Halakhah zu Dewarim 12:78

Shechita (Ritual slaughtering as dictated in Jewish Law) is a "positive" mitzvah. Shecita is not obligatory (as the case with obligations of Shofar, Succah and Lulav) since if one does not want to eat meat, there is no need to shecht (slaughter) . However, if someone does want to eat meat- there is an obligation to eat the animal only after shechting it, as the verse says, "You shall sacrifice your cattle and sheep like you have been commanded"(Deut. 12:21). Similarly, the shechita of a wild animal (that is kosher) is dictated by Torah law as the verse says regarding a firstborn animal that has a blemish, "...the same way he will eat the deer and the buck" (Deut. 12:22). One learns from this that a wild animal is alike to a domesticated animal in terms of Shechita (See the Sifrei HaMitzvos of the Rambam and the Smag). Furthermore, the shechita of birds is dictated by the Torah since the verse says, "that he will hunt a hunted animal or bird and will pour its blood" (Lev. 17:13). It is concluded from this verse that the pouring of the blood of a bird (which is part of the shechita process of that bird) is the same as that of an animal (see Sifri on Parshas Re'eh). It was taught by Bar Kafra- "This is the set of rules for the animal and the bird and anything that lives in the water" (Lev. 11). 'The bird' has been placed in between 'the animal' and 'anything that lives in the water'...

Shechita (Ritual slaughtering as dictated in Jewish Law) is a "positive" mitzvah. Shecita is not obligatory (as the case with obligations of Shofar, Succah and Lulav) since if one does not want to eat meat, there is no need to shecht (slaughter) . However, if someone does want to eat meat- there is an obligation to eat the animal only after shechting it, as the verse says, "You shall sacrifice your cattle and sheep like you have been commanded"(Deut. 12:21). Similarly, the shechita of a wild animal (that is kosher) is dictated by Torah law as the verse says regarding a firstborn animal that has a blemish, "...the same way he will eat the deer and the buck" (Deut. 12:22). One learns from this that a wild animal is alike to a domesticated animal in terms of Shechita (See the Sifrei HaMitzvos of the Rambam and the Smag). Furthermore, the shechita of birds is dictated by the Torah since the verse says, "that he will hunt a hunted animal or bird and will pour its blood" (Lev. 17:13). It is concluded from this verse that the pouring of the blood of a bird (which is part of the shechita process of that bird) is the same as that of an animal (see Sifri on Parshas Re'eh). It was taught by Bar Kafra- "This is the set of rules for the animal and the bird and anything that lives in the water" (Lev. 11). 'The bird' has been placed in between 'the animal' and 'anything that lives in the water'...

Together with the permission of eating meat that is not offered in the Temple there is the prohibition of eating blood, as it is written (Deut. 12:20-23) ... that is to say, blood has a specific mission, which is to support the soul of the living animal, and therefore even though the Torah permitted us to eat meat, it did not permit us to eat blood.

All the laws of Shechita were told to Moshe Rabbenu orally at Sinai like all of the Oral law, as it is written " you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that the LORD gives you, as I have instructed you (Deuteronomy.12.21)" This mitzvah is apart of the oral tradition. It is taught in a baraita: "Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: “And you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This verse teaches that Moses was previously commanded about the halakhot of slaughter, even though they are not written explicitly in the Torah. He was commanded about cutting the gullet and about cutting the windpipe, and about the requirement to cut the majority of one siman for a bird, and the majority of two simanim for an animal." (According to Tosfot), Rebbe finds an allusion to this in the word "כאשר". The "Alef" (achad) alludes to one siman in a bird, the "Shin" (Shtayim) alludes to two simanim in an animal, and the "Resh" (Rubo) alludes to the majority of one is like the whole. Furthermore, the word כאשר is the reverse acrostic of רובו של אחד כמוהו the majority of one is like the whole.

Blessed is the L–rd, the G–d of Israel, who has separated us from all the peoples and given us His Torah and brought us to the holy land so that we merit fulfilling all of His mitzvoth. His sole intent was for our good alone, so that through this we become holy unto Him — viz. (Numbers 15:40): "So that you remember and do all of My mitzvoth and be holy unto your G–d" — and so that it be in our power to receive the effluence of His good and the abundance of His lovingkindness in this world and in the world to come, as it is written (Devarim 10:12- 13): "What does the L–rd your G–d ask of you, but… to keep the mitzvoth of the L–rd and His statutes which I command you this day to do good unto you?" (See the Ramban there to the effect that "to do good unto you" reverts to "What does the L–rd your G–d ask of you.")

You should know that that which they said (Makkot 23b), "613 commandments were stated to Moshe at Sinai," indicates that this is the number of the commandments that are practiced for [all] generations. For commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations do not have a connection to Sinai - whether they were stated at Sinai or elsewhere. However their intention in saying, "at Sinai," was that the main giving of the Torah was at Sinai. And that was His, may He be elevated, saying, "Come up to Me on the mountain and be there, and I will give [it] to you" (Exodus 24:12). And in explanation, they said, "What is the verse [that alludes to this]? 'Moshe commanded us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov' (Deuteronomy 33:4)" - meaning to say - "the numerical value of [the word,] Torah is 611. In addition, 'I am the Lord your God' and 'You shall have no other gods' (Exodus 20:2, 3), that we heard from the mouth of the Almighty." And with them, the total of the commandments is 613. They wanted to say with this indication that the thing that Moshe commanded us - and that we did not hear from anyone but him - was the number of 611 commandments. And he called it, "an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov." And a commandment that is not practiced for [all] the generations is not an inheritance for us. For it is indeed only that which will be continuous for the generations - as it is stated (Deuteronomy 11:21), "like the days of the heavens upon the earth" - that will be called an inheritance for us. And likewise, their statement (Tanchuma, Ki Tetzeh), that it is as if each and every limb commands a person to do a commandment; and it is as if each and every day is warning a person from sin. This is a proof that the number will never be lacking. But if commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations were included in the count of the commandments, behold that the number would be lacking once the obligation of such a commandment ceased. And then this statement would only be correct for a limited time. However someone besides us already erred in this principle as well and counted - because he was forced by a need - "But let them not go inside and witness the dismantling of the sanctuary" (Numbers 4:20); and "he shall serve no more" (Numbers 8:25), concerning the Levites. Yet these were also only practiced in the wilderness. And even though they said (Sanhedrin 81b:18), "From where is there a hint about one who steals a jar for the Temple service (that he is killed)? 'But let them not go inside and witness the dismantling of the sanctuary'" - there is enough [clarification here] in their saying, "a hint." But the simple understanding of the verse is not like this; and it is not even included in those liable for the death penalty at the hands of the Heavens - as is explained in the Tosefta (Tosefta Keritot 1) and in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83a). And I am wondering about this, why they mentioned these negative commandments. Why did they not [also] count about the manna, "Let no one leave any of it over until morning" (Exodus 16:19); or that which He, may He blessed said, "Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war" (Deuteronomy 2:9), and likewise the prohibition that came about the the Children of Ammon, "do not harass them or start a fight with them" (Deuteronomy 2:19). And likewise should he count among the positive commandments, "Make a seraph figure and mount it on a standard" (Numbers 21:8); and its saying, "Take a jar and put one omer of manna in it" (Exodus 16:33) - like he counted the tithe of the [booty] (Numbers 31) and the dedication of the altar (Numbers 7). And he should have also counted, "Be ready for the third day" (Exodus 19:15); "neither shall the flocks and the herds graze" (Exodus 34:3); "they shall not destroy, to come up" (Exodus 19:24); and many like these. And no intelligent person will doubt that all of these commandments were given to Moshe at Sinai as commands and [prohibitions; however they were all temporary and not practiced for [all] generations. And therefore they were not counted. And because of this principle, it is inappropriate to count the blessings and the curses that they were commanded at Gerizim and Eval; nor to count the building of the altar that we were commanded to build when we entered the Land of Canaan - for all of these were temporary commandments. And likewise, not the command that we were commanded to sacrifice any animal, from which we want to eat, as peace-offerings - as this was only a temporary command. And that was its saying, "and you shall bring them to the Lord" (Leviticus 7:8)." And they said in Sifrei, Achrei Mot, "'And you shall bring them' is a positive commandment" - but it was only so in the wilderness. For the dispensation to eat meat for pleasure is explained in [Deuteronomy]; and that is its saying, "you may eat meat whenever you wish" (Deuteronomy 12:20). And had it been appropriate to count everything of this type - meaning all that Moshe was commanded from the day he was appointed to be a prophet until the day he died - there would be more than three hundred commandments, besides the commandments that are practiced for [all] generations. This is when we count all the commands that came in Egypt, everything about the preparations [for the tabernacle service], and the other ones besides them - some are positive commandments and some are negative commandments, but they are all written in the Torah. And since he did not count all of them, he is perforce also obligated not to count any of them; and not like this other man, who took [only] some of these things to help him, when he toiled to find the [right] tally. And this is the critique we wanted to make about him regarding this principle.

We are not permitted to follow the ways of the gentiles, nor adopt their styles in dress or in hair style or similar things, as it is said: "You shall not follow the ways of the gentile."³Leviticus 20:33. It is [also] said: "In their ways you shall not follow"⁴Leviticus 18:3. It is [also] said: "Guard yourself lest you be ensnared to follow them."⁵Deuteronomy 12:30. You should not wear a garment which is specifically worn by them as a symbol of ostentation, such as a garment of high-ranking officers. For example, the Talmud states:⁶Maseches Sanhedrin 74a. that it is forbidden for a Jew to be similar to them even in regard to shoelaces; if their practice was to tie one way and the practice of Jews to tie another way, or if their practice was to wear red shoelaces and Jews wear black shoelaces because the color black indicates humility, submissiveness and modesty. [In all such instances] it is forbidden for a Jew to deviate. From these examples everyone should learn how to apply these standards to his time and place. A garment designed for showiness or immodesty must not be worn by a Jew, but rather his clothing should be made in a style which suggests humility and modesty. The following is mentioned in Sifrei: You should not say that since they go out with scarlet I shall go out with scarlet, since they go out with kulsin (the word kulsin meaning weaponry) I also shall go out with kulsin, because these practices are indicative of arrogance and haughtiness which are not the heritage of Jacob. Rather, our heritage demands of us to be modest and humble, and not be influenced by the haughty. Similarly, any custom or statute of which there is a suspicion of idolatrous intent or background should be avoided by Jews. Similarly, you should not cut your hair or style your hair as they do, but rather you should be distinct, in your clothing and speech and all other endeavors just as you are distinct in your perspectives and concepts. Similarly, it is said: "I have set you apart from the nations."⁷Leviticus 20:26.

If a man will have two wives, one beloved, one hated, and they bear him sons, the beloved one and the hated one, and the firstborn son is the hated one’s. Then it shall be that on the day that he passes on to his sons whatever will be his, he cannot give the right of the firstborn to the son of the beloved one in place of the son of the hated one, the firstborn (Devarim 12:51-61).

Rav Hershel Schachter (Nefesh Harav pp. 96-97) cites Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik as stating that the Torah (Devarim 12:10-11 and Rashi s.v. V’haya Hamakom) clearly indicates that we will build the Beit Hamikdash only after the Jewish people are settled in Israel securely, without any threats from our neighbors. Since, unfortunately, Israel’s enemies still threaten her, we should not yet consider building the Mikdash. The proponents of building the Mikdash, however, counter that the Ramban (Bemidbar 16:21) writes that had the Jews sought to build the Beit Hamikdash during the period of the Judges, they could have done so despite the lack of security and stability during much of that period. In fact, the Ramban insists that the Jews were severely punished for their failure to seek the construction of the Beit Hamikdash.⁶The Ramban suggests that the plague that followed the census in King David’s time (see II Shmuel 24) came as a punishment for the people’s failure to “rally and say, ‘Let us seek out God and build a home for His name.’”

That He prohibited us from bowing to an idol. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "You shall not bow to them" (Exodus 20:5). And it is clear that by our saying, idol, we mean anything worshipped besides God. And the intention is not only bowing, and nothing else. Indeed, He mentioned one of the ways of worship - meaning to say, bowing - but we are also prohibited from sacrificing to them, offering libations and burning incense [to them]. And one who has transgressed one of these and bowed, sacrificed, offered libations or burned incense is liable for stoning. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:19) is, "'One who sacrifices to gods shall be proscribed' (Exodus 22:19) - we have [thus] heard the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not bow to them and you shall not worship them.' Sacrifice was included (in serving), and it was singled out to teach [that] just as sacrificing is distinctive, in that we worship the Heavens in a similar way and one is liable for it, whether he worships it or he does not not worship it - so too, one is liable for all the ways that are similar to how we worship the Heavens, whether he worships it or he does not not worship it." And the content of this statement is that these four types of worship - being bowing, sacrificing, offering libations and burning incense - through which we have been commanded that we worship God, may He be blessed: Anyone who worships an idol through one of them is liable for stoning, even if this is not one of the ways of worshipping this thing that was worshipped. And that is what is called, not in the way of its worship. [Yet] since he worshipped in one of these ways, he is liable for stoning if he was volitional; excision if the court did not know about him or they did not execute the punishment; or to bring a sacrifice if he was inadvertent. And likewise when one accepts something as a god in a way of accepting. And this prohibition has already been repeated - meaning to say, the prohibition of their worship through one of these four ways, and even [when] it is not in its way. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And that they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goats" (Leviticus 17:7). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 9:8) is, "'Goats,' is nothing other than demons." And in the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), it is explained, however, that this negative commandment is with slaughtering to the idol, even if the slaughtering is not the way of its worship. They said, "From where [do we know about] one who slaughters an animal as an offering to Mercury, that he is liable (even though this is not its way of worship)? As it is stated, 'And that they may offer their sacrifices no more.' If its content is not [applied to] in its way [of worship], as [that is already derived from] its being written, 'How do these nations serve' (Deuteronomy 12:30); then apply its content to [worshipping] not in its way." And one who transgresses it volitionally [gets] excision and stoning - as we said - and must bring a sacrifice if it was inadvertent. And the language of Scripture is, "One who sacrifices to gods shall be proscribed." And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 3.)

We find in I Divrei Hayamim (28:19) that King David notes receiving direction from God for the construction of every part of the Beit Hamikdash. This verse might imply that Divine guidance is necessary in building the Beit Hamikdash, even when it is built by human hands. In fact, the Sifrei (commenting on Devarim 12:5) indicates that, although humans should initiate a search to locate the proper place for the Beit Hamikdash, we cannot know for sure that we have identified it correctly until a prophet tells us so (see Tzitz Eliezer 10:2:1 and 10:5). Consequently, one might argue that even according to the Rambam, we may not take concrete steps towards building the Beit Hamikdash without prophetic direction.

In their discussion of matters pertaining to the sanctity of the synagogue, rabbinic scholars view the laws and regulations pertaining to the Temple as the paradigm from which may be derived halakhot applicable to the "miniature Temple," i.e., the synagogue. Both are devoted to divine service: the Temple is consecrated to sacrificial service; the synagogue is dedicated to "service of the heart." Both the Temple and the synagogue derive their sanctity from the service for which they are utilized. Noteworthy is the opinion of Mordekhai, Megillah 28a, who equates the sanctity of the synagogue with that of the Temple and asserts that both are biblical in nature. It has been suggested that this is the position of Maimonides as well.¹Rabbi David Ochs, in a responsum included in The Sanctity of the Synagogue, ed. Baruch Litvin (New York, 1959), pp. 179–80. See also R. Raphael Silber, Marpe la-Nefesh, I, no. 45. Cf., however, R. Chaim Halberstam, Divrei Ḥayyim, I, no. 3. In his Sefer ha-Mizvot, negative precept 65, Maimonides states, "[We are commanded] not to destroy the Temple, synagogues, or houses of study … for it is stated, 'You shall surely destroy all the places wherein the nations … served their gods … you shall not do so unto the Lord, your God' (Deut. 12:2–4)." According to Maimonides, the Bible legislates against desecration of the synagogue. In doing so, the Bible itself ordains the sanctity of the synagogue.

That He prohibited us from worshipping an idol, even besides the four ways that preceded; but on condition that the worship be according to its way - meaning to say, that one serves it in the way that this worshipped thing is worshipped, such as to expose oneself to Peor, or to cast a stone at Mercury. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying in prohibition of this, "you shall not worship them" (Exodus 20:5). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:5:1) is, "'You shall not bow to them and you shall not worship them' - to make liable for the worship separately." And hence one who casts a stone at Peor or exposes himself to Mercury is not liable, for it is not its worship - as He, may He be blessed, said, "How do [these nations] serve" (Deuteronomy 12:30). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for stoning or excision when volitional; and a sacrifice when inadvertent. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Sanhedrin. And there (Sanhedrin 64b), they said, "There are three exicisions for idolatry: One according to its way; one that is not according to its way; and one that is to Molekh." [This] means to say: That one who worships any idol that it may be through one of the ways of worship is surely liable for excision, but on condition that he worships it according to its way, like exposing himself to Peor or casting a stone at Mercury or passing his hair to Khamosh; likewise one who worshipped any worshipped thing that it may be through one of the four ways of worship is liable for excision, even if this is not the way of its worship, such as if one sacrificed to Peor or bowed to Mercury - and that is not according to its way; and the third excision is for one who passes some of his offspring to Molekh, as I will explain (in the next commandment). (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 3.)

These sources, however, serve only to demonstrate that animal-directed conduct which is compassionate in nature constitutes a "good deed" but do not serve to establish a system of normative duties or responsibilities. Particularly in light of the strong nomistic element present in Judaism, the absence of normative regulations might well be regarded as indicative of the absence of serious ethical concern for the welfare of members of the animal kingdom. But this is demonstrably not the case, for, in Jewish teaching, there is no dearth of nomoi designed to protect and promote animal welfare. The most obvious example of a regulation having such an effect, and one which is clearly biblical in origin, is contained in the verse "If thou seest the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forebear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him" (Exodus 23:5). The selfsame concern is manifest in the prohibition against muzzling an ox while it threshes in order that the animal be free to eat of the produce while working (Deuteronomy 25:4). Similarly, Scripture provides that both domestic animals and wild beasts must be permitted to share in produce of the land which grows without cultivation during the sabbatical year.⁴See Me’iri, Baba Meẓi‘a 33a, and Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 596. The purpose of other biblical laws pertaining to animals in less clear-cut. The prohibition against plowing with animals of different species, recorded in Deuteronomy 22:10, is understood by Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 550, as well as by Da‘at Zekenim mi-Ba’alei ha-Tosafot and Ba’al ha-Turim in their respective commentaries on Deuteronomy 22:10, as rooted in considerations of prevention of cruelty to animals, but is understood in an entirely different manner by Rambam, Guide of the Perplexed, Book III, chapter 49, as well as by Ramban in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:10. However, Rambam, Guide, Book III, chapter 48, regards the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day, recorded in Leviticus 22:28, as a precautionary measure designed to prevent the slaughter of the offspring in the presence of its parent. The underlying concern is to spare the mother the anguish of seeing her young killed before her eyes “for in these cases animals feel very great pain, there being no difference regarding this pain between man and the other animals. For the love and the tenderness of a mother for her child is not consequent upon reason, but upon the activity of the imaginative faculty, which is found in most animals just as it is found in man.” Here, Rambam speaks of concern for the welfare of the animal rather than for the moral character of the human agent; see below, notes 14-15 and accompanying text. This interpretation is reflected in the comments of R. Baḥya ben Asher, Leviticus 22:28, and, in part, in Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 294. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh regards the commandment prohibiting the slaughter of an animal and its young on the same day as designed both to spare the parent from anguish and as a conservation measure as well. See also Abarbanel’s Commentary on the Bible, ad locum. Rambam’s analysis of the rationale underlying this precept is rejected by Ramban in his Commentary on the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:6. According to Ramban, the concern is not to avoid pain to the animal but to purge man of callousness, cruelty and savagery.
Although the Gemara, Baba Meẓi‘a 32a, declares that assistance in unloading a burden from an animal is mandated by reason of ẓa’ar ba’alei ḥayyim but that the obligation to assist in loading the burden upon the animal is not independently mandated by reason of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim, Ritva, cited by Shitah Mekubeẓet, Baba Meẓi‘a 31a, s.v. aval te’inah, asserts that the commandment requiring a person to render assistance to another who is engaged in loading an animal is predicated upon considerations of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. According to Ritva, a single person engaged in this task is likely to cause additional discomfort to the animal by applying the full force of his body weight whereas, when he is assisted by another, there is no need to apply similar pressure.
Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 186, is of the opinion that the prohibition against the slaughter of sanctified animals outside the Temple precincts is rooted in considerations of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. According to Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, such slaughter is forbidden because no purpose is served thereby and hence constitutes ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. See below, note 29.
Neither the prohibition against mating animals of different species, Leviticus 19:19, nor the prohibition against emasculation of animals, Leviticus 22:24, is understood by classical rabbinic scholars as rooted in considerations of animal welfare. For a discussion of animal welfare as a possible rationale associated with other commandments, see R. Joel Schwartz, Ve-Raḥamav al Kol Ma’asav (Jerusalem, 5744), pp. 11-16. Although the literal meaning of the biblical text may be somewhat obscure, talmudic exegesis understands Genesis 9:4 and Deuteronomy 12:23 as forbidding the eating of a limb severed from a living animal. Jewish law teaches that this prohibition, unlike most other commandments, is universally binding upon all peoples as one of the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah. Sabbath laws contained in both formulations of the Decalogue reflect a concern which goes beyond the mere elimination of pain and discomfort and serve to promote the welfare of animals in a positive manner by providing for their rest on the Sabbath day: "But the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord thy God, on it thou shalt not do any manner of work … nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle …" (Deuteronomy 5:14). Even more explicit in expressing concern for the welfare of animals is the verse "… but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may have rest" (Exodus 23:12).⁵The requirement that the parent bird be released before the young are taken and the concomitant prohibition against taking both the parent and the young, recorded in Deuteronomy 22:6-7, quite obviously have the effect of sparing the parent from anguish. The Mishnah, Berakhot 33b, however, does not view this desideratum, laudable as it may be, as the underlying purpose of the commandment. Cf., however, Rambam, Guide, Book III, chapter 48; Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:6; and Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 545.

And after it has been explained that His saying, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled" is [only] one commandment; and likewise all of the negative commandments that arise from the prohibition for the nazirite of all that comes out from the vine are one commandment, since they are all details, as is explained in the Gemara; and they likewise said that, "any leaven and any honey," is one commandment - we should also count, "No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted" (Deuteronomy 23:4), as one commandment. And likewise, His saying, "You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan" (Exodus 22:21). And likewise, His saying, "You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the orphan" (Deuteronomy 24:17). And likewise, His saying, "he may not diminish her food, her clothing or her conjugal rights" (Exodus 21:10). Each of these negative commandments is one commandment. This means to say that each of these is exactly like, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in any way," and like, "for no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke as an offering." There is no difference between them. And likewise, His saying, "You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the sale revenue of a dog" (Deuteronomy 23:19), is one commandment. And likewise, His saying, "Drink no wine or other intoxicant, etc. And to differentiate [...] And to instruct" (Leviticus 9-11). That is to say, with one negative commandment did He prohibit [a priest] to enter the Sanctuary or to give instruction while drunk. And that is one of the divisions of the second type of general negative commandments. And the second division is [made up of cases with] words exactly like those of the previous division. However [in such cases], it is the traditionally received explanation that we give separate lashes for each and every one of those connected matters. And that is that when he does them all - even at one time - he is given lashes for each and every one as a distinct prohibition. Of this type is His saying, "You may not eat within your gates of the tithes of your new grain or your wine or your oil" (Deuteronomy 12:17). They said in Keritot (Keritot 4b), "[If one] ate the tithe of grain, wine, and oil (outside Jerusalem), he is liable [separately] for each and every one." And they raised a difficulty and said, "But is one given lashes for a general negative commandment?" And the answer was, "The verse is written superfluously. How is this? It is written, 'And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, etc.' (Deuteronomy 14:23); why did He need to come back and write, 'You may not eat within your gates?' And if you shall say that it is to [make it into a full-fledged] negative commandment - if so, let the verse say, 'You may not eat them within your gates.' Why did the verse need to go back and write all of them ('your new grain or your wine or your oil')? We hear from this, that it is to separate [it into three distinct commandments]." And there, after give and take, it is clarified that it was not necessary for Him to say, "and parched grain" (Leviticus 23:14), such that it was truly mentioned to separate - that one would be liable for parched grain on its own. And in the Talmud, they asked by way of rejection, "Maybe one is separately liable to receive lashes for parched grain" - for it is truly mentioned for this - "whereas for bread and fresh stalks, one is [only] liable for one [set of] lashes?" So they answered, "For what law did the Merciful One write, 'parched grain,' in between [the others]? To tell you that one who eats bread, parched grain and fresh stalks is liable for each and every one [individually]."

Another explanation (based on Rav Elchanan Samet Iyunim B’farshee’ot Hashavua 2:311-313) is that Hashem sought to limit the challenge we faced upon entering Eretz Yisrael. We were faced with the enormous difficulty of eliminating the avodah zarah (idolatry) which was at times quite valuable (see Devarim 7:25 which states that some of the Canaaim’s idols were made of gold and silver). Eretz Yisrael when controlled by the seven nations was awash with avodah zarah as Devarim 12:1-3 demonstrates. It was an enormous challenge for our ancestors (and can be today as well if valuable avodah zarah falls into our hands from sources such as the estate of a non-observant relative or a gift from a business partner) to destroy avodah zarah that sometimes can be worth a fortune.

Once more the issue recedes into the background. Nothing more is heard of the proposal and the entire question is permitted to lie fallow until the middle of the nineteenth century when we find a new protagonist actively espousing resettlement of the Holy Land and reintroduction of sacrificial worship. In a letter addressed to Baron Asher Anshel Rothschild, dated 12 Elul, 5596, R. Zevi Hirsch Kalisher solicits the latter's support for plans to colonize the Land of Israel and outlines his views regarding the sacrificial rites. When these opinions regarding the resumption of the sacrificial service were incorporated in a work entitled Derishat Ẓion and published a little over one hundred years ago, in 5622, the question for the first time became a live issue.¹⁰In fact, R. Shlomoh Drimer of Skole, in an undated responsum, quotes an unnamed interlocutor who reported that “the sages of the Sephardim and of Lithuania wished to sacrifice [the paschal offering] this past erev Pesaḥ.” See Teshuvot Bet Shlomoh (Lemberg, 5637–51), Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 125. Considerable controversy was aroused and resulted in a meticulous examination by the foremost authorities of the time of the halakhic issues surrounding the proposed innovation. Opposition to Kalisher's views was of a dual nature. Apart from the controversial halakhic ramifications of his proposal, Kalisher's novel eschatological views caused many of his contemporaries to take sharp issue with him. Kalisher argues not only that reinstitution of the sacrificial rites is both permissible and halakhically feasible but that it constitutes a positive mizvah and is, in addition, a sine qua non for the advent of the Messiah. The redemption, he maintains, will take place in the following manner: first, a partial ingathering of the exiles, to be followed by the reinstitution of korbanot; after this will occur the war between Gog and Magog and the complete ingathering of the exiles, culminating in the advent of the Messiah. As evidence for his position, Kalisher cites the statement of the Palestinian Talmud, as quoted by Tosafot Yom Tov, Ma'aser Sheni, 5:2: "The Temple [will] be rebuilt before the reign of the House of David."¹¹In further support of this view, Kalisher cites the wording of the Mussaf service of Rosh Ḥodesh: “A new altar shalt Thou establish in Zion and the burnt offering of the New Moon shall we offer upon it” which is subsequently followed by the phrase “and in the service of Thy Temple shall we all rejoice.” Kalisher argues that reference to rejoicing in the Temple service—which is general in nature—should logically precede the more specific mention of the burnt offering of Rosh Ḥodesh. From this he concludes that the prior reference, which is to a new altar (not a Bet ha-Mikdash), refers to the reinstitution of communal sacrifices and hence is not dependent upon the rebuilding of the Bet ha-Mikdash, whereas the subsequent mention of the Temple service refers to private sacrifices which are contingent upon the rebuilding of the Temple (for reasons that will be examined later in this review) and will, therefore, be reinstituted at a latter date. Referring to the Sifri cited by Nachmanides in his commentary on Deuteronomy 12:5, Kalisher maintains that the offering of sacrifices is causally connected with the reappearance of prophecy and has as its effect the manifestation of the Divine Presence, just as the Shekhinah appeared in the Tabernacle in the wilderness only following the sacrificial offerings of the milu'im. Therefore, he concludes, the reinstitution of the sacrificial rites is not dependent upon a prophetic injunction; rather, prophecy cannot become manifest without prior sacrificial offerings.¹²It is a bit puzzling that in endeavoring to establish this point Kalisher does not cite the more explicit and more a propos discussion of Ramban contained in his commentary on Leviticus 1:9 in which he analyzes the rationale underlying the sacrificial precepts.

Despite the foregoing, vegetarianism is not rejected by Judaism as a valid lifestyle for at least some individuals. There are, to be sure, individuals who are repulsed by the prospect of consuming the flesh of a living creature. It is not the case that an individual who declines to partake of meat is ipso facto guilty of a violation of the moral code. On the contrary, Scripture states, "and you will say: 'I will eat meat,' because your soul desires to eat meat; with all the desire of your soul may you eat meat" (Deuteronomy 12:20). The implication is that meat may be consumed when there is desire and appetite for it as food, but may be eschewed when there is no desire and, a fortiori, when it is found to be repugnant.¹³See Ha-Peles, p. 657; Mishnat ha-Rav, p. 209. The question is one of perspective. Concern arises only when such conduct is elevated to the level of a moral norm.

Whoever destroys sacred writings violates the negative commandment, "Do not act in this manner to Hashem your God."⁸Deuteronomy 12:4. We must protest against those bookbinders who paste sacred writings in the bookcovers. You also must be very careful when you give old, sacred books to a non-Jewish bookbinder. You should remove the old covers and hide them so that the bookbinder will not install them in secular books.

Drawing blood on Shabbat is ordinarily forbidden. According to Rashi, Shabbat 107a, and most other early-day authorities, the prohibition is classified as a form of "slaughter," one of the thirty-nine paradigmatic categories of labor prohibited on the Sabbath. Scripture declares, "for the blood is the life (nefesh)" (Deuteronomy 12:23), and hence removal of any quantity of blood is, halakhically speaking, tantamount to extinguishing a measure of "life." According to Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat 8:7, drawing blood is categorized as a derivative form of "threshing," another of the prohibited categories of labor. Threshing involves extracting a kernel from its husk. Removal of blood, according to Rambam, is similar in that it involves expressing blood from the tissues in which it is imbedded.

He prohibited us from following in the ways of the idolaters, and from behaving according to their practices - and even with their clothing and with their gatherings in their assemblies. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You shall not follow the practices of the nation(s)" (Leviticus 20:23). And in the explanation (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8:8), it appears - "I only said those that were established for them from their forefathers." And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:8) is, "'And in their statutes you shall not walk' (Leviticus 18:3) - in their customs, those things that are established for them, such as theatres and circuses." And these were types of assemblies in which they would gather for worship of the images. "Rabbi Meir says, 'These are the ways of the Amorites, which the Sages enumerated.' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'that you not round [your face], and not cultivate locks, and not wear the hair komi.'" And one who does one of these things is liable for lashes. And the prohibition of this content was repeated in another place. And that is His saying, "Take heed unto yourselves, lest you are drawn in after them" (Deuteronomy 12:30). Lest you resemble them and do their deeds and it becomes a stumbling block; that you should not say, "Since they are going out with telusin, I will also go out with telusin" - and that is a type of weapon of the Persians. And you already know the language of the prophet (Zephaniah 1:8), "and all such as are clothed in foreign garments." And this is all to distance ourselves from them and to revile all of their practices, and even their clothes. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in the sixth [chapter] of Shabbat. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)

The comments of Sifre on Deuteronomy 12:29 may also be explained in a similar vein. This tannaitic source recounts the extreme distress of a number of illustrious personages who found themselves outside the Holy Land. Upon their return they declared, "Dwelling in the Land of Israel is equal to all the mizvot of the Torah." This statement was uttered subsequent to the exile of Israel, at a time when, according to Rambam, residence in Erez Yisra'el did not constitute a mizvah. For Rambam this dictum may be understood as expressing the notion that the zekhut of settlement in Israel is as great as the merit acquired in performance of all other mizvot.²²Cf., Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 454, secs. 2-3, who, on the basis of the extant text, questions Megillat Ester’s explanation that the sorrow expressed was due to the inherent inability to fulfill this precept subsequent to the exile. The analysis here advanced is compatible with the extant text of Sifre.

… Divine Providence extends to every man individually. But the condition of the individual beings of other living creatures is undoubtedly the same as has been stated by Aristotle. On that account it is allowed, even commanded, to kill animals; we are permitted to use them according to our pleasure…. There is a rule laid down by our Sages that it is directly prohibited in the Torah to cause pain to an animal based on the words: "Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass?" (Numbers 22:32). But the object of this rule is to make us perfect; that we should not assume cruel habits; and that we should not uselessly cause pain to others; that, on the contrary, we should be prepared to show pity and mercy to all living creatures, except when necessity demands the contrary: "When thy soul longeth to eat flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:20).²⁸The immediately following verse. “… then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock … and thou shalt eat within thy gates” (Deuteronomy 12:21), serves to sanction ritual slaughter for purposes of food. Since, in context, the reference in Deuteronomy 12:20 is to ritual slaughter, it is clear that Rambam regards even the painless mode of ritual slaughter, when undertaken other than for purposes of food, as forbidden by reason of ẓa‘ar ba‘alei ḥayyim. However, Rambam would certainly regard ritual slaughter undertaken in order to satisfy other legitimate human needs as tantamount to slaughter for purposes of food. Ritual slaughter other than for purposes of food is clearly permitted as evidenced by the statement of the Gemara, Ḥullin 85b, to the effect that R. Ḥiyya slaughtered a bird in the prescribed manner because he sought to use its blood to destroy worms which had infested his flax. See Sefer Ḥasidim (ed. Reuben Margulies), no. 667. Moreover, when the blood of an animal is necessary for some beneficial purpose, the Gemara, Ḥullin 27b and 85b, permits putting an animal to death even by means other than ritual slaughter in order to conserve its blood. The comments of Rashi, Shabbat 75a, s.v. shoḥet, serve to indicate that, under any circumstances, when an animal is killed for human benefit other than for food, it is not necessary to put it to death by means of ritual slaughter. Cf. Rashi, Ḥullin 27b, s.v. ḥayyav le-khasot. We should not kill animals for the purpose of practicing cruelty or for the purpose of sport.²⁹See also Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 186, who explains that the slaughter of sanctified animals outside of the Temple precincts, even though the act is performed in the ritually prescribed manner, is forbidden because no purpose is served by such slaughter. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh comments that wanton killing of animals is tantamount to “shedding blood.”

… Divine Providence extends to every man individually. But the condition of the individual beings of other living creatures is undoubtedly the same as has been stated by Aristotle. On that account it is allowed, even commanded, to kill animals; we are permitted to use them according to our pleasure…. There is a rule laid down by our Sages that it is directly prohibited in the Torah to cause pain to an animal based on the words: "Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass?" (Numbers 22:32). But the object of this rule is to make us perfect; that we should not assume cruel habits; and that we should not uselessly cause pain to others; that, on the contrary, we should be prepared to show pity and mercy to all living creatures, except when necessity demands the contrary: "When thy soul longeth to eat flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:20).²⁸The immediately following verse. “… then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock … and thou shalt eat within thy gates” (Deuteronomy 12:21), serves to sanction ritual slaughter for purposes of food. Since, in context, the reference in Deuteronomy 12:20 is to ritual slaughter, it is clear that Rambam regards even the painless mode of ritual slaughter, when undertaken other than for purposes of food, as forbidden by reason of ẓa‘ar ba‘alei ḥayyim. However, Rambam would certainly regard ritual slaughter undertaken in order to satisfy other legitimate human needs as tantamount to slaughter for purposes of food. Ritual slaughter other than for purposes of food is clearly permitted as evidenced by the statement of the Gemara, Ḥullin 85b, to the effect that R. Ḥiyya slaughtered a bird in the prescribed manner because he sought to use its blood to destroy worms which had infested his flax. See Sefer Ḥasidim (ed. Reuben Margulies), no. 667. Moreover, when the blood of an animal is necessary for some beneficial purpose, the Gemara, Ḥullin 27b and 85b, permits putting an animal to death even by means other than ritual slaughter in order to conserve its blood. The comments of Rashi, Shabbat 75a, s.v. shoḥet, serve to indicate that, under any circumstances, when an animal is killed for human benefit other than for food, it is not necessary to put it to death by means of ritual slaughter. Cf. Rashi, Ḥullin 27b, s.v. ḥayyav le-khasot. We should not kill animals for the purpose of practicing cruelty or for the purpose of sport.²⁹See also Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 186, who explains that the slaughter of sanctified animals outside of the Temple precincts, even though the act is performed in the ritually prescribed manner, is forbidden because no purpose is served by such slaughter. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh comments that wanton killing of animals is tantamount to “shedding blood.”

However, return of liberated territories for considerations other than preservation of life raises an entirely different set of halakhic considerations. On the basis of Avodah Zarah 20b, Rambam, Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 10:3-4, rules that it is forbidden for a Jew to sell houses or fields in Erez Yisra'el to a non-Jew.³⁶It is generally accepted that the prohibitions flowing from lo teḥanem apply to all non-Jews and not only to the Seven Nations. This is stated explicitly by Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 20a; Sefer ha-Eshkol, III, 123; Maharam Schick al Taryag Miẓvot, no. 426; and Ḥazon Ish, Shevi‘it 24:1 and Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 65:1. In this instance, Rambam departs from his usual practice of not supplying the underlying rationale upon which the halakhah is predicated. Rambam poses the question, "And why may one not sell [houses and fields] to them? For it is written, 'lo teḥanem'—Do not give them permanent encampment in real property, for if they will not possess real property, their residence is transient." If non-Jews are not given an opportunity to acquire real estate their presence in the Holy Land will be temporary and transient in nature. A person who does not own land, who does not own a home and who possesses neither fields nor orchards, is a person who has no roots. Such a person's domicile is inherently transitory. An individual acquires permanence and stability within a given geographic locale only when he requires property. Hence, the Torah forbids the sale of real estate in Erez Yisra'el to non-Jews lest through acquisition of land their domicile become permanent in nature.³⁷Ḥazon Ish, Shevi‘it 24:1 and Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 65:1, opines that the ultimate rationale underlying the prohibition against sale of real property in Ereẓ Yisra’el to a non-Jew is identical with the reason for the prohibition against permitting idolaters to dwell in Ereẓ Yisra’el. In the latter case, the reason is explicitly stated in Scripture: “They shall not dwell in your land lest they cause you to sin against me” (Exodus 23:33). Both commandments, according to Ḥazon Ish, are akin to the commandment concerning eradication of paganism in the Land of Israel recorded in Deut. 7:5 and Deut. 12:2-3. This analysis was earlier advanced by Sefer Miẓvot Gadol, no. 48. Although Ḥazon Ish’s inference is from the terminology employed by Rambam in Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 10:3, it would seem that this thesis is more readily substantiated by Rambam’s comments in 10:4 in which he describes sale of real estate as leading to permanent residence and then, in the very same halakhah, proceeds to state, “Similarly it is forbidden to praise them … for this causes [Jews] to cleave to them and to learn from [their] evil deeds” (italics mine). Rambam appears to predicate both proscriptions upon the identical rationale. It is the divine plan that ultimately Erez Yisra'el in its entirety become the exclusive inheritance of the community of Israel.

Among the opinions published thus far, the most extreme position is advanced by Rabbi Ben-Zion Firrer in the 5730 issue of No'am. Rabbi Firrer maintains that mizvot are incumbent upon man only in his terrestrial habitat. The sole supporting evidence for this radical point of view, which is described by its proponent as being "only in the nature of first thoughts; a modest beginning in investigation of this question," is an argument based upon a statement in Kiddushin 37a. Asserting that commandments which are personal in character are binding not only in Erez Yisra'el but in the Diaspora as well, the Gemara quotes the verse "… all the days which you are alive on the earth" (Deut. 12:1). Rabbi Firrer argues that since a pleonasm, "on the earth," is required to establish this obligation, such obligation must be limited to what is specified in this verse. Therefore, man is exempt from performance of mizvot in places other than those which are "on the earth."

That is that He commanded us to offer all of the sacrifices in the [Temple]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "there you shall bring up your burnt-offerings and there you shall do" (Deuteronomy 12:14). And because they wanted to confirm the prohibition not to offer any of all the sacrifices outside [of it], they took the proof from His saying, "lest you bring up your burnt-offerings [in any place]" (Deuteronomy 12:12). And they said in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 70:5-6), "This tells me only of burnt-offerings. From where [do we know the same is true for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and there you shall do all that I command you' (Deuteronomy 12:14). But I still would say that only burnt-offerings are subject to a positive and a negative commandment. From where [do we know the same is true for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and there you shall do'" - as we will explain in its place, when we speak about the prohibition (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 89). And the content of their saying, "burnt-offerings are subject to a positive commandment and a negative commandment," is that one who offers a burnt-offering outside would be transgressing a positive and a negative commandment. Indeed, the negative commandment is His saying, "lest you bring up your burnt-offerings"; and for the positive commandment, it is His saying, "there you shall bring up." [And their saying,] "Other offerings would only be a positive commandment," is meaning to say, His saying, "and there you shall do," by itself. But it is explained that even for other offerings, one also transgresses a negative commandment, along with a positive commandment. And it has already been explained at the end of Zevachim (Zevachim 119b) that all offerings that are sacrificed outside [are a violation of] a positive and a negative commandment, and one is liable excision on their account. Behold it has been made clear to you from all that I said that His saying, "and there you shall do," is a full-fledged positive commandment. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.)

He prohibited us - that we not sacrifice any of the sacrifices outside. [This] means to say, outside of the [Temple] courtyard. And this is called, bringing up outside. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Take care lest you bring up your burnt-offerings" (Deuteronomy 12:13). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 70:5-6) is, "I only [know about] burnt-offerings. From where [do we know about] the other consecrated animals? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and there shall you do' (Deuteronomy 12:14). Perhaps [other offerings] are subject only to a positive commandment. [Hence] we learn to say, 'there shall you bring up [your burnt-offerings].' Burnt-offerings were included [in all of the offerings]. Why were they singled out? To serve as [the basis for] a comparison, and to tell you, 'Just as burnt-offerings, which are characterized by being subject to a positive commandment, are subject to a negative commandment; so too, all offerings that are characterized by being subject to a positive commandment are surely subject to a negative commandment.'" And I will explain the content to you. And that is that the language of a prohibition appears with a burnt-offering - and that is His saying, "lest you bring up." And in another verse, the explanation appears with a command to offer the burnt-offering inside - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and there shall you bring up" - and that is the positive commandment that one offer the burnt-offering there, "in the place that the Lord will choose." However the [only] command that comes [for] the other consecrated animals is that they offer them inside - and that is His saying, "and there shall you do" - to teach that you should not do [it] outside. But the principle with us is that a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. And that is their saying, "I would still say [that] other consecrated animals would only be with a positive commandment." [This] means to say that the one who sacrifices other consecrated animals would only [transgress] a positive commandment - that is that one who sacrifices other consecrated animals outside would only transgress a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment. And hence He said, "and there shall you bring up your burnt-offerings" - so as to extend the comparison, and that the [other] sacrifices be like the burnt-offering: So just like one who offers a burnt-offering [outside] is with a negative commandment, so too [with] the other sacrifices. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for excision when volitional; and a fixed sin-offering when inadvertent. And the language of excision is [found] in Parashat Acharei Mot about someone who brings up an offering outside - it is written, "who brings up a burnt-offering or a sacrifice: And does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting [...], he will be excised" (Leviticus 17:8-9). And in the [Sifra]: "'That man will be excised from his people' - we have understood the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Take care lest you bring up your burnt-offerings.'" And the language of the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), is, "The punishment is written, and the prohibition is written: The punishment, 'he will be excised'; the prohibition, 'Take care lest you bring up.'" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the thirteenth [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.)

That He prohibited us from slaughtering any of the sacrifices outside. And this is called, slaughtering outside. And at the beginning of Keritot (Mishnah Keritot 1:1), when they listed all those that are liable for excision (karet), they counted one who slaughters outside and one who offers [the sacrifices] outside as two. Indeed, if one slaughters outside, he is liable for excision - even if he does not bring [it] up - from the time he slaughtered it. That is the language of the Torah; and that is His saying, "who slaughters an ox or sheep or goat in the camp, or slaughters outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, etc." (Leviticus 17:3-4). Nevertheless, the prohibition about this - meaning to say, slaughtering outside - is not explicit, but is rather learned from the precept that He does not punish unless He prohibited, which we situated as a principle in our introduction with which we introduced [all] of these commandments. And the language of the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), is, "[One who brings up and slaughters outside is liable for two.] Granted, for bringing up, the punishment is written, and the prohibition is written: The punishment, 'he will be excised' (Leviticus 17:9); the prohibition, 'Take care lest you bring up' (Deuteronomy 12:13). [This is] in accordance with Rabbi Avin, who says, 'Wherever it is stated in the Torah, Observe; Lest; or Do not, it is nothing except a prohibition.' But [for] slaughtering, why is one liable? Granted the punishment is, 'he shall be excised from among his people.' [But] from where [do we know] its prohibition?" And after [many] words, the [conclusive] statement came out with this language (Zevachim 107a): "He said, 'there you shall bring up your burnt offerings and there you shall do' (Deuteronomy 12:14). It compares doing to bringing up - just like [with] bringing up, He punished and prohibited; so too, [with] doing, He punished and prohibited." With their saying, "there you shall bring up [...] and there you shall do," it is an indication that His saying, "there you shall bring up your burnt offerings" - and that is the offering, meaning its incineration on the fire - [can be compared to] His saying, "there you shall do like everything I command you," which includes this offering, [as well as] the slaughtering. For He also commanded the slaughtering. And know that one who slaughters outside inadvertently is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And it is necessary that you know that one who slaughters consecrated animals at this time outside the location of the courtyard is liable for excision. And in the explanation, they said (Zevachim 107b), "One who brings up [a sacrifice] outside: Rabbi Yochanan says, 'He is liable.'" And that is the law, for it is fitting to offer [even today]. And the true principle with us is [that] we may sacrifice, even though there is no Temple. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the thirteenth [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Acharei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.)

That He prohibited us from slaughtering any of the sacrifices outside. And this is called, slaughtering outside. And at the beginning of Keritot (Mishnah Keritot 1:1), when they listed all those that are liable for excision (karet), they counted one who slaughters outside and one who offers [the sacrifices] outside as two. Indeed, if one slaughters outside, he is liable for excision - even if he does not bring [it] up - from the time he slaughtered it. That is the language of the Torah; and that is His saying, "who slaughters an ox or sheep or goat in the camp, or slaughters outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, etc." (Leviticus 17:3-4). Nevertheless, the prohibition about this - meaning to say, slaughtering outside - is not explicit, but is rather learned from the precept that He does not punish unless He prohibited, which we situated as a principle in our introduction with which we introduced [all] of these commandments. And the language of the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), is, "[One who brings up and slaughters outside is liable for two.] Granted, for bringing up, the punishment is written, and the prohibition is written: The punishment, 'he will be excised' (Leviticus 17:9); the prohibition, 'Take care lest you bring up' (Deuteronomy 12:13). [This is] in accordance with Rabbi Avin, who says, 'Wherever it is stated in the Torah, Observe; Lest; or Do not, it is nothing except a prohibition.' But [for] slaughtering, why is one liable? Granted the punishment is, 'he shall be excised from among his people.' [But] from where [do we know] its prohibition?" And after [many] words, the [conclusive] statement came out with this language (Zevachim 107a): "He said, 'there you shall bring up your burnt offerings and there you shall do' (Deuteronomy 12:14). It compares doing to bringing up - just like [with] bringing up, He punished and prohibited; so too, [with] doing, He punished and prohibited." With their saying, "there you shall bring up [...] and there you shall do," it is an indication that His saying, "there you shall bring up your burnt offerings" - and that is the offering, meaning its incineration on the fire - [can be compared to] His saying, "there you shall do like everything I command you," which includes this offering, [as well as] the slaughtering. For He also commanded the slaughtering. And know that one who slaughters outside inadvertently is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And it is necessary that you know that one who slaughters consecrated animals at this time outside the location of the courtyard is liable for excision. And in the explanation, they said (Zevachim 107b), "One who brings up [a sacrifice] outside: Rabbi Yochanan says, 'He is liable.'" And that is the law, for it is fitting to offer [even today]. And the true principle with us is [that] we may sacrifice, even though there is no Temple. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the thirteenth [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Acharei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.)

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said about the procedure of the burnt-offering that it was executed thus: We slaughter the beast in the [Temple] yard - and the slaughter is fit even with non-priests, but from the reception of the blood and onward, it is a commandment of the priesthood. And the priest would sprinkle the blood and flay it and dissect the limbs whole - as it is written (Leviticus 1:6), "into sections," and they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Chullin 11:1), "And not sections into sections." And when he dissects [it], he removes the sciatic nerve from the thigh, and incinerates all of the sections on top of the altar. And the wool on the heads of the sheep, the hair of the beards of the male goats, the bones, the tendons, the horns and the hooves - when they are attached - we incinerate it all, as it is stated (Leviticus 1:9), "and the priest incinerates it all." [But if] they were separated, they do not go up, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:26), "And you shall execute your burnt-offerings, the meat and the blood."

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said about the procedure of the burnt-offering that it was executed thus: We slaughter the beast in the [Temple] yard - and the slaughter is fit even with non-priests, but from the reception of the blood and onward, it is a commandment of the priesthood. And the priest would sprinkle the blood and flay it and dissect the limbs whole - as it is written (Leviticus 1:6), "into sections," and they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Chullin 11:1), "And not sections into sections." And when he dissects [it], he removes the sciatic nerve from the thigh, and incinerates all of the sections on top of the altar. And the wool on the heads of the sheep, the hair of the beards of the male goats, the bones, the tendons, the horns and the hooves - when they are attached - we incinerate it all, as it is stated (Leviticus 1:9), "and the priest incinerates it all." [But if] they were separated, they do not go up, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:26), "And you shall execute your burnt-offerings, the meat and the blood."

And [it] is practiced at the time of the [Temple] by males and females. And one who transgresses it and ate or benefited [the value of] a small coin from the consecrated by the execution of an act volitionally is lashed and only pays what he lessened from the consecrated, since volitional transgression does not have the addition of a fifth. And the warning of misappropriation to administer lashes upon him is from that which is written (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates," and as we will write with God's help in the Order of Reeh. [But if] he misappropriated inadvertently he pays that which he benefited from, adds a fifth and brings a sacrifice, as we have written.

That He prohibited us from consuming the second tithe from oil, outside of Jerusalem. And one who eats it is lashed - but [only] with the previous condition. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You may not eat, etc. of your oil" (Deuteronomy 12:17). But perhaps you will dismiss counting the [second] tithe of grain, the second tithe of wine and the second tithe of oil as three commandments: Know that when one would eat all three together, he would be lashed for each and every one; since the negative statement in this verse is not a general negative commandment, such that we do not give lashes for it. In fact, [the statement] is to differentiate [the three as separate from each other]. And in the explanation, they said in the Gemara, Keritot (Keritot 4b), "One who ate the [second] tithes of grain, wine and oil is lashed for each and every one. And do we give lashes for a general negative commandment? [It is different here, as] the verse is written with superfluity. After all, it is written (Deuteronomy 14:23), 'And you shall eat before the Lord, your God, [...] the tithe of your grain, etc.' Why do I need it to repeat and write each of them? [It is understood from it] to differentiate." And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 18a), they said, "After all, it is written (Deuteronomy 12:6-7), '[your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the donation of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.] And there you shall eat before the Lord your God.' Let the [Torah] write simply, 'You may not eat them.' Why do I need it to repeat and specify each of them? [It is understood from it] that it comes to designate a negative commandment for each and every one." Behold it has already been explained that everything that has been prohibited in this verse - each and every matter is a separate negative commandment. And I will [now] return to finish the other negative commandments included in this verse. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithe 2.)

That He prohibited us from eating tevel - and that is [produce] from which the priestly tithe and the [other] tithes have not been separated. And that is His saying, "And they shall not desecrate the consecrated items of the Children of Israel which they will set apart" (Leviticus 22:15). And one who transgresses this negative commandment - that he ate tevel - is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And the hint to this is surely His saying, "and they shall not desecrate"; and saying with the priestly tithe, "and the consecrated things of the Children of Israel, you must not desecrate" (Numbers 18:32). And it is learned [from the use of the same word,] desecrate with the priestly tithe, [the eating of] which is an iniquity [punished by] death, as we have explained. And the language of the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83a), is, "From where [do we know that] one who eats tevel is punished with death? As it is stated, 'They shall not desecrate the consecrated items of the Children of Israel' - that they are to give the Lord in the future." And that is from [the continuation of the verse], "which they will set apart." And after this verse, He said, "And so cause them to bear the iniquity of the guilt" (Leviticus 22:16). And in the Gemara in Makkot (Makkot 16b), they said, "One might have thought that one is liable for eating only tevel from which no gifts were taken at all; [but if] the great priestly tithe was separated from it, but the priestly tithe of the tithe was not separated from it, or if the priestly tithe of the tithe was separated but not the first tithe, or if the first tithe was separated but not the second tithe, or [even] if only poor man’s tithe [was not separated] - from where [do we know it]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You may not eat within your gates' (Deuteronomy 12:17); and there it states, 'and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied' (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as there, it is [referring to] poor man’s tithe, here too, it is [referring to] poor man’s tithe - and the [Torah] said, 'You may not.'" However this is [talking about] lashes. And the iniquity [punished with] death is only with the great priestly tithe and the priestly tithe from the tithe. For one who eats the first tithe, before the priestly tithe from the tithe has been separated, is liable for death. And that is His saying to the Levites, when He commanded to separate the tithe from the tithe, "and the consecrated things of the Children of Israel, you must not desecrate so that you not die." As this is the prohibition about eating the tithe while it is tevel. Hence one is liable for death because of it, as is explained in Demai. And also understood from this is that one who eats tevel before the great priestly tithe and the priestly tithe from the tithe were separated from it, is liable for death; and its prohibition is from, "and the consecrated things of the Children of Israel, you must not desecrate" - as I have explained in this commandment. But one who eats tevel after the separation of the great priestly tithe, but before the separation of all the [other] tithes, is liable for lashes; and its prohibition is from, "You may not eat within your gates." And hold on to this and do not err about it. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning tevel - have already been explained in [various] places in Demai and in Terumot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 10.)

Not to slaughter consecrated animals outside of the [Temple] yard: Not to sacrifice consecrated animals outside of the [Temple] yard - and that is called 'those slaughtered outside' - as it is stated (Leviticus 17:3-4), "that slaughters an ox or sheep or goat, etc. And does not bring it to the opening of the Tent of Meeting, etc., he has shed blood and shall be cut off." And the warning (negative commandment) does not come to us from this verse, as this verse only expresses the punishment. And it is established for us, [that] He does not punish unless he warned (Sanhedrin 56b). And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said that we learn the warning for this with an inferential comparison, as it is [found] in the Gemara, Zevachim 106a. As there, they, may their memory be blessed, said, "One who slaughters and brings up outside is liable for the slaughter and liable for the bringing up" - the understanding of bringing up is burning with fire. And they challenged there, "Bringing up is fine, the punishment is written, and the warning is written - the punishment, 'And does not bring it to the opening of the Tent of Meeting [...] and shall be cut off'; the warning, 'guard yourself lest you bring up your burnt-offering' (Deuteronomy 12:13), like Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin said, 'Every place that it is stated, "guard," "lest" or "not," it is nothing but a negative commandment'; but slaughter, it is fine that the punishment is written, 'And to the opening of the Tent of Meeting, etc.,' but from where is the warning?" And after great effort, they said there that since Scripture states (Deuteronomy 12:14), "there you shall do, and there you shall bring up," it compares bringing up and doing: Just like bringing up, it punished and warned; so too doing, it punished and warned - and the understanding of doing includes everything, whether slaughter or burning.

Not to slaughter consecrated animals outside of the [Temple] yard: Not to sacrifice consecrated animals outside of the [Temple] yard - and that is called 'those slaughtered outside' - as it is stated (Leviticus 17:3-4), "that slaughters an ox or sheep or goat, etc. And does not bring it to the opening of the Tent of Meeting, etc., he has shed blood and shall be cut off." And the warning (negative commandment) does not come to us from this verse, as this verse only expresses the punishment. And it is established for us, [that] He does not punish unless he warned (Sanhedrin 56b). And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said that we learn the warning for this with an inferential comparison, as it is [found] in the Gemara, Zevachim 106a. As there, they, may their memory be blessed, said, "One who slaughters and brings up outside is liable for the slaughter and liable for the bringing up" - the understanding of bringing up is burning with fire. And they challenged there, "Bringing up is fine, the punishment is written, and the warning is written - the punishment, 'And does not bring it to the opening of the Tent of Meeting [...] and shall be cut off'; the warning, 'guard yourself lest you bring up your burnt-offering' (Deuteronomy 12:13), like Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin said, 'Every place that it is stated, "guard," "lest" or "not," it is nothing but a negative commandment'; but slaughter, it is fine that the punishment is written, 'And to the opening of the Tent of Meeting, etc.,' but from where is the warning?" And after great effort, they said there that since Scripture states (Deuteronomy 12:14), "there you shall do, and there you shall bring up," it compares bringing up and doing: Just like bringing up, it punished and warned; so too doing, it punished and warned - and the understanding of doing includes everything, whether slaughter or burning.

He prohibited [us] from eating meat with milk. And that is His also saying, "you shall not cook, etc.," a second time (Exodus 34:26) - meaning to say, the prohibition of eating [it]. And in Chullin (Chullin 114a), they said, "Milk and meat - one is lashed for its cooking, and lashed for its eating." And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 21b), they said, "One who cooks a sciatic nerve in milk on a holiday and eats it is lashed five [sets of] lashes: On account of eating a [sciatic] nerve; on account of cooking on a holiday; on account of cooking meat and milk; on account of eating meat cooked with milk; and on account of kindling [a fire]." And there (Makkot 22a), they said, "Remove kindling, and insert [the use of] consecrated wood - the prohibition of which is from here: 'And their tree-gods you shall burn in fire […] you shall not do so to the Lord, your God' (Deuteronomy 12:3–4)." And in the Gemara, Chullin (Chullin 114a), they said, "The [Torah] expressed eating with a term of cooking, so that like if he cooked, he is lashed; he is also lashed for eating." And in the second [chapter] of Pesachim (Pesachim 21b), they said, "Because of this did [the Torah] not write about eating meat with milk explicitly - to say that we give lashes for it even when [consumed] not according to the way of its enjoyment." And remember this. And here it is appropriate for me to note an important principle that I have not yet mentioned. And that is His saying, "you shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" three times; and the Teachers have said that each one of the negative statements is for [specific] content: And they said (Chullin 115b), "One is for eating, one is for cooking and one is for benefit." But the questioner will ask and say, "For what reason did you count the prohibition of its eating and its cooking as two commandments, yet you do not count the prohibition of its benefit as a separate commandment?" The questioner should know that it is inappropriate to count its benefit as a separate commandment, since it and its eating are the same matter. And His saying about something that is forbidden to eat is indeed one of several examples of benefit. But the intention is that he not benefit from it, not by eating and not by anything else. And that is their saying (Pesachim 21b), "Wherever it is stated, 'You shall not eat'; 'It shall not be eaten' - both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit are implied; until the verse specifies that one may benefit, in the manner that it specified with regard to a carcass." As Scripture explained the use of that, and that is His saying, "you may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it" (Deuteronomy 14:21). And according to this principle, it is inappropriate to count the prohibition of eating and benefit as two commandments. And if we had counted them [as] two commandments with meat with milk, it would have likewise been appropriate with chametz, with orlah (fruit of trees during their first three years) and with forbidden mixtures of the vineyard - that each one of them be two commandments - if the prohibition of benefit is its own commandment. But since these were not counted, but rather only the negative commandment of eating, alone, was counted - and the prohibition of benefit was included in this prohibition - the same should occur regarding meat with milk. And only one question remains about this. And that is that one could say, "Since the prohibition of benefit ensues from the prohibition of eating, for what purpose did Scripture need a negative statement about meat and milk, to forbid its benefit, as we explained?" Behold the answer to this is that it is needed regarding this because it is not written, "Do not eat from this" - from which eating and benefit would have been forbidden. Hence a negative statement to forbid benefit was required. And we have already mentioned the reason for which the eating of meat with milk was not mentioned: For anything about which it mentions eating is only liable when his throat derives enjoyment from it. However, if he open his mouth and swallows what is forbidden, or it is [so] hot as to burn his throat, he is exempt - except for meat with milk, about which one is liable for its eating even if he did not derive enjoyment from it, as we mentioned. And likewise [is the case with] forbidden mixtures of the vineyard, as we will explain after this (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 193). And understand all of these principles and remember them. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Chullin. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 9.)

And this negative commandment - meaning, the prohibition of thought about idolatry - is repeated in another place, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 11:16), "Guard yourselves, lest your hearts be seduced and you serve, etc." [This is] meaning to say that if your heart spends much time in thinking about it, it will be a cause to divert you from the straight path and to be involved in its service. And it is also stated about this matter (Deuteronomy 4:19), "And lest you lift your eyes to the heavens and see, etc." As the content [of this verse] is not that a man not lift up his eyes to the sky and observe the heavens, but [rather] the intention of the thing is that he not observe them with his heart's eye - to know their power and their makeup in order to serve them. And [it is] like it is stated in another place (Deuteronomy 12:30), "and lest you inquire of their gods, saying, 'How do these nations serve their gods, and I will do so, me too, etc.'" The verse prevents us from asking about the manner of their worship, since all of this is a cause to err about it.

To not follow the practices of the gentiles: To not follow the practices of the Amorites and so [too,] the practices of the gentiles, as it is stated (Leviticus 20:23), "And you shall not follow the practice of the nation that I am driving out before you." And the law is the same for all the nations, since the matter is that they turn away from [following] God, and worship idolatry. And the content of the commandment is that we not behave like them in our clothing and our matters. And it is like they said in Sifra, Achrei Mot, Chapter 13:8, "'And do not follow their practices - that you not follow their mores with things that are fixed for them, such as theaters, circuses and amphitheaters" - and all of these are types of frivolity that they would do in their gatherings, when they gathered to do craziness, licentiousness and idolatry. And they said there, "'The practice of the nation' - Rabbi Meir says, 'These are the ways of the Amorites that the sages numbered (see Shabbat 67a).' Rabbi Yehudah ben Betira says, 'That you should not grow a tassel of the head and not cut its growth'" - meaning to say that he not shave from the sides and leave hair in the middle, which is called a forelock. And this negative commandment is repeated in another place with other words, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:30), "Guard yourself lest you be ensnared to follow them." And the language of Sifrei is "'Guard' is with a negative commandment; 'lest' is with a negative commandment; 'you be ensnared to follow them' is lest you imitate them and do like their deeds; 'and it shall be a snare for you' is that you not say, 'Since they go out with velvet, I will go out with velvet, since they go with helmets, I will go with a helmet'" - and that is a type of knight's armor. And the language of the books of prophecy (Zephaniah 1:8) is "and upon all of the dressed, there is a foreign dress."

That no foreigner eat priestly tithe: That no foreigner (non-priest) eat priestly tithe, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:10), "And any foreigner shall not eat the holy." And the received (traditional) understanding (Pesachim 23a) came that this "holy" is only the priestly tithe and anything that is called priestly tithe (terumah), but it does not come here to warn about other types of holy things. And that which is also called priestly tithe is the first fruits, as they, may their memory be blessed, expound from the tradition (Pesachim 36b), "'And the terumah of your hand' (Deuteronomy 12:17) - these are the first fruits."

To not eat tevel: To not eat tevel - whether an Israelite or a priest - and that is a thing that tithes and priestly tithes have not been taken away from it, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:15), "And they shall not profane the consecrated things of the Children of Israel that they shall raise to the Lord." And the received (traditional) explanation comes about this (Sanhedrin 83a) that the verse is speaking about tevel. And the content of the verse is to say that they should not profane the consecrated things in their still being mixed with the non-sacred. And that is [why] the expression is [in] future tense - meaning to say that it has not yet been raised. And so [too], is it in the Gemara Sanhedrin 83a, "From where [do we know] about the one who eats tevel that he is [punishable by] death? As it is stated, 'And they shall not profane the consecrated things of the Children of Israel that they shall raise to the Lord' - the verse is speaking about those that will be raised in the future; such that we learn [a comparison of] 'profane' [and] 'profane' from priestly tithe," about which it is written (Numbers 18:32), "and the consecrated things of the Children of Israel you shall not profane and not die." And [the latter] is with the death penalty - as we wrote above (Sefer HaChinukh 280), from that which is written (Leviticus 22:9), "and die for it, since they profaned it," and adjacent to it, "And any foreigner shall not eat the holy." And they, may their memory be blessed, also said about this matter in the Gemara Makkot 16b, "Perhaps one is only liable for eating tevel from which no [gifts] were taken at all; but if the great priestly tithe was taken from [the produce], but not the tithe of the tithe, or the first tithe or the second tithe, or even if only the poor tithe [was not separated]; from where [is it derived] that there is a liability in the thing? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You may not eat in your gates' (Deuteronomy 12:17), and later it states, 'and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied' (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as there, it is poor tithe, here too, it is poor tithe - and the [Torah] states, 'You may not.'"

From the laws of the commandment: Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Firstlings 1:17), "Just as the first-born cannot be redeemed, so too can the priest not sell it while it is still unblemished. As since it stands to be offered as a sacrifice, the priest does not have the right to sell it. But at this time (when there is no Temple), since it is destined to be eaten, behold, it is permitted to sell it, even though it is unblemished - whether to a priest or an Israelite." To here [are his words]. Certainly about that which our Teacher, may his memory be blessed, said that it is destined to be eaten, his intention was to say, when it gets a blemish. And a blemished first-born can be sold by the priest at any time, whether the Temple [is standing] or whether the Temple [is not standing], whether it is alive or whether it is slaughtered, to any person, even a non-Jew, as it is completely non-sacred, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:15), "The pure and the impure together, like the gazelle and the deer." Still, the Sages warned not to sell it in the marketplace in public, but rather at home. The rest of its details are elucidated in Tractate Bekhorot [Chapter 5] (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 306).

Additonally, one cannot say that the Torah permitted [with the word "tashbisu" (Ex. 12:15)] *only* bitul but not searching [and destroying], because that would be completely illogical. Because in all instances where benefit is prohibited, for example, the Asheira tree, or [other items of] idolatry, the Torah instructs us only to search [and destroy] as it is written "you shall definitely destroy..." (Deut. 12:2). Rather, the Torah certainly is being lenient in the case of chometz, such that bitul [on its own] is sufficient, but obviously, searching [and destroying] are also included in "tashbisu". [Therefore,] one who does not wish to use bitul, or is unable to concentrate sufficiently, can search in all the places into which chometz was brought, and destroy it, either by burning it, or by one of the other methods which will, with Heaven's help, be explained. And after he searched all those places, even if chometz was subsequently found, he has not transgressed a Torah prohibition, because the Torah relies on presumptions. And since he did all that was required, he is simply a victim of circumstances. Thus, on the Torah level, one may use either of two approaches, either searching [and destroying] or bitul, and he will have fulfilled his obligation.

To destroy idolatry and its auxiliaries: That we were commanded to destroy all houses of idolatry with all types of destruction - with breaking, with burning, with demolition, with cutting - every type with what is fitting for it; meaning to say with what would be most destructive and quick in its destruction. And the intent is that we not leave a trace of idolatry. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:2), "You shall surely destroy all of the places, etc." And it is also stated (Deuteronomy 12:3), "But rather, etc. their altars shall you tear down." And it states further (Deuteronomy 12:3), "And you shall tear down their altar." And the proof that it is a positive commandment is that which it said in Sanhedrin 90a, "What is the positive commandment about idolatry" - meaning to say, to destroy it? "Rav Chasda [answered], '"And you shall tear down, etc."'" And the language of Sifrei Devarim 60 is "From where [do we know] that if one cuts down a tree-god and it grows back even ten times that a person is obligated to cut it down? [Hence], we learn to say, 'you shall surely destroy, etc.'" And it is also said there, "'And you will destroy their name from that place' - in the Land of Israel, you are commanded to pursue after them, but you are not commanded to pursue after them outside of the Land."

To destroy idolatry and its auxiliaries: That we were commanded to destroy all houses of idolatry with all types of destruction - with breaking, with burning, with demolition, with cutting - every type with what is fitting for it; meaning to say with what would be most destructive and quick in its destruction. And the intent is that we not leave a trace of idolatry. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:2), "You shall surely destroy all of the places, etc." And it is also stated (Deuteronomy 12:3), "But rather, etc. their altars shall you tear down." And it states further (Deuteronomy 12:3), "And you shall tear down their altar." And the proof that it is a positive commandment is that which it said in Sanhedrin 90a, "What is the positive commandment about idolatry" - meaning to say, to destroy it? "Rav Chasda [answered], '"And you shall tear down, etc."'" And the language of Sifrei Devarim 60 is "From where [do we know] that if one cuts down a tree-god and it grows back even ten times that a person is obligated to cut it down? [Hence], we learn to say, 'you shall surely destroy, etc.'" And it is also said there, "'And you will destroy their name from that place' - in the Land of Israel, you are commanded to pursue after them, but you are not commanded to pursue after them outside of the Land."

Not to destroy things upon which His name, may He be blessed, are called: That we should not destroy and erase the things upon which the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, are called, such as the Temple and holy books and His precious names, blessed be He. And about all this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:4), "Do not do this to the Lord, your God." After it was preceded by the commandment to destroy idolatry and to erase its name and to demolish all of its houses and altars, it prevented [it here] and stated, "Do not do this to the Lord, your God." And at the end of Tractate Makkot 22a, they, may their memory be blessed, said "One who burns consecrated wood is lashed, and its warning is from 'and you shall destroy their name from that place[...] Do not do this, etc.'" And so too did they say there that one who erases the name [of God] is lashed, and its warning is from the very same verse.

That one brings all of his vows on the first festival: That anyone who vows or promised any sacrifice to the altar or any thing to the [Temple] upkeep within the year, bring it on the festival that he encounters first after his vow, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:5-6), "and to there shall you go. And to there you are to bring your burnt-offerings and other sacrifices, etc. and your vows" - that is a vow, meaning to say, that he said, "Behold, a sacrifice is upon me," and he is always liable for its fulfillment until he sacrifices it - "and your promises" - that is a promise, such as that he said, "Behold, this is a burnt-offering," and if it is lost, he is not liable for its fulfillment. And they said in Sifrei Devarim 63, "'And to there shall you go. And to there shall you bring them' - to establish them as an obligation to bring them on the first festival." And such is the understanding of the verse: Immediately when you go there - which is is the first festival - you shall bring the sacrifice.

Not to sacrifice a sacrifice outside of the [Temple] yard: Not to bring up anything of the sacrifices outside of the [Temple] yard, and this is called offering up outside. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:13), "Guard yourself, lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place" - the understanding of "offering up" is burning. And they said in Sifrei Devarim 70, "This tells me only of burnt-offerings. From where [do I derive the same for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say 'and there shall you do all that I command you' (Deuteronomy 12:14). But I still would say that burnt-offerings are [subject] to a positive commandment" - as Scripture states, "there shall you offer up [your burnt-offerings]," which implies only a burnt-offering - "and [also to] a negative commandment" - as Scripture states "Guard yourself, lest you offer up your burnt-offerings," which implies only a burnt-offering. "But other offerings are subject only to a positive commandment" - meaning to say, that one who sacrifices consecrated things outside would only transgress a positive commandment, as Scripture stated, "and there shall you do," and not outside; and a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment is a positive commandment. "[From where do I know that they are also subject to a negative commandment? Hence] we learn to say 'there shall you offer up your burnt-offerings.' Burnt-offerings were included [in all of the offerings]. Why were they singled out? To [serve as the basis for] a comparison, and to say to you: Just as burnt-offerings [are characterized by being subject to] a positive commandment and a negative commandment - so [too,] all [offerings] that are [subject to] a positive commandment, behold they are [also subject to] a negative commandment." All of its content is like the negative commandment of slaughtering outside that I wrote in Achrei Mot (Sefer HaChinukh 186).

Not to sacrifice a sacrifice outside of the [Temple] yard: Not to bring up anything of the sacrifices outside of the [Temple] yard, and this is called offering up outside. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:13), "Guard yourself, lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place" - the understanding of "offering up" is burning. And they said in Sifrei Devarim 70, "This tells me only of burnt-offerings. From where [do I derive the same for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say 'and there shall you do all that I command you' (Deuteronomy 12:14). But I still would say that burnt-offerings are [subject] to a positive commandment" - as Scripture states, "there shall you offer up [your burnt-offerings]," which implies only a burnt-offering - "and [also to] a negative commandment" - as Scripture states "Guard yourself, lest you offer up your burnt-offerings," which implies only a burnt-offering. "But other offerings are subject only to a positive commandment" - meaning to say, that one who sacrifices consecrated things outside would only transgress a positive commandment, as Scripture stated, "and there shall you do," and not outside; and a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment is a positive commandment. "[From where do I know that they are also subject to a negative commandment? Hence] we learn to say 'there shall you offer up your burnt-offerings.' Burnt-offerings were included [in all of the offerings]. Why were they singled out? To [serve as the basis for] a comparison, and to say to you: Just as burnt-offerings [are characterized by being subject to] a positive commandment and a negative commandment - so [too,] all [offerings] that are [subject to] a positive commandment, behold they are [also subject to] a negative commandment." All of its content is like the negative commandment of slaughtering outside that I wrote in Achrei Mot (Sefer HaChinukh 186).

The commandment to sacrifice all the sacrifices in the Choice House: That we were commanded to sacrifice all the sacrifices in the Temple and not outside of the Land. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:14), "But only in the place that the Lord will choose, etc. there you shall offer up your burnt offerings and there shall you do all that I command you." And so is it [found] in Sifrei Devarim 70, "This tells me only of burnt-offerings. From where [do I derive the same for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say 'and there shall you do all, etc.' But I still would say that burnt-offerings are [subject] to a positive commandment and a negative commandment" - the explanation of the positive commandment is that which we have mentioned and [of] the negative commandment is from that which is stated in this section "Guard yourself, lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place that you see," which mentions "your burnt-offerings" explicitly. "But other offerings are subject only to a positive commandment. [From where do I know that they are also subject to a negative commandment? Hence] we learn to say 'there shall you do, etc.,'" as it appears there, and as it is written above in this Order adjacently (Sefer HaChinukh 439). And the general principle of the matter is that even with other consecrated things, one who sacrifices them outside violates a positive commandment and a negative commandment and is liable excision for it.

To redeem consecrated things upon which a blemish developed: That we were commanded to redeem consecrated [animals] upon which a blemish developed and purchase another animal with their money for a sacrifice. And after the redemption, they go out to being non-sacred and the owners slaughter them and eat them like completely non-sacred [animals]. And about this is it stated, "But in all that your soul desires, you may slaughter and eat meat, etc. the impure and the pure may eat of it, like the gazelle and the deer." After the section mentioned the pure sacrifices and obligated us to sacrifice them "only in the place that the Lord will choose," it stated afterwards about the sacrifices themselves that if a blemish developed in them, that we redeem them and eat them 'in all that our souls desire'; meaning to say that we do with them any of our desires - like the gazelle and the deer, whose body is never holy. And so the traditional explanation came about it that this verse is only speaking about disqualified consecrated [animals] that they be redeemed.

To not eat from the second tithe of grain outside of Jerusalem: To not eat the second tithe of grain outside of Jerusalem. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates the tithes of your grain." And the verse that comes after it instructs about it that it is referring to the second tithe, as it is stated, "But rather you must eat it before the Lord, your God[...] you and your sons and your daughters, and your slave and your maid-servant." And were it the other tithes, they are for the poor or for the Levites. And I have written regarding what the second tithe is above in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 473). And I have written the reason for its being eaten in Jerusalem in the Order of Eem Bechukotai in the commandment of the animal tithe (Sefer HaChinukh 360).

To not eat the second tithe of wine outside of Jerusalem: To not eat the second tithe of wine outside of Jerusalem, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your wine."

To not eat the second tithe of oil outside of Jerusalem:To not eat the second tithe of yitshar (the understanding is oil) outside of Jerusalem, as it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your oil." And the whole content of oil is like the content of grain and wine. And the measurement of eating oil to make one liable for it is a kazayit, according to what I heard from my teacher, God protect him. And even though it is a drink, it is held to be eaten by all people. And [even] if we know a few Yishmaelites that drink it, their opinion is nullified by all the rest of the people.

And do not think to say that this negative commandment of "You may not" is a general prohibition, as each and every matter is a negative commandment on its own. And so is it explained in Tractate Makkot (it should say Keritot 4b), "If he ate tithe of grain, wine and oil, he is liable for each and every one." And it challenges there, "And do we administer lashes for a general prohibition?" And it answers it, "The verse is superfluous. How is it? It is written (Deuteronomy 12:23), 'And you shall eat in front of the Lord, your God [...] the tithe of your grain, your wine and your oil.'" [This discussion continues in Makkot 18a:] "Let the [Torah] write, 'You may not eat them in your gates.' Why do I need the [Torah] to enumerate all of them here? [Hence] we understand from it [that it is] to designate for them a negative commandment for each and every one." And this verse of "And you shall eat" is at the end of this Order.

To not eat an unblemished first-born [animal] outside of Jerusalem: That a priest not eat an unblemished first-born [animal] outside of Jerusalem; and so too that a foreigner [non-priest] not eat from a first-born in any place, as the commandment with it is that the priests - the servants of God - should eat it, from the reason that I wrote in the Order of Bo el Pharoah (Sefer HaChinukh 18). And about all of this is it written (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. and the first-born of your cattle and your flocks." And the language of Sifrei Devarim 72 (see [also] Makkot 17a) is "'And the first-born' - this is the first-born. And the verse only comes for a foreigner that ate the first-born, whether before the sprinkling of the bloods or whether after the sprinkling, [to teach] that he transgresses a negative commandment." And the intent is not that the verse does not teach anything except this matter (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 144), but rather it is saying that this is [also] included in this negative prohibition. And it comes out that included in it are two matters that we mentioned: prevention of the foreigner from eating an unblemished first-born in any place; and so too, prevention of the priest from eating it outside of Jerusalem. And both of the matters are predicated upon [it being] an unblemished first-born. And there in the Order of Bo el Pharaoh, I wrote at what time and in what place the commandment of the first-born is practiced and the disagreement among my teachers - God protect them - about the matter of the first-born at this time. And there is no need to write at length about the reason for its being eaten in Jerusalem, as it is part of the consecrated foods - and as it is written in the Mishnah Zevachim 5:8, "The first-born, the tithe and the Pesach sacrifice offering are low-level consecrated foods (kedoshim kalim), etc." - and I have already lavished my words in several places (Sefer HaChinukh 360) about the reason [for] the eating of consecrated foods in the holy place and their being eaten by the servants of God.

To not eat higher-level consecrated foods (kodshai kodashim) outside of the [Temple] yard: To not eat - and even priests - from the meat of the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering outside of the 'curtains.' And the masters of the tradition explained that this prohibition is included in "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your cattle and your flocks" (Deuteronomy 12:17). As so did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Makkot 17a), "The verse only comes with regard to one who eats a sin-offering or a guilt-offering[...] outside the curtains, [to teach that he is transgressing a negative commandment]." And so too, one who eats lower-level consecrated foods (kodashim kalim) outside of the wall [of Jerusalem] is included in this prohibition, like the Gemara comes to teach. As they said there that anyone who eats something outside the place of its eating is [considered], "You may not eat in your gates." And their intention, may their memory be blessed, in saying, "The verse only comes," is to say that this is also included.

To not eat meat of a burnt-offering: To not eat anything of the meat of a burnt-offering, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your vows that you vow." And the understanding of the verse is as if it stated, "You may not eat any vows that you vow." And our Rabbis, the masters of the tradition, said (Makkot 17a), "'Your vows' - this is the burnt-offering [...] the verse only comes [to teach you] with regard to one who eats the meat of a burnt-offering [whether it is before the sprinkling of the bloods or] after the sprinkling [of the bloods, whether it is] inside the [courtyard or outside the courtyard], that he is [transgressing a negative commandment]. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 146) that this negative commandment is a warning for all that misappropriate sanctified foods. I have written in the Order of Vayikach Li Trumah (Sefer HaChinukh 95) that which I know from the angle of the simple understanding about the matter of sacrifices and the benefit that comes out for us in our burning animals in the Great House. And the warning about them that we not eat from them, but rather that all of it be burnt follows from the same reason - it is one connection [that connects them both]. And this warning is specified with the burnt-offering because its commandment is that it be [completely] consumed, but included in this warning is all that misappropriate consecrated foods, as I have written.

To not eat lower-level consecrated foods (kodashim kalim) before the sprinkling of the bloods: To not eat anything from the lower-level consecrated foods before the sprinkling of the bloods. And lower-level consecrated foods are like the thanksgiving offering and the peace-offerings and that which is similar to them, from those that are enumerated in the fifth chapter of Tractate Zevachim 48. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. and your promises" - the understanding of which is as if it stated, "You may not eat your promises." And the masters of the tradition, may their memory be blessed, said (Makkot 17a), "The verse only comes with regard to one who eats a thanksgiving offering or a peace-offering before the sprinkling of the bloods, [to teach] that he is [transgressing a negative commandment]."

That the priest not eat the first-fruits (bikkurim) before their placement in the [Temple] yard: That we were prevented (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 149) from eating the first fruits. And about this was it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat, etc. and the contribution of your hand." And the masters of the tradition explained it (Makkot 17a), "'The contribution (terumat) of your hand' - these are the first-fruits." And it is elucidated at the end of Tractate Makkot 17a, that we are only liable before they were placed in the [Temple] yard. But from when they were placed in the yard, a person is exempt [from punishment] for them. And the language of Sifrei Devarim 72:9 is "The verse only comes [...] with regard to one who eats the first-fruit but did not recite [the recital] over them, [to teach] that he is transgressing a negative commandment." And the understanding of, "because he did not recite over them," is because they were not placed in the yard; but if they were placed there, there is no liability for lashes, even if he did not recite over them. And so too (Makkot 17a; Sifrei Devarim 72:9) there is with them the condition that there is for the second tithe with regards to the liability for lashes, that we are not liable until they see the face of the [Temple] first, and afterwards he eats them before their placement in the yard. In this way is there a liability for lashes for the priest that eats from them. And an Israelite is liable for death by the hand of the Heavens any time he eats from them, even after he recited the famous recital over them. And [that recital] is explicit in the Order of Vehaya Ki Tavo. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1), "The priestly tithe (terumah) and the first-fruits are liable for [the addition of] a fifth when inadvertent, and death when volitional." And this is exactly like the law of the priestly tithe - because the verse called the first-fruits with the [same] name, terumah, they became obligated with the laws of the priestly tithe.

To not forsake the Levite, from giving him his gifts: That we have been warned from forsaking the Levites and not to be negligent from filling their portion - meaning to say to not delay their tithes - and all the more so on festivals, as we are warned about them even more, in order to gladden them at the appointed time. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:19), "Be careful for yourself, lest you forsake the Levite, all of your days upon your land."

The commandment of slaughter: That anyone who wants to eat ([domesticated] beast, [wild] animal or bird) meat first slaughter them as is fit, and that there not be [another way to] permit [it] besides slaughter. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:21), "you may slaughter from your your cattle or your flock [...], as I have commanded you, etc." And the language of Sifrei Devarim 75:7,16 is, "Just like consecrated [animals] are with slaughter, so too are the non-sacred [animals] with slaughter. [...] 'As I have commanded you' teaches us that Moshe, our teacher, was commanded as to the esophagus and the trachea and as to the [cutting of] the majority of one in a bird and the majority of two, in a beast." The understanding is not that it be such from the understanding of the verse, but rather that upon this commandment came the tradition that it was like this that he was commanded about all the matters of slaughter - as is known to us about the knife, the place of the slaughter [on the animal] on the esophagus and the windpipe and the rest of the matters.

And even though the verse only mentions cattle and flocks, we have known that [wild] animals are included in [domesticated] beasts, since Scripture compares them, as it is written about [domesticated beasts] disqualified from [having been] consecrated (Deuteronomy 12:22), "But as you eat the gazelle and the deer, so shall you eat it" (Chullin 27b). And birds also require slaughter (Chullin 27b), since it is compared to a beast, as it is written (Leviticus 11:46), "This is the law of the beast and the bird." Yet the sages [further] made an exacting inference, and the tradition supports them, that since Scripture places the bird between the beast that requires slaughter and the fish which has no slaughter - as it is written, "This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters" - it is enough for you with one benchmark (siman, either the esophagus or the windpipe). And from where did they learn to say that there is no slaughter with fish? As it is written about them (Numbers 11:22), "if all of the fish of the sea were collected for them" - just with collection, whether they are collected alive or even dead. And so [too,] all species of locusts do not have slaughter (Keritot 21b), as the expression, collection, is written about them as well - as it is written (Isaiah 33:4), "the collection of the locusts." And also the verse (Leviticus 11:46) mentions them after the fish at the end of the Order of Bayom Hashmini, as it is stated, "This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters" - these are the fish - "and of any soul that swarms upon the earth" - these are the locusts. And also because they have scales on their bodies like fish.

To not eat a limb from the living: That we were prevented that we not eat a limb from the living - meaning to say, a limb that we cut from an animal when it is still alive. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:23), "and you shall not eat the soul with the meat." And so they did they say, "'And you shall not eat the soul with the meat' - that is a limb from the living." And we say in Tractate Chullin 102b, "One who ate a limb from the living and meat from the living is lashed twice" - since there are two negative commandments about it: the one which we mentioned; and the second [is] "and flesh torn in the field shall you not eat" (Exodus 22:30), which is a negative commandment about the one that eats meat from the living, as I have written in the commandment not to eat a 'torn' animal (Sefer HaChinukh 73). And the warning for the limb from the living was repeated in another place in Parshat Noach, as it is stated (Genesis 9:4), "But meat with the soul, its blood, you shall not eat."

To bring consecrated things to the Choice House (Temple): To bring all sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offering and peace-offerings that we have an obligation on ourselves to the Choice House and to sacrifice [them] there. And even though these beasts are outside of the Land, it is an obligation upon us to bring them to the selected place. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:26), "But your consecrated things that shall be for you and your vows shall you carry and come." And even though the commandment to sacrifice in the Choice House came to us, as I have written in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 440), nonetheless, this specific commandment comes to us about the sacrifices [from] outside of the Land. And so is it in Sifrei Devarim 77:1-2, "'But your consecrated things' [...] - it is only speaking of his consecrated things [from] outside of the land; 'shall you carry and come,' teaches that he is obligated to care for bringing them until he brings them to the Choice House." And they [also] said there that the obligation is with sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings. And it is possible for us to say that [the reason] a commandment was specified for the consecrated [animals from] outside of the Land, is to warn us about them, because the burden with them is greater than the consecrated [animals from within] the Land, since [the latter] are closer to the [Temple].

But Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvot Ase 85) there is only one commandment with all of the consecrated [animals], whether consecrated [animals from] the Land or whether those [from] outside of the Land; and that we should not make them two commandments. And even though it is true that is expounded in Sifrei to be about the consecrated [animals from] outside of the Land, this is not truly a proof to make them two commandments. And in the third chapter of Tractate Temurah 17b they expounded it in a different way. As there they said, "'But your consecrated things' - these are the exchanged animals; 'that shall be for you' - these are the offspring; 'and your vows' - that is a vow; 'shall you carry and come' - it is possible that they bring them to the Choice House and prevent water and food from them such that they die; [hence] we learn to say, 'And you shall effect your burnt-offering, the meat and the blood' (Deuteronomy 12:27) - in the way that you act with the burnt-offering, so should you act with the exchanged animal, and in the way that you act with the peace-offerings, so should you act with the offspring of the peace-offerings and the animals exchanged for them." The whole content of this commandment is like the content of the third commandment in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 440) and there is one root to both of them. [Hence] there is no need to be lengthy of speech about it.

Anyone who misappropriates volitionally is lashed and pays the principal of what he damaged of the sacred. And its warning is from that which is stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your vows" - we learned from the tradition that this is a warning to the one that eats meat of the fire-offering - as we said above (Sefer HaChinukh 447), since all of it is for God, may He be blessed. And the law is the same for the rest of all the consecrated which is only for God - whether it is from the consecrated for the altar or the consecrated of the [Temple] upkeep: If he benefited of the value of a small coin, he is lashed. If he misappropriated inadvertently, he pays what he benefited and an addition of a fifth, and he brings a ram [purchased] with two sela and sacrifices it as a guilt-offering and it atones for him - and this is what is called the guilt-offering of misappropriations, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:15-16), "inadvertently from the consecrated things of the Lord, etc. he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, etc. And that which he sinned from the holy, he shall pay and add its fifth upon it." The payment of the principal with the addition of the fifth and the bringing of the sacrifice is a positive commandment (Sefer HaChinukh 127). The payment of the principal and the bringing of the guilt-offering impede the atonement, but not the fifth; as it is stated about the ram of the guilt offering (Leviticus 5:16), "and he shall be forgiven" - the ram and the guilt-offering impede, but the fifth does not impede [it]. If he brought his misappropriation [offering] before he brought his guilt [payment], he has not fulfilled [his obligation]. If he is in doubt if he misappropriated or did not misappropriate, he is exempted from the payments and from the sacrifice. And the fifth is like the beginning of the consecrated things; and [so] if he benefited from it, he adds a fifth to [the] fifth. And we have already elucidated several times (see Sefer HaChinukh 355) that the fifth is one of four [parts] of the principal, [such that] it and its fifth are five. And there are things that one is not liable for misappropriation from Torah writ, but it is forbidden to benefit from them rabbinically; and one who benefits from them only pays the principle, but does not add a fifth and does not bring a guilt-offering, as is elucidated in Tractate Meilah (Chapter 3).

2 Masekhet Soferim has different definitions: a petuha is anything which does not start at the head of the line. A setuma is anything that stops in the middle of the line. How much must be left at the beginning of the line for it to be called a petuha? Enough to write a word of three letters. How much must be left in the middle of the line for it to be called a setuma? Enough to write a word of three letters. [End Masekhet Soferim quote.] Suppose he finished a paragraph at the edge of the page and started a new line, and left enough space at the beginning of that line to write three letters, and then started to write? Come and learn from the two sources; the baraita gives the essence of the issue. The baraita reasons that the beginning of the line is what determines a petuha, not the end of the line [so the example case is a petuha according to the baraita]; if one leaves a gap at the beginning and also at the end of the line, it is still a petuha. But the old siddur reasons that it is the end of the line that determines a petuha, not the beginning of the line [so the example case is a setuma according to the baraita]. [To avoid ambiguity, therefore...] if he makes a petuha with space both at the end of the line and at the beginning of the line it is good for both of them. This is correct. There is also another order of petuhot and setumot which seems entirely unconvincing. And these are the tagin of a sefer Torah and the petuhot and setumot according to the masoretic tradition. ביה שמו: the following words should be placed at the beginning of a line and the top of a column: Bereshit (Gen. 1:1); Yehudah ata yodukha (Gen. 49:8); Haba-im ahareihem bayam (Ex. 14:28); Shemor ve-shamarta (Deut. 12:28); Motza sefateikha (Deut. 23:24); Ve-a'ida bam (Deut. 31:28).