יש חורש תלם א' וחייב עליו משום שמונה לאוין החורש בשור וחמור והן מוקדשין וכלאים בכרם ובשביעית ויום טוב וכהן ונזיר בבית הטומאה
Apropos the case where one receives several sets of lashes for performing a single action, the mishna continues: There is one who plows a single furrow and is liable to receive lashes for violating eight prohibitions. How so? For plowing with an ox and a donkey, in violation of the prohibition: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10); and they are consecrated, and therefore he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property; and he is plowing diverse kinds in a vineyard; and it is during the Sabbatical Year, when it is prohibited to work the land; and it is on a Festival, when plowing is a prohibited labor; and he is both a priest and a nazirite and is performing the plowing in a place of impurity imparted by a corpse, which is prohibited for both a priest (see Leviticus 21:1) and a nazirite (see Numbers 6:6).
חנניא בן חכינאי אומר אף הלובש כלאים אמרו לו אינו השם אמר להם אף הנזיר לא הוא השם:
Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai says: If he was wearing a garment consisting of diverse kinds of wool and linen while plowing he is also flogged for violating that prohibition. The Sages said to him: That is not a prohibition in the same category as the others, as it is not connected to the act of plowing. Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai said to them: According to that criterion, the fact that he is a nazirite is also not in the same category, as a nazirite and a priest are not flogged for plowing; rather, they are flogged for contracting impurity imparted by a corpse.
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:
GEMARA: Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Yosei says that when the mishna teaches with regard to wearing a garment of diverse kinds of wool and linen: And he removes it and dons it after each forewarning, does it mean that one is liable for each forewarning only if he actually removes and dons it, or perhaps one is liable even if he inserts and removes his arm from the sleeve of his garment [unkali]; perhaps this is also considered removing and donning the garment? The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, gestured: One is liable only for actually inserting his body in the garment entirely and then removing it. Rav Ashi says: The reference in the mishna is not to actually removing and donning the garment; rather, even if he only waited an interval equivalent to the period required to remove and to don the garment, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every forewarning.
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
§ The mishna teaches: There is one who plows a single furrow and is liable to receive lashes for violating eight prohibitions. Rabbi Yannai says that when the Sages sat in a group, their opinions were counted and they concluded: One who covers seeds of diverse kinds with dirt is flogged for sowing diverse kinds. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: Isn’t this the halakha in our mishna: There is one who plows a single furrow and is liable to receive lashes for violating eight prohibitions, including: For plowing with an ox and a donkey, and they are consecrated, and he is plowing diverse kinds in a vineyard. With regard to this person who plows who is liable to receive lashes due to violating the prohibition of diverse kinds, how can you find these circumstances? Plowing a field is unrelated to sowing diverse kinds. Is it not a case where one covers the seeds with dirt in the course of his plowing as he proceeds, indicating that one who covers the seeds of diverse kinds is flogged?
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
Rabbi Yannai said to him: You are correct; but if I had not lifted the earthenware shard for you, would you have found the gem beneath it? It was only after I told you the halakha that you succeeded in finding a source in the mishna. Later, Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: If it was not for the fact that a great man, Rabbi Yannai, praised your statement, I would say that there is no proof from the mishna, as it is possible to say: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is that of Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who maintains diverse kinds by performing actions essential for their existence is flogged. Therefore, one who plows and covers seeds of diverse kinds is liable to receive lashes, as he facilitates the existence of the diverse kinds, not because in covering the seeds it is as though he sowed them.
מאי רבי עקיבא דתניא המנכש והמחפה בכלאים לוקה רבי עקיבא אומר אף המקיים
The Gemara asks: What is the aforementioned statement of Rabbi Akiva? It is as it is taught in a baraita: One who weeds and one who covers the seeds of diverse kinds with dirt is flogged, as he performed an action that promotes the growth of the diverse kinds, which is tantamount to sowing. Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains diverse kinds violates the prohibition.
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)
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? As it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “Your field you shall not sow with diverse kinds” (Leviticus 19:19), I have derived only that sowing diverse kinds is prohibited. From where do I derive that maintaining diverse kinds, which does not involve any positive action, is also prohibited? It is as the verse states: “Your animals you shall not breed with different species [kilayim]; your field you shall not sow with diverse kinds [kilayim]” (Leviticus 19:19), which is interpreted as though it is written: Diverse kinds [kilayim] in your field you shall not sow, indicating that one may not allow diverse kinds to remain in his field.
אמר ליה עולא לרב נחמן ולילקי נמי משום זורע ביום טוב א"ל תנא ושייר
Ulla said to Rav Naḥman: And let him be flogged also for violating the prohibition of sowing on a Festival. Rav Naḥman said to him: Indeed, lashes for that prohibition could have been included in the mishna. The tanna taught certain prohibitions and omitted other prohibitions.
א"ל תנא קתני שמונה ואת אמרת תנא ושייר אמר רבא יש חילוק מלאכות בשבת ואין חילוק מלאכות ביום טוב אמר ליה עדא תהא
Ulla said to him: The tanna taught and specifically enumerated eight sets of lashes, and you say that he taught some and omitted some? Rava says: The reason that sowing on a Festival was omitted is that there is a division of labors on Shabbat, but there is no division of labors on a Festival. On Shabbat, one who unwittingly performs several prohibited labors during one lapse of awareness is liable to bring one sin-offering for each labor that he performed. On a Festival, if one performs several prohibited labors, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes, as there is one prohibition against performing labor on a Festival. Since the mishna listed plowing on the Festival, it does not also list sowing on the Festival. Ulla said to him: That [ada] is so.
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
Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rava: And is there no division of labors on a Festival? But didn’t we learn in a baraita: One who cooks a sciatic nerve in milk on a Festival and eats it is flogged with five sets of lashes. How so? He is flogged for violating the prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve (see Genesis 32:33); and he is flogged for violating the prohibition of cooking on a Festival not for the purpose of the Festival, as he is prohibited from eating it; and he is flogged for violating the prohibition of cooking a sciatic nerve, which is meat, in milk; and he is flogged for violating the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk; and he is flogged