Halakhah zu Rut 2:30

Its laws are for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 93a) that we take an oath on the things of great duress (out of one's control), but pay for theft or loss - since there is some negligence and some duress in this and because of the wage that we take for this, we are obligated to pay, which is not the case with the free guardian, who is exempt from everything except for negligence; the laws of the rental of workers (Bava Metzia 75b), the rental of animals and houses; the law of a craftsman that ruins [an item] (Bava Kamma 98b); one who shows a coin to a storekeeper and it is found to be bad (Bava Kamma 99b); the law that one who rents [the item, as well as hiring the] owners is exempted (Bava Metzia 4a); the laws of beginning with negligence and ending with duress (Bava Metzia 42a); the laws of a guardian who gave [the item] over to [another] guardian and the latter added or reduced its [level] of guardianship (Bava Metzia 36b); the matter that anyone who deposits, deposits with the knowledge that it is [also deposited to the guardian's] wife and adult children (Bava Metzia 36b); that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 29b) that the renter is not permitted to rent it out. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote (it seems that the correct version reads Rambam, the source being Mishneh Torah, Laws of Hiring 2:5) that they only said this about movable objects - since it is not his will that his deposit be in the hand of another. But one who rents a house and wants to rent it out to another is permitted, so long as the later [inhabitants] be the same as the number of the first; and so [too] with a boat. But there are those that disagree with him (Raavad on MT, Hiring 2:5). And the rest of its details - are elucidated in the sixth and seventh chapters of [Bava] Kamma, the third and sixth of [Bava] Metzia and the eighth of Shevout (see Tur, Choshen Mishpat 303-313).

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Zevachim 70a) that Scripture did not distinguish with an impure beast or animal between its meat and its chelev - as it is all forbidden. And [regarding] flesh of a person, his flesh is not included in the prohibition of an impure beast, to transgress a negative commandment for it, even though man is called a living (or animal) soul and he does not bring up the cud or completely divide [his foot]. And therefore, we do not administer lashes for one who eats from his flesh or drinks from his chelev - whether alive or dead. But it is nonetheless forbidden with a positive commandment, as behold Scripture numbered seven species of animals and stated about them (Leviticus 14:4), "this is the animal that you may eat." And a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment, is a positive commandment. This is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 2:3). But Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Ramban on Leviticus 11:3) that there is not even a positive commandment about the flesh of a man. And he brought a proof from that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Keritot 21a), "There is not even a commandment of separation from the blood and chelev of those that walk on two [legs]." And he, may his memory be blessed, wrote that the law is the same for flesh, that it is permitted like the blood. As if not, how could blood be permissible - and as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Keritot 22a), "Blood that is between the teeth, he should suck and swallow" - and it is established for us (Bekhorot 5a) "All that comes out of the impure is impure." And nonetheless, the flesh of the dead (Israelite) is forbidden to benefit from. And the rest of his proofs are in his book. And the rest of the details of the commandment are elucidated in the third chapter of Chullin and in other places (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 2).

In this explanation that I wrote here that the liability for minute swarming creatures is from the time that they go out on the ground and not before this, I am ignoring that which Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote about it - and even though I set out to hold on to his path. As he wrote in his book of commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 179) that this negative commandment is from when they went out into the air or walked on the surface of the fruit. And we should wonder much about him with this, as we found explicitly in Chullin 67b, that this matter remains [unresolved] there - as it appears there, "Rav Yosef asks, 'If it separated to the air of the world, what is [the law]; on top of a date, what is [the law]?'" And even the rabbi himself wrote in his great essay (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 2:14, 16) that this matter is a doubt and [so] we do not administer lashes for it. And therefore, I put aside his explanation here, and I wrote [the commandment] by way of the truth. And here too did I find afterwards that Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (on the Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Root 9) wondered greatly about him on this mistake.

This commandment, that anyone who vows to be a nazirite is obligated to grow his hair, is practiced in all places and at all times by males and females. As even though they, may their memory be blessed, taught us (Nazir 19b) that being a nazirite is only practiced in the Land of Israel - meaning to say that every person must observe his days of his naziriteness that he vowed in the Land of Israel, and that only the days that he is a nazirite there count in his tally - [still], all of the stringencies of being a nazirite are upon him outside of [Israel] as well. Therefore, if one made a nazirite vow at this time, behold, he is a nazirite forever. As now, on account of our afflictions, we have no [Temple in order] to offer the sacrifices at the end of the period of being a nazirite. They, may their memory be blessed, also said that if we have the ability, we coerce the nazirite to go to [Israel] and to fulfill his nazirite vow there until he dies or until the Temple is rebuilt and he can repay his sacrifices.

To check the signs of a bird: To check the signs of a bird [that distinguish them as being permissible to eat]. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:11), "You may eat from any pure bird." And so did they say in Sifrei Devarim 103 (see Maggid Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 2:4), "'You may eat from any pure bird' - that is a positive commandment." I have written all of the content of this commandment, its root, its laws and in which place it is practiced and at what time in the Order of Vayehi Bayom Hashimini (Sefer HaChinukh 153) concerning the examination of the signs of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal, fish, and locusts - as the law of all of them is the same. And over there, I also wrote that Ramban, may his memory be blessed, differs with Rambam, may his memory be blessed, in [the latter's] counting of the checking with beasts and other species to be a positive commandment. And he holds that the [verse] only comes to give a positive commandment and a negative commandment to the one that eats from the impure [species]. And there in that same Order, I wrote (Sefer HaChinukh 157) a little of what I heard from my teachers, God protect them, about the signs of birds - and take it from there.