Do Not Plow an Ox with a Donkey—Reasons, Metaphors, and Sexual Undertones

Between the laws forbidding planting different types of seeds together and making garments of wool and linen, we find a brief prohibition of using two different kinds of animals to plow together:

^{דברים כב:י} לֹא תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו.

^{Deut 22:10} You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.^[1]

As Samuel Driver observed, in late 19^th century Palestine, “Plows are still sometimes harnessed to an ox and an ass.”^[2] The lack of an explicit explanation for the prohibition, combined with the specificity regarding the animals, inspired commentators from the Second Temple period to modern times to explain the meaning of this law.

1. Compassion for Animals

The most common interpretation of the law is that it reflects the Torah’s compassion for animals like we see in the prohibition of boiling a goat in its mother’s milk (Exod 23:19) and the proscription of muzzling an ox while it treads grain (Deut 25:4).^[3] Commentators have offered more than one explanation for the nature of the problem for the animals.

a. Unequal Burden

One explanation, found already in the works of Philo Judaeus, the 1^st century C.E. Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, is that the work is unevenly distributed between the bigger and smaller animal:

^{Philo, Special Laws 4:205} [T]hat which is the really sacred law takes such exceeding care to provide for the maintenance of justice, that it will not permit even the ploughing of the land to be carried on by animals of unequal strength, and forbids a husbandman to plough with an ass and a heifer yoked to the same plough, lest the weaker animals, being compelled to exert itself to keep up with the superior power of the stronger animal, should become exhausted, and sink under the effort. (Yonge translation, with adjustments.)

Philo continues by noting that even though the Torah classifies donkeys as unclean animals (as per Lev 11 and Deut 14),^[4] we are still to have compassion on them:

^{Special Laws 4:206} and the bull is looked upon as the stronger animal, and is enrolled in the class of clean beasts and animals, while the ass is a weaker animal and of the class of unclean beasts; but nevertheless he has not grudged those animals which appear to be weaker, the assistance which they can derive from justice.

He finishes, as was his wont, with an allegorical take-home message that applies, that being kind to even unclean animals teaches us that we need to treat all people equally, no matter their origins:

in order, as I imagine, to teach the judges most forcibly, that they are never in their decisions to give the worse fate to the humbly born, in matters the investigation of which depends not on birth but on virtue and vice.^[5]

In this vein, Paul of Tarsus, in his Second Letter to the Corinthians (6:14), tells his followers “Do not be unevenly yoked (ἑτεροζυγοῦντες) with unbelievers,” likely a play on this verse.^[6] The faithful are the strong ox, and the unfaithful are the weak donkey, holding the faithful back.

A Geonic collection called Midrash Chaseirot ve-Yeteirot, which explains why words are written with unusual plene or full spellings, expresses a similar sentiment:

^{מדרש חסרות ויתרות בראשית מו} כל חמור שבתורה מלא וא"ו חוץ מארבעה...^[7] "לא תחרש בשור ובחמר^[8] יחדיו" (דברים כב:י)—שהשור הוא חמר של חמור טוען טרחותו עליו.^[9]

^{Midrash Chaseirot veYeteirot Genesis §46} The word chamor (“donkey”) is always spelled full in the Torah except for four instances… “Do not plough with an ox and a donkey together” (Deut 22:10)—for the ox is like a donkey-driver for the donkey, lugging its burden upon itself.^[10]

The most influential articulation of this position appears in the commentary of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164) writes:

^{אבן עזרא דברים כב:י} ...והשם חמל על כל מעשיהו, כי אין כח השור ככח החמור.

^{Ibn Ezra Deut 22:10} …God took mercy on all He created because the strength of the donkey is not like the strength of the ox.

R. Isaiah deTrani (Rid, ca. 1180 – ca. 1250) quotes this view in the name of the Yerushalmi,^[11] and it also appears in Midrash Aggada^[12] on the Torah, and as Chizkuni’s (Hezekiah ben Manoah, France, 13^th century) third explanation.^[13]

Among modern scholars, Rabbi Elijah Schochet writes that, “the yoking of an ox and an ass is prohibited by the Bible, presumably because of differences between the species in strength, gait, and endurance that might cause difficulties for the weaker of the pair.”^[14] Jeffrey Tigay, Professor (emeritus) of University of Pennsylvania, offers this interpretation as well:

[T]he present law protects draught animals. Since they are of unequal strength, if they were yoked together, the strong might exhaust the weaker or one might cause the other to stumble and be injured.^[15]

For support, Tigay quotes an ancient Roman expert on agriculture, Marcus Varro, who writes regarding teams of oxen,

They should be powerful and equally matched, so that the strong will not exhaust the weaker when they work together.

If this was true for mismatched oxen, it would certainly be true regarding an ox and a donkey, as the latter is perhaps half of the weight of the former.^[16] Of course, the ox may also deserve some compassion because it is compelled to pull a much larger load when is yoked to a smaller less powerful partner, and must bear a greater percentage of the burden, as Jack Lundbom notes in his commentary:

This law is to prevent yoke-mates of unequal strength, which can impose a hardship on either or both of the animals—the ox because it is left to do most of the pulling or the ass because it is forced to work harder than it is able.^[17]

b. The Nonruminant Donkey Is Envious

Another approach focuses on the difference between the ox as a ruminant and the donkey as non-ruminant. Thus, the latter might become jealous and suffer because of the former’s seeming constant access to food.

^{ר' יוסף קרא דברים כב:י} כי הוא מעלה גרה וסבור החמור שהשור אוכל ואית ליה צערא.^[18]

^{R. Joseph Kara Deut 22:10} Since it chews its cud and the donkey will think that the ox is eating and this will cause it pain.

This view appears as well in the commentaries of Rid,^[19] Chizkuni,^[20] Paaneakh Raza,^[21] Hadar Zekeinim,^[22] Daʿat Zekeinim,^[23] and Rosh (R. Asher ben Yehiel, ca. 1250–1327).^[24] His son, R. Jacob ben Asher (d. 1340), in his short commentary, ties this explanation to a moral lesson in the book of Proverbs, which uses the same term ח.ר.שׁ “plow” in the context of how one person mistreats another:

^{בעל הטורים [הקצר] דברים כב:י} לפי שהשור מעלה גרה והחמור אינו מעלה גרה וכשיראה שהשור מעלה גרה יהיה סבור שהוא אוכל ומצטער וזהו אל תחרוש על רעך רעה שגורם לחמור שחורש על רעהו רעה.

^{Baal HaTurim (short com.) Deut 22:10} Because the ox chews its cud and the donkey does not chew its cud, and when it sees that the ox is chewing its cud it will think that [the ox] is eating, and this will cause it pain. And that is (Prov 3:29): “Do not plow (ח.ר.שׁ) harm against your fellow.”^[25]

This interpretation ascribes human perception and emotions to animals; an unusual imagining of a donkey’s inner life. That said, in an experiment, when capuchin monkeys received different rewards—a sweet grape versus a bland cucumber—for handing their trainer pebbles, the monkey that received the cucumber, after watching his partner receive grapes, violently threw the pebble at the trainer.^[26] Monkeys, however, are much smarter than donkeys.

c. Species Prefer to Be with Their own Kind

The Sefer HaChinukh (13^th cent.) also talks about kindness to animals, arguing that the different species make each other uncomfortable:

^{ספר החינוך תקנ} מטעמי מצוה זו ענין צער בעלי חיים שהוא אסור מן התורה, וידוע שיש למיני הבהמות ולעופות דאגה גדולה לשכון עם שאינם מינן וכל שכן לעשות עמהן מלאכה, וכמו שאנו רואים בעינינו באותן שאינם תחת ידינו כי כל עוף למינו ישכון, וכל הבהמות ושאר המינין גם כן ידבקו לעולם במיניהן.

^{Sefer HaChinukh §550} Among the reasons for this precept there is the matter of [causing] living animals pain, which is forbidden by the law of the Torah.^[27] It is known that the various species of animals and fowl have great anxiety in staying with others not of their own kind, and all the more certainly [if we decide] to do work with them—as we see with our eyes about those that are not under our hands [dominion]; that every bird will dwell with its own kind, and so all animals and other species will equally cling to their own kind always.^[28]

Like Philo (quoted above), the author continues with a derivative moral lesson:

^{ספר החינוך תקנ} וכל חכם לב מזה יקח מוסר שלא למנות שני אנשים לעולם בדבר מכל הדברים שיהיו רחוקים בטבעם ומשונים בהנהגתם כמו צדיק ורשע והנקלה בנכבד, שאם הקפידה התורה על הצער שיש בזה לבעלי חיים שאינם בני שכל, כל שכן בבני אדם אשר להם נפש משכלת לדעת יוצרם.

^{Sefer HaChinukh §550} So let everyone wise of heart learn a lesson not to ever appoint two men in any matter whatever who are far apart in their nature and different in their conduct, such as a righteous person and a wicked one, or a despicable person and a distinguished one. For if the Torah minded about the pain that animals have through this, which are not possessed of intelligence, then all the more so with people, who have an intelligent, reasoning spirit [by which] to know their Maker.

The Sefer HaChinukh’s idea of species wishing to remain separate overlaps with the other main approach to the law’s meaning, that it has to do with the Torah’s doctrine of separation of species.

2. Keeping Animal Species Separate

The set of three verses all speak of keeping species separate from each other—first two plant species, then two animal species, and then one animal and one plant product:

^{דברים כב:ט} לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ הַמְלֵאָה הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרָע וּתְבוּאַת הַכָּרֶם. ^כב:י לֹא תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו. ^כב:יא לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו.

^{Deut 22:9} You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed, else the crop—from the seed you have sown—and the yield of the vineyard may not be used. ^22:10 You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. ^22:11 You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen.

Thus, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan translates:

^{תרגום ירושלמי פסודו-יונתן דברים כב:י} לא תהוון רדיין בתורא ובחמרא ובכל ברייתא בתרין זינין קטירין כחדא.

^{Targum Yerushalmi, Pseudo-Jonathan Deut 22:10} Do not drive with an ox and a donkey or with any animals from two different species tied together.

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1140–1105) states the same principle:

^{רש"י דברים כב:י} הוא הדין לכל שני מינין...

^{Rashi Deut 22:10} That is the rule for every combination of kinds…

Among modern commentators, Carl Keil (1807–1888) and Franz Delitzch (1813–1890) make this connection:

In vv. 9-11, there follow several prohibitions against mixing together the things which are separated in God’s creation…^[29]

Notably, Elijah Benamozegh (1823–1900), in his Em LeMikra commentary, uses the Torah’s requirement of separating the species as evidence against Darwin’s view that the species are all related and that nothing essentially divides one species from the other.

To Prevent Mating

A subcategory of this interpretation focuses specifically on the problem of two species mating and producing hybrid offspring. Several commentators point to the parallel verse in Leviticus as evidence, since it also has three laws against mixing, and here, the animal law is about mating instead of plowing:

^{ויקרא יט:יט} אֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם וּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שַׁעַטְנֵז לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ.

^{Lev 19:19} My statutes you shall keep. Your beasts you shall not mate with a different kind. Your field you shall not sow with different seeds. And a garment of different kinds of thread, sha’atnez, shall not be donned by you.

Thus, R. Joseph Bekhor Shor (12^th cent) suggests interpreting the Deuteronomy passage in light of the Leviticus passage:

^{בכור שור דברים כב:י} ונראה שלכך אסר רחמנא חרישה משני מינין, שלא יבא להרגילם ולהרביעם זה עם זה. תדע שהרי בקדושים תהיו כתיב... (ויקרא יט:יט), והכא במקום "בהמתך לא תרביע" כתיב: "לא תחרוש בשור". אלמא: משום לא תרביע הוא.

^{Bekhor Shor Deut 22:10} It would seem that God forbade plowing with two species so that they don’t become used to each other and come to mate. Know that to be the case since in [Parashat] Kedoshim Tihiyu it says (Lev 19:19)… and here, in place of “your beasts you shall not mate” it says “do not plow with an ox…” Clearly, it is so that they don’t mate.

In his discussion of the reasons for the commandments, Moses Maimonides (1138–1204) offers the same understanding:

^{Guide or the Perplexed 3:49} I think the reason for the ban on teaming different species in work of any sort is just to make crossbreeding less likely. It says, “You may not plow with a donkey and an ox together” (Deut 22:10). If they are teamed, one might mount the other.^[30]

R. Moses Nahmanides (ca. 1195–ca. 1270) writes similarly:

^{רמב"ן דברים כב:י} והוא הדין לכל מיני הכלאים, והיא מצוה מבוארת מן: בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים (ויקרא יט:יט), שדרך כל עובד אדמתו להביא צמדו ברפת אחת וירכיב אותם.

^{Ramban Deut 22:10} This is the rule regarding all the diverse species. This is mitzvah is clarified by “your beasts you shall not mate with a different kind” (Lev 19:19), for the way of all farmers is to bring his working animals into the same stall and cause them to mate.^[31]

This is also the view of R. Bahya ben Asher (ca. 1255–ca. 1340), who argues that it is more compelling than Ibn Ezra’s argument about proper treatment of animals.^[32] Among moderns, Samuel R. Driver writes that the underlying principle of Deuteronomy is the same as Leviticus:

The motive of the prohibition appears to be the preservation of natural distinction: species... are designed by God to be distinct (Genesis 1); each possesses its own characteristic features; and a principle thus visibly impressed by the Creator upon nature is not to be interfered with by man.^[33]

According to Jacob Milgrom, mixed species belong only in the sacred sphere,^[34] as is evident in the case of cherubim and other hybrid animals that were consigned to the realm of the holy, in Israel’s case, the Tabernacle.^[35]

The difficulty with the mating explanation, as Jeffrey Tigay notes, are that bulls and donkeys are very unlikely to attempt mating. Further, if the goal was to prevent mating, they would not only be isolated at work, but after work as well.^[36]

3. The Ox and the Donkey as Symbol and Metaphor

The ox is a ritually pure animal and the most desirable sacrifice; its image ornaments Solomon’s Temple and serves as one of the four animals of the cherub, the composite creature of Ezekiel’s divine chariot.^[37] In contrast, the donkey (as an equid) is ritually impure. A common possession because of its status as the primary beast of burden in the ancient Near East, the disdain it could evoke is indicated by Jeremiah’s prediction about King Jehoiakim’s corpse:

^{ירמיה כב:יט} קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר יִקָּבֵר סָחוֹב וְהַשְׁלֵךְ מֵהָלְאָה לְשַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם.

^{Jer 22:19} He shall have the burial of a donkey, dragged out and left lying outside the gates of Jerusalem.^[38]

Thus, some commentators view the ox and donkey as sharply contrasting symbols or metaphors.^[39] R. Jacob bar Asher, for example, connects this prohibition to the distinction between pure and impure:

^{בעל הטורים (הקצר) דברים כב:י} טהור וטמא רמז שלא ישתתף צדיק עם רשע.

^{Baal Turim (short commentary) Deut 22:10} One is impure and the other pure, an indication that a righteous person should not associate with an evildoer.

In contrast, R. Yoel (12^th cent.) offers an allegorical reading that does not focus on the purity/impurity split, namely that each animal represents one of the two coming messiahs, following the tradition that first a Joseph descendent will come, then he will die, and a descendent of David will bring the final redemption:

^{רמזי ר' יואל דברים כב:י} אין משיח בן יוסף הנקרא שור ומשיח בן דוד הנקרא חמור באין יחדו אלא בן יוסף בא קודם ואחר כך בן דוד. וזהו "בשור ובחמור יחדו", בשור ובחמור בגימ[טריה] "בשני משיחים."

^{Rimzei R. Yoel Deut 22:10} The Messiah from the house of Joseph, who is called “ox” and the messiah from the house of David, who is called “donkey” cannot arrive together. Rather, the one from the house of Joesph arrives first, and afterwards, the son of David. This is what it means “with an ox and a donkey together” bashor ubachamor [with ox and donkey] in gematria (giving letters number value) comes out to the same as “with two messiahs.”^[40]

The Zohar understands both animals as representatives of the sinister (lefthand) side of the world. It begins the comment on a verse in Isaiah that mentions the two animals:

^{זוהר שמות בשלח ויבא עמלק} "מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר" (ישעיה לב:כ)—אִינּוּן תְּרֵין כִּתְרֵי שְׂמָאלָא, דַּאֲחִידָן בְּהוּ עַמִּין עכו"ם, דְּאִקְרוּן שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר.... א"ר אַבָּא, כַּד מִזְדַּוְּוגֵי כַּחֲדָא, לָא יַכְלֵי בְּנֵי עָלְמָא לְמֵיקָם בְּהוּ, וְעַל דָּא כְּתִיב (דברים כב:י) "לֹא תַחֲרוֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמוֹר יַחְדָּיו." יַחְדָּיו דַּיְיקָא.

“Who let the ox and donkey range freely” (Isa 32:20)—These are the two crowns of the left of which the Gentile nations have possession, that are called “ox and donkey”… Rabbi Abba said: “When they are joined together, the world cannot endure them. And regarding this, it is written (Deut 22:10): “Do not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” Specifically together.^[41]

Jonathan Fisher, in his work Scripture Animals (first published in 1833),^[42] suggests that the law is “to teach decency and symmetry in their conduct.” Or else, he suggestions, “it might be to impress the idea of the distinction there ought to be between God’s people and the people of the world -- between saints and sinners.”

These symbolic lessons have no real controls and can go in any direction. Nevertheless, it appears to me that one particular metaphorical reading has quite a bit of literary backing.

4. Critiquing Sex Between Jews and Gentiles

The small Geonic tractate, Derekh Eretz Rabbah, states that if a Jew has relations with an enslaved woman (shifcha), he violates the prohibition of plowing with an ox and a donkey together; the impure donkey is a reference to the woman.^[43]

^{דרך ארץ, עריות יא} הבא על השפחה חייב עליה משום ארבע עשרה לאוין וכרת בידי שמים, משום לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, ומשום לא תחרש בשור ובחמר ומשום לא תלבש שעטנז, ומשום לא תרצח, ומשום לא תנאף, ומשום לא תגנב, ולא תענה, ולא תחמד, ומשום אשת אב, ומשום אשת אח, משום שפחה, משום זונה, משום נדה, משום גויה.

^{Derekh Eretz, Arayot §11} One who has relations with an enslaved woman violates on her account fourteen prohibitions and a punishment of karet (a divine punishment meaning “cutting off”) from heaven: for “Your field you shall not sow with different seeds” and for “do not plow with an ox and a donkey” and for “do not wear a garment of different kinds of thread” and for “do not murder,” and for “do not commit adultery,” and for “do not steal,” and for “do not testify [falsely],” and for “do not covet,” and for “[lying with] one’s father’s wife” and for “[lying with] one’s brother’s wife,” and for “enslaved woman,” and for “harlot,” and for “menstruant,” and for “gentile woman.”

The modern scholar Calum Carmichael, who argues in general that the Torah’s laws are built upon the biblical narratives, argues that the is meant to allude to the story of Shechem and Dinah:

Shechem was the son of the Ass, Hamor, and he seduced (sexually ploughed in the colloquial of the time) Dinah, the daughter of the Ox, Jacob/Israel (Gen 49:6).^[44]

Plowing a field in the traditional sense involved the introduction of a wooden or metal tip into the earth in order to create a linear furrow, “in ways that tend to emphasize the receptive nature of female genitals.”^[45] Marten Stol notes that the likening of a woman to a fertile field “to be worked by a man” is ubiquitous and found in “all ages and regions.”^[46] Marvin Pope notes, “The sexual symbolism of terms like ‘vineyard,’ ‘orchard,’ ‘field’ is well established. The plowing and cultivation of a field is a natural figure for sexual intercourse.”^[47]

Sumerian/Akkadian Sexual Plowing

“The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi,” a Sumerian text of the second millennium B.C.E., relates that Inanna, the goddess of love, looks to Dumuzi (the shepherd king of Uruk) for fulfillment:

As for me, Inanna,
Who will plow my vulva?
Who will plow my high field?
Who will plow my wet ground?
As for me, the young woman,
Who will plow my vulva?
Who will station the ox there?^[48]

In another example of an “agricultural presentation” of Inanna, the goddess says:

Do not dig a canal, let me be your canal.
Do not plow a field, let me be your field.
Farmer, do not search for a wet place,
Let this be your furrow.^[49]

In the Amarna Letters, we find a message to the Pharaoh from King Rib-Adda of Byblos, that states:

^{EA §75} My field is like a woman without a husband due to lack of cultivation.^[50]

Plowing as Sexual Metaphor in the Bible and Second Temple Literature

During his wedding celebration, the powerful Danite Samson poses a riddle to his thirty Philistine wedding companions, which they have to answer by the end of the seven days, or else they must pay. The men only guess by threatening his wife to tell them the answer. Angry and resentful over his loss of the bet, Samson retorts,

^{שופטים יד:יח} ...וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם לוּלֵא חֲרַשְׁתֶּם בְּעֶגְלָתִי לֹא מְצָאתֶם חִידָתִי.

^{Judg 14:18} …Had you not plowed with my heifer, you would not have solved my riddle.

The sexual connotation is obvious: Samson imagines that his wife was unfaithful rather than acting under a death threat,^[51] as Ralbag (Rabbi Levi Ben Gershon, 1288–1344) comments:

^{רלב"ג שופטים יד:יח} ...אמר זה להורות שהוא היה חושד אשתו שזנתה עם אחד מהם ולזה גלתה לו ענין החידה...

^{Ralbag Judg 14:18} …He said this to show that suspected that his wife had sexual relations with one of them and that’s why she revealed to him the meaning of the riddle…^[52]

The Wisdom of Ben Sira (also known as Ecclesiasticus), written around 180 B.C.E., praises the man who marries a wise woman rather than one as incompatible for him as a donkey is for an ox:

^{בן סירא כה:ח} אשרי בעל אשה משכלת ולא חורש כשור עם חמור.

^{Ben Sira 25:8} Happy is the husband of a sensible wife, and who does not plow like an ox with a donkey.^[53]

In the Talmud

The Jerusalem Talmud uses this plowing metaphor to express how Rabbi Yossi Bar Halafta, a Tanna from the second century C.E., produced many children:

^{ירושלמי יבמות א:א} דרבי יוסי בן חלפתא ייבם את אשת אחיו, חמש חרישות חרש, וחמש נטיעות נטע...

^{j. Yebamot 1:1} R. Yossi ben Ḥalaphta contracted a levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He plowed five times and planted five saplings…^[54]

In Genesis 38, Judah’s son Er uses coitus interruptus to avoid getting Tamar pregnant and thus endanger his inheritance. Genesis Rabba (§85) uses a related metaphor, referring to his technique as דש מבפנים וזורה מבחוץ “threshing inside and winnowing outside.”

Finally, the Babylonian Talmud discusses the case of a man who intends to divorce his wife yet still cohabits and has sexual relations with her:

^{בבלי גיטין צ.} אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא: אִם לִבּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ, וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּחְתָּיו וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, מַהוּ? קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: ״אַל תַּחֲרֹשׁ עַל רֵעֲךָ רָעָה וְהוּא יוֹשֵׁב לָבֶטַח אִתָּךְ״.

^{b. Gittin 90a} “Rabbi Mesharshiyya said to Rava, “If he intended to divorce her and she is living with him and “serving”^[55] him, what is the halakha? Rava replied “Plow not evil against your fellow seeing that he lives securely near you” (Prov 3:29).^[56]

Thus, I suggest that the metaphor of avoiding sexual connection with non-Israelites can be plausibly read into the verse. And yet, this does not mean that it should not also be understood literally. Rather, I suggest that what we have here is a double entendre.

A Double Entendre

Scripture is primarily intended for a listening, rather than a reading, audience. Wordplay, therefore, especially if witty and suggestive, kept the audience attentive. In this case, it is a double-entendre, “an idiom or other figure of speech that may be understood in two ways. The first is straightforward and innocuous, whereas the second is usually risqué.”^[57]

The verse prohibiting plowing an ox with a donkey may well be concerned with the incompatibility of the two animals or forbidding mixture of species, but at the same time, the erotic usage of “plowing” in ancient Near Eastern texts, the negative connotation of donkey in comparison with the ox, and Deuteronomy’s usage of double-entendre elsewhere (see addendum) suggests that the phrasing of the verse was also meant to playfully warn against sexual activity with an outsider.

Addendum

Double Entendres in Deuteronomy

Presented as Moses’ final address to the Israelite nation, Deuteronomy is distinctive regarding the various rhetorical techniques employed to engage the listener, including double entendres.^[58]

For example, Deuteronomy forbids taking the upper or lower components of a portable grain mill in pawn because grinding wheat berries or whole barley into flour was necessary for survival. The upper, smaller stone was rubbed back and forth over a larger stone base.

The verse comes immediately after the requirement that a newly married man not leave his bride for the first year of marriage because of his obligation to make his wife “happy,” usually understood as a reference to sexual gratification.

^{דברים כד:ה} כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה חֲדָשָׁה לֹא יֵצֵא בַּצָּבָא וְלֹא יַעֲבֹר עָלָיו לְכָל דָּבָר נָקִי יִהְיֶה לְבֵיתוֹ שָׁנָה אֶחָת וְשִׂמַּח אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר לָקָח. ^כד:ו לֹא יַחֲבֹל רֵחַיִם וָרָכֶב כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל.

^{Deut 24:5} When a man has taken a bride, he shall not go out with the army or be assigned to it for any purpose; he shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household, to give happiness to the woman he has married. ^24:6 A handmill or an upper millstone shall not be taken in pawn, for that would be taking someone’s life in pawn.

The placement of v.6 after v.5 and not later in the chapter with the laws regarding taking garments in pledge hints at its allusiveness. Abraham Ibn Ezra quotes (while strongly rejecting) a sexual interpretation:

^{אבן עזרא כד:ו} אמרו המכחישים: כי נדבקה זאת הפרשה עם: ושמח את אשתו (דברים כד:ה), רמז למשכב,⁠ כי אסור שימנע המשכב, וזה הבל.

^{Ibn Ezra Deut 24:6} The deniers^[59] say that this section is connected to “and shall cheer his wife whom he has taken” (v. 5), for our verse alludes to coitus, namely, that it is forbidden to abstain from sexual intercourse. However, this is sheer nonsense.

והביאו ראיה מפסוק: תטחן לאחר אשתי (איוב לא:י), וכבר פירשתיו... והאמת שהוא כמשמעו, שאין רשות לאדם שיחבול רחים.

They offer as proof, “Then let my wife grind unto another” (Job 31:10). I have previously explained the latter… The truth is that our verse is to be taken at face value, that a person is prohibited from taking a mill to pledge.^[60]

While the plain sense of the verse should be maintained, the juxtaposition of ideas or images may very well have been intended to invoke a wry smile.^[61]

Another example is the case of a woman who intervenes to save her husband in a street fight by grasping the genitals of his opponent.

^{דברים כה:יא} כִּי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים יַחְדָּו אִישׁ וְאָחִיו וְקָרְבָה אֵשֶׁת הָאֶחָד לְהַצִּיל אֶת אִישָׁהּ מִיַּד מַכֵּהוּ וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו. ^כה:יב וְקַצֹּתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ.

^{Deut 25:11} If two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by his genitals, ^25:12 you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.^[62]

This law is juxtaposed to a prohibition of deceptive weights and measures:

^{דברים כה:יג} לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּכִיסְךָ אֶבֶן וָאָבֶן גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה. ^כה:יד לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּבֵיתְךָ אֵיפָה וְאֵיפָה גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה.

^{Deut 25:13} You shall not have in your pouch alternate weight-stones, a big one and a small one. ^25:14 You shall not have in your house alternate measures, a big one and a small one.

The juxtaposition is evocative.^[63] Two examples may not be sufficient to say that Deuteronomy does this generally, but it does make reading the plowing verse as a third example more plausible.