What specific act makes one liable for Scriptural lashes for mating mixed species?
Halacha 1 specifies that liability for lashes requires actual insertion. Placing animals together or verbal encouragement only results in Rabbinic stripes for rebellious conduct.
Question 2
A male mule whose mother was a horse and a female mule whose mother was a donkey — may they be mated?
Halacha 6 teaches that the mother's species is the halachic determinant. A mule from a horse-mother and a mule from a donkey-mother have different maternal species, making their mating forbidden under the mixed-species prohibition.
Question 3
Under which condition does working two animals together violate a Scriptural (Torah) prohibition, as opposed to only a Rabbinic one?
Halacha 7 states that Scriptural liability applies when one animal is kosher and the other is not. Working two different kosher species together is only forbidden Rabbinically (as an extension of the mating prohibition).
Question 4
If a person is merely sitting in a wagon being pulled by mixed species — not holding the reins — what is his liability?
Halacha 9 rules that even a passive passenger is liable for full Scriptural lashes, because sitting in the wagon causes the animals to pull it — making his presence a form of active participation.
Question 5
Why is mating a ko'i (hybrid of deer and goat) with a domesticated animal forbidden but not punishable by lashes?
Halacha 5 explains that mating a ko'i constitutes mixed species in either case, but since its classification as domesticated or wild is uncertain, one cannot be punished with lashes — which require definitive violation of a known category.