Bava Metzia 181

לא שאדם רשאי להמיר אלא שאם המיר מומר וסופג את הארבעים א"ל הא מני ר' יהודה היא דאמר לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו

Not that one is permitted to make an exchange, but that if he did the exchange is valid, and he receives forty [lashes]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 2a. This refers to Lev. XXVII, 33; neither shall he change it (sc. the consecrated animal): and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy. The first clause of the passage states that all have power to exchange, and then it goes on to say that that does not mean that one may exchange, but merely that his action is valid, the substitute too becoming holy, and that his action is punished by flagellation. Now, this offence consists only of speech, and hence this Mishnah refutes Resh Lakish's view that speech is an unsubstantial action. ');">¹</span>

ומי מצית מוקמת לה כר' יהודה והא קתני רישא הכל ממירין אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים והוינן בה הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי יורש ודלא כר' יהודה

He replied: That accords with R. Judah, who maintained that one is flagellated for [violating] a negative precept which involves no action.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But those who require an action do not consider speech sufficient. ');">²</span>

דאי כר"י האמר יורש אינו ממיר יורש אינו סומך האי תנא סבר לה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

But can you make this agree with R. Judah? Does not the first clause state: All have power to exchange, both men and women. Now, we pondered thereon, what is 'all' intended to add?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 496, n. 3. ');">³</span>

ת"ר החוסם את הפרה ודש בה לוקה ומשלם ד' קבין לפרה וג' קבין לחמור והא אינו לוקה ומת ואינו לוקה ומשלם אמר אביי הא מני ר"מ היא דאמר לוקה ומשלם

[And we answered,] An heir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the heir exchanged the animal consecrated by his deceased father, the substitute is valid. ');">⁴</span>

רבא אמר אתנן אסרה תורה ואפילו בא על אמו

And this does not agree with R. Judah: for if it did, surely he maintained that an heir can neither exchange nor lay hands?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Upon certain sacrifices the owner laid his hands prior to its slaughter. If the owner died, R. Judah maintained that the heir could not perform this ceremony. ');">⁵</span>

רב פפא אמר משעת משיכה איחייב לה במזונותיה ומילקא לא לקי עד שעת חסימה

— This Tanna agrees with R. Judah in one ruling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that a person is flagellated for a negative precept involving no action. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב פפא הני מילי בעו מינאי דבי רב פפא בר אבא ופשטי להו לאיסורא חדא כהלכתא וחדא דלאו כהלכתא

and disagrees in another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining against R. Judah that the heir can exchange. ');">⁷</span>

בעו מינאי מהו ללוש את העיסה בחלב ופשטי להו לאיסורא כהלכתא דתניא אין לשין את העיסה בחלב ואם לש כל הפת כולה אסורה מפני הרגל עבירה כיוצא בו אין טשין את התנור באליה ואם טש כל הפת כולה אסורה עד שיסיק את התנור

Our Rabbis taught: If one muzzles a beast and threshes therewith, he is flagellated, and pays [to the owner of the cow] four <i>kabs</i> in the case of a cow, and three <i>kabs</i> for an ass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the estimated quantity they eat per day. V. H.M. 338. 4. Isserles. ');">⁸</span>

ואידך בעו מינאי מהו להכניס מין ושאינו מינו לדיר ופשטי להו לאיסורא דלאו כהלכתא

But [is it not a principle], one is not flagellated and executed; nor is one flagellated and made to pay? — Abaye replied: This is in accordance with R. Meir, who maintained, One is flagellated and also made to pay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K 71a. ');">⁹</span>

דאמר שמואל ובמנאפים עד שיראו כדרך המנאפים ובכלאים עד שיכניס כמכחול בשפופרת

Raba said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS. Rome inserts: 'It may even be in accordance with the Rabbis, but this is stated if he wishes to appear justified before Heaven (lit., 'at the hands of Heaven'), even as is the case with the hire, for the Torah forbade, etc.' This renders clearer the argument that follows, v. Tosaf.] ');">¹⁰</span>

מתיב רב אחדבוי בר אמי אילו נאמר (ויקרא יט, יט) בהמתך לא תרביע הייתי אומר לא יאחוז אדם הבהמה בשעה שעולה עליה זכר ת"ל כלאים

The Torah forbade the hire [of a harlot], even if one had relations with his mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXIII, 19: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore&nbsp;… into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow. Now, 'hire' and 'whore' are quite unspecified, even if the latter is his own mother, in which case he is liable to death for incest. This proves that notwithstanding his liability to death, in which the money payment is merged, he strictly speaking (should he wish 'to appear justified before Heaven') must pay her the fee. For if she has no claim upon him at all, then even if he does pay her, it is not the hire of a harlot, but an ordinary gift to her which is not forbidden as a vow. Again, since it is recognised as a debt, if the harlot forcibly seized it from him, he cannot demand its return. So here too: though he is flagellated for threshing with a muzzled ox, he is morally indebted to its owner, and that is the meaning of the Baraitha, 'and pays.' etc. Or, if the owner seized it from him, he need not return it. ');">¹¹</span>

לאו מכלל דכלאים אחיזה נמי לא מאי אחיזה הכנסה ואמאי קרי לה אחיזה לישנא מעליא

R. Papa said: He becomes liable for its food from the moment of <i>meshikah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹²</span>

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: