Kilayim min HaTorah and Indeterminate Liability

Traditionally appreciated as a single Halacha category, there are three Biblical prohibited mixtures (Kilayim) exemplified by: (1) a cloth having intermixed wool & flax fibers; (2) a field having proximate or intermixed growing wheat & grapes; and (3) a yoke having an ox & a donkey harnessed together. Kelayim is a Biblical (Torat Moshe) statute that need not have -or- require any logical explanation. Nevertheless, I find that these three prohibited mixture examples share a common aspect, in that they each portray a novel class of ‘partial-theft’ (damages) – which can only be normally discovered some time after the event; while (ordinary) theft or damage evidence is potentially noticeable from the very moment an item is stolen or damaged. Furthermore, each of the three Keliam min haTorah examples are asymmetric; to varying degrees. Come and see:

[Not to make or wear] Cloth Having Intermixed Wool & Flax Fibers: (why?) Wool cloth is ideal for winter wear, even in the rain; beyond ‘just’ providing incredible insulation in icy cold winds, it absorbs large quantities of water, remains insulating & ‘breathing’, and thereafter quickly dries. At the other end of ‘best fiber’ materials is Flax cloth (linen), which is ideal for summer wear, being lightweight; and even airy, when loosely woven. However, flax fibers (left wet) will rot. Generally wool fiber, yarn, and cloth are more expensive than flax fiber, thread, and cloth. Thus, an unscrupulous seller would make a greater profit by selling ‘wool’ cloth having interwoven wool with flax fiber; while the unsuspecting buyer may only discover the mixture after the cloth has become very wet, and thereafter presents holes where the intermixed, blended, combined, or interwoven flax rotted. Asymmetrically, some wool fiber in flax cloth would probably be accidental (by reason of the difference in costs); yet, would nevertheless eventually form a hole in the cloth, when wet wool fiber (retaining water) would cause the surrounding flax fibers to rot.

Now, regarding assessment of damages, the owner of a fine woolen coat may perhaps only wear it on Shabbat & special occasions; thus, it may be years before that coat gets soaked during a heavy rain, and then (maybe months later) holes will begin to appear in the coat (from the rotted flax fibers) → while the owner may presume that these are moth eaten spots, or that they came from something (other than water) that spattered onto the coat. Notice here (in this example) that a Beit Din would not be able to assess the damages; since it would be hard to establish how much value the coat’s owner accumulated before the holes appeared,  and, presuming that this wool coat still has unknown flax fibers, it is no longer wearable by its owner nor ‘saleable for wear’ to a fellow Jew. Simply stated, what was once a fine woolen coat is now only usable as a carpet or as an under-saddle blanket-pad.

[Prohibiting] A Field Having Proximate or Intermixed Growing Wheat & Grapes [and resultant products]: (why?) There are more than 1500 different kinds of yeasts, and each micro-ecosystem includes different dominant yeast varieties; generally also including various minor amounts of other types of yeast. Bread in the ordinary world (today called artisan bread) is the product of a regular admixture of new flour & water to a continuously fermenting sourdough culture; whose dominant yeast varieties are those normally found on the grain – from which the flour was milled. However, if the wheat was grown proximate to grapes, then the resultant flour will include a larger percent of grape skin typical yeasts; which in turn will change the mixture of yeasts growing in the continuously fermenting sourdough culture – so that the sourdough culture will eventually (perhaps month later) change character as a bread leavening agent. Similarly, Wine fermented from grapes which grew in proximity to grain will include a larger percent of grain husk typical yeasts, so that closed containers of that wine will eventually spoil rather than mature properly with ‘sufficient’ age; again the discovery of the intermixed yeasts will only occur long after that wine was initially produced. 

As in the case of wool with intermixed flax fibers, the seller of grapes is defrauding the buyer: if the grapes were grown proximate to growing grains, since these grapes include significant amounts of grain yeasts – and damages occur after the buyer uses those grapes to make wine for long term storage. NOTE: Modern species of grapes are very juicy, while ancient species of thick syrupy-juice grapes were preferred; by reason that the ancient vintner’s larger terracotta/ceramic vessels (amphorae) represented a significant investment, unlike our minimal concerns for (mass produced) disposable or recyclable glass bottles.   

For example, from a very large production of wine that needs many years of aging to reach proper maturity (such as wine from Tokaji grapes today), a person opening one of these bottles many years after they were produced, and finding that this particular bottle of wine had gone ‘off’ (rather than becoming extra-outstanding) may presume that there was some contamination during the original processing rather that presuming that the grapes made into this wine were from a vineyard (or the part of that vineyard) in close proximity to growing grain. Nevertheless, if that same bottle had been opened much earlier, the wine would have been considered OK; except for being somewhat insufficiently aged, and thus of a less than fully matured (capable of much greater complexity). What does the Beit Din do here, since the owner could have gotten value from that older wine if he had opened it earlier -and- how could it be known if this was caused by an error of the grower, or was the error introduced during the processing of the grapes, or in the bottling of the wine, or in the storage of the bottled wine. Simply stated, an example of the asymmetry of grapes grown proximate to wheat is that raisins are sometimes used these days to start sourdough (just as wine vat lees were used in ancient times), but grain yeasts can mess up wine production; more particularly a wine’s maturation. 

Turning to the vast Rabbinic injunction expansion of plant species intergrowth limitations cataloged in the Mishnah, this is again of particular relevance; especially in light of renewed interest in ‘organic’ farming, and the increasing popularity of naturally fermented vegetables, pickled herbs, craft beers, natural vinegar, and probiotics – each of which rely upon respective micro-ecosystem native yeasts. Between the Torat Moshe example of distancing vineyards from wheat fields and the Mishnah many plant species comparisons (respectively as allowed or considered as Kilayim), there were about 1500 years of agricultural experience & development. Thus, one may (at minimum) presume that all of their prohibited proximate plant species examples derived from practical considerations of each crop’s viability (including such as aspects as insect infestation, plant blight, fungus, and soil ‘nutrient’ vitality – even inclusive of Sabbatical Year’s return to naturally diverse field ecosystems); and respective future storage – such as processing (if normally naturally fermented or included in fermentation). 

[Forbidding] An Ox & a Donkey Harnessed on the Same Yoke: (why?) While it may be difficult to exactly match the strengths of two oxen on a single yoke or two donkeys on a single yoke, balancing the strengths of two beasts of burden on the same yoke will make steering the wagon or the plow (that they are pulling) much easier for the driver. Putting an ox & a donkey on the same yoke will generally cause the driver to force the donkey to try to equal the strength of the ox; and sometime (probably years) thereafter the physical damage to the donkey will become apparent. Essentially, one ox can replace a pair of donkeys – so if one of a pair of donkeys is unavailable, then an ox can be used in place of the donkey pair. However if one of a pair of oxen is unavailable, then substituting a donkey to draw with the ox will typically cause long term damage to that donkey. Again, how can Beit Din determine the cause of the donkey’s reduced work life (normally of at least 20 years); was it perhaps by being harnessed with an ox (long enough to cause such damage), or was it other factors related to the working and/or feeding of the donkey, or is this just the natural state of that specific donkey?

Simply stated, each of the three mixture types causes property value disruption which will generally not become instantly apparent; giving the person who performed the forbidden mixture – both time & opportunity to avoid responsibility for the eventual irreparable damages. These biblical examples, as a class, require a different standard of care and of remedy than is otherwise appreciated for theft, larceny, or physical types of damages; particularly by reason that here penalty and/or recovery are much harder to prove; and the value of benefits which were derived from indeterminate amounts of productive use are nigh impossible to assess.

NOTE: Most of the Keliam discussion (above) was originally written for & published in a Memorial Booklet → Sincerely & Respectfully Dedicated to M’Ori Shlomo ben Avraham A”H – the solitary founder & consistently altruistic driving force behind Mechon Mamre https://mechon-mamre.org/shelomo.htm, a very dear friend for 40 years, an unimaginably modest world-renowned authority on Mishneh Torah, and the most diligent Interdisciplinary Sifrei Kodesh Scholar that I have ever known. 

Recapitulation

The Mishnah & Halacha of Kilayim expand the Biblical examples to include prohibition of other mixed fibers, other proximate dissimilar cultivated plants, and other dissimilar draft animal species (all of which seem to improve the technology of textiles and to increase the domestication of plants & of animals – efforts which began long before Matan Torah -and- which continue to this day). While these expanded prohibitions seem to be Rabbinic injunctions, to the best of my (very limited understanding) they seem to be treated as Biblical commandments (of the TaRYaG Mitzvot), and exemplifications of such prohibited acts are often considered to be indications of witchcraft, idolatry, shamanism, and the like. Interestingly, every few years some agricultural expert hits upon the ‘innovative idea’ of growing multiple species together – literally side-by-side or in alternating rows. However exciting it may sound: to grow nitrogen fixing plants (like peanuts, legumes, clover, or alfalfa) that take nitrogen from the atmosphere and add it to the surrounding soil -next to- nitrogen depleting plants (like tobacco, corn, tomatoes, or cabbage) that extract nitrogen from the surrounding soil ⇒ subsequent ‘modern’ agricultural ‘experiments’ demonstrate that this process fails to achieve significant results; such as by reducing expected crop yields, by making harvesting more expensive, and/or by forming ecosystems where various harmful bacteria, fungus, and insects thrive. 

While wine is still made from ‘must’: freshly crushed grapes, still containing juice, skins, seeds, and stems; most modern wine production seems to be unaffected from use of vineyards (even) surrounded by proximate grain growth ⇒ since many ‘ordinary’ wines today are made from pasteurized grape pressings (juice – ‘mevushal’ – which kills all of the natural yeasts in the grape juices) and then is ‘seeded’ with one or more specific wine yeasts. 

Likewise, while using draft animals to pull a wagon or a plow have been replaced with trucks & tractors, ‘modern’ experiments with mixed herds have yielded negative results; herds of mixed breeds of beef cattle exhibit disturbed social organization and agonistic interactions which could be considered as potential sources of stress – that in turn result in cattles’ lower body weights and inconveniences in herd management (economic losses); while mixed species flocks of goats & sheep have very different dietary sensitivities, produce stillborns if interbreeding, and are nigh impossible to fence in – since the goats generally jump and/or damage the fencing, allowing the sheep to escape too. 

Simply stated, while here is presented a common reason for the three prohibited mixtures, the Rabinnic expansion of the original example into many other gradations proves to remain “Best Life Practices Advice” for modern fiber mills, vintners, farmers, herdsmen, and shepherds. 

NOW → IF (and ONLY IF) my amateur pseudo-Halacha analysis of common aspect of these three original Biblical (Torat Moshe) Kilayim restrictions is substantially correct or reasonably plausible, THEN one may consider extending the logic of this class of ‘partial-theft’ (damages) Liability – which can ONLY be normally discovered some time after the event. Here are some ‘obvious’ examples of potential delayed long-term effects which should Require extreme caution: Food Additives – colorants, artificial ‘flavors, leavening agents, and preservatives; prescription & nonprescription Medicines which were insufficiently ‘longitudinally’ tested -or- not removed from the ‘market’ as soon as such effects became more than nominally suspect (in that virtually all medications are partially toxic to some bodily organs or systems – initially or after prolonged use ⇒ hence their certification as “Safe and Effective” – meaning safer than other medication in use to treat the same ailment -and- meaning more effective than other medications which are all likewise never effective on all persons having the respective ailment); Consumer Products which may cause fire or flood or the like – even when correctly installed & properly used; below standard construction materials and/or workmanship – leading to eventual structural failures, insulation breaches, molding, rot, leakage, insect infestations, etc.; and Professional Design Flaws – which were insufficiently scrutinized before actualization -or- were not subject to recall or repair when compared to latter professional standards. 

NOTE: These examples should only be considered IF proper initial inspection could NOT have discovered the respective flaws -OR- IF the (private or government – Halacha or Engineering) AGENCY providing the inspection certification was/is irresponsible or just plain sloppy of proper inspection: protocol, training, or the like. Again, like the Kilayim examples (which have Biblical Halacha Status), these post-modern industrial examples pose significant (quasi-Rabinic Status) quandaries for Beit Din to resolve, since such latent damages occur long after the initial negligence; perhaps surviving those persons, contractors, or companies – who should have been responsible.