Halakhah su Deuteronomio 18:2

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.)

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."