity only, as here, or actually to make the two copulate? ');">¹⁹</span> And I answered them that it is forbidden, this not being in accordance with the law. For Samuel said: In the case of adulterers, they [sc. the witnesses] must have seen them in the posture of adulterers;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when witnesses testify to adultery, it is not necessary for them to witness fornication in order to impose punishment. ');">²⁰</span> but in respect to diverse species, they must have seen him assisting [the copulation] even as [one places the] painting stick in the tube.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only then is Lev. XIX, 19, quoted in n. 4 infringed; hence, R. Papa's ruling that they may not even be led into one stable was merely a matter of additional stringency, not the Biblical law. ');">²¹</span> R. Ahadboi b. Ammi raised an objection: Had Scripture stated, Thou shalt not cause thy cattle to gender,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without adding 'with a diverse kind'. ');">²²</span> I might have thought [it to mean], One must not hold a beast when the male [even of its own kind] copulates with it; therefore it is said, with a diverse kind. Surely then this proves that in the case of different species one may not even hold [the female]! — By 'holding', 'assisting' is meant, and why is it designated 'holding'? As a more delicate term. Rab Judah said: In animals of the same species, one may 'assist' [at copulation] even as [one places the painting] stick in the tube, and it is not even forbidden on account of obscenity. Why? Because he is engaged in his work.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore it will not lead to impure thoughts. But one may not look upon the animals copulating, because the spectacle may excite evil passions. ');">²³</span> R. Ahadboi b. Ammi raised an objection:

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow