You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.
Not to yoke together two different species of animals for work
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא־תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר־וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהיר מעשות מלאכה בכלאי בהמה יחד, והוא אמרו לא תחרוש בשור ובחמור יחדו, וכל זמן שתעשה בהם מלאכה כגון חרישה או דישה וימשוך שניהם יחד לוקה מאמרו יחדו, רוצה לומר שלא יחבר שניהם יחד במלאכה אחת מהמלאכות. אמנם מן התורה אינו חייב מלקות אלא על שני מינין אחד בהמה טמאה ואחד טהורה. כגון שור וחמור, וכשחרש בהם או משכם יחד לוקה. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו במסכת כלאים. (כי תצא, שם):
He prohibited us from doing work with a forbidden mixture of animals together. And that is His saying, "You may not plow with an ox and with a donkey together" (Deuteronomy 22:10). And each time he does work, such as plowing or threshing with them - or he leads both of them together - he is lashed. [This is] from His saying, "together" - meaning to say, not to bind the two of them together for any [type of] work. However, according to the Torah, he is only liable with two species, one of which is is an impure animal and one of which is pure - such as an ox and a donkey. And once he plowed with them - or pulled them - together, he is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Kilayim. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Diverse Species 1.)
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 Binding
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 Virtutibus 145-146 rationalized it Philo grounds the prohibition in humane treatment of animals, the unequal pairing of strong and weak beasts; the broader mixtures discussion appears in De Specialibus Legibus 4
Josephus
- Ant. 4.228 affirmed it treats the diverse-kinds cluster (seed and animal mixtures) broadly rather than yoking-for-work specifically
The New Testament
- 2 Corinthians 6:14 read it allegorically the adjective heterozygountes ('unequally yoked'), in the imperatival mē ginesthe heterozygountes, reads the agricultural ban as metaphor for separation from unbelievers
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 a direct contradiction.
Mishnah Makkot 3:2 prescribes thirty-nine lashes for yoking two different species together for labor; modern penal proportionality precludes corporal punishment for an agricultural practice that harms no identifiable person.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; court-administered flogging for an animal-yoking offense is incompatible with the prohibition on degrading punishment under this article.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
The malkot sanction has not been administered since the dissolution of the Sanhedrin; the de jure norm exists but has no operative enforcement mechanism in contemporary Jewish legal practice.