Halakhah su Deuteronomio 14:78

And understand for this reason the Torah describes the sanctification of the priests’ hands and feet, as Scripture says, “They shall wash their hands and feet, that they may not die.”⁹Ex 30:21. This washing Targum Onkelos (may his memory be a blessing) translates with a word that connotes holiness, even though in the other places where “they shall wash” is written, it is translated “they shall remove the dirt from” [va-yes’hun], but here he translated it “they shall sanctify” [va-yikadshun]. This is to explain that the priest used to sanctify his hand and his feet. With his right hand for his right foot and his left hand for his left foot, he would concentrate on “the ten” and make himself holy through their holiness, and draw upon the blessing from their blessedness, and with this thought in mind the priest would sanctify his hands and feet in the basin when he approached the altar. Thus the table is called an altar. For this reason they [the rabbis] were very severe with the punishment for someone who makes light of hand washing; he is to be “uprooted from the world.”¹⁰B.Sotah 4b. The severity of this punishment is because hand-washing hints at the thing upon which the whole world depends. So whoever makes light of “lifting” the hands (for washing) causes a washing that destroys the world. As it has been said, “wash before or be fed pig meat; wash after or a life might be lost.”¹¹B.Hullin 106a. Chavel explains this somewhat elliptical saying in his notes by bringing two stories. First, there was a Jewish shopkeeper who would sell kosher meat that he would cook and feed to a Jew, but when a gentile came into the store, he’d feed him trayf. But if a Jew came to eat and didn’t wash his hands, thinking he was a gentile, the storekeeper would feed him pig meat. As for the danger of not washing afterwards, Chavel retells the story of the man who entrusted his wife with purse of money, and then went out to the market without washing his hands after the meal. A wicked man came along who saw the husband give his wife the purse. He came to the woman and said to her, “Give me the purse that your husband gave you.” She replied to him, “Give me a sign” (i.e., that proved he know her husband and that he sent him). He told that he knew her husband just ate lentils (since he had seen them on her husband’s unwashed hands). So she gave him the purse. When her husband came home, she told him what happened, and he killed her! And this also was said about netilat yada’im: “whoever makes light of hand-washing will end up poor.”¹²B.Shabbat 62b. Wealth is accumulated by the work of one’s hands, and so it is written, “in all that you extend your hand to,”¹³Dt 15:10: “The Lord your God will bless you in all you do, and in all that you extend your hand to.” and blessings are linked to “the ten.” This is hinted at in “you shall surely set aside a tenth,”¹⁴Deut. 14:22. that is, “from ten [‘eser] so that you will become rich [tit-‘asher].¹⁵B.Ta’anit 9a, which interprets the Biblical Hebrew emphatic infinitive absolute construction: ‘iser te-‘aser (“you shall surely set aside a tenth”) as ‘eser te’asher (“ten will make you rich”), punning on the similar spelling and sound of ‘eser, “ten” and ‘osher, “wealth.” They proved that ‘osher –“wealth” – which is a shibboleth [“an ear of wheat” spelled with a shin] is from the ma’aser [“tithe” spelled with a sin] which is a sibboleth [that is, the letter shinin ma’aser is pronounced like the letter samekh in “sibboleth,” to hint that blessing and wealth is linked to “the ten” (the ten sefirot).¹⁶The point of the midrash is that ‘eser (ten) and ‘osher (wealth) are more or less equivalent, even though one is pronounced with an /s/, the other with a /sh/ sound. Of course this an allusion to the story in Judges 12 where the Gileadites used the word shibboleth as a password to distinguish their people from the Ephraimites, who could only pronounce it “sibboleth.” Though R. Bahya on the one hand seems to stress the interchangeability of shibboleth and sibboleth to make his point, I would not put it past him to be also hinting that knowing the equivalence of ‘eser, ‘osher, and the mystical secret of the connection between the ten sefirot and acquiring blessing is itself a sort of “shibboleth,” as it were. Having the wisdom to make these connections distinguishes the Torah scholars from those who don’t know or appreciate the secrets of the Torah and their benefits. Proof of this is in the birkat kohanim (the priestly) when they raise and extend their hands.¹⁷I.e., to draw down the blessings from the ten sefirot through their ten fingers. R. Bahya in effect implicitly associates the lifting of the ten fingers when to draw down blessing when one washes before eating at the table, to the blessings drawn down by the hereditary priests. It should become clear from this that the more a commandment requires this sort of thinking directed above, the greater the punishment for making light of it. This is like the issue of saying “Amen.” As great as one’s reward is for answering “Amen,” double is the punishment for making light of it. This is what our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash: “Everyone who is careful to answer “Amen” in this world deserves to answer “Amen” in the world to come.” David (peace be upon him) said, ‘Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen and Amen;’¹⁸Ps 89:53. ‘Amen’ in this world, and ‘Amen’ in the world to come. For everyone who answers ‘Amen’ deserves two worlds: this world and the world to come.¹⁹M. Tanhuma 96:7. And in the Temple, when The Name of God was spoken aloud as it is spelled, they did not answer “Amen.” But in the precincts of the Temple where it was not permitted to say it as it is spelled, they would say aloud “Amen” instead of The Name, because the word “Amen” hints at the letters of The Name.²⁰B. Berakhot 63a. The numerical equivalents for the names of God ADoNaY (65) and YHWH (26) when added together equal AMeN (91). Therefore, greater is the one who says “Amen” than the one making the blessing using a circumlocution for the actual name of God.²¹I.e., like saying “Adonai” instead of pronouncing YHWH. And everyone who makes light of saying “Amen,” their punishment is double in the circles of hell, that is, the circle called “a land whose light is darkness,”²²Job 10:22. which is lower She’ol. The prophet who spoke about those that make light of answering “Amen” referred to this when he said “They have forsaken Me, the Fount of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns which cannot even hold water.”²³Jer 2:13. But whoever answers “Amen” with its letters opens “the Fount” and draws out the flow of blessing. And accordingly the verse refers to those who make light of it when it says “hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns.” That is to say, they are punished with a double punishment, the one worse than the other.²⁴R. Bahya is picking up on the repetition of the word “cisterns” (be’erot) to hook his midrash. Thus you learn that the greater the reward is for doing something, the greater the punishment for not doing it. Now right after washing and drying his hands, he ought to eat, and so they said, “Right after washing his hands, ha-motzi’.²⁵B.Berakhot 52b, which actually says, “right after washing hands, the meal.”

In the past, when the distance between communities was great, Ashkenazim lived in Ashkenaz (Germany), Sephardim in Sepharad (Iberia), and Yemenites in Yemen. Anyone who moved elsewhere would adopt the halakhic and liturgical customs of the new locale, since it is important that every individual community have a uniform custom and avoid the sort of factionalism that constitutes the prohibition of “lo titgodedu” (Devarim 14:1; the verse literally prohibits cutting oneself in mourning for the dead, but the Sages [Yevamot 13b] interpreted the prohibition to include becoming fragmented into different factions [“agudot agudot”]). As the Sages teach, this prohibition mandates that a single rabbinical court may not have some judges who follow the rulings of Beit Shammai and others who follow the rulings of Beit Hillel, so that the Torah is not made into two Torahs (ibid. 14a, according to Rif and Rosh).

Dietary proscriptions include categories of food which are forbidden by their nature and others which are forbidden because of their mode of preparation. Various species of animals, fowl, fish, and creeping things are described in the Torah and declared "unclean" (Lev. 11:1–23 and 41–47, Deut. 14:3–19).

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]."

Rav Metzger notes Chazal’s (Sifrei to Devarim 14:1 (Piska 96) and Yevamot 14a) interpretation of the Torah’s prohibition of “lo titgodedu” (Devarim 14:1) as a call “not to break into different groups but to act as one unit, Agudah Achat.” The Rambam (Teshuvot no.329) explains, “The entire House of Israel must … act as one unit, and there should not be any Machloket [dissent] in any matter. You wise individuals are aware of the punishment for Machloket and the many problems it causes.” Rav Metzger observes, “Regrettably, the topic of the dismantling of the Katif Strip was the subject of a bitter and painful communal Machloket within our nation. An enactment to eternalize this dismantling as a day of fasting and remembrance of the destruction is liable to add and magnify dissent within the nation. This too is a reason not to issue such a decree.”

The Gemara, Hullin 113b, declares that the biblical prohibition against cooking and eating commingled milk and meat is not attendant upon meat cooked with the milk removed from an animal that has been slaughtered. Milk derived from a slaughtered animal is excluded from the prohibition because, according to talmudic exegesis of the verse "you shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother" (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), the biblical prohibition applies only to the milk of an animal "that has the capacity to become a mother" (re'uyah lehiyot em). Obviously, a dead animal can no longer bear a child and hence lacks the capacity to become a mother.

The earliest rabbinic reference to a giraffe occurs in R. Sa'adia Ga'on's commentary on Deuteronomy 14:5. Scripture declares, "These are the animals you may eat" and proceeds to enumerate a list of permitted species. Among those animals is the "zemer" which is rendered in standard English translations as "mountain-sheep." R. Sa'adia Ga'on, perhaps following the Septuagint, identifies the zemer as the animal known in Arabic as al-zerafah, i.e., the giraffe. That translation is accepted by R. David ibn Kimḥi (Redak) in his Sefer ha-Shorashim in the entry for the term "zemer," by R. Estori ha-Farḥi, Kaftor va-Feraḥ, chap. 58, and by R. Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran (Rashbaz), Yavin Shemu'ah, Hilkhot Treifot, p. 5b.⁶See also R. Amiti Ben-David, Siḥat Ḥullin (Jerusalem, 5755), pp. 412f., and cf., R. David Zevi Feldman, Yalkut Kol Ḥai (5757), p. 639, note 10. Rashbaz further identifies al-zerafah as an animal with "a long neck… so that when [the giraffe] is within the wall it extends [its neck] outside of the wall."⁷Cf., however, Rabbi Y. M. Levinger and M. David, “Sheva ha-Ḥayyot ha-Tehorot,” Torah u-Madda, vol. 4, no. 2 (Elul 5735), p. 3 and p. 48. Those authors object to identification of the zemer as the giraffe on the grounds that the zemer is enumerated together with other ḥayyot (as distinct from behemot, as will later be explained) whereas the giraffe does not have the distinctive horns of a ḥayyah and hence is presumably a behemah. Rabbi Hamami adduces an impressive list of sources, albeit mostly obscure in nature, that either identify the giraffe as the zemer of Scripture or otherwise refer to the giraffe as a kosher animal. Indeed, the giraffe, since it has split hoofs and chews its cud, appears to be readily identified as a kosher animal.⁸Yehudah Felix, Ḥai ve-Ẓomeaḥ ba-Torah (Jerusalem, 5744), p. 93, reports that the giraffe, although it is a ruminant, is a three-stomached (rather than four-stomached) animal. This is also true of the mouse-deer which is presumably a kosher animal.

And the commandment of the sanctification of the first-born pure animal is practiced according to the Torah in the Land of Israel alone, at all times; and like the rabbis expounded (Temurah 21b, and see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Firstlings 1:5), "From that which it is written (Deuteronomy 14:23), 'And you shall eat in front of the Lord, your God, the tithes of your new grain and wine and oil, and the first-born of your herds' - it compares, etc." And rabbinically even outside the Land and with males and females, whether [of] Israelites, [of] priests or [of] Levites (Bekhorot 13a). And even though a first-born that is born to a priest is his, nonetheless he is obligated to sacrifice its fat and its blood and to eat the meat according to the laws of first-borns. But the first-born of a man and the [first-born] of a donkey are not practiced with a priest or a Levite, as we will write with God's help. And this is from the commandments mandated as a result of something [that happened historically].

The phenomenon of a kosher pig is not entirely unknown in rabbinic literature. R. Hayyim ibn Attar, Or ha-Hayyim, Leviticus 11:3, quotes an unidentified aggadic source which comments: "Why is it named 'ḥazir'? Because it will one day 'return' to become permissible," i.e., the pig will return to its pre-Sinaitic status as a permitted source of meat. In his commentary on Leviticus 11:7. Or ha-Hayyim questions the meaning of this statement. It is a fundamental principle of Judaism that the Torah is immutable; hence a pig which does not chew its cud cannot at any time be declared kosher.¹⁸Cf., however, Va-Yikra Rabbah 13:3; Midrash Shoḥer Tov, Ps. 146; and R. Joseph Albo, Sefer ha-Ikkarim, III, chapters 13-19. Accordingly, Or ha-Hayyim comments that the phrase "but it does not chew its cud" which occurs in Leviticus 11:7 is conditional in nature, i.e., the pig is forbidden only so long as it does not chew its cud, "but in the eschatological era it will chew its cud and will 'return' to become permissible." Indeed, the etymological analysis presented by Or ha-Hayyim would lead to acceptance of a cud-chewing pig not only as a kosher animal but as a harbinger of the eschatological era as well. A similar statement is made by Rema of Panu, Asarah Ma'amarot, Ma'amar Hikur Din, II, chapter 17.¹⁹See also R. Moses Sofer, Torat Mosheh, Deuteronomy 14:8.

Whether or not there is a specific midrashic reference to a pig which chews the cud, it would appear that an animal which has split hoofs and which also chews its cud is ipso facto kosher. Indeed, Jewish law does not even deem it essential to examine an animal for the manifestation of both split hoofs and the chewing of the cud. Leviticus 11:4-6 enumerates three species of ruminants which chew the cud but which do not have split hoofs: the camel, the rock-badger and the hare. Deuteronomy 14:7 names a fourth animal, the shesu'ah, which is described as chewing the cud but as not having cloven hoofs. This animal is described by the Gemara, Hullin 60b, as a creature which has two backs and two spinal columns. The Gemara, Niddah 24a, further explains that the shesu'ah is the progeny of a permitted species. In effect, the birth of a shesu'ah is an anomaly. Both Leviticus 11:7 and Deuteronomy 14:8 name only one animal, the swine, which has split hoofs but does not chew its cud. The Gemara, Hullin 59a, on the basis of a pleonasm, regards these enumerated species, not as paradigmatic, but as exhaustive. Thus the Gemara comments, "The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast that chews the cud and is unclean except the camel [and the other species enumerated by Scripture]" and similarly comments, "The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast that parts the hoof and is unclean except the swine." These dicta pave the way for a determination that an animal may be declared kosher even without examination for the presence of both split hoofs and the chewing of the cud. The Gemara, Hullin 59a, notes that the absence of upper incisors and canines is a characteristic of all ruminants with the exception of the camel which has canines in both jaws.²²The front teeth in the upper jaw of ruminants are replaced by a horny pad. The front teeth of the lower jaw are directed forward and, upon closing the mouth, simply press the grass tightly against this pad. When the head is jerked sideways the gum is cut through by the sharp edges of the lower front teeth. See Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago, 1966), XIX, 752. Accordingly, declares the Gemara, "If a man was walking in the desert and found an animal with its hoofs cut off, he should examine the mouth; if it has no upper teeth he may be certain that it is clean, otherwise he may be certain that it is unclean; provided, however, … he recognizes the young camel." The possibility that the animal may be a young camel must be excluded since, even though the young camel has no teeth, it will eventually develop canines. The Gemara explicitly negates the possibility that there may exist some other animal that lacks teeth, i.e., a ruminant that chews the cud but is non-kosher by virtue of its non-cloven hoofs. Thus, if it were to be shown that the babirusa lacks incisors and canines on its upper jaw it may be declared a kosher species on that basis alone. Absence of incisors and canines is itself evidence that the animal is a cud-chewing ruminant.

Whether or not there is a specific midrashic reference to a pig which chews the cud, it would appear that an animal which has split hoofs and which also chews its cud is ipso facto kosher. Indeed, Jewish law does not even deem it essential to examine an animal for the manifestation of both split hoofs and the chewing of the cud. Leviticus 11:4-6 enumerates three species of ruminants which chew the cud but which do not have split hoofs: the camel, the rock-badger and the hare. Deuteronomy 14:7 names a fourth animal, the shesu'ah, which is described as chewing the cud but as not having cloven hoofs. This animal is described by the Gemara, Hullin 60b, as a creature which has two backs and two spinal columns. The Gemara, Niddah 24a, further explains that the shesu'ah is the progeny of a permitted species. In effect, the birth of a shesu'ah is an anomaly. Both Leviticus 11:7 and Deuteronomy 14:8 name only one animal, the swine, which has split hoofs but does not chew its cud. The Gemara, Hullin 59a, on the basis of a pleonasm, regards these enumerated species, not as paradigmatic, but as exhaustive. Thus the Gemara comments, "The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast that chews the cud and is unclean except the camel [and the other species enumerated by Scripture]" and similarly comments, "The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast that parts the hoof and is unclean except the swine." These dicta pave the way for a determination that an animal may be declared kosher even without examination for the presence of both split hoofs and the chewing of the cud. The Gemara, Hullin 59a, notes that the absence of upper incisors and canines is a characteristic of all ruminants with the exception of the camel which has canines in both jaws.²²The front teeth in the upper jaw of ruminants are replaced by a horny pad. The front teeth of the lower jaw are directed forward and, upon closing the mouth, simply press the grass tightly against this pad. When the head is jerked sideways the gum is cut through by the sharp edges of the lower front teeth. See Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago, 1966), XIX, 752. Accordingly, declares the Gemara, "If a man was walking in the desert and found an animal with its hoofs cut off, he should examine the mouth; if it has no upper teeth he may be certain that it is clean, otherwise he may be certain that it is unclean; provided, however, … he recognizes the young camel." The possibility that the animal may be a young camel must be excluded since, even though the young camel has no teeth, it will eventually develop canines. The Gemara explicitly negates the possibility that there may exist some other animal that lacks teeth, i.e., a ruminant that chews the cud but is non-kosher by virtue of its non-cloven hoofs. Thus, if it were to be shown that the babirusa lacks incisors and canines on its upper jaw it may be declared a kosher species on that basis alone. Absence of incisors and canines is itself evidence that the animal is a cud-chewing ruminant.

The halakhic issues have already been examined in detail in conjunction with this writer's earlier discussion of the kashrut status of the giraffe and need only be briefly summarized. Rema, Yoreh De'ah 82:3, rules that the talmudic criteria that once served to distinguish the twenty-four scripturally identified forbidden birds and all others that are kosher can no longer be relied upon and hence no bird may be eaten unless there exists a received tradition with regard to its identity as a kosher species. Shakh, Yoreh De'ah 80:2, as understood by Hokhmat Adam 36:1; Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De'ah 80:10; Erekh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De'ah 11:4-5; and Hazon Ish, Iggerot Hazon Ish, I, no. 99,²⁴Reprinted in R. Isaac ha-Levi Herzog, Pesakim u-Ketavim, IV, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 21. Iggerot Hazon Ish, II, no. 73 and Iggerot Hazon Ish, III, no. 113,²⁵Reprinted in Pesakim u-Ketavim, IV, no. 22. maintains that, despite the fact that Scripture explicitly spells out the identifying criteria of kosher four-legged animals, these animals also may not be consumed in the absence of a tradition with regard to the kashrut of the species. Pri Megadim, Siftei Da'at 80:1, however, understands Shakh's comment as limited to the need for a tradition establishing that a particular species is a ḥayyah rather than a behemah.²⁶There is a similar ambiguity inherent in the comment of Ibn Ezra, Deuteronomy 14:5. Ibn Ezra notes that there are a total of seven species of kosher ḥayyot of which “the sheep and the deer are known; the five remaining species require a tradition.” In all likelihood, Ibn Ezra intends to indicate—as does Shakh—that a mesorah is necessary in order to establish the kashrut of the species as one of the remaining five kosher ḥayyot. Ibn Ezra’s words, however, might be construed as indicating only the requirement of a tradition to the effect that the animal in question is a ḥayyah rather than a behemah. The primary difference is that the ḥelev, i.e., the fatty portions of the hindquarters of a behemah, are forbidden while those of a ḥayyah are not. According to Pri Megadim, no tradition is necessary to establish the fundamental kashrut of an animal having split hoofs. Pri Megadim's understanding of Shakh is accepted, inter alia, by Kaf ha-Hayyim, Yoreh De'ah 80:5, Bet Yizḥak, Amudei Zahav 80:3, and, more recently, by R. Samuel Ha-Levi Woszner, Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, X, no. 114.²⁷R. Isaac ha-Levi Herzog clearly differed with Ḥazon Ish regarding this matter. Unfortunately, only a fragment of this responsum is extant and appears in Pesakim u-Ketavim, IV, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 20. The controversy, of course, is of no relevance to Sephardim who follow the views of Shulḥan Arukh and do not accept Rema's stringency even with regard to birds.

If the babirusa is indeed a "kosher pig" it is a much more obvious example of a kosher counterpart to the non-kosher swine than is the brain of the fish known as the shibbuta. Moreover, the Gemara, Hullin 80a. states that the only animals which are kosher are the ten species specifically enumerated in Deuteronomy 14:4-5. This dictum is recorded as a normative ruling by Rambam, Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot 1:8. There are, of course, other kosher animals which one might regard as distinct species, including perhaps the kevi (or koi), which according to one talmudic opinion is an "independent species." Those animals, for purposes of halakhic classification, are subsumed under one or another of the species enumerated by Scripture.³⁴Cf., Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De‘ah 79:41.

From the roots of this commandment is like that which we said at the beginning - that one of the judged not go after his colleagues, but rather he should understand the things on his own. The reason is because it is possible that from this the case will sometimes be totally [decided] by the opinion of [only] one of them. Understand the matter, as it is such. And God, may He be blessed, did not want to give over a capital case to one opinion. But with the case of money - which is given to repayment - we are not concerned with all of this. And it is even given over to three from the outset, relying upon it being impossible that there not be any of them that did not study. And the rest of the things that we learned from it - such as the one who advocated innocence may not advocate guilt; that we do not open with guilt; and that we do not begin from the great one - all of it is out of the pity of God, may He be blessed, upon His creatures. [It is] metaphorically like a man who has pity on his children, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:10), "Children are you to the Lord, your God." And work upon yourself [to understand it] by way of a parable: If a man fathered a hundred and he built a city for them and placed them there, but saw that they would not survive in the community unless he decreed upon them that anyone who hits his neighbor would be punished with his money; and if he kills him, he shall be killed. And one of them got up and transgressed his decree [and killed another] - if he forgave him, behold, the community would be lost; as fear would not stay upon the [others. So] what is there for him to do and not see the death of his second son? He would nonetheless seek any way he can to exempt him according to the law. If he can, that is best, but if it is impossible in any way, he would command to kill him, so as to preserve the community [for] the others. And so is this matter - understand it.

From the roots of this commandment is like that which we said at the beginning - that one of the judged not go after his colleagues, but rather he should understand the things on his own. The reason is because it is possible that from this the case will sometimes be totally [decided] by the opinion of [only] one of them. Understand the matter, as it is such. And God, may He be blessed, did not want to give over a capital case to one opinion. But with the case of money - which is given to repayment - we are not concerned with all of this. And it is even given over to three from the outset, relying upon it being impossible that there not be any of them that did not study. And the rest of the things that we learned from it - such as the one who advocated innocence may not advocate guilt; that we do not open with guilt; and that we do not begin from the great one - all of it is out of the pity of God, may He be blessed, upon His creatures. [It is] metaphorically like a man who has pity on his children, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:10), "Children are you to the Lord, your God." And work upon yourself [to understand it] by way of a parable: If a man fathered a hundred and he built a city for them and placed them there, but saw that they would not survive in the community unless he decreed upon them that anyone who hits his neighbor would be punished with his money; and if he kills him, he shall be killed. And one of them got up and transgressed his decree [and killed another] - if he forgave him, behold, the community would be lost; as fear would not stay upon the [others. So] what is there for him to do and not see the death of his second son? He would nonetheless seek any way he can to exempt him according to the law. If he can, that is best, but if it is impossible in any way, he would command to kill him, so as to preserve the community [for] the others. And so is this matter - understand it.

That is that He commanded us to consecrate firstborn animals - meaning, to separate and designate them for what is appropriate for one to do with them. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "Consecrate to Me every firstborn" (Exodus 13:2). And it is explained in the Torah that these animals are only cattle, sheep and the species of donkeys. And this command about the firstborn pure animal was already repeated - and that is the commandment that we are speaking about now - when He said, "Every firstborn that is born, etc." (Deuteronomy 15:19). And this law of the firstborn pure animal is that they bring it to the priest, he offers its fat and its blood, and they eat the rest of it in Jerusalem. And the regulations of this commandment have already been completely explained in Tractate Bekhorot. And at the end of Tractate Challah (Mishnah Challah 4), it is explained that this commandment is only practiced in the Land. And the language of the [Sifrei] (Sifrei Devarim 106:2) is, "I might think that one brings the firstborn from outside of the Land (to be sacrificed). [Hence] we learn to say, 'And you shall eat before the Lord, your God [...] the tithe of your grain [… and the firstborn]' (Deuteronomy 14:23). From the place where you bring the grain, you bring the firstborn." Behold it has been made clear to you that that this commandment is only practiced in the Land - whether the Temple is in existence or whether it is not in existence, like it is [not in existence] now in our times - like the tithe of grain. (See Parashat Bo, Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 1.)

It is written in the Torah: "you will not cook a kid in the milk of its mother" three times (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21); once for the prohibition of cooking, once for the prohibition of eating, and once for the prohibition of receiving benefit [from the cooked meat and milk products]. The prohibition of eating is presented in the language of cooking, to say that there is no prohibition from the Torah [in regard to meat and milk] unless it is in a manner of cooking, but rabbinically it [the mixture of meat and milk] is forbidden in every way. All meat and milk [mixtures] that are not forbidden from the Torah are permitted to benefit from.

That is that He commanded us to extract the second tithe. And that is His saying, "You shall surely set aside [a tithe of all the yield of your sowing that is brought from the field every year" (Deuteronomy 14:22). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 105:1-2) is, "'You shall surely set aside' - teaches that the tithe is not to be taken from one year for another. This tells me only of the second tithe, of which Scripture speaks [here]. From where [do we know] to include other tithes? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall surely set aside.'" And the language of the Torah is that this tithe be brought up to Jerusalem and that its owners eat it there; and this was already [discussed] earlier (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 119). And Scripture already specified about this commandment, that if it is impossible for him to bring it - due to the far distance - he redeems it, brings up its money to the Chosen [Temple] and spends it there exclusively for food. And that is His saying, "should the place be too far from you, etc." (Deuteronomy 14:24). And the language of the Torah also already appeared about the law of this commandment - that if he redeemed it for himself, he adds a fifth. And that is His saying, "And if a man will at all redeem of his tithes, [he shall add to it the fifth part of it]" (Leviticus 27:31). And the regulations of this commandment have all already been explained in Tractate Masser Sheni. And it too is only an obligation with the produce of the Land of Israel by Torah law. And this tithe is only eaten in the presence of the Temple; and the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 106:4) compares the eating of the firstborn animals to the second tithe, "Just as firstborn animals are eaten only in the presence of the Temple, so too is [the second] tithe eaten only in the presence of the Temple." (See Parashat Reeh; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 1.)

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.)

And yet its warning – meaning to say, the explicit negative commandment, besides the punishment that is mentioned here – is from that which is written in the inauguration [of the tabernacle], "it shall not be eaten, as it is holy" (Exodus 29:34). And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 24a) that this verse includes in its warning all that which has been spoiled of the [sacrifices] and is not fitting to eat, like notar and piggul. And likewise did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Avodah Zarah 66a) that they are included in the warnings, "You shall not eat any abomination" (Deuteronomy 14:3) – which they expounded (Chullin 114b), "Anything that is abominable for me, is forbidden to eat." And since this is so, we shall say that [that warning (negative commandment) is to make one liable for] additional negative commandments; and the verse here is speaking about the punishment of the one who eats it, as so did the explanation come about it. And that which it stated (Leviticus 7:18), "If it shall surely be eaten on the third day," is meaning to say that he thought about it to eat it on the third day. As so did they, may their memory be blessed, expound (Zevachim 29a), "'And if it shall surely be eaten, etc.' – that is piggul." Bend your ear to hear that the verse is speaking about one who thinks to eat his sacrifice on the third day, that it is spoiled with this thought. And one who eats it is liable for excision, as it is stated about it, "and the soul that eats from it will carry his iniquity." And it is stated about notar (Leviticus 19:8), "And the one who eats it will carry his iniquity, as he has profaned the holy of the Lord, and he shall be excised." And we learned [about] it in Keritot 5a, "Let not an inferential comparison (gezara shava) be light in your eyes; as behold piggul is one of the [important] bodies of Torah, and Scripture only taught it through a gezara shava." As we learn it] from notar, from [the use of] ‘iniquity’ [in both cases] – "just like there it is excision, here too it is excision."

He prohibited us from spending the [redemption] money of second tithe except for food and drink. And that is His saying, "nor did I make use of it for the dead" (Deuteronomy 26:14). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 303:17) is, "I did not take of it for a casket and shrouds." And any time he used it for something [else], he should [purchase food and] eat it corresponding to [the amount he used] - as it is explained in its place (Maaser Sheni 3:10). However He mentioned, "the dead," to strengthen [it] - as if He said, "And even though [burial] is a commandment, he may only spend second tithe monies on food alone"; as He said, "And give the money, etc." (Deuteronomy 14:26). For if he spent it on something besides food, it is as if he spent it for the dead, who have no purpose for it. (See Parashat Ki Tavo; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 3.)

From the laws of the commandment is that every beast and animal that brings up the cud does not have teeth in its upper (rear) jaw. And every beast in the world that brings up the cud separates its hoof except for the camel. And all that separate its hoof brings up the cud except for the pig. And there are ten species of beasts and animals that are permitted: Three [domesticated] beasts that are well-known and they are the ox, the sheep and the goat; and seven species of [wild] animals that are explicit in Scripture - "The deer, the gazelle, etc." (Deuteronomy 14:5). And [just] like we need to know the signs of the fit (kosher) ones to differentiate them from the impure ones, likewise must we know which is a species of beast and which is a species of animal regarding the chelev (forbidden fat) - as the chelev of a beast is forbidden, but the chelev of an animal is permissible, as we we wrote above in the warning of chelev; and also as the blood of an animal requires covering, but not the blood of a beast. And the signs of the [wild] animal, as to how it is distinguished from a [domesticated] beast is not stated in the Torah. Rather, we learned from the heard tradition (Chullin 59b) that it is recognizable by its horns, as the horns of an animal are scaled, notched and circular: scaled like the horns of an ox; notched like the horns of a goat - such that the notch be absorbed in them (tight); and round like the horns of a gazelle. Therefore [with] any [being] that does not have these signs in its horns, a man must practice the prohibition of its chelev. And one who finds a [wild] animal without horns - such that he is not able to check its horns - if he recognizes it clearly by its shape, such as that which he is used to, it is permitted for him to trust his recognition. And it is not said that he has to check with the horns no matter what. And the rest of its details are in Chullin.

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).

To not eat of the swarming creatures of the waters: To not eat of the swarming creatures of the waters, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:43), "You shall not abominate your souls with any swarming creature that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them and become impure through them." And the substance of a swarming creature of the waters is well-known; that it is from the minute creatures that swim in the water - and they are called the swarming creatures of the waters. And this negative commandment is specific to them, [and] besides the negative commandment that is specific to the impure fish; as these are not included as fish at all, since they are a completely different species of its own. That is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 179), about this verse, that it comes to teach about this. But Ramban, may this memory be blessed, (on Sefer HaMitzvot, Root 9, s.v. veraiti lerav z"l) disagrees with him on this and wrote, that this negative commandment is not a specific negative commandment about any swarming creature; but rather that it is from the general negative commandments for which we do not administer lashes, like "You shall not eat any abomination" in Deuteronomy 14:3 at the beginning of the sections of the prohibited animals. And so [too,] here at the end of all of them, it stated, "You shall not abominate your souls" with all of the walkers of the ground that I have prohibited. And grouped in this was the prohibition of the impure beast, the prohibition of the impure fowl, the flying swarming creature and the swarming creature of the ground. As all the forbidden and the distanced is included in abomination, as [with] "For He did not disparage nor abominate the plea of the lowly" (Psalms 22:25). And both of them, may their memories be blessed, wrote at length about this negative commandment and involved in it that which [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara [in] Makkot 16b, "If he ate a putita, he is lashed four [sets], an ant five, a wasp six." And each one explains what appears [correct to him] about the matter.

It is the prohibition that the entire tribe of Levi was also prohibited from taking a portion in the booty, when [the Jews] conquered the Land [of Israel]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part or inheritance" (Deuteronomy 18:1). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 163:2-3) is, "'No part' - in the booty. 'Or inheritance' - in the land." Yet you are able to challenge me and ask, "Why did you list these matters as two commandments, for they are a prohibition about taking a portion in the spoil and the territory of the land, and both of them are within one negative statement?" You, the questioner, should know that this negative statement has already been divided by His saying, "The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part" - and that is the prohibition about the taking of the booty of the city. Whereas the second is, "And they shall have no inheritance" (Deuteronomy 18:2) - and that is the prohibition about the taking of a portion in the land. And the prohibition of these very two matters has already been repeated to the priests - and that is His saying to Aharon, "You will have no inheritance in their land," at the time of division of the land; "and you will not have a share among them," in the booty. And maybe you would think that these two laws of the priests are two [additional] commandments, such that it is fitting to count them. [However] know that when the prohibition comes to the whole tribe of Levi, the priests have surely already been included. Rather it was repeated with the priests to strengthen [it]. And likewise [with] anything similar to this of general categories and specific items - it is indeed repeated to strengthen [it] or to round out the law when it would not have been complete from [only] one prohibition. However if we were to count His saying to Aharon, "You will have no inheritance in their land," as an addition to that which He said, "The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no" - you would surely be obligated according to this very comparison to count the divorcee, the desecrated woman and the zonah to the high priest as three negative commandments besides the three negative commandments that came from the general category of priests, whether a high [priest] or an ordinary [one]. And if one would say that those are also appropriate to be counted - behold we would say to him that perforce the high priest with a divorcee would be liable twice: Once on account of [being] a priest, and a divorcee is forbidden to him; and secondly on account of [being] a high priest, since she is also forbidden to him with a different negative statement. Yet it has already been explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77a) that he is only liable once. Behold it has been confirmed that a prohibition that is within a general category is the only one to be counted; and that a prohibition which appears about that very content for the individual item - it is in fact only to teach one of the regulations or to round out the law, as I explained in Commandment 165 of these (positive) commandments. And from this very category is the prohibition in which He prohibited the priests, "They shall not make baldness on their heads [...]" (Leviticus 21:5). And all of Israel as a general category had already been prohibited with these three negative commandments already when He said, "You shall not round off the corners of your head" (Leviticus 19:27); "you shall not gash yourselves" (Deuteronomy 14:1); and "lacerations for the dead" (Leviticus 19:28). So it was actually repeated for the priests just to round out the law - as it is explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 20a), when they explained the regulations of these three commandments. But were they negative commandments specifically for the priests and were not to round out the law - but rather commandments themselves - the priest would have been liable two [sets of] lashes for each such act, due to his being an Israelite, and due to his being a priest (respectively). But the matter is not like this. Rather there is one [set of] lashes, like [for] other Israelites, as is explained in its place. And understand this. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 13.)

He prohibited us from eating impure (domesticated) beasts and impure (wild) animals. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Nevertheless these you shall not eat of those which chew the cud, etc." (Deuteronomy 14:7). However an explicit negative commandment does not appear about the other impure animals, but it is rather from His saying, "And every beast that parts the hoof, forming thereby two entirely cloven hoofs, and chews the cud among the beasts, that may you eat" (Deuteronomy 14:7). Behold He made known that anything that does not have these signs together is forbidden to eat. However it is a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment, which is explained to be a positive commandment. [As] the principle with us is that a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment, and we do not give lashes for it. However the other impure beasts and animals are forbidden to us, and we are liable lashes for eating them, from an a fortiori argument (kal vachomer). As we say that we give lashes for the swine and the camel that have one sign of purity; all the more so should we give lashes for other impure beasts and animals that have no sign at all! And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3:1-2) about this is their saying, "'That may you eat' - it may be eaten, and not an impure beast. I only know of a positive commandment. From where [do we know that he also transgresses] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'that you shall not eat.' This tells me only of [those explicitly mentioned] alone. From where [do we know] the other impure beasts? It follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if a negative commandment against eating attaches to these which have [some] signs of purity; how much more so does it attach to those which do not have any signs of purity at all! It is found, then, that the camel, the hare, the coney and the swine [are prohibited] by Scripture, and the other impure beasts, by an a fortiori argument. Their positive commandment is written; their negative commandment is [derived] a fortiori." But this a fortiori argument is only a revelation of the matter, as we mentioned in Negative Commandment 336, regarding, "his daughter" - according to what we we will explain in its place. And therefore anyone who eats a kazayit of the meat of an impure beast or impure animal - from whatever type it may be - is lashed by Torah law. And know this. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 1.)

He prohibited us from eating any swarming thing that it might be without specification - whether a swarming thing of the water or a swarming thing of the earth. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive with anything that swarms" (Leviticus 11:43). We give lashes for this negative commandment on its own; and it is similar to a general negative commandment. Hence one who ate any of a swarming things of the earth is lashed two [sets of lashes] - once on account of, "All the things that swarm upon the earth are repulsive, they may not be eaten" (Leviticus 11:41); and once on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And one who eats a flying swarming thing is lashed two [sets of lashes] - once on account of, "All winged swarming things are impure for you, they may not be eaten" (Deuteronomy 14:19); and once on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And if he ate an animal that flies and walks on the ground, such that it is a flying swarming thing and a swarming thing on the earth, he is liable four [sets of] lashes. And if along with this, it would also be a swarming thing of the water, he would be liable for six [sets of] lashes - the fifth of them on account of [being] an impure fish, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:11), "you shall not eat of their meat"; and the sixth on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive," since it also includes a swarming creature of the water. And we do not have another verse with us to forbid a swarming thing of the water besides, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive with anything that swarms." And about these swarming things, they said in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 16b), "One who ate a putita is lashed four [sets of lashes]; an ant, is lashed five; a wasp, is lashed six." And this is the explanation that was explained by anyone that I have heard speak or whose words I have seen explain this statement of, "One who ate a putita." But it is an incorrect explanation - it cannot be followed or sustained without upturning the true principles that are a signpost in the language of the Talmud. And that is that when you look into what we have said before, behold you will find that they have made one liable three [sets] of lashes from one negative commandment - and that is, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And it has already been explained that one is not lashed two [sets of] lashes for one negative commandment under any circumstances, as is explained in Chullin (Chullin 102b). And we ourselves have already discussed this in Principle 9 and we have explained it [several] times. And behold I will bring examples for you in that which is [to come in the] future.

But the true statement that you will not wonder about and will not push off is that one who eats a creature that is a flying swarming thing and a swarming thing [of the earth] is only lashed two [sets of] lashes - one on account of [the swarming things of the earth; and one on account of flying swarming things. And if it is also a swarming thing of the sea, he is lashed three - one on account of] the swarming things of the earth; one on account of the flying swarming things, the negative commandment of which is also explicit; and one on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." For it forbids every swarming thing, so that swarming things of the water are also included in, "anything that swarms" - by His saying, "with anything that swarms." And if he ate a swarming thing of the earth only, he would be lashed one - on account of, "All the things that swarm, etc." And likewise [for] a flying swarming creature, [he would be liable for] only one - on account of the flying swarming things. And likewise only one for swarming creatures of the water - on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And this negative statement including the swarming things of the earth, does not make it that he is lashed twice for a swarming thing of the earth. For [even] if there were a thousand negative statements appearing for us about swarming things of the earth that were all explicit, he would only be lashed for one. For they are all repeated about the exact same content. And even if He said, "A swarming thing of the earth shall not be eaten"; "You shall not eat a swarming thing of the earth"; "They shall not eat a swarming thing of the earth," a thousand times, it would only make him liable for one [set of] lashes. Could you see those that established this corrupted principle holding that one who wears shatnez (forbidden mixtures) be lashed twice because two negative statements appeared about it? I have never seen them hold this. Rather if another person were to say it, they would disparage him. Yet they do not disparage themselves about their saying that [one who eats] a flying swarming thing or a swarming thing of the earth is lashed twice - once on account of the negative statement that is explicit about it, and once on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And this [part] of the matter's explanation would not [even] be lost on a foolish child. But I will [now] return to the matter I started to explain and say that when it happens that a creature is born in a certain seed or a certain fruit and goes out to the exteriority - and even though it has not touched the surface of the ground: Behold if one eats it, he is liable for one [set of] lashes, since a specific negative commandment appeared about it - as we explained in the previous commandment. But if it moved to the ground and walked on it: If one eats it, he is liable once on account of, "things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat them" (Leviticus 11:42); and once on account of, "are repulsive, they may not be eaten." And if it happened with this that it is not fruitful and does not multiply, he would be liable three [sets of] lashes for it - the two previously mentioned, and the third [on account of,] "you shall not make yourselves impure through any swarming thing that creeps" (Leviticus 11:44). And if in addition to these, it flies, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes on account of, "winged swarming things are impure for you; they may not be eaten" (Deuteronomy 14:19). And if along with this, it would swim in the water even as it flies - as is constantly seen with many species - he would be liable a fifth [set of] lashes on account of a swarming thing of the water that is included in that negative commandment, which is, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And if along with this, this creature that comes to exist on its own from food is also a bird, he would also be liable a sixth [set of] lashes on account of, "These you shall consider repulsive from among the birds; they may not be eaten" (Leviticus 11:13). And do not dismiss that there be a species of birds that come to exist from rot, as people often see birds larger than a small nut coming to exist from rot. And do not dismiss that there be a species that is itself an impure bird and a flying swarming thing. For this is not unlikely, since it would surely have characteristics of a bird, and actions and characteristics of a flying swarming thing. Do you not see that all the earlier commentaries counted among those [with] six [sets of] lashes, an impure fish [that is also] a swarming thing of the water? And that is also true - do not dismiss it. For it is likely that it be a fish and a swarming thing of the water; or likewise a bird and a swarming thing of the water; or likewise a bird and a flying swarming thing. And that is the putita - which is a bird, a flying swarming thing, a swarming thing of the earth and a swarming thing of the water. And therefore we are liable four [sets of] lashes for it. And one is lashed five for an ant, [as] the ant that is mentioned is a flying ant that comes to exist from rotten fruits and which is not fruitful and does not multiply. One is liable one on account of a swarming thing that separates from food; one on account of a swarming thing of the earth; one on account of that which crawls on the ground; one on account of a flying swarming thing; and one on account of a swarming thing of the water. And a wasp that also comes to exist from rot is - in addition to these - a bird [as well as a] flying swarming thing. And it is only among fools that it be impossible that the ant or wasp or other types of birds and swarming things come to exist from rotten food. For they have no knowledge of natural science, but rather think that it is impossible in all of the species, that one come to exist from another except through a male and a female - since this is what they see. And I have already explained to you the content that you must examine and determine [to know that] a person is liable, for eating a certain creature, so many [sets of] lashes; and [another one] is only liable for [a lesser amount]. And it is made clear to you from these verses that we do not look for a [requisite] size from one who eats an entire creature, and we do not say whether there was [a requisite amount of] a kazayit. Rather, [even] if he ate a small mosquito, he is lashed three [sets of] lashes on account of a swarming thing of the earth; on account of a swarming thing that crawls; and on account of a flying swarming thing. And behold they also said (Makkot 16b), "One who delays his orifices transgresses on account of do not be repulsive. And one who drinks water from the horn of a bloodletter" - and that is a tool for drawing out - "transgresses on account of, 'do not make yourselves be repulsive.'" And this is an analogy to eating things that are disgusting and drinking disgraceful things which a man pushes away, such that one is forbidden about them. But he is not liable for lashes because of them; for the simple meaning of the verse is only about swarming things. Be we do strike him with lashes of rebellion. Behold it has already become clear to you, from all that we had precede, that we have indeed only taken the prohibition of the swarming thing of the water from this verse - which is, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive - for no specific prohibition appeared about it besides this. And understand this. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)

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.)

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bekhorot 53a) that we do not tithe from cows onto sheep, or from sheep onto cows, but we do tithe from sheep onto goats and goats onto sheep, as Scripture used the expression, "sheep" for both of them, and they are considered like one species. We do not tithe from that which is born this year for [that born] another year, [just] as we do not tithe with the seed of the ground from the new onto the old, nor from the old onto the new, as it is written about it, "which comes out from your field each year" (Deuteronomy 14:22). Still, if one transgressed and nonetheless tithed from the old beasts onto the new or the new onto the old, Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Firstlings 7:5) that it appears to him that it is tithe, because of the severity of the tithes - as behold, "each year," is only written about the seed of the earth. And it is enough for us that we learn from it that the tithe of beasts be like it regarding [the law] from the outset, but not ex post facto.

And this commandment is practiced in the Land of Israel, like the commandment of sanctifying the first-born pure animals, which is only practiced in the Land of Israel, according to some commentators (see Beit Yosef, Yoreh Deah 306) - both when the Temple [is standing] and when the Temple [is not standing] - as it is stated (Deuteronomy 14:23), "And you shall eat before the Lord, Your God, the tithes of your grain, etc. and the first-born of your cattle and your sheep." And they, may their memory be blessed, expounded [it to mean] (Temurah 21b), from the place that you bring your tithes - which is the Land of Israel - you shall bring your sheep and cattle. And if one brought a first-born animal from outside the Land, they would not accept it from him and it may not be sacrificed, as it is completely non-sacred. Everyone is obligated in this commandment, priests, Levites, and Israelites, as it stated (Deuteronomy 15:19), "Any first-born that is born, etc." (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Firstlings 1:7). And even though the priests and the Levites are exempt from redeeming the first-born of man and the one that exits the donkey, as we have written about each one of them in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 392) and in the Order of Bo el Pharaoh (Sefer HaChinukh 22), they are obligated in this. And one who transgressed this and redeemed his first-born pure animal - even though his actions were not effective and it is not redeemed, but rather it is is sacred as it was [before] - he has violated a negative commandment. As regarding the transgression of the negative commandment, [the efficacy of] the violation of a negative commandment does not concern us, as is found in the first chapter of Temurah (Temurah 4b), in the disagreement of Abbaye and Rava. But he is not lashed, as he could transgress it without an act.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 85b), that this tithe that is of the Levites is completely non-sacred (chullin) and [so] permissible for any man to eat - whether a Levite or whether an Israelite - and even in impurity, as it is stated (Numbers 18:27), "This shall be accounted to you as your gift." [That is] to say that the tithe which is given as the tithe of Israel is for you "as the grain from the threshing floor or the flow from the vat." And they, may their memory be blessed, expounded [that] just like the threshing floor and the vat are non-sacred for all purposes, so too is the first tithe that had its tithe taken non-sacred for all purposes. [And] the explanation of 'that had its tithe taken' is meaning to say after the Levites skimmed a tithe from their tithe and gave it to the priests. That is what is called 'its tithe.' And every place that it is stated about the tithe, "holy" or "redemption" is only about the second tithe. And they said in Sifrei that all that is food for people and guarded and its growth is from the earth is liable for the tithe and the priestly tithe (terumah). And they [derive] it from that it is written about the priestly tithe (Deuteronomy 18:4), "The beginning of your grain, etc." As they, may their memory be blessed, expounded [that] just like grain, grapes and oil are food of people and its growth is from the earth and has owners, as it is stated, "your grain"; so too all that is similar to them are liable for the tithe and the priestly tithe. But even though vegetables are food of people, they are not liable for the tithe except rabbinically; as about the tithe it states (Deuteronomy 14:22), "all the produce of your seed," and vegetables are not called 'produce.' But from the words of the Gemara that we rely upon more, it appears that also in all [other] fruits besides grain, grapes and oil, is there no liability for the tithe, except rabbinically. And [according to this,] the verse that was brought [as a prooftext] in the Sifrei was only a memory device (asmakhta). This is the conclusion in the beginning of the chapter [entitled] Hasokher et HaPoalim (Bava Metzia 88a) concerning that which Rav Pappa answered that the fig tree stood in the garden, but its branches leaned into the courtyard. However, Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote the opposite of this, and like he found [it] in the Sifrei. And so [too] from the topic of the commandment is that which they said that we do not separate the tithe of the new crop for the old crop, and not from the old for the new, not from that which is liable for that which is exempt and not from that which is exempt for that which is liable. And if one separated the tithe [like this], it is not [considered] a tithe. But we do take the tithe from that which is not encircled (close to the produce for which one is liable), even though it is not like this with the priestly tithe, as we only separate the priestly tithe from what is encircled. And nonetheless, with other things the tithe and the priestly tithe are the same; such that anything about which we say regarding the priestly tithe, "we do not take the priestly tithe, but if one [took it], his priestly tithe is a [valid] priestly tithe - so [too,] with the tithe, if he separated it, his tithe is a [valid] tithe. And everything that is exempt from the priestly tithe is exempt for the tithe. And in the Order of Shoftim, we will write at greater length, with God's help, and you can see it there. And so [too] from the topic of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said that a person is only obligated to separate the tithe from Torah writ if he finished [the work] on his fruit to eat them for himself, but one who finished them to sell them in the marketplace is exempted, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 14:22), "You shall surely tithe, etc. and you shall eat." And so [too,] one who buys [the produce] after its work has been completed - meaning to say it was put in the threshing floor by the seller - is exempt from Torah writ, but obligated from the words [of the Rabbis], as it is stated, "the produce of your seed," meaning to say that the work was finished in your domain. And the obligation of the tithe does not rest on the fruits until they reach the time of the tithe, as it is stated (Leviticus 27:30), "from the seed of the land, from the fruit of the tree"; meaning to say until it becomes a fruit. And from here, they, may their memory be blessed, learned that the time of the tithe is from when the fruits reach [when they could] be seeded and grow. Everything is according to what [the specific] fruit is. How is this? Figs, from when they become soft such that they are ready to eat; apples and citrons from when they turn round. And so [too,] with each and every fruit, they established its time for the tithe. That is to say until this time that is established for them, we can eat as much as we need, as they are not in the category of the tithe at all. But after this time, it can only be eaten casually, until their threshing floor designates them for the tithe. And after their threshing floor has designated them for the tithe, it is forbidden to eat from them, even casually. And what is their threshing floor with regard to the tithe? Produce from when it is flattened, meaning to say that he flattens its top with a shovel, in the way that people do when they make it into a heap. And in the Talmud Yerushalmi Ma'asrot 1:4, we have found further that if his intention is not to flatten [it], it is a threshing floor for [the designation of] the tithe from when he sets up a pile from his produce. As the verse made it dependent on the threshing floor, and even without flattening, when his intention is not to flatten [it]. And even if he makes a threshing floor of it inside his house; even there, the threshing floor creates the designation for the tithe. And that which Rav Oshaya said, "A man may be crafty about his produce and bring it in with its chaff," so as to exempt it from the tithe - and it is a set law, as we say in Tractate Berakhot 31a - that is speaking when he did not set up a pile inside his house, and so [too,] that he did not flatten it, but rather that he pounded it and winnowed it, little by little without flattening, and put it into the storehouse, little by little. This is what appears in this matter; and in this way, all of the discussions go up in one 'stalk, healthy and well' (are all in agreement). And they, may their memory be blessed, said that the season of squash and watermelon and pumpkin is from when they are rubbed, meaning from when the thin hair that is upon them is removed; and the season of a basket of fruit is from when he covers the fruit inside of it with leaves and fronds. And so [too,] with each and every fruit, they established the time of its threshing floor, according to what it is - everything like it comes in Tractate Maasrot (Mishna Maasrot 1:5). And I have also seen about the topic of designating the tithe by Torah writ that the opinion of some of the commentators is that there is never designation for the tithe from any angle until there is seeing the face of the house (that the produce enter the home), and also that the house be fit for it, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 26:13), "I have cleared out the consecrated from the house." And that is when he brought it in through the gate, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 26:12), "and they shall eat in your gates and they shall be satiated." But if he brought them in through the roofs or the enclosures, they are exempt from the tithe and the priestly tithe. And so did Rambam, may his memory be blessed, write (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Tithes 4:2), "It appears to me that we do not administer lashes from Torah writ for the eating of unseparated produce until they are designated by his bringing them into his house. But if it is designated with the other things that designate for the tithe, we do not administer lashes, besides [rabbinic] lashes of rebellion." [This] and the rest of its details are elucidated in Tractate Maasrot (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 338).

And likewise included in this commandment is not to do the commandments of God, blessed be He, by way of testing, such that a person do a commandment to test whether God, may He be blessed, will reward him in His righteousness; and not from his love of God and his fear of Him. And let it not be difficult to you that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in the first chapter of Tractate Taanit 9a, "'A tithe shall you tithe (te'aser)' (Deuteronomy 14:22)? Take a tithe (asser) so that you will become wealthy (titasher)." As they have already answered it there and said that in all the commandments is it stated, "Do not test," except in this [one] of tithes, as it is stated (Malachi 3:10), "Bring the whole tithe into the storeroom,[...] and test Me now by this, etc." And the reason for this is like the matter that is written (Proverbs 19:17), "He is lending to God, he who is gracious to the poor" - meaning to say that God, may He be blessed, has informed us that it is through our financing the servants of His house with tithes that purpose and blessing is found in our money, no matter what, and [that] no matter of sin or iniquity will impinge on it. And the reason for the prohibition of testing about the commandments is because the reward for the commandments is not in this world; and as they expounded in Tractate Avodah Zarah 3a, "Today is the day to do them, but tomorrow" - meaning the world to come - "is [the day] to take their reward." And [about] that which they, may their memory be blessed said (Bava Batra 10b), "One who says, 'This coin is for charity in order that my son should live,' behold, he is completely righteous" - the wise commentators have answered [that it is when he decides in his heart to give it whether [his son] lives or does not live, as this is not testing God.

To not gash ourselves, like the worshipers of idolatry: To not gash our bodies, like the worshipers of idolatry. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:1), "you shall not gash yourselves." And this negative commandment is repeated with another word, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:28), "And a marking for a soul, you shall not put onto your flesh, etc." And in Tractate Yevamot 13b, they, may their memory be blessed said, "'You shall not gash yourselves' is required for itself, as [the Torah] said that that you shall not make a wound." And it is also said there that "You shall not gash yourselves" is for the dead. And in Tractate Makkot 21a, they, may their memory be blessed, said that marking and gashing are one thing. And there it is said that one who makes a mark for the dead is liable whether it is with the hand or with a tool; but for idolatry, with a tool, [one is] liable, with the hand, [one is] exempt. As such was their custom to gash themselves in front of the idolatry with a tool, and like the matter that is written (I Kings 18:28), "and they gashed themselves like their statute with swords and spears." And regardless, according to that which appears [to come out] from the words of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, (Makkot 22) the liability of the negative commandment is only about one who gashes himself for the dead or for idolatry. But for one who gashes himself without a reason or from anger about his house that has fallen or his ship that has sunk - even though it is something extremely disgusting and ugly and forbidden - there is no liability of the negative commandment for it.

To not make a bald spot for the dead: To not make bald the hair of the head [in mourning] for the dead, like those lacking intellect do. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:1), "and do not place a bald spot between your eyes for the dead." And this prohibition is repeated about the priests, as it is stated about them (Leviticus 21:5), "They shall not shave a bald spot upon their heads." And we learned from there to make liable [for] upon the head like between the eyes, as it comes in Tractate Makkot 20a. And from this verse [in Deuteronomy], they also learned that there is only liability for a bald spot when it is a bald spot specifically for the dead. And it comes out that with the two verses, there is completion of the commandment and its elucidation: That all - whether Israelite or whether priest - are liable for the whole head, like between the eyes. And you should not ask in this place and in any thing similar to it, why all of the elucidation of the verse is not in one place. For is your mind not put to rest about these matters in many places with my introduction that I wrote to you at the beginning of this book of Deuteronomy?

To not eat from consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified: That we not eat from consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified. And [about] this negative commandment with the consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified, they, may their memory be blessed, explained in Tractate Bekhorot 34a that it is specifically when we make the blemish in the consecrated [animals], and that they are disqualified by our hand, and afterwards we ate from them - [that] then is there a negative commandment in their eating; and so too, if the sacrifice gets disqualified in any way after its being sacrificed - in this too is there a negative commandment. And about all of this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:3), "You shall not eat any abomination." And so does it say in Sifrei Devarim 99, "'You shall not eat any abomination' - the verse is speaking about consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified." And there it says further, "Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, 'From where [do I know] for one who slits the ear of a first-born animal and eats from it, that he is transgressing a negative commandment? As it is stated, "You shall not eat any abomination."'" And they, may their memory be blessed said further that included in the category of this negative commandment is the warning not to eat notar (remainder) and pigul (that disqualified by thought) - and I have written their content in the Order of Tsav (Sefer HaChinukh 144) - and so [too,] all forbidden foods. And [it is] like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Chullin 114b), "'You shall not eat any abomination' - anything that I have made abominable to you, behold it is [included] in 'do not eat.'" And nonetheless, it is not called a general negative commandment, since its essence is only coming about the consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified, and the rest of the prohibitions are derived by its implications. [This is] meaning to say that from that which Scripture brought out this warning in a general expression - since it stated, "any abomination," and it did not explicitly state, "You shall not eat the consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified" - because of that, we consider it a specific negative commandment in its essence, that we can learn from its warning to other matters. And accept the truth form the one that says it.

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.

To not eat from the flying swarming creatures: To not eat from the flying swarming creatures, such as flies, bees, mosquitoes and others from these types. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:19), "And any flying swarming creature is impure for you; they shall not be eaten." And the language of Sifrei Devarim 103 is "'And any flying swarming creature, etc.' is a negative commandment."

To not eat from the meat of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird that has died by itself: To not eat from the meat of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird that has died by itself. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:21), "You shall not eat any carcass; to the stranger that is in your gates may you give it and he shall eat it, or you may sell it to the foreigner." And I have already written above in this Order in the commandment of slaughter (Sefer HaChinukh 451) the principle that they, may their memory be blessed, said that anything that is disqualified in its slaughter is also called a carcass. And I also have written about the matter of its impurity in the Order of Bayom Hashmini on the commandment to not eat an impure fish (Sefer HaChinukh 161), and it is a [separate] commandment on its own.

The commandment of the second tithe: To remove the second tithe from the produce in four years of the sabbatical cycle, meaning to say, after we separate the first tithe that is given to the Levites, that we separate yet another tithe. And hence it is called the second tithe. And the law of this tithe is that it be eaten in Jerusalem. And about it is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:22), "You shall surely tithe the produce of your seed." And Scripture elucidates that if the place is far from us and we cannot carry it there except with great burden and much expense, that we can redeem it and bring up its value [to] Jerusalem and spend it there only for the needs of eating and drinking. And Scripture likewise elucidates that the one who redeems his tithe needs to add a fifth to the value - which is to say that if it was worth four dinar, that he eat instead of it [that which costs him] five dinar in Jerusalem. And about this is it stated (Leviticus 27:31), "And if a man surely redeems from his tithe, he shall add its fifth to it." And they, may their memory be blessed, made a precise inference (Kiddushin 24a): "'From his tithe - but not from the tithe of his fellow; 'a man from his tithe' - but not a woman."

To separate the poor tithe: To remove the poor tithe in the third and sixth year of the sabbatical cycle. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:28), "At the end of three years, you shall remove all of the tithe of your produce, etc. and you shall leave it in your gates." And in that year, they would separate the poor tithe instead of the second tithe of other years, and not separate the second tithe at all.

Some have the custom to cut their hair on Rosh Chodesh Iyyar, but this is a mistake. Rema: However, in many places, the custom is to cut their hair until Rosh Chodesh Iyyar, and they do not cut their hair from Lag BaOmer forward, even though it is permitted to cut one's hair on Lag BaOmer itself. But those places who have the custom to cut their hair from Lag BaOmer onwards, do not cut at all after Pesach until Lag BaOmer. And within one city, it should not be that some follow one custom, and some follow another, because of "lo titgodedu" ("do not cut yourselves" - Deut. 14:1, interpreted in Yevamot 13b as "lo te'asu agudot agudot," "Do not become seperate groups"); all the more so, one may not follow both leniencies.

That the tribe of Levi not take a portion in the spoils: That the whole tribe of Levi not take a portion in that which Israel despoiled upon their entering into the land (see Sefer Hamitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 170), and in that which they would despoil from their enemies afterwards. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 18:1), "There shall not be a portion and inheritance for the priests." And so [too,] does it appear in Sifrei Devarim 163, "'Portion' in the spoils, 'inheritance' in the land." And let not the matter of a general prohibition be difficult for you about this negative commandment (as there appear to be two prohibitions from the same phrase); since two prohibitions come in Scripture about these two negative commandments - and they are, "There shall not be a portion and inheritance for the priests, the Levites," and also afterwards, "And no inheritance shall be for him, etc." (Deuteronomy 18:2). And these two negative commandments themselves are repeated for the priests, as it is stated with Aharon (Numbers 18:20), "In their land you shall not inherit, and there will not be a portion for you among them." And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sifrei Bamidbar 119), "'In their land you shall not inherit' - at the time of the division of the land; 'and there will not be a portion for you among them' in the spoils." And even thought the priests were in the tribe of Levi, the prevention is repeated about them for strengthening. And so [too,] all that is similar to this in the Torah, such that it repeats negative commandments in many places - it is all to strengthen the matter or to complete the law when it is not complete from the one negative commandment. And you will understand why God made it lack in one place and completed in another from that which I wrote at the beginning of the book of Eleh HaDevarim (Deuteronomy). And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer Hamitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 170), "If we had counted these negative commandments, which are 'In their land, you shall not inherit, etc.' about the priests, additionally to the negative commandments stated about the Levites, etc., it would, according to this comparison, be fitting likewise for us to count the prohibition of the divorcee, the challalah and the zonah for the high priest as three additional negative commandments in addition to the three that came on every priest - whether common or high. And if the speaker say that this is so, we shall answer him with what they, may their memory be blessed, said in Kiddushin 77b that a high priest is only liable one [punishment] for a divorcee. And were the law to be [that a high priest is transgressing two commandments], he would be liable two for it - one because of [being] a priest, since a divorcee is forbidden to him, and a second from the angle of his being high priest, since she is forbidden to him in a different negative commandment. And from this type itself are the preventions that came to the priests for 'They shall not make a bald spot on their heads, and they shall not shave their beards and their flesh they shall not gash with a gash' (Leviticus 21:5); as they were already preceded for all of Israel more generally, in its stating, 'You shall not round off the corner, etc.' (Leviticus 19:27), 'and you shall not place a bald spot' (Deuteronomy 14:10), 'And a marking for a soul, you shall not put onto your flesh, etc.' (Leviticus 19:28). However these were repeated with the priests to complete the law, as is elucidated at the end of Tractate Makkot 20a. And therefore a priest that transgresses one of these is only liable for one [set] of lashes. And understand this principle and guard it."

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memories be blessed, said (Sotah 41a, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Festival Offering 3:3) that the king was the one that was obligated to read it in their ears. And he would read it in the women's yard [of the Temple]. And he reads while sitting, but if he read while standing, behold that is praiseworthy. And from where does he read? From the beginning of the book of Eleh HaDevarim (Deuteronomy) until the end of the section of Shema Yisrael (Deuteronomy 6:9), and he skips to Vehaya im shamo'ah and finishes that section (Deuteronomy 11:13-21), and [then] skips to Aser te'aser (Deuteronomy 14:22) and reads from Aser te'aser, according to [its proper] order, until the end of the blessings and curses, up until "besides for the covenant which He made with them in Chorev" (Deuteronomy 28:69), and stops.