Halakhah su Levitico 11:78

And thus one needs to say words of Torah over the table, because even though one has said all the blessings he is required to say, and will eventually conclude with birkat ha-mazon, saying birkat ha-mazon will not exempt him from his requirement unless he speaks words of Torah. And so our rabbis said: “Every table over which they ate and said words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the table of God [Makom], as it is said, ‘He said to me, This is the table before the Lord,’”¹³⁹M. Avot 3:3, quoting Ez 41:22. that is to say, when they spoke over it words of Torah, then “this table is before the Lord.”¹⁴⁰Ez. 41:22. “And every table over which they ate and did not say over it words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the sacrifices of the dead. As it is said, ‘For all tables were full of vomit, no place [bli Makom] without excrement,”¹⁴¹M. Avot 3:3, quoting Is 28:8. that is to say, the words of Makom, i.e., God, are not mentioned there.¹⁴²R. Bahya, following M. Avot’s midrashic interpretation, also creatively attributes the use of the later rabbinic term for God – Ha-Makom – “The Place” to Isaiah’s Biblical Hebrew “bli makom,” i.e., “without God.” And all this is to instruct you that humankind [adam] was not created for eating and drink, but rather to engage in Torah. For this is what Scripture meant when it said, “for man [adam] was born for toil [‘amal].”¹⁴³Job 5:7. Our sages interpreted this in a midrash:¹⁴⁴B. Sanhedrin 99b. “’For man was born for toil’ – I don’t know if this is toil by mouth, or if it’s toiling in the Torah. When Scripture says, “The appetite of a toiler [‘amel] toils [‘amlah] for him, because his mouth craves it,”¹⁴⁵Prov 16:26. toil by the mouth is being spoken about. But this is exactly how I fulfill “For man was born for toil” when it refers to toiling in Torah, so I say it means “for toiling in Torah he was born.”¹⁴⁶In other words, R. Bahya has it both ways, since you use your mouth to “toil in Torah,” that is, by speaking words of Torah. And so they said in another midrash: Just as in the Creation, He created domestic and wild animals, birds, reptiles and swarming things, and after that created Adam, as it is said, “And God created Adam in his image,”¹⁴⁷Gen 1:27. so it was written in the Torah “This you shall eat” and “this you shall not eat,”¹⁴⁸Lev 11:9,4. and after that Adam was born. This is why Scripture connects this parashah (“Shemini”) with the next one that begins “When a woman at childbirth bears a male,”¹⁴⁹Lev 12:2. to say it is for toil in Torah he was born. And thus right after that it is written, “On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,”¹⁵⁰Ibid. 12:3. teaching that even before he was formed the Torah and commandments encircled him, and afterwards he was born. This is what it meant when it said, “When a woman at childbirth bears a male”¹⁵¹Lev 12:2. – that The Holy One Blessed be He imposed commandments before him and after him, and he is in the middle.¹⁵²In other words, even the syntax of the vv. 12:2-3 in Leviticus “sandwiches” the birth of a man between two commandments, one directed to his mother giving birth to him, the second, after he’s born, that he himself be circumcised. In other words, the man’s birth is literally surrounded by Torah and commandments. Circumscribed (and circumcised) by the Torah from his birth – of course that “proves” that’s what he was born for!This is what it meant when it said, “For man was born for toil”¹⁵³Job 5:7.– that for toil in Torah he was born.

And it is necessary that you consider well that human beings’ food should have been only plants from the earth, such as grain produce and fruit, not animals. For animals have a soul of that gives them independent movement, which is similar in some of its activities to the soul of intellectual beings, and this is kinship which motivates us to keep away from what is harmful. Accordingly, a soul that can move itself ought not to be a food for the human soul. Therefore, Adam was originally commanded that his food and sustenance be grain produce and fruits, the point of what was written: “Behold I have given to you every grass and seed-producing plant…”⁷⁰Gen 1:29. But at the time when all flesh went bad, and all animals deserved annihilation and would not have been saved were it not for the merit of Noah, it was permitted to eat them [the meat of animals], just as the greens and grasses had been before. At that time the souls that could move themselves were permitted to wait upon the intellectual soul, who waited upon the Creator. And if so, this is not to demean the soul that can move itself, but rather a mark of respect, status, and merit, and accordingly our sages taught, it is forbidden for an am-ha-aretz to eat meat, as it is written, ‘This is the Torah of the beast and fowl.’⁷¹Lev. 11:46. All who engage in Torah are permitted to eat the meat of beasts and fowl, and all who do not engage in Torah are forbidden to eat beast and fowl. The explanation of this among the enlightened is – when we set aside a soul for a soul, this is nothing other than the soul that can move itself that we annihilate for the sake of intellectual soul. But because one is an am ha-aretz and has no intellectual soul, you have it that he is forbidden to eat meat, since [in him] we have nothing to set aside and annihilate the soul that can move itself, since he is someone who has no intellectual soul, and understand this.

In the last chapter, we distinguished between the two bodies of water that purify, a ma’ayan (natural spring) and a mikvah (collection of rainwater). The Sifra (commenting on Vayikra 11:36) draws a parallel between them, teaching that just as God creates ma’ayanot naturally, without human intervention, so, too, must the water in a mikvah reach it without passing through receptacles.¹Conceptually, passing through man-made receptacles indicates human intervention, as opposed to a natural process directed by God. However, the Sifra does provide one exception. If no human indicated any interest in water passing through the receptacle, then the water remains acceptable for mikvah use. For example, if someone places his pot outside to dry in the sun, and then rain falls unexpectedly, whatever rainwater collects in the pot does not automatically become she’uvim, as the pot’s owner - seeking to dry his pots in the sun - clearly does not desire the water. However, if the owner, upon realizing that his pot contains water, lifts the pot to use its water, then the water becomes she’uvim. Thus, in order to use the water for a mikvah, the owner must knock over the pot without lifting it, allowing the water to continue its natural flow without human redirection. Moreover, had the owner initially placed the pot outside for the purpose of collecting rainwater, then the water would become she’uvim the moment it enters the pot - even if the owner promptly knocks the pot over - because the pot received the water as a result of deliberate human actions (see Mishnah, Mikva’ot 4:1). If, for example, one drew water from a well with a bucket and then poured the water into a pit, the water would be considered mayim she’uvim (drawn water) and would hence be disqualified for use in a mikvah. In the modern context, water from the tap constitutes mayim she’uvim because it passes through receptacles in purification plants and water meters.²Rav Moshe Heinemann explained this fact in a lecture to the Council of Young Israel Rabbis. In previous generations, the Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Deah 201:169) and Rav Moshe Feinstein (cited in Taharat Hamayim, Chapters 40-42) actually permitted building mikva’ot with tap water under extremely dire circumstances, but Rav Yirmiyah Katz (Mikveh Mayim, vol. 3 pp. 93-95) argues that water today passes through many places between the reservoir and the faucet that did not exist a couple of generations ago, so nobody would permit using tap water nowadays. Indeed, Rav Moshe himself writes that tap water should generally be presumed to be unacceptable for mikva’ot (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Y.D. 3:63).

You should accustom yourself to move your bowels in the evening and in the morning because this habit is conducive to vitality and cleanliness. If you are unable to do so you should walk four amohs and sit and stand and sit [repeating this procedure] until you move your bowels; or you should divert your thoughts from other matters. If you delay going to the lavatory you transgress the prohibition of bal teshaketzu.¹“Do not make yourself detestable.” See Leviticus 11:43. However if you delay until you find a suitable or decent lavatory, it is not considered a transgression. And if you delay urinating when you feel the urge you also transgress the prohibition against bringing about sterility.²See Deuteronomy 7:14.

Behold that there are commands and warnings that appear in the Torah that are not about a specific thing, but rather include all of the commandments. It is as if it says, "Do everything I have commanded you to do and be careful about anything from which I have prohibited you"; or "Do not transgress anything of what I have commanded you about." And there is no room to count this command on its own - as it does not command us to do a specific act, such that it should be a positive commandment; nor does it warn us from doing a specific act, such that it should be a negative commandment. And this is like its saying, "Be on guard concerning all that I have told you" (Exodus 23:13); and what is stated, "And you shall keep my statutes" (Leviticus 19:19); "And you shall keep my judgements" (Leviticus 18:4); "and you shall keep My covenant" (Exodus 19:5); "And you shall keep My charge" (Leviticus 18:30), and many like these. And [others] have already erred in this principle, such that they counted, "You shall be holy" (Leviticus 19:2), to be included among the positive commandments. And they did not know that "You shall be holy," and "you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy" (Leviticus 11:44) are commands to keep the whole Torah. It is as if it said, "Be holy by doing everything I have commanded you and being careful about anything I have prohibited to you." And the words of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1:1) are, "'You shall be holy' - you shall be separated - meaning to say, separate from all the disgraceful things that I have prohibited to you." And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:30:1), "Issi ben Yehudah says, 'When the Holy One, Blessed be He, originates a commandment for Israel, He adds holiness to them'" - meaning to say this command is not a command in itself, but rather follows from the commands that they have been commanded. So one who fulfills this command will be called, holy. And there is no difference between it saying, "You shall be holy," or if it had said, "Do my commandments." Would you see that that which is being said [here] is a positive commandment, in addition to the commandments that it is referring back to, that we have been commanded? Likewise should we not say that "You shall be holy," and that which is similar to it, is a commandment - for it has not commanded us to do anything besides what we [already] know. And the words of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 115:1): "'You shall be holy' - that is the holiness of the commandments.' Hence behold what we have been working around is clear. And also based on this principle is its saying, "Cut away the thickening about your hearts" (Deuteronomy 10:16) - meaning to say, that one accept and obey all of the commandments already mentioned. And so too, "and stiffen your necks no more" (Deuteronomy 10:16) - meaning to say, do not harden your heart and accept that which I commanded you, and do not transgress it.

And you already knew that the words of our rabbis follow the Torah’s means of expression, and so in the Torah there are permitted and prohibited foods: this you shall eat; this you shall not eat, and it is written, “from their flesh you shall not eat.”²⁷Lev 11:8. You wouldn’t say that this is an allegory – God forbid! – but it’s the actual literal meaning. And so they went on to say The Holy One, blessed be He, will in time to come make a sukkah for the righteous from the skin of Leviathan; for it is said: “Can you fill sukkot with his skin?”²⁸Job 40:31. Sukkot here is spelled with a sin, not a samekh as in sukkah meaning “tent,” and means “darts.” Thus, the meaning of the verse in context is “Can you fill his skin with darts?” If a man is worthy, a sukkah is made for him; if he is not worthy, a shadow [tzel] is made for him, for it is said: “And his head with a fish covering [bi-tziltzel].”²⁹Job 30:41. R. Bahya following the Talmud takes the two parts of this verse in Job as contrasting: the first part hints at the reward of the worthy, the second part to the punishment of the unworthy – “shade.” After this he skips a few lines of Talmud that expand on this theme of the worthy and unworthy’s “rewards.” The rest [of Leviathan] will be spread by the Holy One, blessed be He, upon the walls of Jerusalem, and its splendor will shine from one end of the world to the other; as it is said: “And nations shall walk by Your light.”³⁰Is 60:3, in b. Baba Batra 75a.

Despite the great reluctance of the talmudic Sages to offer a rationale for the fundamentals of kashrut, others were not similarly reticent. The interpretations which have been advanced over the course of centuries are varied and sundry. The explanation which has probably enjoyed the widest circulation is the one which sees a connection between these laws and physical health and well-being. This concept gained currency in the days of antiquity: it is expressed in the Pseudepigrapha¹IV Macc. 5:25–27. and alluded to in the works of Philo.²De Specialibus Legibus, IV, 119. Translated by F. H. Colson (Cambridge, 1939), VIII, 81. Although these writings are not necessarily indicative of rabbinic thought, similar concepts are expressed by Maimonides,³Guide of the Perplexed, III, chap. 48. Nachmanides,⁴Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:43. Gersonides,⁵Commentary on the Bible, Parshat Ekev, To‘elet 26. and others.⁶Abraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Bible, Exod. 22:30; Rashbam, Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:3; Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, nos. 72 and 147. However, other rabbinic scholars were most emphatic in their denial of a hygienic interpretation of the laws of forbidden foods. Thus, R. Isaac Abarbanel writes, "Heaven forfend that I should believe so. For if that were to be so, the Book of God's Law would be in the same category as any of the brief medical books…. This is not the way of God's law or the depth of its intentions." ⁷Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:13. In almost identical language, R. Isaac Arama disparages this explanation, commenting that such an interpretation would "lower the status of divine Law to the status of any brief medical composition." ⁸Akedat Yiẓḥak, Sha‘ar 60. See also Kli Yakar, Lev. 11:1 and Menachem ha-Bavli, Ta‘amei ha-Miẓvot, negative commandments, no. 84.

Despite the great reluctance of the talmudic Sages to offer a rationale for the fundamentals of kashrut, others were not similarly reticent. The interpretations which have been advanced over the course of centuries are varied and sundry. The explanation which has probably enjoyed the widest circulation is the one which sees a connection between these laws and physical health and well-being. This concept gained currency in the days of antiquity: it is expressed in the Pseudepigrapha¹IV Macc. 5:25–27. and alluded to in the works of Philo.²De Specialibus Legibus, IV, 119. Translated by F. H. Colson (Cambridge, 1939), VIII, 81. Although these writings are not necessarily indicative of rabbinic thought, similar concepts are expressed by Maimonides,³Guide of the Perplexed, III, chap. 48. Nachmanides,⁴Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:43. Gersonides,⁵Commentary on the Bible, Parshat Ekev, To‘elet 26. and others.⁶Abraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Bible, Exod. 22:30; Rashbam, Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:3; Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, nos. 72 and 147. However, other rabbinic scholars were most emphatic in their denial of a hygienic interpretation of the laws of forbidden foods. Thus, R. Isaac Abarbanel writes, "Heaven forfend that I should believe so. For if that were to be so, the Book of God's Law would be in the same category as any of the brief medical books…. This is not the way of God's law or the depth of its intentions." ⁷Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:13. In almost identical language, R. Isaac Arama disparages this explanation, commenting that such an interpretation would "lower the status of divine Law to the status of any brief medical composition." ⁸Akedat Yiẓḥak, Sha‘ar 60. See also Kli Yakar, Lev. 11:1 and Menachem ha-Bavli, Ta‘amei ha-Miẓvot, negative commandments, no. 84.

Despite the great reluctance of the talmudic Sages to offer a rationale for the fundamentals of kashrut, others were not similarly reticent. The interpretations which have been advanced over the course of centuries are varied and sundry. The explanation which has probably enjoyed the widest circulation is the one which sees a connection between these laws and physical health and well-being. This concept gained currency in the days of antiquity: it is expressed in the Pseudepigrapha¹IV Macc. 5:25–27. and alluded to in the works of Philo.²De Specialibus Legibus, IV, 119. Translated by F. H. Colson (Cambridge, 1939), VIII, 81. Although these writings are not necessarily indicative of rabbinic thought, similar concepts are expressed by Maimonides,³Guide of the Perplexed, III, chap. 48. Nachmanides,⁴Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:43. Gersonides,⁵Commentary on the Bible, Parshat Ekev, To‘elet 26. and others.⁶Abraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Bible, Exod. 22:30; Rashbam, Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:3; Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, nos. 72 and 147. However, other rabbinic scholars were most emphatic in their denial of a hygienic interpretation of the laws of forbidden foods. Thus, R. Isaac Abarbanel writes, "Heaven forfend that I should believe so. For if that were to be so, the Book of God's Law would be in the same category as any of the brief medical books…. This is not the way of God's law or the depth of its intentions." ⁷Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:13. In almost identical language, R. Isaac Arama disparages this explanation, commenting that such an interpretation would "lower the status of divine Law to the status of any brief medical composition." ⁸Akedat Yiẓḥak, Sha‘ar 60. See also Kli Yakar, Lev. 11:1 and Menachem ha-Bavli, Ta‘amei ha-Miẓvot, negative commandments, no. 84.

The Torah (Vayikra 11:36) states, “A ma’ayan (natural spring) or bor (cistern), a gathering of water, shall be pure.” The Torah mentions two bodies of water, a ma’ayan and a bor, neither of which can become tamei (ritually impure). The Sifra, commenting on this verse, understands that they cannot become tamei because they are themselves sources of purity. Hence, besides their own inability to become tamei, immersion in them purifies people and utensils that were tamei.

Despite the great reluctance of the talmudic Sages to offer a rationale for the fundamentals of kashrut, others were not similarly reticent. The interpretations which have been advanced over the course of centuries are varied and sundry. The explanation which has probably enjoyed the widest circulation is the one which sees a connection between these laws and physical health and well-being. This concept gained currency in the days of antiquity: it is expressed in the Pseudepigrapha¹IV Macc. 5:25–27. and alluded to in the works of Philo.²De Specialibus Legibus, IV, 119. Translated by F. H. Colson (Cambridge, 1939), VIII, 81. Although these writings are not necessarily indicative of rabbinic thought, similar concepts are expressed by Maimonides,³Guide of the Perplexed, III, chap. 48. Nachmanides,⁴Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:43. Gersonides,⁵Commentary on the Bible, Parshat Ekev, To‘elet 26. and others.⁶Abraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Bible, Exod. 22:30; Rashbam, Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:3; Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, nos. 72 and 147. However, other rabbinic scholars were most emphatic in their denial of a hygienic interpretation of the laws of forbidden foods. Thus, R. Isaac Abarbanel writes, "Heaven forfend that I should believe so. For if that were to be so, the Book of God's Law would be in the same category as any of the brief medical books…. This is not the way of God's law or the depth of its intentions." ⁷Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:13. In almost identical language, R. Isaac Arama disparages this explanation, commenting that such an interpretation would "lower the status of divine Law to the status of any brief medical composition." ⁸Akedat Yiẓḥak, Sha‘ar 60. See also Kli Yakar, Lev. 11:1 and Menachem ha-Bavli, Ta‘amei ha-Miẓvot, negative commandments, no. 84.

Sometimes the reasons for commandments are similar to negative commandments and are thought of as being included in that which should be counted by itself. And this is like its stating, "Then the first husband who sent her away shall not take her to wife again [...] you must not bring sin upon the land" (Deuteronomy 24:4): Its stating, "you must not bring sin upon the land," is the reason for the prohibition that preceded it. It is as if it is saying that if you do this, you will cause great loss to the land. An it is [also] like its stating, "Do not profane your daughter and make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry" (Leviticus 19:29). For its stating, "lest the land fall into harlotry," is the reason. It as if it said that the reason of this prohibition is so that "the land not fall into harlotry." And so too, its stating, "you shall not make yourselves unclean therewith and become unclean with them" (Leviticus 11:43): After mentioning the prohibition of the various species that are forbidden to eat, it gave a reason for this and said, "you shall not make yourselves unclean" by eating them. It is as if it is saying that which caused this to be prohibited is the making of oneself impure. And to explain that which He, may He be blessed, said after He prefaced not taking ransom from a murderer, "You shall not defile the land" (Numbers 35:34) - they said in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:13), "The verse is telling us that spilling blood defiles the land." Hence behold it is clear that this negative statement is the reason for the previous negative commandment, not something else. And likewise regarding that which is stated, "He shall not go outside the sanctuary and not profane" (Leviticus 21:12) - if he does go outside, he profanes. And someone besides us already erred about this principle as well, and counted all of these [as] negative commandments, without observation. However whoever counted them will be embarrassed when they ask him and say, "What thing does this negative commandment prohibit?" And he will not have anything to answer at all. So through this, it becomes clear that it is not be counted. And this is what we intended to clarify about this principle.

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).

On the other hand, the Rambam (Hilchot Mikva’ot 4:1-2) and Ri (cited in Tosafot, ibid.) claim that the entire problem of mayim she’uvim exists only on a rabbinic level, while the Torah itself even permits a mikvah comprised entirely of mayim she’uvim. Although the Sifra derives the concept of she’uvim from a verse in the Torah (Vayikra 11:36), the Rambam believes that the Sifra merely intends that the Rabbis saw an allusion (asmachta) in the Torah to their enactment. The Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 201:11-17) reviews two additional opinions that appear in the Rishonim.

The presence of snapir ve-kaskeset, usually translated as "fins and scales," is the distinguishing criterion which serves to identify those species of fish which are permitted as kosher. The term "scales," however, is an inexact translation of the biblical term kaskeset which occurs in Leviticus 11:9. There exist a variety of anatomical structures known as "scales" which do not satisfy the halakhic definition of kaskeset. As evidenced by the terminology employed by the Gemara, Avodah Zarah 39a, and by Targum Onkelos, Leviticus 11:9, the term kaskeset denotes only scales which can be "peeled" or removed without injury to the underlying skin.¹See also Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, Leviticus 10:10; Tiferet Yisra’el, Ḥullin 3:96; and R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Teshuvot Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 61. Cf., Teshuvot Noda bi-Yehudah, Mahadura Tinyana, Yoreh De‘ah, nos. 28-30, and Teshuvot Ketav Sofer, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 45. In terms of biological classification, both ctenoid scales and cosmoid scales possess this characteristic. Scales of other types, are, in fact, projections or tubercles of the skin itself rather than a separate covering. Since scales of non-kosher species are integral to the skin itself, removal of such scales causes damage to the skin. Such damage can be observed visually at the time of removal. Thus, whether or not the scales of a particular species meet the criteria of kaskeset may be established at the time of their removal. Removal of the scales without damage to the skin establishes that the scales removed constitute a separate covering, or kaskeset, and not merely projections of the skin itself.²See Dr. Israel Meir Levinger, Mazon Kasher min ha-Ḥai, 2nd edition (Jerusalem, 5740), pp. 92 ff.

Turbot is a case in point. The fish, known in Latin as Rhombus maximus and in German as Steinbutt, possesses bony tubercles but lacks the type of scale which qualifies as kaskeset. Rabbi David Feldman, Shimushah shel Torah (London, 5711), p. 19, reports that turbot is easily mistaken for kosher species such as plaice and halibut. Rabbi Feldman presents a simple method for determining whether a given fish of this type is of a kosher variety or is the non-kosher turbot. Both the kosher and non-kosher species are black on one side and white on the other. However, the various species differ in that the left side of the turbot is black, while in kosher species it is the right side which is black. Accordingly, to determine whether the fish in question is kosher or non-kosher, the fish should be held spine upward with the head pointing away from the body of the holder. If the black side of the fish is observed to be on the left, it may be concluded that the fish is a turbot. If, however, the left side of the fish is white, the fish may be presumed to be of a kosher species. Rabbi Feldman hastens to add that since this criterion is not formulated in talmudic sources it should not be regarded as absolute.³According to some authorities, there may be a positive reason to examine further for the presence of scales. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 145, regards Leviticus 11:9 as a positive commandment establishing a requirement to examine fish for the presence of fins and scales prior to eating. This requirement cannot be satisfied by examining for the presence of other criteria; cf., Ḥiddushei Ḥatam Sofer, Ḥullin 66a, s.v. u-ve-dagim. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh seems to follow Rambam’s formulation of this miẓvah as presented in his Sefer ha-Miẓvot, miẓvot aseh, no. 152. However, a somewhat different exposition is presented by Rambam in his Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 1:1. Cf., also Rashi, Leviticus 11:47, and the comments of R. Elijah Mizraḥi, ad locum. For a fuller discussion of these sources, see the opening section of this writer’s article in the Kislev 5749 issue of Or ha-Mizraḥ. Accordingly, a careful examination of the scales should always be made before the fish may be accepted as a member of a kosher species. However, if it is determined that the left side is black, it may be concluded that the fish is a non-kosher turbot and hence any further investigation is without purpose.

Turbot is a case in point. The fish, known in Latin as Rhombus maximus and in German as Steinbutt, possesses bony tubercles but lacks the type of scale which qualifies as kaskeset. Rabbi David Feldman, Shimushah shel Torah (London, 5711), p. 19, reports that turbot is easily mistaken for kosher species such as plaice and halibut. Rabbi Feldman presents a simple method for determining whether a given fish of this type is of a kosher variety or is the non-kosher turbot. Both the kosher and non-kosher species are black on one side and white on the other. However, the various species differ in that the left side of the turbot is black, while in kosher species it is the right side which is black. Accordingly, to determine whether the fish in question is kosher or non-kosher, the fish should be held spine upward with the head pointing away from the body of the holder. If the black side of the fish is observed to be on the left, it may be concluded that the fish is a turbot. If, however, the left side of the fish is white, the fish may be presumed to be of a kosher species. Rabbi Feldman hastens to add that since this criterion is not formulated in talmudic sources it should not be regarded as absolute.³According to some authorities, there may be a positive reason to examine further for the presence of scales. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 145, regards Leviticus 11:9 as a positive commandment establishing a requirement to examine fish for the presence of fins and scales prior to eating. This requirement cannot be satisfied by examining for the presence of other criteria; cf., Ḥiddushei Ḥatam Sofer, Ḥullin 66a, s.v. u-ve-dagim. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh seems to follow Rambam’s formulation of this miẓvah as presented in his Sefer ha-Miẓvot, miẓvot aseh, no. 152. However, a somewhat different exposition is presented by Rambam in his Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 1:1. Cf., also Rashi, Leviticus 11:47, and the comments of R. Elijah Mizraḥi, ad locum. For a fuller discussion of these sources, see the opening section of this writer’s article in the Kislev 5749 issue of Or ha-Mizraḥ. Accordingly, a careful examination of the scales should always be made before the fish may be accepted as a member of a kosher species. However, if it is determined that the left side is black, it may be concluded that the fish is a non-kosher turbot and hence any further investigation is without purpose.

(1) The Gemara, Pesaḥim 49b, declares that an ignoramus ought not to partake of meat: " 'This is the law of the animal … and the fowl' (Leviticus 11:46): whoever engages in [the study of] the Law is permitted to eat the flesh of animals and fowl, but whoever does not engage in [the study of] the Law may not eat the flesh of animals and fowl." This text should certainly not be construed as declaring that meat is permitted only to the scholar as a reward for his erudition or diligence.¹This text has also been understood homiletically as underscoring the lesson that man was created to study Torah and that, should he fail to do so, he remains in a spiritual state analogous to that of lower animals. Since such a person has not developed his unique spiritual potential as a human being, he should not regard himself as endowed with superiority vis-a-vis members of the animal kingdom. See R. Isaac Arama, Akeidat Yiẓḥak, Parshat Bashalaḥ, sha’ar 41, and R. Moses Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Ḥoshen Mishpat, II, no. 47, sec. 1. Cf., Maharal of Prague, Netivot Olam, chap. 15. Shevet Mussar, chap. 36, adduces this text in support of his contention that only the pious are superior to animals and hence only the pious are entitled to partake of the flesh of animals. Maharsha indicates that this text simply reflects a concern for scrupulous observance of the minutiae of the dietary code. The ignoramus is not proficient in the myriad rules and regulations governing the eating of meat, including the differentiation between kosher and nonkosher species, the porging of forbidden fat and veins, the soaking and salting of meat, etc. Only the scholar who has mastered those rules and regulations can eat meat with a clear conscience. Indeed, an earlier authority, Rabbenu Nissim, citing R. Sherira Ga'on, explains that an ignoramus is advised to refrain from eating meat because he is ignorant of the proper method of performing ritual slaughter and of examining the internal organs. A similar interpretation is advanced by R. Moses Isserles, Teshuvot Rema, no. 65, who remarks that the ignoramus is not proficient in the laws of ritual slaughter. Maharsha notes that this stricture applies only to the eating of the flesh of land-animals but places no restriction upon the eating of fish, even though reference to fish is also made in the very same biblical verse. The reason for this distinction is that the dietary code pertaining to consumption of fish is relatively simple and can be mastered by everyone, while preparation of animal meat is governed by complex regulations requiring diligent study. Historically, there certainly have been individuals who, depending upon circumstances of time and place, did deny themselves meat, not because of the ethical implications of a carnivorous diet, but because of their concern for inadvertent transgression of provisions of the dietary code. For example, during the early part of the twentieth century, many pious immigrants to the United States declined to eat meat because of the lax standards of kashrut supervision then prevalent in this country. Such individuals adopted vegetarianism as a life-style, but did so because of concern for observance of the technicalities of religious law rather than because of moral considerations.

Creatures lacking fins and scales "of all that swarms in the waters" (Leviticus 11:10) are biblically proscribed. Included in the prohibition against consuming such marine creatures are not only fish and crustaceans but also insects and the like whose natural habitat are "the seas and the rivers." Such creatures are forbidden even after having been ingested by a kosher fish but, as explained by the Gemara, Hullin 67b,²⁰Actually, the Gemara discusses rules applying to animals but does not explicitly refer to fish. Tosafot, ad locum, state that the underlying principle applies equally to fish. similar organisms generated within an animal or the flesh of the fish are permitted. Accordingly, as recorded in Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 84:16, worms found within²¹R. Ephraim Zalman Margulies, Teshuvot Bet Efrayim,Yoreh De’ah, no. 25, writes that, even when found on the external surface of the entrails, such organisms are forbidden. See, infra, note 50 and accompanying text. the entrails²²As understood by Rashi and Tosafot, the Gemara, Ḥullin 67b, indicates that such creatures are also forbidden when found in the liver or lungs of the animal or of the fish on the suspicion that they entered through the “nostrils.” Ḥiddushei R. Akiva Eger, ad locum, adds the phrase “or in the brain” reflecting the possibility that the worms might have entered through the nose and penetrated the cranial cavity. of a fish are forbidden because it is to be presumed²³Pri Megadim, Siftei Da’at 84:43, indicates that such creatures are prohibited, not with certainty, but as a matter of doubt since their presence within the digestive organs strongly suggests that they originated outside the fish. This view was expressed much earlier by Issur ve-Hetter he-Arukh, sha’ar 41, sec. 15. The Gemara found no reason to assume that organisms found elsewhere within the fish originated outside the fish and hence, if found under the skin or in the flesh of the fish, they are permitted. The matter can best be categorized as an application of the principal “ka’an nimẓa ka’an ḥayah—what is found here was always here [and not elsewhere]” other than in situations in which there exists a rei’uta, or unusual factor, giving rise to suspicion of the contrary.
Consistent with that principle, Knesset ha-Gedolah, followed by Baḥ and Yam shel Shlomoh in his commentaries on Sefer ha-Terumot and on Ḥullin 3:104, concludes that worms are permitted only if found in a whole fish and upon examination it is ascertained that there is no lesion through which the worms might have entered. However, once the fish has been cut, any worms that are found are forbidden because of the fear that, in cutting the fish, they may have penetrated the flesh from the viscera. that they were earlier present in the water and were ingested by the fish, whereas such creatures, when found between the skin and flesh, or, according to most authorities,²⁴See, however, Baḥ, Yoreh De’ah 84, Knesset ha-Gedolah, Yoreh De’ah 84:101 and Yam shel Shlomoh, Ḥullin 3:106, who permit such creatures only when found between the skin and the flesh. See infra, note 25. within the flesh of the fish itself,²⁵Rashi identifies the “darni” explicitly permitted by the Gemara, Ḥullin 67b, as “worms found between the skin and the flesh.” Rashba, Torat ha-Bayit ha-Kaẓer, bayit slishi, sha’ar shlishi, adds the phrase “or in the flesh” and that emendation is incorporated by virtually all subsequent authorities. are permitted.²⁶Nevertheless, when detached or separated from the fish, such worms are forbidden because of ma’arit ayin, i.e., because they appear to be forbidden creatures. Contrary to other authorities, Shakh, Yoreh De’ah 84:46, permits such creatures as long as they remain in the plate in which they are served but forbids them once they leave the plate for another surface. Cf., Pri Ḥadash, Yoreh De’ah 84:9 and Ḥokhmat Adam 38:29. Even if they develop within the fish while the fish is still alive, such creatures are regarded as having originated in the fish itself.²⁷R. Hai Ga’on, She’iltot, Parashat Shemini, she’ilta 4, explains that, since such creatures are generated by the flesh of the fish or animal, they have the halakhic status of their progenitor.
It is generally presumed that the Gemara asserts that such creatures arise in the flesh of their host as a result of spontaneous generation. However, Rashi, Ḥullin 67b, defines the term “gavli” in the phrase mineih gavli as meaning “gadli,” i.e., “grow” or develop.” That understanding is entirely consistent with the notion that the parasites enter the flesh while yet microscopic in nature—and hence are accorded no halakhic cognizance—and later develop within the flesh. Since their existence is recognized only when they become visually perceivable within the flesh of the host, their halakhic identity is that of the host in which they “grow” or “develop.” See infra, note 57. As enunciated by the Gemara, the applicable principle is that creatures that grow from the flesh of a kosher fish or of an animal that has been slaughtered²⁸Only worms generated in the flesh of an animal after it has been slaughtered are permitted; a worm generated in the flesh while the animal is yet alive is forbidden as “an organ torn from a living creature.” Since the worm enjoys independent animation, it is not rendered permissible by the slaughter of its host. Fish do not require slaughter and are not subject to the prohibition against an organ torn from a living creature. Hence, worms generated by the flesh of a fish, even when the fish is yet alive, are permitted. are entirely permissible.

The almost reflexive reaction of many people to reports of infestation of New York water by copepods was that the issue is hardly novel. Probably every person who has had the benefit of a freshman biology course has had the experience of placing a droplet of water on a slide and examining it under a microscope. The experience of viewing countless numbers of microorganisms is both thrilling and disconcerting: Thrilling because the microscope becomes a window opening upon the hidden mysteries of divine creation through which a tiny cross-section of the myriad complexities of the natural order is revealed; disconcerting, at least to a Jew, because, mindful as he is of the biblical admonition "of all that creeps in the water and of all the living creatures that creep in the waters … you shall not eat of their flesh" (Leviticus 11:10-11), he becomes jarringly aware that with every sip of water he imbibes copious quantities of such creeping things.

The authorities who are unconcerned with regard to possible Anisakis infestation of commonly consumed fish do not accept Rambam's position. For the most part, they regard the principle formulated by the Gemara regarding spontaneous generation of insects in the flesh of fish as empirically correct, universal in nature and an irrebuttable presumption not subject to scientific challenge. They regard any challenge to that position as either bordering upon, or as actual, heresy. The many scholars who regard the problem in a serious light either maintain that the Gemara refers to a specifically named organism or do not regard the statement of the Gemara as universally applicable to all organisms and hence distinguish the Anisakis on either halakhic or empirical grounds. Some authorities declare that the principle of "nishtaneh ha-teva—nature has changed"³⁴See, for example, Rabbi Halberstam, addenda to Ve-Anokhi Tola’at, p. 40 and Rabbi Revach, Or Yisra’el, no. 54, p. 39. is applicable and assert that, although spontaneous generation occurred in ancient times, it is no longer a reality or, alternatively, state simply that, although parasites such as Anisakis were rare in earlier ages, they have become much more common in our era.³⁵Cf., R. Chaim ibn Attar, Or ha-Ḥayyim, Leviticus 11:43, who asserts that the incidence of “creeping things” has increased “in these times when the atmosphere and terrestrial areas have all become polluted.” Indeed, Shakh, Yoreh De'ah 84:22, states that frequency of infestation varies from place to place and from era to era.³⁶Rabbi Halberstam, addenda to Ve-Anokhi Tola’at, p. 39, draws attention to two studies conducted in a fishing area north of Scotland, one in 1960 and one in 1972. The earlier study found an infestation rate of one and one-half percent, while the second revealed infestation in sixty percent of the fish examined. Rabbi Halberstam, addenda to Ve-Anokhi Tola'at, p. 39, attributes increased infestation in our day to present use of refrigeration enabling fish to be shipped long distances without being eviscerated.³⁷See Allan Roepstorff, Horst Karl, Bouke Bloemsma et al., “Catch Handling and the Possible Migration of Anisakis Larvae in Herring, Clupea harengus,” Journal of Food Protection, vol. 56, no. 9 (Sept., 1993), p. 783. As noted earlier, migration of Anisakis from the intestine takes place after the death of the host.³⁸See John W. Smith and R. Wootten, “Experimental Studies on the Migration of Anisakis Sp. Larvae (Nematoda: ascaradida) into the Flesh of Herring Clupea Harengus L.,” International Journal for Parasitology, vol. 5, no. 2 (April, 1975), pp. 133-136 and John W. Smith, “The Abundance of Anisakis simplex L.3 in the Body-cavity and Flesh of Marine Teleosts,” International Journal for Parasitology, vol. 14, no. 5 (Oct. 1984), pp. 491-495. Some scientists attribute proliferation of parasites to the warming of sea waters.³⁹See Patricia Noguera, “Red Vent Syndrome in Wild Atlantic Salmon Salmo Salar in Scotland is Associated with Anisakis Simplex Sensu Stricto (Nematoda: Anisakidae),” Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, vol. 87, no. 3 (Dec. 3, 2009), pp. 199-215. Cf., sources cited by Harford Williams and Arlene Jones, Parasitic Worms of Fish, (London, 1994), p. 417. Accordingly, it is not surprising that changed empirical reality results in halakhic rulings differing from those applicable in circumstances that prevailed in earlier times.⁴⁰For a fuller discussion of similar controversies in other contexts see chapter seven of this volume, pp. 210-217.

Rabbi Efratti cites the commentary of Tiferet Yisra'el on Avodah Zarah 2:6, which declares that for a fish to be deemed kosher its scales must be visible to the naked eye. This ruling is based upon two considerations. First, the Gemara, Niddah 57b, identifies the biblical term kaskeset as the "clothing" of the fish and, accordingly, defines kaskeset as "scales." Microscopic scales can hardly be deemed "clothing," and hence cannot satisfy this necessary condition of kashrut. Secondly, Tiferet Yisra'el establishes the general principle that in all matters contingent upon vision, Halakhah is concerned only with what is visible to the naked eye, not with what is visible under a magnifying glass or microscope. Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein reiterates the same principle in his halakhic compendium, Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De'ah 83:15.^10aCf. also, Arukh ha-Shulhan, Yoreh De‘ah 84:36. Arukh ha-Shulḥan adds that mere perception of the scales is in itself insufficient since it is necessary that scales not only be present but that they be removable as well. This qualification is indicated by Ramban (Commentary on the Bible, Lev., 11:10) in his definition of kaskeset as a structure "which can be peeled off as one peels a fruit or removes bark from a tree."

Vessels and utensils are subject to defilement whereas structures or objects attached to the ground are not subject to defilement. The distinction lies in the fact that vessels and utensils are movable and can be transported from place to place whereas objects attached to the ground are immobile. Inordinately large objects may be immovable even if they are not attached to the ground. For purposes of the regulations governing defilement, objects are classified as vessels or utensils only if they are comparable to the "sack" described in Leviticus 11:32. According to rabbinic exegesis, the term "sack" serves as the paradigm for all vessels subject to defilement. The nature of a sack is that it can be transported "[when] full as well as [when] empty." Accordingly, only utensils that are not too heavy to be transported even when full are susceptible to defilement; gargantuan vessels that are not movable when full are treated as though they are rooted to the ground even when they are empty and hence cannot become defiled. The Mishnah, Oholot 8:3, declares that any utensil that holds forty se'ah is, by definition, too large to become defiled. The Mishnah further declares that since such utensils cannot become defiled they can also serve as an interposition preventing defilement from ascending ad coelum. Such an oversized utensil is termed a keli ha-ba be-middah. The dimensions of an airplane certainly seem to place it within that category.

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.

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.

The comments of Or ha-Hayyim are, however, sharply challenged by R. Baruch ha-Levi Epstein, Torah Temimah, Leviticus 11:7, sec. 21. Torah Temimah asserts that the only rabbinic statement even vaguely resembling that which is quoted by Or ha-Hayyim is an etymological comment on the word "ḥazir" found in Va-Yikra Rabbah 13:5 and repeated in Kohelet Rabbah 1:28.²⁰See also Tanḥuma Yashan, Shemini 14. In context, the midrashic statement is clearly an allegorical reference to the eschatological role of gentile nations in causing the return of Israel to her original state of grandeur. A similar interpretation was presented much earlier by Rabbenu Baḥya in his commentary on Leviticus 11:7.²¹For other analyses of this midrashic statement see sources cited by R. Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. XXVIII, Leviticus 11:7, sec. 34. It should be noted that Or ha-Ḥayyim’s version of this midrashic statement is quoted verbatim by Abarbanel, Yeshu‘ot Meshiḥo, ha-Iyyun ha-Revi‘i, chapter 3, and attributed to Bereishit Rabbah. However, Abarbanel states that Bereishit Rabbah itself explains the comment as referring to the “devouring” of Edom rather than to the consumption of swine. Rabbenu Baḥya also cites a variant reading similar to that of Or ha-Ḥayyim. Rabbenu Baḥya himself, however, interprets that version allegorically. Recanati, Leviticus 11:7, Ritva, Kiddushin 49b, and Teshuvot Radbaz, II, no. 828, similarly deny that the swine will ever be permissible and offer allegorical interpretations of the midrashic comments.

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.

4. Most significantly, the rule regarding keli ha-ba be-middah applies only to implements made of wood or leather and to articles of clothing that are enumerated together with the "sack" in Leviticus 11:32 as subject to defilement. However, metal utensils that are not mentioned in that verse are susceptible to defilement regardless of size.³³See Kelim 15:1 and Oholot 8:1. The definition of "metal" for this purpose will be addressed in a subsequent section.

Thus it is certainly arguable that the organisms denoted by Leviticus 11:10-11 are those that were perceivable at the time the commandment was announced and that those organisms remain forbidden even if, in our age, they are no longer visible to the naked eye. However, this is not to say that microscopic organisms are forbidden. Even the shepherd of antiquity did not enjoy omnivision; after all, he could see only a distance of sixteen mil. Since that time there has been, at worst, only limited optical degeneration. Perhaps in antiquity the average man possessing eyesight of the quality common among his peers could see with his naked eye even that which is visible to us only upon two-three- or even ten-power magnification. Consequently, organisms that are but marginally subvisual may well be forbidden but those that can be seen only with a microscope rather than with a magnifying glass could not conceivably be within the ambit of the prohibition.

You must not eat foods and beverages that are repulsive or [eat or drink] out of unclean dishes that are repulsive. Neither should you eat with dirty hands, for all these things are included [in the Biblical injunction,] "Do not make yourself repulsive."⁶Leviticus 11:43. Even if a person would say that he has no aversion to these things, his opinion is ignored since it defies the accepted norms of society.

However, R. Moshe Viya, Bedikat ha-Mazon ke-Halakhah, I (Jerusalem, 5758) 2:4, reports that the late R. Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach ruled that organisms that are visible but which are not perceivable as "creeping things" are forbidden. A somewhat different version of Rabbi Auerbach's position is reported by R. Joshua Neuwirth, Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhatah, I, 2nd edition (Jerusalem, 5739) 3:37, note 105. Rabbi Neuwirth relates that Rabbi Auerbach originally opined that an organism that can never be perceived as living or mobile cannot be regarded as a "creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (Leviticus 11:41). However, Rabbi Auerbach later recounted that he heard from persons close to Hazon Ish that the latter considered such organisms to be forbidden. In point of fact, Hazon Ish, Yoreh De'ah 14:6, s.v. ve-shi'ur, writes explicitly: "[Even] if the eye does not recognize it because of its small size, if it is yet whole it does not become nullified by virtue of rabbinic decree because of the law of biryah."²⁷Cf., the rather cryptic and tentative statement of R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Yoreh De’ah, IV, no. 2, “she-efshar she-davar she-lo nireh le-ma’aseh le-einayim eino assur—it is possible that something that cannot actually be seen by the eye is not forbidden,” that continues to declare “u-le-khol ha-paḥot eino be-ḥashivut biryah—and at the very minimum does not have the status of a biryah.” See infra, notes 50 and 51, and accompanying text. Hazon Ish clearly maintains that even organisms that cannot be identified as insects are forbidden.²⁸As noted supra, note 16, Ḥazon Ish does indeed endorse the view that microscopic organisms that could not have been visually perceived were not banned at Mount Sinai. Accordingly, he as well as the other authorities who rule that even creatures that cannot be readily identified as insects are prohibited, must be understood as maintaining that visual perception of such creatures as “black dots” creates a safek, or doubt, and as such are subject to the rules governing doubtful situations. Moreover, since the “doubt” is perceived and can now readily be resolved by means of magnification, this “doubt” can no longer be willfully ignored. That consideration is sufficient to prohibit ingesting such creatures. See R. Chaim Chizkiyahu Medini, Sedei Ḥemed, V, Kellalim, ma’arekhet ha-samakh, klal 51. R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv is also quoted in Bedikat ha-Mazon ke-Halakhah, I, 2:4, note 4, as ruling that all such creatures are forbidden even if they cannot immediately be identified as insects.²⁹Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De’ah 84:36, rules that insects are forbidden even if they are visible only when scrutinized in direct sunlight. R. Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach, Halikhot Sadeh, no. 51, indicates that this is the case even if the insects can be seen only by employing an electric light.

As formulated in Leviticus 11:10, the prohibition against forbidden aquatic creatures reads: "And all that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that creep in the waters and of all living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable unto you." The Gemara, Hullin 66b, declares that the requirement that aquatic creatures have fins and scales as a condition of dietary acceptability is limited to those that spawn in "the seas and in the rivers" and hence creatures that spawn in stagnant pits or utensils are permissible. The Gemara, Hullin 67a, qualifies that exclusion in indicating that creatures that spawn in utensils are permissible only so long as they remain in their aquatic element. Upon emerging, or upon being removed, from water they acquire the forbidden status of "creeping things that creep upon the earth" (Leviticus 11:29) and remain prohibited even if they return to the water from which they emerged. Thus, insects that spawn in stagnant water collected in stationary cisterns or the like are not forbidden unless they become separated from the water that is their natural habitat.

As formulated in Leviticus 11:10, the prohibition against forbidden aquatic creatures reads: "And all that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that creep in the waters and of all living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable unto you." The Gemara, Hullin 66b, declares that the requirement that aquatic creatures have fins and scales as a condition of dietary acceptability is limited to those that spawn in "the seas and in the rivers" and hence creatures that spawn in stagnant pits or utensils are permissible. The Gemara, Hullin 67a, qualifies that exclusion in indicating that creatures that spawn in utensils are permissible only so long as they remain in their aquatic element. Upon emerging, or upon being removed, from water they acquire the forbidden status of "creeping things that creep upon the earth" (Leviticus 11:29) and remain prohibited even if they return to the water from which they emerged. Thus, insects that spawn in stagnant water collected in stationary cisterns or the like are not forbidden unless they become separated from the water that is their natural habitat.

An ostensively even stronger argument is formulated by Rabbi Halberstam, Ve-Anokhi Tola'at, p. 11, and by R. Ephraim Fishel Siegal, Or Yisra'el, no. 61, pp. 71-72. They contend that, even if minuscule creatures are not halakhically cognized, and, as Rabbi Falk argues, the species identity of such creatures is established at the time it becomes discernible to the naked eye, the Anisakis should nevertheless be forbidden. An Anisakis that reaches such a stage of development within crustaceans should be regarded either as a yozei of a forbidden fish⁶²Cf., however, Ḥavvat Da’at 81:1, who maintains that there is no prohibition of yoẓei with regard to forbidden fish. See, however, Tosafot, Bekhorot 7b, s.v. rov dagim, who apparently espouse a contradictory view. See also Malbim on Leviticus 11:11. or as having acquired the identity of the species of fish of which its host is a member.⁶³Rabbi Viya, Bedikat ha-Mazon, I, sha’ar sheni, chap. 3, note 22, rebuts that argument by citing Ḥavvat Da’at 81:2 who asserts that a fully-developed entity is not prohibited as yoẓei. However, Ḥavvat Da’at agrees that, by virtue of an entirely different scriptural derivation, identity as a member of a species is acquired by virtue of the species identity of the progenitor. If so, an organism juridically regarded as having been generated by a non-kosher creature should also acquire identity as a member of the species of its progenitor. Consistent with that assessment, Minḥat Hinnukh, no. 163, declares that, although worms that develop in the flesh of a dead animal are not prohibited as the yozei of a limb of a living animal, nevertheless, if the animal is a member of a non-kosher species, such worms are forbidden by virtue of the prohibition against eating the flesh of a non-kosher animal.⁶⁴Cf., Ḥazon Ish, Yoreh De’ah 17:13. Ḥazon Ish asserts that worms that are not piresh are permissible because they are generated by a foodstuff whose identity they acquire. That view is entirely consistent with the position of R. Hai Ga’on cited supra, note 27. Ḥazon Ish, however, further declares that a worm that is not piresh is permissible only if it acquires the identity of a permissible foodstuff as evidenced by the fact that worms found in a living animal are not forbidden as ever min ha-ḥai. Hence, according to Ḥazon Ish, a worm generated by a non-kosher organism would always be treated as piresh. That ruling is recorded by Darkei Teshuvah 84:177.⁶⁵See also the commentary of Malbim on Leviticus 11:11.

Many Divine commandments are written in the Torah regarding insects. [One who eats them] transgresses many prohibitive commandments. They also defile the soul, as it is written: "You will be defiled through them."¹¹Leviticus 11: 43. Therefore, everyone must be very careful not to eat them inadvertently.

It is of interest to note that R. Meir Leibush Malbim, in his commentary on Leviticus 11:7, describes an animal remarkably similar to the babirusa. Malbim reports that the animal, which he calls a "tai'asu," is found in the tropical areas of South America and possesses four stomachs. Although Malbim is unclear, and perhaps even contradictory, with regard to whether this animal chews the cud, he reports that it has incisors in the upper jaw. As has been noted earlier, absence of incisors is regarded by the Gemara. Hullin 59a, as proof that the animal chews its cud and the converse is regarded as proof that it is unclean, i.e., the presence of incisors is incompatible with chewing the cud. Accordingly, it must be assumed that Malbim intends us to understand that the tai'asu does not chew its cud. Malbim declares the animal to be non-kosher and points to its physical characteristics in order to illustrate the use of the future tense in the phrase "ve-hu gerah lo yigar—it will not chew the cud." According to Malbim, the verse alludes to this particular species of swine and declares that, although it has developed some characteristics of a ruminant, viz., four stomachs, it remains non-kosher because "it will not chew the cud."

A cursory discussion of this subject by Rabbi Avraham Meir Israel appears in the Tevet–Kislev 5733 issue of Ha-Ma'or. The pertinent sources may be found in Darkei Teshuvah 79:15. Surprising as it may appear, there is no explicit biblical injunction against partaking of human flesh. Nevertheless Rambam's position, Ma'akhalot Assurot 2:3, is that a biblical prohibition may be inferred from Leviticus 11:2. The general statement "These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth" is followed by an enumeration of specific categories of permitted animals. Since, of course, no mention is made of human flesh it may be inferred, declares Rambam, that cannibalism is forbidden. Ritva, in his commentary on Ketubot 60a, is also of the opinion that human flesh is biblically forbidden, but for an entirely different reason. According to Ritva, the flesh of a deceased individual is subsumed under the general prohibition against partaking of "unslaughtered" flesh, a prohibition which applies to the meat of any animal not slaughtered in the manner required by Jewish law.

Many authorities, including Rosh, Ketubot 5:19, Teshuvot ha-Rashba, I, no. 364, and Ramban, commentary on Leviticus 11:3, maintain that there is no specific biblical prohibition against eating human flesh. These authorities would nevertheless agree that partaking of the flesh of a dead person is forbidden on other, more general, grounds. Yoreh De'ah 349:1 records a general prohibition against deriving any benefit from a corpse; using the flesh of a corpse for food is, of course, a forbidden "benefit."⁵The prohibition with regard to deriving benefit from a Jewish corpse is biblical in nature. There is some disagreement as to whether the prohibition against deriving benefit from the corpse of a non-Jew is biblical or rabbinic in nature. See Pitḥei Teshuvah, Yoreh De‘ah 349:1; Mishneh, le-Melekh, Ma’akhalot Assurot 2:3 and Hilkhot Avel 14:21; and She’elat Ya’aveẓ, I, no. 41.

In comments published in Hiddushei ha-Graḥ al ha-Shas, ed. Y. Cohen (Jerusalem, 5729), Hullin 67a, the Brisker Rav, R. Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik, is quoted as espousing the position that, although identity as a member of a forbidden animal species is established by progenital relationship without regard to the presence or absence in the progeny of the anatomical criteria enumerated by Scripture, that is not the case with regard to sherazim or "swarming things." The Brisker Rav observes that Scripture neither names species forbidden as "creeping things" nor does it spell out identifying criteria. The prohibition is couched simply in the phrase "all swarming things that swarm upon the earth you shall not eat" (Leviticus 11:42). Accordingly, he argues, the fact that the organism "swarms" is the determining factor in establishing the prohibited nature of such a creature.⁸¹For further discussion of the Brisker Rav’s view see chapter seven of this volume, p. 221, note 34.

In establishing that thesis, the Brisker Rav cites an intriguing rule recorded by Rambam, Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot 3:8. A single creature may be thrice prohibited, namely as 1) a swarming land creature, 2) a swarming aquatic creature and 3) a swarming flying creature. Since consumption of creatures that creep on land, swarm in water and those that fly are each prohibited by a separate negative commandment, Rambam, Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot 2:23, rules that a person who consumes a land creature that reproduces in bodies of water and also sprouts wings is punished by having the statutory number of stripes administered three times. Rambam, Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot 3:8, further rules that a person who consumes an unhatched bird incurs punishment for violation of the prohibition against consuming "winged swarming things that go upon all fours" (Leviticus 11:20). Even though, if eaten only upon hatching, punishment incurred in eating such a creature would be for consuming an "unclean bird," nevertheless, while yet in the egg, its appearance is that of a "swarming" creature and punishment is for consuming a "winged swarming thing."

Nevertheless, this conclusion, as well as that of Rabbi Landau, appears to be incorrect. In the above-cited ruling of Rambam, Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot 3:8, regarding an unhatched embryo endowed with wings, Rambam rules that the unhatched embryo of a forbidden bird possessing wings is a sherez ha-of, i.e., a swarming bird-creature. That prohibition attaches to the unhatched creature despite the fact that its wings were never used and it never engaged in flight.⁸²Rabbi Friedman does take note of Rambam’s ruling and somewhat implausibly distinguishes the two cases: In the case of the unhatched bird, the embryo, if left undisturbed, will hatch and actually fly; the Anisakis however, is destined to be ingested by a larger fish and will never actually “creep” in water. It might be countered that, despite the grammatical identity of the two phrases, the phrase "mi-kol sherez hamayim"(Leviticus 11:10) translates literally as "of all that swarms in water" while kol sherez ha-of (Leviticus 10:20) should be translated as "all of the swarming birds," i.e., creatures having capacity for flight but not necessarily creatures that have flown. More likely, in both the case of a sherez ha-of and in the case of a sherez ha-mayim, it is the "to'ar" (to use the terminology of the Brisker Rav), i.e., the appearance or physical characteristics of the creature that are determinative rather than the actual performance of the activity common to such creatures. Hence, any organism having the appearance of a creature that "swarms in water" would be prohibited even if that creature has not actually swarmed in water.

The issue of straining water on Shabbat for a comparable purpose was first addressed by Kaf ha-Hayyim, Oraḥ Hayyim 319:120. Kaf ha-Hayyim ruled that, in Jerusalem, water might be strained on Shabbat. Apparently, during the period in which that work was written, there was concern that insects might be present in the Jerusalem water supply. However, even if present, those insects were not forbidden aquatic creatures since they spawned in cisterns. The concern was solely due to the fact that consumption of insects is revolting to most people and hence is forbidden by virtue of the prohibition "You shall not make yourselves repulsive" (Leviticus 11:43). However, that prohibition is operative only if the presence of insects is known with certainty; if their presence is merely doubtful there is no revulsion attendant upon drinking the water. Basically, Kaf ha-Hayyim's position is that, if straining is required as a matter of Halakhah, it is forbidden on Shabbat but, if straining is not normatively required, it is permissible. However, in a subsequent comment, Kaf ha-Hayyim, Oraḥ Hayyim 319: 223, cites earlier authorities who ruled that straining is indeed required. Nevertheless, Kaf ha-Hayyim permits straining on Shabbat with the stipulation that the straining be performed by two persons acting simultaneously and that the straining be performed in an unusual manner.

Rabbi Silber takes issue with the position of both Rabbi Feinstein and Rabbi Frank and maintains that garments made of synthetic material require zizit no less than those made of natural fibers. He recognizes no distinction between garments made of synthetic thread and those cut directly from sheets of synthetic material.⁸This is also the position of Rabbi Y. E. Henkin, Am ha-Torah, no. 10, p.7. Rabbi Henkin offers a somewhat different explanation for the exclusion of leather from the obligation of ẓiẓit. The arguments of those who disagree, Rabbi Silber points out, are based primarily on the phraseology of the Levush who states that a "begged," by definition, must be made of woven material. Rabbi Silber cites Mishnah Berurah 10:11 which omits any reference to weaving in citing Levush. According to Rabbi Silber, "weaving" is not a necessary condition of what constitutes a begged but is simply a generalization used to exclude materials which do not constitute a begged. Leather is exempt, argues Rabbi Silber, because by its nature it does not generate warmth. Since it is not generally used for the making of clothing it is not deemed to be a "begged" even if it is fashioned into an article of clothing. This is so even if the leather is first cut into strips and then woven into a garment. That leather is not considered to be a begged is manifest from the phrase "a garment or leather" (Leviticus 11:32). Reference to a "a garment (begged) or leather" as separate entities demonstrates that leather, by definition, is not deemed to be a begged. Since synthetic fibers do provide warmth and are commonly used in the manufacture of clothing, a garment made of synthetic material, argues Rabbi Silber, should be considered a begged and such a garment requires zizit if it is four-cornered in shape. Furthermore, argues Rabbi Silber, since synthetic cloth is manufactured by a process which causes separate particles to adhere to one another, this process is comparable to weaving cloth out of individual strands of thread. Such materials are significantly different from leather which comes into being as a single entity. The term "woven" as used by Levush, argues Rabbi Silber, is intended simply to exclude that which is fashioned from a single piece, e.g., leather. According to Rabbi Silber, nylon or polyester may be used in the making of a tallit katan.

The species which originate in dust heaps and carcasses, such as maggots, worms and their like and which are born, not through intercourse between male and female, but out of putrefaction of dung and the like are called "creeping things that move upon the earth" (Leviticus 11:44). … On the other hand, "all creeping things that creep upon the earth" (Leviticus 11:42) refers to such that procreate by intercourse between male and female.

The species which originate in dust heaps and carcasses, such as maggots, worms and their like and which are born, not through intercourse between male and female, but out of putrefaction of dung and the like are called "creeping things that move upon the earth" (Leviticus 11:44). … On the other hand, "all creeping things that creep upon the earth" (Leviticus 11:42) refers to such that procreate by intercourse between male and female.

That is that He commanded us that when any person touches a carcass, he becomes impure. And this commandment includes the impurity of a carcass and all of its laws. And I will now present a preface that is appropriate that we remember anytime we mention the various types of impurity. And it is that that which we count each type as a positive commandment - its content is not that we are obligated to become impure with a certain impurity, and also not that we are prohibited from becoming impure from it and that it be a negative commandment. Rather the Torah said that anyone who touches this type [of object] becomes impure; or that this thing renders one who touches it impure according to this description. And that is the positive commandment - meaning that this law with which we have been commanded is a positive commandment. And that is His saying, whoever touches this according to this description has become impure; and whoever according to that description does not become impure. But the matter itself is optional - if he wants, he becomes impure; if not, he doesn't become impure. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4:10) is, "'And their carcass do not touch' (Leviticus 11:8) - I might think that if one touched a carcass, he receives lashes. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and to these you shall become impure' (Leviticus 11:24). I might [then] think that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become impure from it. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and their carcass do not touch.' How is this? You shall say, it is an option." And this commandment that has been told to us about this law - that one who touches this become impure; and that he will be impure, such that he will be obligated about everything that impure people are obligated, [such as] to exit from the camp of the Divine Presence, not to eat consecrated food, not to touch it and other things besides this - this is the command. That means to say, one becoming impure from this type when he touches it or was proximate to [it] in such a manner. And remember this matter with every one of the types of impurity. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement 1.)

That is that He commanded us that when any person touches a carcass, he becomes impure. And this commandment includes the impurity of a carcass and all of its laws. And I will now present a preface that is appropriate that we remember anytime we mention the various types of impurity. And it is that that which we count each type as a positive commandment - its content is not that we are obligated to become impure with a certain impurity, and also not that we are prohibited from becoming impure from it and that it be a negative commandment. Rather the Torah said that anyone who touches this type [of object] becomes impure; or that this thing renders one who touches it impure according to this description. And that is the positive commandment - meaning that this law with which we have been commanded is a positive commandment. And that is His saying, whoever touches this according to this description has become impure; and whoever according to that description does not become impure. But the matter itself is optional - if he wants, he becomes impure; if not, he doesn't become impure. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4:10) is, "'And their carcass do not touch' (Leviticus 11:8) - I might think that if one touched a carcass, he receives lashes. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and to these you shall become impure' (Leviticus 11:24). I might [then] think that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become impure from it. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and their carcass do not touch.' How is this? You shall say, it is an option." And this commandment that has been told to us about this law - that one who touches this become impure; and that he will be impure, such that he will be obligated about everything that impure people are obligated, [such as] to exit from the camp of the Divine Presence, not to eat consecrated food, not to touch it and other things besides this - this is the command. That means to say, one becoming impure from this type when he touches it or was proximate to [it] in such a manner. And remember this matter with every one of the types of impurity. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement 1.)

But the Sages forbade the blood of people because of appearances. And therefore they said (Keritot 22a), "Blood that is between the teeth, he should suck and swallow; and that is on the bread, he should scrape it off of it and eat the bread." And so [too] is the blood of eggs permitted - as I do not call it the blood of the fowl, and it is not from the meat, even if it has started to form. And such is the opinion of our teachers, the Masters of the Tosafot on Chullin 64b, s.v. vehu, and as is implied from the simple meaning of the bereita in Keritot 21a. This is the law of the Torah. But the Sages forbade an egg that has [been] formed, and supported the thing with the verse of "the swarming creature that swarms" (Leviticus 11:42). And hence they forbade the blood of eggs on account of the doubt - that [perhaps] it formed. But anything that does not have a doubt of formation, they only forbade on account of appearances. And so, [regarding] blood of eggs found in the white, one should throw out the blood and eat the rest. But there are those that are stringent when it is found on the union and outside of the union [of the egg], to forbid the whole egg.

That is that He commanded us to check for the signs of beasts and animals that can be slaughtered - and that is that they chew the cud and have split hooves - and it is then permissible to eat them. And in that we are commended to check them for these signs, it is a positive commandment. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "These are the animals that you may eat" (Leviticus 11:2). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Chapter 3:1) is, "'Such may you eat' (Leviticus 11:3) - it may be eaten, but an unclean beast may not be eaten." This means to say, a beast that has these signs is permissible to eat; so it indicates that a beast that does not have these signs is not permitted to eat. And this is a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment - which is a positive commandment, as is a principle with us. And therefore, it said after this statement, "This tells me only of a positive commandment. From where [do we know that he also transgresses] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'the camel, etc.'"(Leviticus 11:4) - as I will explain in the Negative Commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 172). Behold it has already been made clear that His saying, "such may you eat," is a positive commandment. And the content of this commandment is that we are commanded to check for these signs in the beasts and animals; and it is not permissible to eat them without this. And this law is the commandment. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Chullin and in Bekhorot. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)

That is that He commanded us to check for the signs of beasts and animals that can be slaughtered - and that is that they chew the cud and have split hooves - and it is then permissible to eat them. And in that we are commended to check them for these signs, it is a positive commandment. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "These are the animals that you may eat" (Leviticus 11:2). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Chapter 3:1) is, "'Such may you eat' (Leviticus 11:3) - it may be eaten, but an unclean beast may not be eaten." This means to say, a beast that has these signs is permissible to eat; so it indicates that a beast that does not have these signs is not permitted to eat. And this is a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment - which is a positive commandment, as is a principle with us. And therefore, it said after this statement, "This tells me only of a positive commandment. From where [do we know that he also transgresses] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'the camel, etc.'"(Leviticus 11:4) - as I will explain in the Negative Commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 172). Behold it has already been made clear that His saying, "such may you eat," is a positive commandment. And the content of this commandment is that we are commanded to check for these signs in the beasts and animals; and it is not permissible to eat them without this. And this law is the commandment. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Chullin and in Bekhorot. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)

That is that He commanded us to check for the signs of locusts as well. And [the signs] are written in the Torah - "all [...] that have, above their feet, jointed legs" (Leviticus 11:21). And the content of this commandment is like that which we explained in the commandment before this; and the verse about it is His saying, "Of these you may eat the following - locusts" (Leviticus 11:22). And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Chullin. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 1.)

That is that He commanded us to check for the signs of [permissible] fish, which are written [in the Torah]. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "These are what you may eat from all that is in the water" (Leviticus 11:8). And in explanation, they said in the Gemara (Chullin 66b), "One who eats an impure fish transgresses a positive and a negative commandment." As its statement - "These are what you may eat" - [makes] me understand that one besides these may not be eaten. And a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Behold it has been made clear that its statement, "These are what you may eat," is a positive commandment. And the content of our saying that this is a positive commandment is what we have mentioned to you; and that is our being commanded to administer these signs, and to say that this is permissible to eat and this is not permissible to eat - as it is stated (Leviticus 20:25), "And you shall distinguish the clean beast from the unclean." And their distinguishment is though the signs. And therefore each and every one of these four types and their signs is a separate commandment - meaning the signs of the beasts and the animals; the birds; the locusts; and the fish. And we have already explained their expressions in each of the verses as an individual commandment. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning the signs of the fish - have already been explained in Chapter 3 of Tractate Chullin. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 1.)

The command of checking the signs of a beast or animal: That we were commanded to check the signs of a [domesticated] beast or [wild] animal when we want to eat of them - and they are that it brings up (chews) its cud and completely splits [its hoof], as it is stated (Leviticus 11:2-3), "This is the animal that you shall eat, from every beast upon the earth: All that separate the hoof, etc." And the language of Sifri, Shemini, Chapter 3:1 is "'It shall you eat' - it is for eating, but an impure animal is not for eating"; meaning to say, and we learn from it a negative commandment for an impure animal. And a negative commandment like this is called a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment. And it is stated in another place, "And you shall differentiate between a pure beast and an impure, etc." (Leviticus 20:25). And it is also written (Leviticus 11:47), "To differentiate between the impure, etc."

The command of checking the signs of a beast or animal: That we were commanded to check the signs of a [domesticated] beast or [wild] animal when we want to eat of them - and they are that it brings up (chews) its cud and completely splits [its hoof], as it is stated (Leviticus 11:2-3), "This is the animal that you shall eat, from every beast upon the earth: All that separate the hoof, etc." And the language of Sifri, Shemini, Chapter 3:1 is "'It shall you eat' - it is for eating, but an impure animal is not for eating"; meaning to say, and we learn from it a negative commandment for an impure animal. And a negative commandment like this is called a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment. And it is stated in another place, "And you shall differentiate between a pure beast and an impure, etc." (Leviticus 20:25). And it is also written (Leviticus 11:47), "To differentiate between the impure, etc."

To not eat an impure beast or animal: To not eat an impure beast or animal, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:4), "this shall you not eat from those that bring up the cud and separate their hoof, the camel," "and the pig" (Leviticus 11:7), "and the hare" (Leviticus 11:6), "and the daman" (Leviticus 11:5). And a clear negative commandment about the other species of impure beasts does not appear. But since the Torah stated (Leviticus 11:3), "All that separate the hoof and [...] bring up the cud in an animal, it shall you eat," we know that we are prevented from eating anything that does not have these two signs together. And this is a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment. And the principle that we have is [that] a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment, is a positive commandment, and [so] we do not administer lashes for it.

To not eat an impure beast or animal: To not eat an impure beast or animal, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:4), "this shall you not eat from those that bring up the cud and separate their hoof, the camel," "and the pig" (Leviticus 11:7), "and the hare" (Leviticus 11:6), "and the daman" (Leviticus 11:5). And a clear negative commandment about the other species of impure beasts does not appear. But since the Torah stated (Leviticus 11:3), "All that separate the hoof and [...] bring up the cud in an animal, it shall you eat," we know that we are prevented from eating anything that does not have these two signs together. And this is a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment. And the principle that we have is [that] a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment, is a positive commandment, and [so] we do not administer lashes for it.

To not eat an impure beast or animal: To not eat an impure beast or animal, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:4), "this shall you not eat from those that bring up the cud and separate their hoof, the camel," "and the pig" (Leviticus 11:7), "and the hare" (Leviticus 11:6), "and the daman" (Leviticus 11:5). And a clear negative commandment about the other species of impure beasts does not appear. But since the Torah stated (Leviticus 11:3), "All that separate the hoof and [...] bring up the cud in an animal, it shall you eat," we know that we are prevented from eating anything that does not have these two signs together. And this is a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment. And the principle that we have is [that] a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment, is a positive commandment, and [so] we do not administer lashes for it.

To not eat an impure beast or animal: To not eat an impure beast or animal, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:4), "this shall you not eat from those that bring up the cud and separate their hoof, the camel," "and the pig" (Leviticus 11:7), "and the hare" (Leviticus 11:6), "and the daman" (Leviticus 11:5). And a clear negative commandment about the other species of impure beasts does not appear. But since the Torah stated (Leviticus 11:3), "All that separate the hoof and [...] bring up the cud in an animal, it shall you eat," we know that we are prevented from eating anything that does not have these two signs together. And this is a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment. And the principle that we have is [that] a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment, is a positive commandment, and [so] we do not administer lashes for it.

To not eat an impure beast or animal: To not eat an impure beast or animal, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:4), "this shall you not eat from those that bring up the cud and separate their hoof, the camel," "and the pig" (Leviticus 11:7), "and the hare" (Leviticus 11:6), "and the daman" (Leviticus 11:5). And a clear negative commandment about the other species of impure beasts does not appear. But since the Torah stated (Leviticus 11:3), "All that separate the hoof and [...] bring up the cud in an animal, it shall you eat," we know that we are prevented from eating anything that does not have these two signs together. And this is a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment. And the principle that we have is [that] a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment, is a positive commandment, and [so] we do not administer lashes for it.

The commandment to check the signs of fish: To check the signs of fish, meaning to say that one who wants to eat fish first check properly for the signs that the Torah gave about them - and they are fins and scales, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:9), "And this shall you eat from all that is in the water, etc." We have already written in the commandment preceding this (Sefer HaChinukh 153, in the commandment of checking the signs of beasts and animals) that Ramban, may his memory be blessed, does not calculate the checking of signs in the species that the Torah permitted; and that the truth is with him, according to what appears to us. And even though we have found explicitly in the Gemara (Chullin 66b) with some of them, "This is a positive commandment," the intention of the matter is to make liable for impure species with a positive commandment [as well as] a negative commandment - from the principle that is well known to us, [that] a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment, is a positive commandment. And [that is] like we shall write with God's help in the commandment of lending to a gentile (Sefer HaChinukh 173), such that Rambam, may his memory be blessed, counted it as a commandment (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 198), [whereas] according to what it appears, the verse only comes to make liable for a positive commandment [as well] as a negative commandment for the lending to a Jew with interest.

To not eat impure fish: To not eat impure fish, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:11), "you shall not eat of their meat and you shall abominate their carcasses." And we have written the signs of the fit (kosher) fish in the positive commandment (Sefer HaChinukh 155) - which is to check the signs of the fish - which we have counted in the tally [of the commandments] in deference to Rambam, may his memory be blessed.

To not eat impure fowl: To not eat impure fowl, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:13), "And these you shall abominate from the fowl; they shall not be eaten, etc."

The commandment of checking the signs of grasshoppers: To check the signs of grasshoppers - and these are the signs that are written in the Torah, "that has jointed legs above its feet, etc." (Leviticus 11:21) - as it is stated, "this you may eat from all the winged swarming things." And the content of its root is like with the other species.

The commandment of the impurity of the eight swarming creatures: That the eight swarming creatures are impure and render impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:29), "And this shall be impure for you from the swarming creatures that swarm on the ground: the mole, the mouse and the lizard, etc."

And now after this preface of ours - that the wisdom of God is greater than all wisdom and that He only commands a thing for our good and for our great benefit - we have no difficulty or question in all of the prohibition of foods and distancing of impurity, in everything that the benefit to us is not known and graspable by investigation; as we truthfully know, it is all for the good. And do not wonder, my son, about the matters of impurity, if it is very hidden from every creature - as it is possible that impurity injures the soul and makes it a little sick. And so [too,] have I heard the thing from the mouth of sages. And [it is] similar to that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yoma 39a), "'And become impure (nitmeitem) through them' (Leviticus 11:43) - it is written 'and you shall become foolish (nitamtem)'; meaning to say that the springs of the intellect, which is the living soul, is spoiled a little with the matter of impurity.

The laws of the commandment: For example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Kelim 1:1) that eight swarming creatures are called a primary source (av) of impurity, meaning to say that they render a man and vessels impure by touch; and if the vessels are of clay, they render them impure once they enter its space (hollow). And this is the distinction that there is in the matter between that which is called a primary source and that which is called a derivative (velad) - as that which is called a primary source renders a man and vessels impure, but that which is called a derivative does not render a man and vessels impure. And the swarming creatures only render impure after they die, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:31), "in their being dead, he shall become impure." And it is specifically these swarming creatures that render impure, but all other swarming creatures - the snake, the scorpion and all that are similar to them - do not render impure at all. And the law of the swarming creatures is that they do not render impure by carrying without touching [directly]; and that one that touches them does not render his clothes impure when they are upon him at the time that he touches them. And the measure of the impurity of the swarming creature is like [the size of] a lentil. As behold, we found that the Torah renders them pure undifferentiatedly, and there are some of these swarming creatures that are only like a lentil. And all of the swarming creatures combine to [the measure of] like a lentil - meaning to say, even a little of this one and a little of that one combine to [form the size of] a lentil, to render impure; such that you not say that the liability is only like a lentil from one [creature] by itself (Meilah 15b).

The commandment of the matter of impurity of foods: That we were commanded about the guarding of the impurity of foods and drinks and to act in this matter according to the Torah, which informed us how to determine every matter of impurity of food and drinks, and the vessels through which they become impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:34), "From any food that is eaten, which water comes upon."

The commandment of the matter of the impurity of a carcass: That a carcass be impure and render impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:39), "And if a beast dies that is for you to eat, etc." Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote about this commandment (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 96), and this is his language: "And I will mention to you here now a nice preface, that you should remember about all that we mention of the types of impurities. And it is that that which we count each and every type of the impurities as a positive commandment, its substance is not that we would be obligated to become impure with this impurity, and likewise not that we are prevented from becoming impure from it and that is should be a negative commandment. However since the Torah states that one who approaches this species is impure or that this thing becomes impure in this way by the one who approaches it, that is a positive commandment - meaning to say that this law that we are commanded about is a commandment. And that [commandment] is that which we said, that the one who approaches such in this way becomes impure, and the one in that way does not become impure. And as to one becoming impure, himself, the option is in the hand of each man: As if he wants, he becomes impure; and if he wants, he does not become impure. And the language of Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4:10 is '"And their carcass you shall not touch" - it is possible that if one touched a carcass he receives forty stripes; [hence] we learn to say "and to these you shall become impure" (Leviticus 11:24). It is possible that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become impure from it; [hence] we learn to say "their carcass you shall not touch." How is this? I would say [it is an] option.' And the commandment is that which is said to us about these laws - that the one who approaches this becomes impure and will be impure; and he will be obligated that which the impure are obligated - to go out of the encampment of the Divine Presence and not to eat from the holy, and not come close to it and other than this. And that is the commandment, meaning to say his being impure with this species, when he approaches it or be with it in this manner. And remember this matter with each and every type of impurity." To here is his language. And with all of this, it does not sit well with the heart for us to think of this matter as a commandment. And nonetheless we shall not veer from the path of our rabbi in our tally to the right or the left, as we set out at the beginning.

The commandment of the matter of the impurity of a carcass: That a carcass be impure and render impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:39), "And if a beast dies that is for you to eat, etc." Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote about this commandment (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 96), and this is his language: "And I will mention to you here now a nice preface, that you should remember about all that we mention of the types of impurities. And it is that that which we count each and every type of the impurities as a positive commandment, its substance is not that we would be obligated to become impure with this impurity, and likewise not that we are prevented from becoming impure from it and that is should be a negative commandment. However since the Torah states that one who approaches this species is impure or that this thing becomes impure in this way by the one who approaches it, that is a positive commandment - meaning to say that this law that we are commanded about is a commandment. And that [commandment] is that which we said, that the one who approaches such in this way becomes impure, and the one in that way does not become impure. And as to one becoming impure, himself, the option is in the hand of each man: As if he wants, he becomes impure; and if he wants, he does not become impure. And the language of Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4:10 is '"And their carcass you shall not touch" - it is possible that if one touched a carcass he receives forty stripes; [hence] we learn to say "and to these you shall become impure" (Leviticus 11:24). It is possible that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become impure from it; [hence] we learn to say "their carcass you shall not touch." How is this? I would say [it is an] option.' And the commandment is that which is said to us about these laws - that the one who approaches this becomes impure and will be impure; and he will be obligated that which the impure are obligated - to go out of the encampment of the Divine Presence and not to eat from the holy, and not come close to it and other than this. And that is the commandment, meaning to say his being impure with this species, when he approaches it or be with it in this manner. And remember this matter with each and every type of impurity." To here is his language. And with all of this, it does not sit well with the heart for us to think of this matter as a commandment. And nonetheless we shall not veer from the path of our rabbi in our tally to the right or the left, as we set out at the beginning.

To not eat the swarming creature of the ground: To not eat the swarming creature of the ground, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:41), "And any swarming creature that swarms on the ground is an abomination; it shall not be eaten."

To not eat species of minute swarming creatures born in seeds and fruits: To not eat species of minute swarming creatures born in seeds and fruits, from the time they go out and swarm on the ground (Chullin 67a) - and the law is the same the whole time that they are produced in the fruit when it is still connected to the ground, even though they did not go out and swarm on the ground; as it is called "swarms on the ground," since it it is produced in the fruit while [in its being] connected - as it is stated (Leviticus 11:42), "for any of the swarming creature that swarms on the ground; you shall not eat them." But if they went out on the ground - even though they returned afterwards into the fruit - it is also called, "swarms on the ground," since it went out. And so is it in Sifra, Shmini, Chapter 12:2, "'(And you shall not render impure) [You shall not abominate) your souls from any of the swarming creatures that swarms' - to [include] those that separated to the ground and returned." [This is] meaning to say, even though they are now in their holes, since they went out to the ground, they became forbidden, and are called, "swarms on the ground."

And so [too,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 67b) [that] worms that are found in the intestines of fish are forbidden on account of [being] a swarming creature, since they come from the outside; but those found in them between the skin and the flesh or in the flesh are permitted. Those that are found in the intestines of the beast are forbidden, since they came from the outside. But even those found in the brain of the beast or in its flesh are forbidden, since there is not anything in the beast that is permitted without slaughter, and they are not susceptible to slaughter. And also since the Torah added them [by implication] to the forbidden. And [it is] like they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 67b), "You shall abominate their carcasses' (Leviticus 11:11) - is to include deranin (the understanding of which is insects found between the skin and the flesh) that are in the beast." And if you will [ask], how is it that the embryo is permitted without slaughter; [it is] because the Torah permitted it - as we expound in the Gemara (Chullin 69a) from "among (which can also be read as, 'in') the beast[...] you may eat" (Leviticus 11:3). And so [too,] did they, may their memory be blessed, permit (Chullin 66b) water in vessels that became worm-ridden, or even [if they were] in ditches and caves - meaning to say, any gathered waters. And they said (Chullin 66b) that a man [may] swim and drink from them, so long as the insects have not separated to a different place. And even if they have separated to the sides of the vessel or the pit - once they returned to it, he may drink and not prevent himself [from drinking], as this is their habitat. And it appears that there is not even [an issue] of 'you shall not be disgusting' with them. And that is [the meaning] of their saying, "and he may drink and not prevent himself." And it appears that the reason is because they found explicit permissibility from Scripture for them - as they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Chullin 66b), "'In the seas and in the streams' - [is it] that what has [signs], you may eat; what does not have signs, you may not eat. But in vessels, and similar to vessels, whether they have or whether they do not have, it is permitted."

And so [too,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 67b) [that] worms that are found in the intestines of fish are forbidden on account of [being] a swarming creature, since they come from the outside; but those found in them between the skin and the flesh or in the flesh are permitted. Those that are found in the intestines of the beast are forbidden, since they came from the outside. But even those found in the brain of the beast or in its flesh are forbidden, since there is not anything in the beast that is permitted without slaughter, and they are not susceptible to slaughter. And also since the Torah added them [by implication] to the forbidden. And [it is] like they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 67b), "You shall abominate their carcasses' (Leviticus 11:11) - is to include deranin (the understanding of which is insects found between the skin and the flesh) that are in the beast." And if you will [ask], how is it that the embryo is permitted without slaughter; [it is] because the Torah permitted it - as we expound in the Gemara (Chullin 69a) from "among (which can also be read as, 'in') the beast[...] you may eat" (Leviticus 11:3). And so [too,] did they, may their memory be blessed, permit (Chullin 66b) water in vessels that became worm-ridden, or even [if they were] in ditches and caves - meaning to say, any gathered waters. And they said (Chullin 66b) that a man [may] swim and drink from them, so long as the insects have not separated to a different place. And even if they have separated to the sides of the vessel or the pit - once they returned to it, he may drink and not prevent himself [from drinking], as this is their habitat. And it appears that there is not even [an issue] of 'you shall not be disgusting' with them. And that is [the meaning] of their saying, "and he may drink and not prevent himself." And it appears that the reason is because they found explicit permissibility from Scripture for them - as they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Chullin 66b), "'In the seas and in the streams' - [is it] that what has [signs], you may eat; what does not have signs, you may not eat. But in vessels, and similar to vessels, whether they have or whether they do not have, it is permitted."

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.

And Ramban, may his memory be blessed does not require all of this. As he reasons that we should administer several [sets of] lashes for one prohibition if there are multiple negative commandments in the Torah about it and they are not required by us for other teachings. And he [presented] many proofs about this - proofs that appear 'strong as a mirror of cast metal.' And he explained the teaching of the Gemara Makkot nicely like the understanding of the early scholars. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, expounds the negative commandment of the swarming creatures of the water from that which is written in the section of the prohibition of fish, "And anything that does not have fins and scales, etc. from any swarming creature of the waters, etc. it shall be an abomination for you" (Leviticus 11:10). And this is truly a thing that is learned from its context, as it is speaking in the section about the prohibition of fish, and there it is also speaking about the swarming creature of the waters. Understand this, my son; and if you merit, choose for yourself according to your opinion - these and those are the words of the living God.

To not eat of swarming creatures that exist from decay: To not eat of swarming creatures that exist from decaying matter - even though they are not from a known species and do not exist from male and female - as it is stated (Leviticus 11:44), "and you shall not defile your souls with any swarming creature that crawls upon the ground." And the language of Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12:4 is "'Swarming creature that crawls upon the ground' - even though it does not give fruit and multiply." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote that "swarming" is stated about a swarming thing that is born from a male and female and "crawling" is stated about one that is made from decay. But Ramban, may his memory be blessed (on Sefer HaMitzvot, Root 9, s.v. vehaperush) challenged him from verses that are written; and he wrote that in all of them, [both] swarming and crawling are stated.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, (Mishnah Mikvaot 1:8) said that the waters of the mikveh are fitting to purify in them from any impurity, such as [that of] the menstruant, the zavah and the other types of impurity of men and vessels - except for only a zav, since Scripture made explicit only for it [that] living waters are his purification - the understanding of which is gushing water. And also that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 74b) that even though the immersion of some of them is during the day, their purification is not completed until the sunset, as it is written (Leviticus 11:32), "it shall come in water and be impure, until the night and it shall become pure." And he needs to immerse his body revealed - meaning to say, that all of it is [in contact] with the water, meaning that there not be anything separating between all of the body and the water. But if he immersed in his clothes, the immersion counted for him, ex post facto - since the water goes into them. And the menstruant is also [included] in this law, ex post facto, and is permitted to her husband - and that is so long as the clothes are not extremely tight. And the immersion of all of those obligated to immerse is during the day, except for the menstruant and the woman that has given birth, such that their immersion is during the night. And one impure from a seminal emission may immerse from the beginning of the night and on, until the sunset [of the next day].

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.

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.)

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.)

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.)

That a priest who immersed that day (tevul yom) not serve until his sun set: That a priest who immersed that day not serve until his sun sets. And even though he immersed and became pure, he needs the setting of the sun - since he is like a secondary impurity until his sun sets. As so did they, may their memory be blessed, explain, "it shall be brought into water and be impure until evening and become pure" (Leviticus 11:32): The verse called one who immersed that day impure, even though he immersed, until his sun set (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Other Sources of Defilement 10:1). But nonetheless he is not impure like he was before the immersion. As at the beginning, he was a primary impurity and after the immersion he is called a secondary impurity. And about this is it stated (Leviticus 21:6), "and they shall not desecrate the name of their God." As so did the received explanation come about it, and so is it in the ninth chapter of Sanhedrin 83b. As there they said, "'Holy shall they be to their God, and they shall not desecrate the name of their God'; if it is not regarding one impure - as it was already elucidated (Sefer Hachinukh 178) - teach it for the matter of the one who has immersed on that day." And it is learned over there from [the inferential comparison] of "desecration" [and] "desecration."

It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because it is known to the Sages that the matter of impurity weakens the power of the intellect and mixes it up and separates between it and the pure and perfect Elevated Understanding. And it will be separated until it is purified. And [it is] as it is written regarding the matter of impurity (Leviticus 11:43), "and do not become impure with them and be impurified (venitmetem) in them" - and they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Yoma 39a), "and be stupefied (venitamtem) in them"; meaning to say that the the sources of intellect are stupefied by impurity. Hence it is not fitting for a person who is sullied by impurity to be in the holy and pure place, wherein the spirit of God is [found]. And this matter can be compared metaphorically to the palace of a king from which we distance any man that is leprous or disgusting in his body, or even in his clothing. And it is similar to that which is written (Esther 4:2), "for one can not enter the king's gate wearing sackcloth."

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

And you should know that because the Torah forbade the impure birds and mentioned them by name - since they are few, as I wrote at length in the Order of Bayom Hashmini in the commandment to not eat an impure bird (Sefer HaChinukh 157) - the rest of the birds (winged creatures) remained under the assumption of being permitted. [Hence] it was necessary for Scripture to forbid the flying swarming creatures, in order to inform us that it not included among the permissible - and even though the signs for the pure ones are in the tradition and well-known to us. Or we can say that being that the swarming flying creatures are a type unto its own, it was necessary to forbid them explicitly. And behold, in the Order of Bayom Hashmini, it states (Leviticus 11:13), "And these shall be disgusting for you from the birds," and here it states, "And any flying swarming creature" - a specific negative commandment is put upon them, as birds and flying swarming creatures are two completely different things.

Behold, it is shown by this that they are coming to say that there is no benefit to Him, may He be blessed, in the commandments - by way of illustration, that He would need the light that He commanded to light the candelabra (the menorah in the Temple) or that He would need the food of the sacrifices and the smell of the incense, as it would appear from their simple understandings. And even [regarding] the memory of His wonders that He commanded that we do [various acts] in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt and the creation story, the benefit is only that we know the truth and merit from it, such that we be fitting that they be a shield for us. As our honoring [Him] and saying over His praises are considered as nothing and void for Him. And he brought a proof from "the one who slaughters from the [front of the] neck and from the back," to say that all of them are for us and not for the Holy One, blessed be He. As it is not likely to say about slaughter that there be a benefit and honor to the Creator, may He be blessed, from the neck more than from the back or from stabbing. But rather they are for us; to guide us in the paths of mercy even at the time of slaughter. And he brought another proof - "or what would He care whether one would eat pure foods" - and these are permitted foods - "or eat impure foods" - and these are forbidden foods, about which the Torah stated (Leviticus 11:26), "they are impure to you": They are only for you to be of clean souls, wise and understanding of the truth. And they said, "And if you have been wise, you have been wise for yourself." They mentioned [the two examples], since the active commandments such as the slaughter [from] the neck are to teach us good traits; and the commandments and decrees regarding the species [that are permitted] are to purify our souls, as the Torah stated (Leviticus 20:25), "and do not make your souls disgusting with the beast and the fowl and with all that crawls on the earth, which I have separated for you to be impure." If so, they are all for our benefit only. And it is as Elihou said (Job 35:6), "If you sin, what do you do to Him? If your transgressions are many, how do you affect Him?"; and (Job 35:7), "What does He receive from your hand?" And this matter is agreed to in all the words of our Rabbis.