Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios
talmudology.com
talmudology.com
And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened.
> Rabba said: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall is liable to pay four of the five types of indemnity that must be paid by one who damaged another, and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner. He is liable to pay for injury, pain, loss of livelihood, and medical costs. However, he is not liable to pay for the shame he caused her, as the Master said: One is not liable to pay for shame unless he intends to humiliate his victim…
This is a description of a rape, and the person who committed it came up with a story to explain it away, and the Talmud has codified this excuse as justifying a modest penalty, and it's recorded in such a way that others may use it. "Ah, sorry [your honor or equivalent], I fell off a roof, you see, and ...". Awful.
The only thing one should learn from this is that the Talmud can be wrong, that sometimes, people lie and cover up their crimes, and that whoever recorded this case abetted the criminal. That's wrong and we should do better.
‘Generally’, but not always! Especially in the Talmud. As explained in the article, the Talmud has a strong tradition of using hypotheticals throughout to clarify edge cases in the laws. And not just here: I was taught a few pages of Talmud once (from Bava Metzia, as I recall), and most of the cases I learnt about were obvious hypotheticals aimed at systematically exploring each and every legal possibility. In this particular instance, absolutely everyone, from modern-day readers to Rabba when he imagined such a case, knows that the described situation would be utterly implausible; anyone who claimed this happened in real life would be obviously lying. But it is useful in elucidating the law to figure out the consequences if it actually had happened in reality.
EDIT: Perhaps [0] (Bava Metzia p21a) is a better example of what I mean. The text systematically describes various situations where scattered kernels are dispersed across a large area: a half-kav scattered over 2×4 cubits, one kav over 4×4 cubits, two kavs over 8×4 cubits, and so on, until all the possibilities are exhasted. None of these are necessarily real cases which have occurred in real life — they’re just enumerating the possibilities to iron out all the edge cases. The hypothetical you quoted accomplishes the same task, albeit less obviously.
[0] https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.21a.14?ven=William_David...
The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentional, and gives an excuse for would have rapists.
Your example is more like the first economists, before they called themselves that, wondering about sunk costs, opportunity costs, the value of time and effort, and so on.
It's possible for one book to both have appalling purposes and meaningful thought experiments That's the case here.
You don't have to renounce your faith to admit the text is flawed, human. That's all I ask that people learn.
Let me be clear here: this is a hypothetical case. It did not actually happen, nor has it ever happened. In fact, it is so obviously implausible that no-one would dare use this situation as an excuse, and if they did, the only possible conclusion is that they were lying. The Talmud does not condone this as an excuse.
So then, why do the scholars include this hypothetical if it’s useless for actual rape cases? It is to illustrate a particular legal point: namely, that in Jewish law, intention matters, but monetary compensation is just as important. They do this by considering this highly contrived case, which would never happen in practice but makes the point as clear as possible. Of course, it is nearly impossible to rape someone accidentally (though see below). But the principle sets a general precedent for other cases, in which a lesser crime might have been committed unintentionally.
(Curiously enough, a few years ago there was a high-profile case of ‘accidental rape’ in Australia. The man claimed he thought the woman had given him consent; the woman claimed she had never given consent. I can’t seem to find a link, but if I recall correctly, the judgement was eventually in favour of the man. Modern laws have edge cases too! And applying Rabba’s dictum here would actually have given a fairer result: the man would still have had to compensate the woman for any injuries.)
> You don't have to renounce your faith to admit the text is flawed, human. That's all I ask that people learn.
Of course! Texts are human, and the Talmud especially so: it’s literally a record of a bunch of people debating with each other and criticising each others’ legal interpretations. But this particular part of it is not problematic.
It absolutely is problematic. This is a description of rape, there is no point in discussing the hypothetical including whether the man "acquires" the woman (as if she were property), otherwise.
The authors are entertaining this hypothetical because men have used absurd excuses for rape for a very long time.
The Talmud is quite clear here that in this case, the rape is not the worst part of the events.
Huh? No-one said anything about ‘acquiring’ people. In Jewish law women are not property, nor should they be (as if it needs to be said).
And as I said, it is wrong to assert that ‘there is no point in discussing the hypothetical’. The scholars quoted in the Talmud regularly discussed hypothetical, bizarre and impossible situations in order to set general guidelines and clarify edge cases in the law. This is but one of very very many examples of the practice, and I don’t see the need to give a special justification for why this one should be considered.
One additional point which I should probably make clearer: here, we are considering a hypothetical case where the described scenario literally happened, as a matter of fact rather than imagination. (As in, say, the whole thing was witnessed by several other people who agree that the man did literally fall off a roof.) We are not considering it as an excuse, because that would be governed by a whole different set of laws.
This is whether or not the rape makes the woman his, yes? And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom.
But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me, but since the scholars and the blog post strive to avoid discussing what is actually described here, it's hard for me to say.
I didn't decide on "acquires" for the translation, but it seems you'll talk about anything except what this passage literally describes.
(Still, it’s a bit of a misleading translation on their part… women aren’t property in Jewish law, as I already said.)
> And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom.
Yes, I believe this is correct.
> But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me
I think the idea would be that ‘acquisition’ in this context is relevant for yevamot, but it is irrelevant if she is not his yevama.
> the scholars and the blog post strive to avoid discussing what is actually described here, it's hard for me to say … it seems you'll talk about anything except what this passage literally describes.
We are talking about what the passage literally describes: Rabba’s discussion of the consequences according to Jewish law when ‘one who fell from a roof … was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall’. But what it literally describes is absurd, so the blog post talks about the next most reasonable interpretation — that this is a hypothetical case, exactly like many others in the Talmud. As far as I can see, it is you who is trying to claim that this text is some sort of special attempt to let men have an excuse for rape in general, which it isn’t.
On the other hand, the story is so unbelievable that I am unable to imagine a circumstance in which this specific fabrication, and not some other, had any chance of being believed.
One possible resolution, perhaps, is that this has its roots in a real rape case where the "accident" was more plausible, but involved the accused already intentionally doing something he should not, so it was changed to falling off a roof in order to remove this side-issue.
The Talmud brought two different hypothetical cases. One where she was his yevama, and one where she was not. That's because there are two different laws whereby it makes a difference if sexual intercourse is considered to have occurred or not. In fact, the main topic of the tractate is the yevama case, and the non-yevama case is brought by-the-by.
Summary of the laws of yevamot: If a man dies childless, his brother has an obligation to marry the widow, if they both consent. If they do not, a procedure called halitzah is performed instead. Until one or the other happens, the widow can't marry anyone else. If they do decide to marry, unlike regular marriage, there is no marriage ceremony - sexual intercourse is all that is needed to make them man and wife with all that entails. That's why it talks about "acquiring", but it's not in the sense of property rights (there are none!) - rather in the sense of being married (think about the English phrase "my wife").
Hope that clears it up. Now that Shabbat is over, the main bulk of those who learn the Talmud can join the conversation :)
Unless you have a source for this I missed, you don't know this is true either.
Next thing that happens is smoking is forbidden while you're driving.
> This is a description of a rape, and the person who committed it came up with a story to explain it away, and the Talmud has codified this excuse as justifying a modest penalty
This conclusion is unwarranted. This is a description of a sex act which the parties were not willing to admit to. But nothing about the story indicates that it's a rape. If consensual sex between the man and the woman would be forbidden by the local culture, it has just as much need to be explained away as a rape would.
(And since in this case the woman's shame is public -- and explicitly commented on in the ruling -- the woman wouldn't have much to lose by contradicting her rapist's account of falling off a roof.)
Hello there, interesting that you say that. What's it like in a different universe where women have always been able to safely point out an abuser?
This particular example is about a sex act that happened by accident. While falling down is a ridiculously improbable, similar instances are not. Once at a party in dark corridor I grabbed a woman who I thought was my girlfriend (whom, I confirmed previously, was liked being surprised in this way) but turned out it was someone else. I was mortified and ashamed, and had I been religious, this would have been exactly the example I would have reached for.
Bava Metzia in the Steinsaltz edition is a good starting point.
It can be read online, free at: https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia
Sefaria is really, really good. Chabad have some great resources too.
or bought at ( Hebrew version ) https://korenpub.com/products/the-steinsaltz-talmud-bavli-ba...
English version at : https://www.amazon.com/Adin-Steinsaltz/e/B008F6AFJ2?ref=sr_n...
Some other great books by Steinsaltz: https://www.amazon.com/Adin-Steinsaltz/e/B008F6AFJ2?ref=sr_n...
For those who want something non-Halachic, his Tales of Rabbi Nachman would be good. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003S9VNQU/ref=dbs_a_def_r...
In case you didn't guess: the first guy played the piano and the doctor was having an affair with his patient's wife.
So is playing the piano a valid cause for termination if nobody can hear it? Of course what every student ask is how the hell did the landlord know it was played?
And, providing suicide is not illegal where the second case happened, is the doctor guilty of incitement to a non-crime?
To add the "stop looking at the finger" part, they tell you that there's proof of what happened, but still most students keep wondering how was it known.
For the doctor, assuming the doctor intentionally lied to his patient and this wasn't just a coincidental mistake, then I would say the doctor is guilty of murder by way of the felony murder rule. My logic being that tricking someone into believing they have a terminal disease constitutes (or should constitute) felony fraud. A person dying (by way of suicide) as a consequence of your felony means the felony murder rule applies and you are responsible for the death that results as a consequence of your felony.
Grabbing the wheel and jerking hard left...
If the owner installs camera/microphones to check the piano status, that would be very creepy and leaning into the spying realm. If the owner installed sensors on the keys/hammers/strings/etc to detect movement, then I think I'd be okay with that. Those sensors would not know that you like to do naked yoga or pick your nose for 20 solid minutes every morning while still "protecting" the owner's wishes. Now, I'm trying to really think of if that's also invasive or if I'm accepting it for the sake of the derailed argument.
Regardless, I could imagine it might incentivize spying otherwise.
In this case it's not the state that's spying, it's the landlord, and the landlord is constrained by the punishments for violating the law against spying.
A slightly different spin on it, if the landlord witnessed a murder while illegally spying on his piano should his recording or testimony be admissible in court? I would say yes though again the landlord should face whatever spying penalties apply.
Evidence collected by the state in violation of Constitutional protections relating to search and seizure rights of the defendant is generally (with, however, ever-widening exceptions) inadmissible in criminal trials.
Otherwise, illegally-obtained may or may not be permitted; it quite often is, though presenting it opens one up to charges relating to the illegal act involved in gathering it.
I can't remember what happened with the piano. IIRC, both cases happened in Germany and the piano one was long ago so cameras and mics were not a possibility then. Anyway the legal foundation in play there was if there's somehow a legitimate interest in the clause, not just a whim.
"Criminal organization" is a crime in itself so it's a different tool to apply tougher penalties. But, apart from that, the complicity rules have more strict requirements.
This is also true in the United States, where it's called "racketeering".
The doctor should lose their license and possibly be sentenced to murder but you would have to prove what was in his mind. Helps if he had a history of affairs with women whose spouses died under his care. Source: watched enough law and order.
> If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall and in the course of its flight the knife went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner
If a mistaken slaughter can be kosher, then so can a machine conducted slaughter, since we can assume that human intention is not required.
The irony of this strikes me - all the other Rabbis are applauded for their far-fetched scenarios, then this one is punished for something which (arguably) is less far-fetched.
Scarcely the only instance of irony in the Talmud. I have the suspicion that (at least sometimes) the irony is intentional
Like any other religious text, I'd question the idea it has a single meaning waiting to be understood. Just as Christians differ immensely in how to interpret the New Testament, I'd expect Jews to differ immensely in how to interpret the Mishnah and Gemara (and other associated literature) – of course, there is a certain core of majority-to-consensus opinion, but beyond that there is a lot of variation (you could say the same, roughly, about Christianity–although Christianity's much greater size and fissiparity makes this rather more marked in the Christian case.) Whichever religion we are talking about, I don't think we can necessarily say that in an objective sense, one interpretation is going to be right and the others wrong. Nobody can be sure what exactly was in the heads of the original authors, and with works of collective authorship, different authors may have understood the same passage in different ways–which understanding then is the "original" one?
I think antisemites generally jump to the worst possible readings of the Talmud, and are completely disinterested in any other readings, or understanding the history of the different ways in which it has been read–because they aren't approaching the text with an honest interest in it, simply using it as a means to express their animus towards the community which produced it. On the other hand, sometimes I get the impression that some Jewish defenders of the Talmud are too quick to rule out those kinds of problematic readings. Consider the late Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, widely considered to be one of the greatest Torah scholars of his generation–yet also infamous for remarks such as "Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel"–while I have never read any of his Talmudic scholarship (has any of it even been translated to English?), if that is his attitude, I would not be surprised if he interpreted sources such as the Talmud in support of that perspective–and yet, those would be the kinds of interpretations of the Talmud which would make its antisemitic critics rub their hands with glee. Of course, views like Ovadia Yosef's are those of a small fringe of hardliners – Judaism has its "fundamentalists" just as Christianity and Islam and Hinduism and others have – and it is unfair to misrepresent the views of such an ultra-conservative minority as the mainstream reading or the only possible reading. On the other hand, it is also a mistake to refuse to acknowledge that the text can actually be read in such a way, and a (rather small, but arguably growing) minority of Jews even do.
Also, when antisemites cite the Talmud as justification for persecution, is that a cause or is it just a pretext? Could it be, that they would have engaged in the same quantum of persecution even if they'd never interpreted the Talmud as saying things they found objectionable? If there is a parallel universe out there in which most Jews were Karaites rather than Rabbanites, and as such most Jews would reject the Talmud, and (if it existed at all) it would be an obscure text of a tiny Jewish sect – it seems entirely possible that in such a universe, antisemites might have persecuted Jews just as much as in this one. They just would have found some other excuses for doing it.
a large number of Jews do "daf yomi" (translated: a page a day), where they learn a page a day of talmud, everyone being on the same cycle and thus learning the same page in paralel. Many publications, talmudology.com included, put out daily (or sometimes weekly) pieces on the daily page of talmud, often aimed at working and/or unlearned people who don't have the time or ability to learn through a page of talmud (and draw an idea or two out of it) every day. That's why the article starts with "On tomorrow’s page of Talmud". The page of talmud that everyone's going to read tomorrow on the 30th is the 54th page of tractate Yevamot.
So don't tense up about it. The Talmud is appreciated for its thought provoking questions by many people, both Jews and Gentiles.
I think you just summed up a large portion of the internet.
1) Conspiracies. There's a millennia-long history of conspiracy theories involving the Talmud, and talk about the Talmud often see conspiracy theorists surface which sidetracks any rational discussion.
2) Religion. To this day, there is a significant group of religion Jews who take the Talmud extremely seriously as Scripture or at least as Scripture-adjacent. This annoys some people and tends to cause aggressive conversations.
3) Politics. Anything that can be connected to politics turns into a political argument. The Talmud seems to serve as easy fodder.
4) Misunderstandings. The Talmud is a complicated set of documents written for a very specific in-group and isn't easy to understand without a lot of help. There are various misunderstandings of it which often someone decides they need to share as though they were facts. Trying to correct or nuance these misunderstandings often then quickly devolves into a discussion of conspiracies, religion, or politics.
In this case, the comments are pretty neutral to positive, but I was rather worried there would be a lot of "Jews study this silly ancient text full of nonsense" going about.
Also, I can relate because I feel that same tensing when I hear gentiles talking about Kabbalah.
I find Judaism super interesting historically (and have some Jewish ancestory and have spent a couple months in Israel), but still the term "gentile" in a modern, non-religious context feels abrasive.
That said, I also worked with the Safardic Jewish community doing tech in the garment industry and as the token gentile I was loved on and respected for my work.
Like every culture there is a broad spectrum, but if the Orthodox jews of NYC are anything to go on, I am seriously questioning why they are choosing to live here.
My issue isn't what they do in their congregations and communities, but how they interact with the rest of the world. I've personally been treated extremely poorly by strangers in the Orthodox community just going about my day in the city. Between that and other experiences, I'm just shocked at how prevalent racism is among the Jewish Orthodox community in particular.
I don't think you are in a position to get offended on this one. Doesn't seem to even be a Hebrew word.
> Unless we just want to be offended by existance of Jews
If you dislike the use of a world, you must be an anti-Semite? I guess the people who dislike the Spanish derived term must be anti-Hispanic.
Well, they're a minority. If the majority loses control then they are at extreme risk of being hit by an ethnic cleansing or something. It can happen pretty much anywhere with only a relatively short lead-up. Picking a stupid act and making it compulsory is a classic way to keep tabs on how the wind is blowing.
There isn't really any threat like that from the Jews posed to anyone else, they don't have the numbers. There is no need to police them; indeed policing the language of minorities trying to maintain their own culture is in really bad taste. The issue with negro doesn't have anything to do with the word itself being offensive; that has the same logical problems as objecting to 'gentile' does.
You aren't drawing a distinction here to show why your word is kosher and the term gentile isn't.
Non-Jew only presupposes the existence of a Jewish people. Gentile on the other hand is a neologism which uses Jewish ontology to Other everyone else.
The idea that what is acceptable behaviour is dependent on membership is abhorrent to me. I don't see how gentile is different from barbarian, kaffir or mleccha.
I put it to you that this is making up reasons to be offended as the conversation goes along. There is no difference between calling people gentiles or non-Jews, except possible one shows that your in-group is more important than the orthodox Jewish in-group (or whoever it is who uses the word gentile). You aren't drawing meaningful reasons out to support this position. The two terms have the same intent, same implications and same meaning.
You are spot on about "Othering".
I don't know, let's ask the United Negro College Fund, and it's work for African American youth, particularly at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Within the actual community, there's differences as to the most-preferred term for the community, and there’s generational differences in the distribution of preferences, but unless you are using one of the terms that historical principally a slur or indicating a racist attitude in some other way, it's not as big of a deal as white racists who like to place the blame for the anger they incite on nitpicking about anthroponymy rather than the substance of their ideas.
> It's almost as if intent and context matters more than etymology.
Which you'll notice is what I said earlier in this very thread.
You're not the only one. The use of the Latin derived gentile seems like a clear case of Othering.
I have worked with teens of the wealthy elite who are offended if one asks them to do chores (some call it abuse).
Our current culture glorifies victimhood, so people are more attuned to being offended.
Not everyone has adjusted their priors on what it means for global dialogue, especially in the framework where there will always be someone in the world that will take offense to almost everything one says.
I more just feel sorry for these people, as most of them are dealing with other pain and stress in life, and they lash out irrationally like this.
I love it though! You know what GOD said I should do, I can't actually read all of it, instead I can read Matthew (KJV) over and over! I've read Molokai five times, that's a start. That's the last book of Talmud, right? What do you make of it? It's dark.
I actually know a gentile who learned Hebrew out of religious devotion, I can ask his opinion too, but not without asking yours as well. You can write me, I have an email in profile. Or post, either one.
Mods, please forgive talking about religion in this forum.
I hope I'm not misunderstanding, but this is the last book in the books of the prophets, Malachi?
>That's the last book of Talmud, right?
The Talmud is not the old testament, and isn't even written in Hebrew, but instead is written in a very hebraicized version of Aramaic. It's almost all about Jewish law.
Also, this confused me because in the Jewish ordering books like Psalms and Esther come after Malachi, but apparently Christians order it the other way around. You learn something new every day.
Yes that. I should have remembered. I suppose I'm remembering the sound of it...and wrongfully trusting whatever autocorrect I'm running. Hence Molokai.
Oh, Talmud...second mistake. Old Testament is Torah, right?
Psalms and Esther? Wait yes those come much before Malachi. Esther comes before Job, so Esther, then Job, then Psalms, then Proverbs, then Ecclesiastes, and many others in sequence. Then the last three of the Old Testament are Haggai, Zechariah, and then Malachi. And in fact the way it's set up, in that way, Matthew acts as the fulfillment of Malachi. Last book of
The Hebrew Scriptures
THE OLD TESTAMENT
King James Version
acts as preimage of the first book of
THE NEW TESTAMENT
of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
King James Version
which is interesting, and perhaps contrary to Judaism due to ending the Old Testament on that note. In my reading of the Bible I tried reading Genesis, and realized it was very difficult to read, even scanning it was very difficult. Because I couldn't just treat it like a normal book and disrespect it! Leave it for later better. And further I could not get what I wanted out of Genesis, which a lot of people get out of it, which is a foundation in which to believe. With a very high or even total degree of literarity. Believe, literally, that is.
Instead I said, well perhaps instead I can believe literally in the first book of the New Testament!? And for that I also had to read Malachi, as a bookend so to speak. A question for its answer to make sense. Then I read Matthew and it was beautiful, it was the best, it made sense of so many things and in fact if asked by a convict, which I intend to visit when I figure out how, and not only convicts in prisons but inmates in psych wards too (who don't even get Bibles, I didn't at least, in addition to lobotomistic censorship of the Bible)...when I visit these dark places, I can tell them,
"Don't have to read it all at once. It's not one book, it is dozens of books, just with their covers stuck together so you can take them all together wherever you go. Like here. And in fact, the cover is a rectangle just like the door to your cell, and you can open it almost whenever you want. It is the door to your cell. Just start slowly, first read a letter, a really big single letter that's called "illuminated", we'll read it together. Then if you feel brave, a word above it, to know what we're reading. Now a verse. The Bible is not like a normal book, it doesn't truly have lines, it's not like that. This book is not a real Bible actually, a real Bible is what you remember of it in your head. It is what is in your brain, no use if you don't actually read it, not the most efficient way to decorate a bookshelf."
I don't know what else I'll say to that convict or lunatic. I'll find out when I say it, in the moment.
As a gentile who knew about daf yomi already, I immediately got the reference. But no doubt I am far from your average gentile in that respect
For someone like me who has read the Torah, Bible and Koran but not the Talmud I have a new perspective.
Without this new understanding, I believe I too would have dismissed the Talmud as silly but the context of law practice is helpful.
Interestingly, it may be that these thought exercises sparked by Rabbinical practices were what encouraged the formed other religions such as Christianity, Islam and the various other offshoots within these branches.
An idea begets an idea which begets an idea…
It’s turtles all the way down.
He has to pay for the physical injury but not for the shame of raping her.
The entire action was unintentional.
But physical injury is still needed to be accounted for even if unintential, we do it even in our modern laws with 'involuntary manslaughter' etc
However, the hurt to a person's feelings - it apparently needs intent; I guess one cannot take offense when none was meant.
Of course, King Solomon would just order the chick to be cloven in half. But that doesn't address the vulnerability in a systemic way.
King Salomon never cut something in half to appease both sides. That’s a very common misunderstanding. He threatened to do that in order to see which woman cried the most, who he understood as being the real mother. It was never the idea to cut a person in half.
It's a really fun thought experiment at the level of Schrödinger's poor cat, with interesting nontrivial moral and ethical paradoxes.
The law in Deuteronomy:
> Deut. 22:10: "You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together."
The question in the Talmud:
> Bava Kamma 55a: "The Sage Raḥava raises a dilemma: With regard to one who drives a wagon on the seashore with a goat and a shibbuta, a certain species of fish, together, pulled by the goat on land and the fish at sea, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition against performing labor with diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together, or not? The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that since the goat does not descend into the sea and the shibbuta does not ascend onto the land, they are not working together at all, and so he has not done anything forbidden? Or perhaps, since in any event, he is now driving the wagon with both of them, he thereby transgresses the prohibition?"
So it seems like the issue is not specifically related to the types of animals being used together. Rather, the question is: what constitutes "together"?
Does together mean "working on the same task at the same time"? If so, then the fish and the goat would apparently be working together and this would be prohibited.
Or does together imply something about the areas in which they are working? If so, perhaps the fish and the goat are not together and thus are allowed.
Specifically, I was raised Eastern Orthodox, and we hung out with SSPX (Traditional, Latin Mass, etc) Catholics. To an outsider, these may seem similar enough, but the debates we homeschooled kids got into were quite amazing.
The churches originally split due to an intentional mistranslation of the Nicene Creed, designating the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son, instead of from the Father alone, thus throwing off the balance of the Trinity.
Somehow, this led to us debating complex liturgical topics, which was driven by Catholics having a small-t talmudic system of canon law, which requires legal scholars to properly interpret, while the Orthodox, although having Canon Law to a lesser extent, mostly rely on "Economia", which roughly translates to "Stop thinking about stupid questions and pray more".
I specifically recall a debate over the proper method of Communion in which one of the Catholic kids asked "But what if there was no wine left in the world, what then?".
The answer actually did exist in Catholic Canon Law somewhere, but I can't remember it, and the Orthodox answer was "Make some".
Just an anecdote that some may find familiar if you like the OP.