Halakhah su Levitico 20:78

FIFTH BOOK. I include in it precepts having reference to illicit sexual unions, and those that relate to forbidden foods; because, in these two regards, the Omnipresent sanctified us and separated us from the nations, and of both classes of precepts it is said, “And I have set you apart from the peoples” (Lev. 20:26), “.... who have set you apart from the peoples” (Lev. 20:24). I have called this book: The Book of Holiness.

FIFTH BOOK. I include in it precepts having reference to illicit sexual unions, and those that relate to forbidden foods; because, in these two regards, the Omnipresent sanctified us and separated us from the nations, and of both classes of precepts it is said, “And I have set you apart from the peoples” (Lev. 20:26), “.... who have set you apart from the peoples” (Lev. 20:24). I have called this book: The Book of Holiness.

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

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

And also of this type is His, may He be exalted, saying that a betrothed maiden that is promiscuous is [killed] by stoning; but [if she is] the daughter of a priest, by burning - which are the filling out of the details of the law of [adultery with] a married woman. And everyone, who I have heard of already, erred in this - counting a married woman as a commandment, a betrothed maiden as [another] commandment and the daughter of a priest as [yet another] commandment, when the matter is not like this. Rather it is as I shall explain. And that is that His, may He be exalted, saying, "you shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:13), is a commandment from the tally of the commandments - and the tradition came that this negative commandment is the prohibition of the married woman. Afterwards, Scripture explained that one who violates this negative commandment is killed; and that is its saying, "they shall surely be killed, the adulterer and the adulteress" (Leviticus 20:10). Afterwards, Scripture filled in this detail and the conditions of this issue and judgement. So it stipulated conditions and said that that which is stated - "they shall surely be killed, the adulterer and the adulteress" - has distinctions: If she was a married woman that was the daughter of a priest, she is burned; if she was a betrothed virgin maiden, she is stoned; and if she was married but was not the daughter of a priest, she is strangled. But it is not that the stipulations of the laws of [its] death penalty expand it into several commandments; for we have not exited the prohibition of the married woman in all of this. And in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 51b:10), they said in explanation, "All were included in 'the adulterer and the adulteress': [Then] the verse singled out the daughter of an Israelite for stoning and the daughter of a priest for burning." With this, they meant that regarding the prohibition of a married woman, all are included in that which Scripture said about them, "they shall surely be killed, the adulterer and the adulteress" - however Scripture differentiated about this death, and had some people to be burned and some of them to be stoned. And were it appropriate to count the detail of a commandment when it is written in the Torah, we would have been required to not list one who kills a soul by mistake being exiled as a single commandment, since Scripture has already detailed this commandment (Numbers 35:16-28). So we would have also counted the statement of Scripture, "But if he strikes him with a metal instrument," as one commandment. And the second commandment would have been its saying, "And if he struck him with a stone tool." And the third commandment would have been, "Or struck him with a wooden instrument." And the fourth commandment would have been its saying, "The blood-avenger shall put the killer to death." And the fifth would have been its saying, "Or if he pushed him with hatred." And the sixth would have been its saying, "or hurled something at him on purpose." And the seventh would have been its saying, "Or if he struck him with his hand in enmity." And the eighth would have been its saying, "But if suddenly without enmity." And the ninth would have been its saying, "or hurled any object at him unintentionally." And the tenth would have been, "Or any deadly object of stone without seeing." The eleventh would have been, "and he dropped it upon him and he died, though he was not an enemy of his." The twelfth would have been, "And the congregation shall protect the killer." The thirteenth would have been, "and the congregation shall bring him back to his city of refuge." The fourteenth would have been, "and there he shall remain until the death of the high priest." The fifteenth would have been, "But if the killer surely goes outside." The sixteenth would have been, "and after the death of the high priest, the killer may return." And had we done this with each and every commandment, the number of commandments would have added up to more than two thousand. And the damage [of doing so] is clear, since they are all details of the topic. But the commandment that is counted is the law of one who kills a soul by mistake, and that is the law about which we have been instructed to evaluate the laws and details that are written about it. And likewise did God call them, regulations; and He did not call them, commandments - but said (Numbers 35:24), "And the congregation shall judge between the killer and the blood-avenger according to these regulations."

That He prohibited us from doing the procedure of the yidaoni - and this too is one of the types of idolatry. And that is that one takes the bone of a bird, the name of which is yidoa, and places it in his mouth, burns incense, yells out and does [various] acts until he is visited by a state similar to a seizure and is overcome by a trance and speaks in clairvoyance. And they said (Sanhedrin 65b), "A yidaoni [is one who] places a bone of a bird, the name of which is yidoa, in his mouth, and [the bone] speaks on its own." And the prohibition about this comes with this language - "Do not turn to the ovot and to the yidaonim" (Leviticus 19:31). But do not think that this negative commandment is a general negative commandment. For He already separated it in the mention of the punishment and said, "or a yidaoni" (Leviticus 20:27). And he is punished for each one of them [with] stoning and excision, when volitional. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "A man or a woman who has an ov or a yidaoni [shall surely be put to death]." And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10:1) is, "Since it says, 'A man or a woman,' we have heard the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Do not turn to the ovot [and to the yidaonim].'"And for [violation of] this negative commandment inadvertently, one is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6.)

That He prohibited us from desecrating [God's] name. And that is the opposite of the sanctification of [God's] name, the explanation of which preceded in the ninth of the Positive Commandments. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "And you shall not desecrate My holy name" (Leviticus 22:32). And this sin is divided into three parts - two that are general (for all) and one which is specific. Indeed the first of the general ones is anyone who it was demanded of him that he transgress one of the commandments at the time of a religious persecution (shemad) - and the persecutor had in mind to make him sin - whether one of the light commandment or [one] of the weighty commandments; or one who it was demanded of him that he transgress with regards to idolatry, sexual immorality or murder, even if it was not at the time of a religious persecution. Behold [such a one] is obligated to release himself and be killed, and not to transgress - as we explained in the ninth of the Positive Commandments. But if he transgressed and was not killed, he has already desecrated [God's] name and violated this negative commandment. And if the transgressor was in a public place - meaning [in front of] ten Israelites - he has already desecrated [God's] name in public. And he has violated the negative commandment of, "And you shall not desecrate My holy name," and his sin is very great. However he is not lashed, as he was under duress. For a court may only administer the punishment of lashes or a death penalty when volitional - willingly, with witnesses and a warning. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4:5) about the one who gives of his offspring to Molekh - "And I will set My face against that man" (Leviticus 20:3): They said, "'That [man],' and not one under duress, and not one inadvertent and not one mistaken." Behold it has already been made clear to you that one who worships an idol under duress is not liable for excision nor - all the more so - a death penalty of the court. But he has transgressed [the prohibition of] desecration of [God's] name. And the second part that is also general is when a man does a sin for which he has no desire and no benefit, but rather intends [to show] rebellion or the removal of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven with his action. Behold this one also desecrates [God's name] and is lashed. And hence He said, "[You shall not swear falsely by My name,] and desecrate the name of your God" (Leviticus 19:12). For this one intends to anger [God] with this matter, and he has no physical benefit with it. And the specific part is when a man known for his virtue and goodness does a certain action that appears like a transgression in the eyes of the masses; such that it is not appropriate for someone esteemed to do this type of action, even though the action is permissible. And that is their saying (Yoma 86a), "What are the circumstances of the desecration of [God’s]name? [Rav said,] 'For example, [someone like] me, if I take meat from a butcher and do not give him money immediately.' [...] Rabbi Yochanan said, 'For example, [someone like] me, if I would walk four cubits without Torah and without tefillin.'" And this command was already repeated, when He said, "and do not desecrate the name of the Lord." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Pesachim, in Sukkah and in Yoma. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah.)

According to this analysis, hal'itehu la-rasha is not at all an independent principle of Halakhah justifying a course of action. Rather, it is a rationale explaining why legislation was not promulgated in a particular instance. Hal'itehu la-rasha explains only why transgressors were not shielded from further transgression; hal'itehu la-rasha⁵²There may well be entirely different grounds to justify the student’s course of action in the case of the poisoned sandwich. The Gemara, Ketubot 86a and Ḥullin 132b, declares that a person may be compelled to fulfill a commandment, e.g., the miẓvah of sukkah or of the four species, by means of physical force, if necessary, “until his life departs.” There is considerable controversy with regard to whether the recalcitrant person may be beaten only within an “inch of his life” since, if he dies, he certainly will not fulfill the commandment, or whether he may be beaten until he expires. Rambam, Sefer ha-Miẓvot, introduction, shoresh 14; idem, Commentary on the Mishnah, Ketubot 49a; Ramban, Commentary on the Pentateuch, Leviticus 20:8; Ḥiddushei ha-Ran, Bava Meẓi’a 61b and Ḥullin 132b; R. Meir Simchah ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, Or Sameaḥ, Hilkhot Mamrim 4:3, state that lethal force may be employed. However, Rabbenu Yonah, cited by Shitah Mekubbeẓet, Ketubot 86a, maintains that deadly force may not be applied in order to compel fulfillment of a miẓvah. See also R. Meir Eisenstadt, Teshuvot Amudei Esh, no. 1, klal 15. Amudei Esh endeavors to explain Rambam’s use of the term “until he dies” as a metaphor for weakness. Cf., Rambam, Guide for the Perplexed, Part I, chap. 12. Or Sameaḥ asserts that, “when it is certain to us” that duress will not accomplish the desired result, not even a hair on the head of the would-be transgressor may be disturbed.
Keẓot ha-Ḥoshen 3:1 rules that only a bet din comprised of ordained judges competent to impose capital punishment is authorized to use physical force to enforce specific performance with regard to fulfilling a commandment. The postion of Keẓot is reflected in the work of an early-day authority, R. Eliezer of Metz, Sefer Yere’im, I, no. 169, and Ramban, Exodus 20:8. Netivot ha-Mishpat 3:1 disagrees in maintaining that judicial authority is not required for this purpose but that every Jew is empowered and obligated to secure observance of commandments even, if necessary, by use of force. Or Sameaḥ, Hilkhot Mamrim 4:3, concurs in that position but maintains that, when duress is warranted in execution of a divorce, only a bet din can compel such action because execution of a divorce requires acquiescence. See also R. Chaim of Volozhin, responsum no. 2, s.v. uba-zeh, published as an appendix to R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, Teshuvot Bet ha-Levi, I. Cf., the distinctions made by Ḥatam Sofer, Ḥoshen Mishpat, no. 177, sec. 3 and Ḥiddushei ha-Rim, Ḥoshen Mishpat 1:28 as well as R. Shimon Shkop, Sha’arei Yosher, sha’ar 7, chap. 5.
In his response to Netivot ha-Mishpat, the author of Keẓot ha-Ḥoshen, Meshovev ha-Netivot 3:1, distinguishes between positive commandments and negative prohibitions: Enforcement of positive obligations, he maintains, requires judicial authority but a properly constituted bet din may apply coercive measures even to the point of death. However, prevention of transgression of a negative commandment, he asserts, is a private obligation and hence the force applied may not be lethal in nature. This is also the position of R. Joseph Babad, Minḥat Ḥinnukh, miẓvah 8, sec. 10, and miẓvah 55, sec. 20. See also R. Jonathan Eibeschutz, Urim ve-Tumim 4:1 and Teshuvot Maharya, II, no. 164 as well as Sedei Ḥemed, Asifat Dinim, ma’arekhet heh, no. 4. Cf., however, R. Chaim Palaggi, Ḥikkekei Lev, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 19.
Teshuvot Radvaz, IV, no. 1,329, (258) seems to rule that physical force may be used only by a person having authority over the would-be transgressor, e.g., a father or a master. See the terminology employed by Rema, Ḥoshen Mishpat 421:13. However, R. Ya’akov Yesha’ya Blau, Pitḥei Ḥoshen, V, chap. 2, notes 19 and 20, understands Radvaz’ comments as being consistent with the position of Yam shel Shlomoh cited later in this note. See also Sedei Ḥemed, Asifat Dinim, ma’arekhet heh, no. 4. However, R. Naphtali Zevi Judah Berlin, Ha’amek She’elah, Parashat Va-Yeshev, She’ilta 27, sec. 6, asserts that physical force may not be used but that, post factum, at least in the case of a master vis-à-vis his slave, there is no liability. See also sources cited by Pitḥei Ḥoshen, V, chap. 2, notes 19 and 20.
Thus, virtually all authorities agree that physical force may be employed to prevent transgression of a negative commandment. Accordingly, physical force would be warranted in order to identify a thief and thereby prevent further acts of theft. In the case under discussion, although a lethal poison was administered, the student was entirely confident of the ability of the already prepared antidote to avert a fatal result. Administration of the poison coupled with its antidote certainly constituted physical force — but non-lethal force is warranted in order to prevent prospective infraction of the prohibition against theft.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to be mindful of the comment of R. Shlomoh Luria, Yam shel Shlomoh, Bava Kamma 3:9, to the effect that, although technically correct, physical force of any kind should not be employed other than by designated authorities. The danger of, and possible abuses arising from, private parties taking the law into their own hands are readily apparent. is not an invitation to entice malfeasors to further transgression and certainly not a license to cause them physical harm.⁵³For a discussion of why theft is deemed a more grievous transgression than orlah and kerem reva’i see Teshuvot Be’er Mosheh, V, no. 162, sec. 9 and cf., Be-Ẓel ha-Ḥokhmah, I, no. 27. Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, II, no. 1, cites R. Meir Arak, Minḥat Pittim, Yoreh De’ah, no. 1, who explains that theft is a more serious transgression because it is a sin against both God and man whereas orlah and kerem reva’i are only sins against God.
See Teshuvot Emek Halakhah, II, no. 4, who seeks to demonstrate that Rambam’s limitation of the principle is compelled by an analysis of the situation with regard to orlah and to kerem reva’i presented by the Mishnah. Emek Halakhah argues that, if hali’tehu la-rasha is a rule of general application there is no reason to caution against orlah and kerem reva’i even during the sabbatical year. Fruit whose status is doubtful, i.e., the fruit may possibly be prohibited, is also forbidden and hence, if the principle hal’itehu la-rasha were to apply, there would be no need to mark such fruit. Accordingly, reasons Emek Halakhah, Rambam must have deduced that hal’itehu la-rasha applies only during the years in which the produce is not ownerless and is occasioned by the more serious transgression of theft. Of course, that argument fails if, as postulated by Tuv Ta’am va-Da’at, hal’itehu la-rasha does not apply in situations in which all transgression can be prevented; accordingly, it is in the seventh year, during which the only possible infraction is orlah or kerem reva’i, that notice in the form of marking the fruit as orlah or kerem reva’i is required.

Moreover, points out Rabbi Soloveichik, genevat da'at, i.e., misleading an individual, even a non-Jew, is a violation of the prohibition "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:13). Accordingly, assistance in misleading a gullible individual constitutes the placing of a stumbling-block before the perpetrator of the fraud. Furthermore, Targum Yonatan, Leviticus 20:3, regards all such assistance as intrinsically proscribed by the prohibition "Thou shall not steal." According to Targum Yonatan the prohibition encompasses, not only the act of theft per se, but also any action from which theft results.

If, while in the middle of one's prayer [i.e. Amidah], he feels an urge [to relieve himself], he should maintain himself [in prayer] until he has finished, and not interrupt. And if at the time of the Recitation of the Sh'ma and its blessings he feels an urge, regardless of whether it is for urinating or defecating, he may read it normally. Rem"a: And [this is] specifically if one does not feel so much of a urge that there is an element of "Do not cause an abomination" (Leviticus 20:25). But if this is not so, it is better to interrupt [one's prayer and use the toilet] (Responsum of the Rashb"a, section 131, who ruled that it is permissible, and the Terumat haDeshen section 16, who ruled that it is prohibited. And one needs to distinguish such [i.e. between those sources]) And if one wanted to distance himself and urinate [during the Recitation of the Sh'ma and its blessings], he may.

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."

And the negative commandment of this prohibition was repeated in its stating, "and you shall not do from any of [these] abominations" (Leviticus 18:26), which includes all of these matters which are an abomination to God, may He be blessed. [This] means to say, that one who does them distances himself from the good and removes from himself the providence of God, blessed be He. And this is the understanding of the abominable to the Lord, may He be blessed, in every place, according to that which I have heard. And also that which is written at the end of the matter, "for all of these abominations did the people of the land that were before you do" (Leviticus 18:27), "and I was disgusted with them" (Leviticus 20:23). And the matter is to say that the trait is very disgusting. And every thing that is bad and very vile, Scripture describes as if God, may He be blessed, hates. And it is all according to the matter that we said; and similar to what they, may their memory be blessed, said in every place (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 19:18:2), [it is] in order to break [to assuage] the ear to that which it can hear. And the language of Sifra, Achrei Mot, Section 8:8 is "'Like the deed of the land of Egypt and like the deed of the land of Canaan, etc.' (Leviticus 18:27) - perhaps they should not build or plant as they do? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in their statutes you shall not walk.' I have only said those statutes which were instituted for them, and not their buildings. What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman; and a woman would wed two men."

The laws of this commandment - meaning to say how did they, may their memory be blessed, learn it and from which verse - are in the Gemara Yevamot. As there (Yevamot 3a) they said, "The main prohibition of his daughter from a woman he raped, comes by interpretation (drasha), as Rava said [that] Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to [me], 'This prohibition comes [by means of an inferential comparison between] "their" (hena) and "their"; it comes [by an inferential comparison of] "licentiousness" and "licentiousness"'" - meaning to say, that the verse states with the son’s daughter and the daughter’s daughter, "it is their nakedness"; like it is written at the end of the section (Leviticus 18:17), "their flesh." Just like over there, it is explicit that her daughter is forbidden; so too here, wherein the verse prohibits the daughter of his son, the law is the same for his daughter even though the verse did not explain it - as we learn it from this inferential comparison. And they, may their memory be blessed, also learned with which death one who has intercourse with his daughter or with the daughter of his son or the daughter of his daughter is judged, from the strength of this inferential comparison. They, may their memory be blessed, learned it from it, after it was learned about it from another place. And from what other place was it learned about it? From that which is written (Leviticus 20:14), "And a man that takes a woman and her mother, it is licentiousness; with fire shall they be burnt, him and them." And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 75b) [that] just like there, with a woman and her mother, about them which is written, "licentiousness," it is with burning; so too here, with a woman and her daughter or the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter, about them which is written, "their flesh, it is licentiousness," he is judged with burning. And from now, since we found that the judgement of one who has intercourse with a woman and her daughter or the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter is with burning - since we have already learned the prohibition of his daughter from it by the inferential comparison of "their, their"; we can further learn from all of the other laws in it, and say that the judgement of one who has intercourse with his daughter is also with burning. And about that which is similar to this, they say in the Gemara (Yevamot 78b), "Infer from it and from it" - meaning to say, when we learn one verse from its fellow, we do not learn it for only one thing about it, but rather we learn it for all its laws from it. And [this is the case] even when those laws that are with it are not like the understanding of that verse itself, but rather learned from other verses. Nonetheless, we learn from everything that is in it - whether from the verse itself or whether it is learned from another place. And they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara Keritot 5a, "Let not an inferential comparison (gezara shava) be light in your eyes; as behold, his daughter from a woman he raped is one of the [important] bodies of Torah, and Scripture only taught it through a gezara shava - it comes by 'their, their'; 'licentiousness, licentiousness.'" [This is] meaning to say that we learned its prohibition and its judgement from these two inferential comparisons, as we explained. But his daughter from a woman he married is explicit in Scripture, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:17), "The nakedness of a woman and her daughter" - and there is no distinction whether she is his daughter and her daughter, or from another man. And this is speaking about a married woman, since it is written, "woman" (eeshah, which is also the word for wife), which implies the language of marriage (eeshut). And it is also written "you shall not take" - and taking also implies through marriage. But regarding his daughter from a woman he raped or the daughter of her son or daughter of her daughter, only, "you shall not reveal," is written. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (in Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 336), "Observe their, may their memory be blessed, saying 'The verse did not teach it,' and they did not say, 'We did not learn it' - since all of these matters are a transmission from the messenger (Moshe), peace be upon him, who transmitted the understanding [of the Torah] to the elders. And that is [the meaning] of their saying, 'body of Torah,' about this." And [this] brought the rabbi, may his memory be blessed, to write this as a fixed major principle for himself - that only what is explicit in the verse or that which they, may their memory be blessed, said explicitly that it is from the Torah, is in the tally of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, but not that which we learn from the thirteen hermeneutic principles. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, already contradicted this with clear proofs (in Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Root 2).

And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times. And [in a case of a man] who transgresses it and laid with a woman and with her daughter, both of them are burnt - he and the one he laid with last. As the first one has no sin, since [it was] permitted [for] him [to] marry her. And if he had intercourse with the second after the death of his first wife, behold they are [punished] with excision and they do not [receive] a death penalty of the court. As it is stated in another place in the Order of Kedoshim Tehiyu (Leviticus 20:14), "they shall be burned with fire, he and them (ethen)." And Rabbi Eliezer explained in Sanhedrin 66b, "'They shall be burned with fire, he and' one of them (echat mehen)" - which is the later one, as we said. But that is only when both of them are alive - as so came the explanation. But when both of them are not alive, there is no burning there. Rather, they are [punished] with a liability for excision when volitional; and he brings a fixed sin-offering when inadvertent. However Rabbi Akiva explains there, "He and both of them" - for example that he [was] forbidden to marry both of them, and this is found when he married a daughter, her mother and the mother of her mother. And what they disagree about is explained there.

I wrote what I have known above about a hint from the roots of the distancing of idolatry more generally in the Order of Vayishma Yitro (Sefer HaChinukh 26). And the matter of this idolatry of Molekh [is that] since it was an extremely bad worship and [its followers] were very fervent at that time, a warning (negative commandment) was specified about it, besides all of the many warnings about idolatry in the Torah. And this is said according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed. But according to what appears is the opinion of Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (Ramban on Leviticus 20:5) we do not require this; since he reasons that there is a novel matter in this worship of Molekh [compared to] all of the other idolatries. As with any [other] idolatry, he is only liable if it is not its way [of worship] except for the four well-known [ways] of worship. But in this style of Molekh, one is liable who does this act of Molekh with any idolatry. And therefore, a warning was specified for it. And because the matter was extremely ugly, the Torah was so strict with it, to make one liable for it with any idolatry, even it is not its way with this. This is what appears from the sum of his words. And [regarding] this matter (see Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Negative Commandments 40) that the liability only comes with some of the seed and not with all of it, it is possible that it was because the lying priests would promise the father of the child that through the sacrifice of this child, the rest of his seed would succeed in everything to which they would turn, and blessing and good be found in his home. And from their great trickery, they did not want to fix the law at first except for one who would have seed remain besides the one that he gives to them, lest they refuse to listen to them - whether to completely burn him or whether to pass him through the flame, according to the opinion of some of the commentators; and in order that they could also promise blessing and good to those remaining; and from this, the fools could be deceived. And therefore the Torah only made liable in the matter, just when it was similar to their worship, and not in any other way.

To not curse father and mother: To not curse father and mother, as it is stated (Leviticus 20:9), "Any man that curses his father and his mother, etc." And the truth is that the main warning of cursing father and mother is not from Scripture, since here it only mentions the punishment of the one that curses; and so [too,] that which is written in the Order of Mishpatim (Exodus 21:17), "And he who curses his father and his mother shall surely be killed" - there too, it only spoke about the punishment. And that is what they said in Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:17:3, "'And he who curses his father and his mother, etc.' - we have heard the punishment, but from where is the warning? [Hence] we learn to say (Exodus 22:27) 'Lords you shall not curse[, etc.]' If his father is a chieftain (nassi), behold he is included in 'and a chieftain in your people you shall not malign.' If he is a boor, behold he is included in 'You shall not curse the deaf.' Hence it is to be derived by a constructive paradigm (binyan av) through the three of them, etc." until, "Their common denominator is that they are 'in your people,' and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is 'in your people,' and you are exhorted against cursing him." And so did they say in Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10:7, "'And he who curses his father and his mother - we have heard the punishment, etc." exactly like the language of the Mekhilta. And since there is no specific [textual] negative commandment to this warning - but rather it is comes out from the principle [understand by an analysis] of three negative commandments - I have written it on this verse that is speaking about the punishment [for it]. And likewise, Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote about "he who curses his father and his mother shall surely be killed," that it is speaking about the punishment (Sefer Ha Mitzot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 318).

The commandment to burn one who is liable for burning: That the court burn with fire - meaning to say that the court is commanded to enact the statute of burning for some sins. And one of them is for the one that has sexual relations with a woman and her mother, as it is stated (Leviticus 20:14), "And a man that takes a woman and her mother - that is depravity - they shall be burned with fire, he and them, etc." And I have already written above in the Order of Achrei Mot on the commandment not to have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter (Sefer HaChinukh 203), in which manner one who takes a woman and her daughter is liable, and that only one of them is included in the liability - and that is the last one. And [regarding] that which it is written, "and them (hen)," its understanding is "one of them." As so does the explanation come in Tractate Sanhedrin 76b. And they said so there, that in [a certain] place they call one, "hen," etc., as I have written there.

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

That we not do anything through which the name of the Heavens is profaned among people: That we were prevented from profanation of God, may He be blessed, and that is the opposite of that sanctification of God about which we are commanded - as we will write in the commandment after this - as it is stated (Leviticus 22:32), "And you shall not profane My holy Name." The transcriber wrote in the name of Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 63) "This iniquity is divided into three parts - two are upon the collective, and one on the individual. The first collective part [is] in any case that one is asked to transgress one of the commandments during a time of persecution, and the enforcer intends for [him] to transgress - whether from the light commandments or from the weighty - or if one is asked to transgress idolatry, sexual immorality, or murder even not during a a time of persecution; he is obligated to give his life and be killed rather than transgressing. And if he transgressed and was not killed, he has already profaned God in public and has violated its stating, 'And you shall not profane My holy Name,' and his sin is very giant. However he is not lashed, as he was coerced - since the court only has the ability [to give out] lashes or death for volitional [acts], with desire, with witnesses and with a warning. The language of Sifra Kedoshim, Section 4:13 about one who gives from his seed to Molech, [that] I will place 'My face against that person' (Leviticus 20:5), is that they, may their memory be blessed, said '"That" one, and not coercion, nor inadvertent, nor mistaken.' It has already been elucidated to you that a person who worships idolatry under coercion is not liable for excision, and all the more so, death of the court. However, he has violated profanation of the Name.

The commandment of the sacrifice of the omer of barley: That we offer on the second day of Pesach, beyond the additional offering of the rest of the days of Pesach, a one-year old sheep for a burnt-offering and one omer of barley, that is called the omer of waving - as it is stated (Leviticus 23:10-11), "When you come to the land, etc., you shall bring the omer, the beginning of your harvest, etc. And he shall wave the omer in front of the Lord from the morrow of the Shabbat." And Onkelos translates, "after the holiday" - meaning to say, on the second day of Pesach. As behold, it is referring to Pesach in the section before this. And it is stated there (Leviticus 23:12), "And you shall make on the day of your waving the omer an unblemished one-year old sheep, etc." And this sacrifice of the omer is called the offering of the first fruits. And it is a hint to this when He may He be blessed, says (Leviticus 2:14), "And if you shall bring an offering of the first-fruits to the Lord, new roasted with fire, etc." And the language of Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:24 is "Each and every 'if' in the Torah is optional, etc. except for three that are obligatory and this is one of them." And they said there, "You say it is an obligation or is it only optional? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall offer the offering of your first fruits' - [it is] an obligation and not optional. And the matter of the offering is thus (Menachot 63b): That they would bring three seah of barley, and they would take out one issaron from all of it, which they would sift with thirteen sieves. And the rest would be redeemed and eaten by any person. And it is liable for the hallah-tithe but exempted from the [other] tithes. And we take this issaron of fine barley flour and we mix it with a log of oil and place a handful of frankincense upon it - like the other meal-offerings. And the priest waves it in the East - he extends [it] and brings [it back], raises [it] and lowers [it] - and presents it across from the point of the southwest corner, like the other meal offerings. And he takes a handful and incinerates [it], and the rest is eaten by the priests, like the remainders of all of the meal-offerings (Menachot 67b).

He prohibited - not to curse father and mother. Indeed, the language of the Torah is clear about its punishment, when He says, "And if one curses his father or his mother, he shall surely die" (Exodus 21:17); and he is among those that are stoned. And even if he [only] cursed one of them with [God's] name after [the parent's] death, he is stoned. However the prohibition is not explicit in Scripture. For it does not say, "You shall not curse your father." But it already preceded that a prohibition came about cursing every Israelite; and that includes a father and anyone besides him. And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:17:3), they said, "'And if one curses his father or his mother, he shall surely die' - we have heard the punishment; from where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not curse the powers' (Exodus 22:27). If your father is a judge, behold he is included in the powers. And if he is a nassi, behold he is included in, 'and do not maledict a nassi among your people.' And if he is a boor, behold he is included in, 'You shall not curse a deaf person' (Leviticus 19:14). [If he is not a judge, not a nassi and not a deaf person,] behold, you can argue by induction (binyan av) from the three of them, according to the common element among them: That they are, 'among your people,' and you are prohibited [from] cursing them." And it is written in the Sifra (Sifra Kedoshim, Chapter 10:7), "'If any man curses his father or his mother, he shall surely die' (Leviticus 20:9) - we have heard the punishment; from where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not curse the powers'" - exactly like the language of the Mekhilta. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 5.)

He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the daughter herself. But this was not explicitly made clear in the Torah; and, "the nakedness of your daughter you shall not uncover," did not appear in Scripture. However since it mentioned the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter, you can take it as a proof to clarify the matter and reveal it: Since He forbade the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter - all the more so, the daughter [herself]! And in the Gemara of Yevamot (Yevamot 3a), they said, "[With regard to] his daughter, the main aspect of this prohibition is derived by homiletical interpretation. As Rava said, 'Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me, "[This prohibition is derived by means of a verbal analogy of the words,] theirs (hena), and they (hena); and lewdness (zimah) and lewdness (zimah)."'" [This] means to say that He said about the daughter of your son and daughter of your daughter, "for theirs (hena) is your own nakedness" (Leviticus 18:10). And He [also] said about the prohibition of a woman and her daughter and the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter, "they (hena) are kin; it is lewdness" (Leviticus 18:17). Just like with the prohibition of a woman and her daughter, her [actual] daughter is forbidden; so [too] with the prohibition of a daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter, is his [actual] daughter also forbidden. And He said about the punishment of "a man who took a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned in fire, he and them" (Leviticus 20:14). [So] likewise is a woman and the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter [punished] with burning, because, "lewdness," appeared [also] about them - so we learn it from the verbal analogy [created by the common use of the word,] zimah. And regarding this punishment, the same is the law for his daughter and the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter. As we learn it about them from the verbal analogy [created by the common use of the word,] hena. For hena is written about the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter, just like it appears with a woman and her daughter. And the language of the Gemara, Keritot (Keritot 5a), is, "A verbal analogy should never be regarded lightly in your eyes, as [the prohibition of] one’s daughter is one of the essential laws of the Torah, and Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy. It came from [the common use of] hena, and [the common use of] zimah." And understand their saying, "Scripture taught it only," and not saying, "and they (the Rabbis) taught it only" - for all of these things are a tradition from the prophet (Moshe), peace be upon him. It is an explanation that was received, as we explained at the beginning of our great composition, the Commentary of the Mishnah. However Scripture [itself] refrained from mentioning it, since it was possible to have it learned from a verbal analogy. And that is the content of their saying, "Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy." And it is sufficient that they said, "one of the essential laws of the Torah." Behold it is explained from all that precedes that one who transgresses the negative commandment of his daughter and the daughter of his daughter and the daughter of his son is [punished] with burning. But if the testimony was not ratified, it is with excision if it was volitional. And if he was inadvertent regarding one of them, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering.

He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a married woman. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And to the wife of your kinsman do not give your lying for seed to become unclean to her" (Leviticus 18:20). And there are distinctions about the punishment for one that transgresses this negative commandment: And that is that [in a case of] a married woman that was [just] a betrothed maiden, both of them are liable for stoning, as Scripture explained. But if she was fully married: If she was an Israelite and fully married, they are both liable for strangulation. However if she was the daughter of a priest and fully married, her law is [the punishment of] burning, and he - meaning the one who had intercourse [with her] - is [punished] with strangulation. And that is when the testimony is ratified. But if he was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering. And the prohibition about this was already repeated with His saying, "you shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:13) - meaning to say with this, not to have sexual intercourse with a married woman. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:13:2) is, "'You shall not commit adultery' - why is it stated? Since it states, 'The adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death' (Leviticus 20:10), we understand the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not commit adultery.' It is the same for the man and for the woman." And this is not like, "And to the wife of your kinsman" - for that is a prohibition that does not include an adulterer and an adulteress, but is a prohibition for the adulterer alone. And likewise with the other sexual prohibitions. It was impossible that they not derive [the prohibition] also for the woman, from His saying, "you (plural) shall not approach to uncover [their] nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6): "Behold there are two (it is plural)! To prohibit a man with a woman and a woman with a man" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:1). And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 51b), they said, "All [adulterers] were included in, 'The adulterer and the adulteress.' Scripture singled out the daughter of a priest for burning, and the betrothed maiden for stoning." And the explanation of this matter has already been discussed in the introduction to this essay.

Whoever [throws recklessly] many garments upon the dead,²⁴ supra par. 3. commits a sin because of 'Do not destroy'.²⁵Sem(H). IX, 23. Cf. M.K. 27b; Yad Ebel IV, 2 and commentaries ibid.; Sem(H). Int. p. 81. This is in accord with the opinion of R. Meir (Sem. ibid.) who states: ‘One should not be reckless by throwing garments upon the dead to be buried with them.’

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.

All (types of) work (for whose transgression) a person is guilty on the Sabbath is also guilty on Yom Kippur. And all types of work for whose transgression on the Sabbath a person is free from punishment but are still prohibited, are also prohibited on Yom Kippur in a like manner except that on the Sabbath a conscious sin is punishable by stoning,⁷⁹Stoning, sekilah, סקילה, is a Biblical form of capital punishment which was the standard penalty for crime in all ancient civilizations. In the Torah there are two explicit methods of executing a criminal or a sinner; stoning and burning. According to the Talmud, the Torah has four methods of execution: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling, (See B. Sanhedrin 49b., ff).
Stoning was an instinctive violent expression of popular wrath, (Exodus 17:4, 8:22; Numbers 14:10; I Samuel 30:6; I Kings 12:18; II Chronicles 10:18) and often in the Bible it is the prescribed mode of execution (Leviticus 20:2, 27, 24:16; Numbers 15:35; Deuteronomy 13:11, 17:5, 21:21, 22:21, et al). Originally, the whole community participated in the stoning and were required to throw stones at the guilty person. Stonings were probably the standard form of judicial execution in Biblical times, (Leviticus 24:23; Numbers 15:36; I Kings 21:13; II Chronicles 24:21).
The Mishna (Sanh.6:4) states that a "stoning place" was established where instead of a person being pelted by stones, the convicted person would be pushed down from a high place to his death provided it was not too high so as to mutilate the body which was a concern of the rabbis. It also was not to be too low so the death would be instantaneous. The reason for the stoning place was that the scriptural rule states "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death," (Deuteronomy 17:7) and then afterwards the "hand of all the people (should be on him)", (Deuteronomy 17:7). To insure that the witnesses put him to death they were the ones to push him and thereby be first to put him to death. Thus this method of "stoning" became acceptable as opposed to the actual throwing of stones. This also seemed the more "humane" way of carrying out capital punishment as the convicted person died more quickly and the danger of mutilation was reduced. In Maimonides' comment to Sanhedrin 6:4 he stated that it really made no difference if stones were thrown at one or if one were thrown at stones.
cf., Haim Hermann Cohn, v. 5, pp. 142-43. but on Yom Kippur it is punishable by karet.⁸⁰Karet, כרת; see footnote 78. Everything that is forbidden to be moved (or handled) on the Sabbath is also forbidden to be moved (or handled) on Yom Kippur, (but it is permitted to clean vegetables and to open (shell) nuts from the Minḥah time⁸¹Minḥah, מנחה, a time designating afternoon, meaning after the six and one half hour or after 12:30 P.M. according to our present day time system. (See footnote 40 for a more complete explanation). onward when (Yom Kippur) falls on a weekday, but nowadays (presently) it is customary to forbid that.)
Hagah: If a fire occurs on Yom Kippur, it is permitted to save one meal for the need of the night (following Yom Kippur) as one (may) save on the Sabbath the afternoon meal,⁸²The afternoon meal on the Sabbath is also referred to as Se'udah Shelishit, the third meal which is eaten on the Sabbath between the Minḥah, Afternoon Service (see footnote 40) and the Ma'ariv, Evening Service (see footnote 144). (ר״ן פרק כל כתבי),⁸³Rabbenu Nissim on the chapter Kol Khit-vey, כתבי ר״ן פרק כל, which is a commentary on the talmudic tractate Shabbat.
For Rabbenu Nissim, ר״ן; see footnote 47. and it is already explained in section 334⁸⁴See in the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, chapter 334 which contains twenty-seven paragraphs on the laws that apply when a fire breaks out on the Sabbath. These same laws apply regarding a fire, according to Isserles to Yom Kippur. (as to) how to act at this time when a fire (occurs) on the Sabbath and the same law (applies) for Yom Kippur. It is customary that the children play with nuts (אגודה ומהרי״ל).⁸⁵Agudah and Maharil, אגודה ומהרי״ל.
The Agudah, אגודה, is a collection of halakhic decisions derived from talmudic discussions and arranged in the order of the talmudic tractates. It was written by Alexander Suslin ha-Kohen of Frankfort who died in 1349. The Agudah was published in Cracow in 1571 and it also included novellae of his own as well as those of his predecessors, and a commentary and collection of halakhot to the minor tractates and to the Mishnayot of the orders Zera'in and Tohorot. The language of the Agudah is very concise and it is evident that it was written quickly under the threat of the persecutions of the time since Suslin died a martyr's death in Erfurt. Suslin was the last of the early German halakhic authorities. This German talmudic scholar was born Erfurt where he taught, as well as in Worms, Cologne, and Frankfort.
The Agudah, Suslin's most famous work, gives halakhic rulings in concise form and it ignores differences of opinion. He used as sources Mordecai b. Hillel and Asher b. Jehiel. It is often necessary to consult the work of these two scholars to understand fully the Agudah. Jacob Weil (see footnote 27) wrote a digest to the work called Ḥiddushei Agudah which was published in Venice in 1523 and accompanies the Agudah. Later halakhic authorities such as Jacob ha-Levi Moellin (see footnote 8) and Moses Isserles considered his decisions authoritative and they quoted from him. Isserles mentioned the Agudah often in his glosses to the Shulḥan Arukh.
Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 2, p. 585.
Maharil, מהרי״ל; see footnote 8. One should not object to them (the children) even before the Afternoon Prayer⁸⁶Minḥah, מנחה; see footnote 40., and the custom is widespread with respect to the mentioned law of breaking nuts, (ד״ע).⁸⁷Da'at Aẓmo, ד״ע, Isserles' own opinion; see footnote 38.