You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest all the fruit be defiled, the seed which you have sown, and the increase of the vineyard.
Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard (kilei hakerem)
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא־תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם פֶּן־תִּקְדַּשׁ הַמְלֵאָה הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרָע וּתְבוּאַת הַכָּרֶם
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מאכול כלאי הכרם בלבד. והוא אמרו פן תקדש המלאה, ובאה הקבלה פן תקדש פן תוקד אש, רוצה לומר שאינו מותר ליהנות ממנו. וכבר קדם לך זה השרש כל מקום שנאמר פן ואל אינו אלא לא תעשה. ובשני מפסחים (דף כ"ד:) כשאמרו כל איסורין שבתורה אין לוקין עליהם אלא דרך הנאתן רוצה לומר שכל מה שנאסרה אכילתו הוא חייב באכילתו כשיהנה בו ואמר אחר כן הכל מודים בכלאי הכרם שלוקין עליו אפילו שלא כדרך הנאתו מאי טעמא דלא כתיב בהו אכילה אלא פן תקדש פן תוקד אש. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו במסכת כלאים, ואין חייבין עליה מן התורה אלא בארץ ישראל. (כי תצא, שם):
He prohibited us from eating forbidden mixtures specifically of the vineyard. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "lest the expansion become separated (tikdash)" (Deuteronomy 22:9). And the tradition (Chullin 115b) appeared - "'Lest tikdash,' lest tukad esh" (it be burnt by fire)," meaning to say, that it not be permissible to benefit from it. And you have already seen the principle - Wherever it is stated, Lest; or Do not, it is nothing other than a negative commandment (Zevachim 106a). And in the second chapter of Pesachim (Pesachim 24b), when they said, "We do not give lashes for any of the prohibitions of the Torah unless it is in the way of their enjoyment" - meaning to say - that anything the eating of which is forbidden is liable for its eating when he enjoys it - they said afterwards, "Everyone concedes about forbidden mixtures of the field, that we give lashes even when it is not in the way of its enjoyment. What is the reason? Since, eating, is not written about them; but rather, 'lest tikdash,' lest tukad esh." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Kilayim. And one is only liable for it by Torah law in the Land of Israel. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 10.)
Hebrew: Sefer HaMitzvot, Warsaw 1883 (public domain). English: Sefaria Edition, trans. Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2021 (CC0). Via Sefaria; translator’s footnotes omitted.
Literary form: a prohibition
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
- Recorded as practiced today
Classical halakhic consequences
The consequences the classical halakhah attaches to this commandment, grouped by who imposes them. Where a category has none recorded, that absence is itself meaningful.
Imposed by a court
- Lashes (malkot)
At the hands of Heaven
No divinely-imposed consequence is recorded.
Ritual remedy
No ritual remedy is recorded.
How the streams of Judaism treat this commandment
The streams of Judaism read the same commandment differently — an ongoing plurality, not a ranking. Each position below is reported as the catalog records it; none is presented as the correct one.
- Orthodox Binding
- Conservative Binding
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Disputed
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
How later traditions received this commandment
How later traditions read or reworked this commandment, each attributed to its own voice. The catalog’s own classification of each reception is shown as it records it, never adopted as GEBible’s.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 4.203-218 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 4.228 affirmed it
Where this commandment meets modern human-rights frameworks
One modern normative lens, attributed to it — not GEBible’s assessment. Each row names the framework it measures against and the catalog’s own classification of the relation.
This framework catalogues tensions; it records agreement in only one of its entries. The near-total tension rate is the shape of the instrument, not a finding.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The commandment prescribes flogging (malkot) for sowing diverse seeds among grapevines; post-Enlightenment norms treat corporal punishment as an incompatible method.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; the imposition of thirty-nine lashes for an agricultural planting practice — intercropping in a vineyard — falls within the class of physical punishments that international human-rights law designates as degrading treatment.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Modern penal proportionality doctrine holds that punishment must be commensurate with the harm caused; corporal punishment for a planting technique that causes no harm to persons exceeds any proportionate response under contemporary penal theory.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that lashes may only be imposed by a Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges, an institution that has not functioned since the destruction of the Second Temple; the malkot sanction is therefore de jure but not de facto enforceable.