Halakhah su Levitico 22:78

The Sages ordained that men pray with a minyan (a quorum of ten adult men) in a synagogue. The Sages teach that the divine Presence dwells wherever ten Jews engage in sacred matters (devarim she-bikdusha), as Scripture states: “Elokim nitzav ba-adat Kel” (“God stands in a godly congregation”; Tehilim 82:1), and ten Jews constitute an “edah” (congregation). Although even when one Jew prays or studies Torah the Shekhina is present, there are nevertheless different gradations, the highest level of which is when ten Jews are engaged in a davar she-bikdusha, for then holiness is revealed in the world (see Berakhot 6a). Based on this, the Sages ordained that all devarim she-bikdusha, that is, enactments that express God’s sanctity publicly, shall be recited in a minyan of ten men. Devarim she-bikdusha encompasses Ḥazarat Ha-shatz, Birkat Kohanim, Barkhu, Kaddish, and Torah reading (Megilla 23b).¹Megilla 23b and Sofrim 10:7 mention the things that must be recited with a minyan. The Sages (Megilla op. cit. and Berakhot 21b) derive from the verse “I shall be sanctified among the Israelites” (Vayikra 22:32) that a davar she-bikidusha shall not be recited among less than ten. Ran (ad loc.) and other Rishonim and Aḥaronim explain that this is a rabbinic law, since the very recitation of these words is of rabbinic origin. Nevertheless, the basic idea of minyan comes from Torah law that governs the sanctification of God’s name (Kiddush Hashem). That is, one is obligated to surrender his life rather than desecrating God’s name by performing a transgression under coercion in the presence of ten Jews (Sanhedrin 74b). It seems that for this purpose, women count toward the ten (though Devar Shmuel (Aboab) §63 and Pitḥei Teshuva YD 157:7 raise doubts about this).

And know that the participle “ha-motzi’” implies both past and future action. For example, “who brings you forth [ha-motzi’] from the land of Egypt”⁶⁶Lev. 22:23. has a future sense. It alludes to the same time about which our rabbis z”l taught this midrash: “In the future the land of Israel will bring forth [totzi’] cakes and fine woolen clothes, as it is said, ‘Let a slice of grain appear in the land.’⁶⁷Ps 72:16, pisat bar is usually translated “abundant grain,” but the midrash here from b.Ketuboth 111b interprets pisah hyper-literally as a “slice of grain,” i.e., a piece of a ready-made baked good from the land. And we allude in the blessing “ha-motzi’” to the future time when our food will appear without effort and toil, and the land will bring forth actual bread like the bread which we eat and over which we say the blessing. For thus the world would have behaved in the time of Adam had the land not been cursed because of his sin, as it said, “Cursed is the land because of you.”⁶⁸Gen 3:17. And in the future when the sin has been atoned for, the world will return to the way it’s supposed to be.

I investigated further and found that with regard to one who has a discharge in the night or in the day, or one who touches any contamination which renders him unclean, Scripture says “he is unclean until dusk” (Leviticus 22:6), which must be the end of the day. For if the day began with dawn, then one who has a discharge at night should become clean at the end of the “day,” namely, at dawn.

6) The speaker and the receiver [of lashon hara] also transgress (Vayikra 22:32): "And you shall not profane My holy name," in that there is no lust or physical pleasure to cause his yetzer to intensify itself over him, so that this sin is regarded as rebellion and blatant divesting oneself of the yoke of Heaven; and he profanes the name of Heaven thereby. This, even in the instance of a plain Jew; how much more so in the instance of a man of eminence, whom they all look up to for guidance [speaking lashon hara], where the name of Heaven is certainly profaned! And how much more so, if this sin were committed in public, would it be extremely grave, the transgressor being called "a desecrator of the name of G–d in public."

These sources, however, serve only to demonstrate that animal-directed conduct which is compassionate in nature constitutes a "good deed" but do not serve to establish a system of normative duties or responsibilities. Particularly in light of the strong nomistic element present in Judaism, the absence of normative regulations might well be regarded as indicative of the absence of serious ethical concern for the welfare of members of the animal kingdom. But this is demonstrably not the case, for, in Jewish teaching, there is no dearth of nomoi designed to protect and promote animal welfare. The most obvious example of a regulation having such an effect, and one which is clearly biblical in origin, is contained in the verse "If thou seest the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forebear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him" (Exodus 23:5). The selfsame concern is manifest in the prohibition against muzzling an ox while it threshes in order that the animal be free to eat of the produce while working (Deuteronomy 25:4). Similarly, Scripture provides that both domestic animals and wild beasts must be permitted to share in produce of the land which grows without cultivation during the sabbatical year.⁴See Me’iri, Baba Meẓi‘a 33a, and Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 596. The purpose of other biblical laws pertaining to animals in less clear-cut. The prohibition against plowing with animals of different species, recorded in Deuteronomy 22:10, is understood by Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 550, as well as by Da‘at Zekenim mi-Ba’alei ha-Tosafot and Ba’al ha-Turim in their respective commentaries on Deuteronomy 22:10, as rooted in considerations of prevention of cruelty to animals, but is understood in an entirely different manner by Rambam, Guide of the Perplexed, Book III, chapter 49, as well as by Ramban in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:10. However, Rambam, Guide, Book III, chapter 48, regards the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day, recorded in Leviticus 22:28, as a precautionary measure designed to prevent the slaughter of the offspring in the presence of its parent. The underlying concern is to spare the mother the anguish of seeing her young killed before her eyes “for in these cases animals feel very great pain, there being no difference regarding this pain between man and the other animals. For the love and the tenderness of a mother for her child is not consequent upon reason, but upon the activity of the imaginative faculty, which is found in most animals just as it is found in man.” Here, Rambam speaks of concern for the welfare of the animal rather than for the moral character of the human agent; see below, notes 14-15 and accompanying text. This interpretation is reflected in the comments of R. Baḥya ben Asher, Leviticus 22:28, and, in part, in Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 294. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh regards the commandment prohibiting the slaughter of an animal and its young on the same day as designed both to spare the parent from anguish and as a conservation measure as well. See also Abarbanel’s Commentary on the Bible, ad locum. Rambam’s analysis of the rationale underlying this precept is rejected by Ramban in his Commentary on the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:6. According to Ramban, the concern is not to avoid pain to the animal but to purge man of callousness, cruelty and savagery.
Although the Gemara, Baba Meẓi‘a 32a, declares that assistance in unloading a burden from an animal is mandated by reason of ẓa’ar ba’alei ḥayyim but that the obligation to assist in loading the burden upon the animal is not independently mandated by reason of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim, Ritva, cited by Shitah Mekubeẓet, Baba Meẓi‘a 31a, s.v. aval te’inah, asserts that the commandment requiring a person to render assistance to another who is engaged in loading an animal is predicated upon considerations of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. According to Ritva, a single person engaged in this task is likely to cause additional discomfort to the animal by applying the full force of his body weight whereas, when he is assisted by another, there is no need to apply similar pressure.
Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 186, is of the opinion that the prohibition against the slaughter of sanctified animals outside the Temple precincts is rooted in considerations of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. According to Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, such slaughter is forbidden because no purpose is served thereby and hence constitutes ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. See below, note 29.
Neither the prohibition against mating animals of different species, Leviticus 19:19, nor the prohibition against emasculation of animals, Leviticus 22:24, is understood by classical rabbinic scholars as rooted in considerations of animal welfare. For a discussion of animal welfare as a possible rationale associated with other commandments, see R. Joel Schwartz, Ve-Raḥamav al Kol Ma’asav (Jerusalem, 5744), pp. 11-16. Although the literal meaning of the biblical text may be somewhat obscure, talmudic exegesis understands Genesis 9:4 and Deuteronomy 12:23 as forbidding the eating of a limb severed from a living animal. Jewish law teaches that this prohibition, unlike most other commandments, is universally binding upon all peoples as one of the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah. Sabbath laws contained in both formulations of the Decalogue reflect a concern which goes beyond the mere elimination of pain and discomfort and serve to promote the welfare of animals in a positive manner by providing for their rest on the Sabbath day: "But the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord thy God, on it thou shalt not do any manner of work … nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle …" (Deuteronomy 5:14). Even more explicit in expressing concern for the welfare of animals is the verse "… but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may have rest" (Exodus 23:12).⁵The requirement that the parent bird be released before the young are taken and the concomitant prohibition against taking both the parent and the young, recorded in Deuteronomy 22:6-7, quite obviously have the effect of sparing the parent from anguish. The Mishnah, Berakhot 33b, however, does not view this desideratum, laudable as it may be, as the underlying purpose of the commandment. Cf., however, Rambam, Guide, Book III, chapter 48; Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:6; and Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 545.

These sources, however, serve only to demonstrate that animal-directed conduct which is compassionate in nature constitutes a "good deed" but do not serve to establish a system of normative duties or responsibilities. Particularly in light of the strong nomistic element present in Judaism, the absence of normative regulations might well be regarded as indicative of the absence of serious ethical concern for the welfare of members of the animal kingdom. But this is demonstrably not the case, for, in Jewish teaching, there is no dearth of nomoi designed to protect and promote animal welfare. The most obvious example of a regulation having such an effect, and one which is clearly biblical in origin, is contained in the verse "If thou seest the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forebear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him" (Exodus 23:5). The selfsame concern is manifest in the prohibition against muzzling an ox while it threshes in order that the animal be free to eat of the produce while working (Deuteronomy 25:4). Similarly, Scripture provides that both domestic animals and wild beasts must be permitted to share in produce of the land which grows without cultivation during the sabbatical year.⁴See Me’iri, Baba Meẓi‘a 33a, and Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 596. The purpose of other biblical laws pertaining to animals in less clear-cut. The prohibition against plowing with animals of different species, recorded in Deuteronomy 22:10, is understood by Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 550, as well as by Da‘at Zekenim mi-Ba’alei ha-Tosafot and Ba’al ha-Turim in their respective commentaries on Deuteronomy 22:10, as rooted in considerations of prevention of cruelty to animals, but is understood in an entirely different manner by Rambam, Guide of the Perplexed, Book III, chapter 49, as well as by Ramban in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:10. However, Rambam, Guide, Book III, chapter 48, regards the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day, recorded in Leviticus 22:28, as a precautionary measure designed to prevent the slaughter of the offspring in the presence of its parent. The underlying concern is to spare the mother the anguish of seeing her young killed before her eyes “for in these cases animals feel very great pain, there being no difference regarding this pain between man and the other animals. For the love and the tenderness of a mother for her child is not consequent upon reason, but upon the activity of the imaginative faculty, which is found in most animals just as it is found in man.” Here, Rambam speaks of concern for the welfare of the animal rather than for the moral character of the human agent; see below, notes 14-15 and accompanying text. This interpretation is reflected in the comments of R. Baḥya ben Asher, Leviticus 22:28, and, in part, in Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 294. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh regards the commandment prohibiting the slaughter of an animal and its young on the same day as designed both to spare the parent from anguish and as a conservation measure as well. See also Abarbanel’s Commentary on the Bible, ad locum. Rambam’s analysis of the rationale underlying this precept is rejected by Ramban in his Commentary on the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:6. According to Ramban, the concern is not to avoid pain to the animal but to purge man of callousness, cruelty and savagery.
Although the Gemara, Baba Meẓi‘a 32a, declares that assistance in unloading a burden from an animal is mandated by reason of ẓa’ar ba’alei ḥayyim but that the obligation to assist in loading the burden upon the animal is not independently mandated by reason of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim, Ritva, cited by Shitah Mekubeẓet, Baba Meẓi‘a 31a, s.v. aval te’inah, asserts that the commandment requiring a person to render assistance to another who is engaged in loading an animal is predicated upon considerations of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. According to Ritva, a single person engaged in this task is likely to cause additional discomfort to the animal by applying the full force of his body weight whereas, when he is assisted by another, there is no need to apply similar pressure.
Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 186, is of the opinion that the prohibition against the slaughter of sanctified animals outside the Temple precincts is rooted in considerations of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. According to Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, such slaughter is forbidden because no purpose is served thereby and hence constitutes ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. See below, note 29.
Neither the prohibition against mating animals of different species, Leviticus 19:19, nor the prohibition against emasculation of animals, Leviticus 22:24, is understood by classical rabbinic scholars as rooted in considerations of animal welfare. For a discussion of animal welfare as a possible rationale associated with other commandments, see R. Joel Schwartz, Ve-Raḥamav al Kol Ma’asav (Jerusalem, 5744), pp. 11-16. Although the literal meaning of the biblical text may be somewhat obscure, talmudic exegesis understands Genesis 9:4 and Deuteronomy 12:23 as forbidding the eating of a limb severed from a living animal. Jewish law teaches that this prohibition, unlike most other commandments, is universally binding upon all peoples as one of the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah. Sabbath laws contained in both formulations of the Decalogue reflect a concern which goes beyond the mere elimination of pain and discomfort and serve to promote the welfare of animals in a positive manner by providing for their rest on the Sabbath day: "But the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord thy God, on it thou shalt not do any manner of work … nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle …" (Deuteronomy 5:14). Even more explicit in expressing concern for the welfare of animals is the verse "… but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may have rest" (Exodus 23:12).⁵The requirement that the parent bird be released before the young are taken and the concomitant prohibition against taking both the parent and the young, recorded in Deuteronomy 22:6-7, quite obviously have the effect of sparing the parent from anguish. The Mishnah, Berakhot 33b, however, does not view this desideratum, laudable as it may be, as the underlying purpose of the commandment. Cf., however, Rambam, Guide, Book III, chapter 48; Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:6; and Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 545.

The Tashbeitz also writes that even after the husband dies, the wife should continue practicing her husband’s family customs if the couple has children and she has not remarried. He bases this assertion on the Torah’s laws regarding a woman whose father is not a kohen eating terumah (kohen’s tithe; see Vayikra 22:11-13). If her husband is a kohen, she may eat terumah even after his death if the couple has children and she has not remarried.

It is well-known that there are times when we are commanded about some action, and Scripture afterwards comes to explain the nature of this action; such that the topic mentioned is explained and it says what it is about. If so, it is inappropriate to count each command that comes in that explanation as a separate commandment. For example - "And let them make Me a sanctuary," is one of the positive commandments: And that is that we should have a house in which it is fit to come and celebrate, and in which sacrificing and gathering take place on holidays. And afterwards, He comes to describe its parts and how to make it. Yet it is inappropriate to count everything that is said about it as a separate commandment. And the topic of sacrifices mentioned in Leviticus follows in this very same way. And that is that the singular commandment is the whole process described for each and every type of sacrifice. For example - with the burnt-offering - it is that we were surely commanded that the process of the burnt-offerings be like this. And that is that it be slaughtered, flayed, dissected, that its blood be sprinkled as described, that its fat be offered, that all of its flesh afterward be burnt with a certain measurement of fine flour mixed with oil and a certain measurement of wine - which are the libations - and that its hide go to the priest that sacrifices it. And this process as a whole is a positive commandment - and that is the precept of the burnt-offering. As the Torah is obligating to do every burnt-offering through this process. And likewise, with the whole process of the sin-offering - its sacrifice, its flaying, offering that which needs to be offered from it and the washing of the vessels in which it was cooked or their breaking. It is all the precept of the sin-offering and it is one commandment. And likewise the precept of the guilt-offering is one commandment. And likewise the precept of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings - and that is that if it is a thanksgiving-offering, it is with bread, or [otherwise] without bread, the priest's taking of the breast and the thigh and waving it - it is all one commandment. And these are all types of sacrifices that include obligations of the individual and the community, except for the guilt-offering - which is always an obligation of the individual, as we explained in our introduction to the Order of Kedoshim (Commentary on the Mishnah). And the reason [to count each as only one commandment] is because the process is the commandment, such that it is inappropriate to count each and every part of the process as a commandment. This is unless they are commands that include all of the sacrifices, and are not specific to one type but not another type - then it would be appropriate to count each of those commands as a separate commandment. For then they would not be one of the parts of the process of one of the sacrifices. For example, His prohibiting sacrificing an animal with a defect; or His command that it be unblemished; or His command that it not be lacking in its time - and that is His saying, "and from the eighth day onward" (Leviticus 22:27); and His commanding that every sacrifice be salted - and that is His saying, "on all your offerings you must offer salt" (Leviticus 2:13); and His prohibition not to leave it [unsalted] - "and you shall not omit salt" (Leviticus 2:13), and His command to eat that which is to be eaten from it. As each one of these commands is a commandment on its own. For not one of them is a part of the commandment of the whole process of a specific sacrifice. Rather their commands include every sacrifice, as we will discuss when we count them.

Rabbi Telushkin, although he does not base his argument upon the earlier-cited comment of Rashi, contends that, at least for some authorities, the restriction against intercourse is limited to instances in which external genital organs have been mutilated. He notes the juxtaposition of the prohibition against causing sterility which is derived from Leviticus 22:24 and the listing of the physical defects which disqualify a priest from performing the sacrificial rituals recorded in the same scriptual section. The latter are limited to external blemishes. The prohibition against mutilating sexual organs, suggests Rabbi Telushkin, is recorded subsequent to the proscription dealing with priestly blemishes as an indication that the prohibition against mutilation, and the pursuant prohibition against sexual intercourse, are limited to mutilation of external organs.⁸In point of fact, the regulation governing disqualification of priests suffering from physical defects is recorded in Leviticus 21:16-23. Rabbi Telushkin may have expressed himself unfelicitously but actually may have intended to note the juxtaposition of Leviticus 22:24 with the immediately preceding regulations disqualifying animals marred by certain physical blemishes from being brought as sacrificial offerings. The latter regulations are found in Leviticus 22:19-23.

Rabbi Telushkin, although he does not base his argument upon the earlier-cited comment of Rashi, contends that, at least for some authorities, the restriction against intercourse is limited to instances in which external genital organs have been mutilated. He notes the juxtaposition of the prohibition against causing sterility which is derived from Leviticus 22:24 and the listing of the physical defects which disqualify a priest from performing the sacrificial rituals recorded in the same scriptual section. The latter are limited to external blemishes. The prohibition against mutilating sexual organs, suggests Rabbi Telushkin, is recorded subsequent to the proscription dealing with priestly blemishes as an indication that the prohibition against mutilation, and the pursuant prohibition against sexual intercourse, are limited to mutilation of external organs.⁸In point of fact, the regulation governing disqualification of priests suffering from physical defects is recorded in Leviticus 21:16-23. Rabbi Telushkin may have expressed himself unfelicitously but actually may have intended to note the juxtaposition of Leviticus 22:24 with the immediately preceding regulations disqualifying animals marred by certain physical blemishes from being brought as sacrificial offerings. The latter regulations are found in Leviticus 22:19-23.

The Gemara, Shabbat 110b, derives the prohibition against castration of both male human beings and male animals from the verse "And that which is mauled or crushed or tom or cut you shall not offer unto the Lord; nor should you do this in your land" (Lev. 22:24). This verse is understood by the Gemara as having reference to the male sexual organs and hence the latter part of the verse constitutes a prohibition against emasculation. Tosafot and Rashba, in their commentaries on Shabbat 111a, indicate that this prohibition is limited to the removal of male sexual organs, and there exists no biblical prohibition with regard to the sterilization of a female. The terminology employed by Rambam, Issurei Bi'ah 16:11, and Shulḥan Arukh, Even haEzer 5:11, would seem to indicate that the position of the latter authorities is that surgical sterilization of women, while not an actionable offense, is nevertheless biblically proscribed. Although the reference in Leviticus 22:24 is limited to external male organs, R. Elijah of Vilna, Bi'ur ha-Gra, Even ha-Ezer 5:25–26, cites Sifra in explaining that the ban against the removal of the internal female sexual organs is derived from the formulation employed in the very next verse, Leviticus 22:25. Nevertheless, other authorities, including Hatam Sofer, Even ha-Ezer 5:22, maintain that, even according to Rambam, the prohibition against the sterilization of females is rabbinic in nature. Turei Zahav, Even ha-Ezer 5:6, goes beyond the position of other authorities in averring that there is no prohibition with regard to female sterilization per se, but that it is nonetheless forbidden to subject female animals to this procedure because of the general prohibition against causing pain to animals. Similarly, nontherapeutic sterilization of women would constitute an unlawful act of "wounding"—ḥavalah.

The Gemara, Shabbat 110b, derives the prohibition against castration of both male human beings and male animals from the verse "And that which is mauled or crushed or tom or cut you shall not offer unto the Lord; nor should you do this in your land" (Lev. 22:24). This verse is understood by the Gemara as having reference to the male sexual organs and hence the latter part of the verse constitutes a prohibition against emasculation. Tosafot and Rashba, in their commentaries on Shabbat 111a, indicate that this prohibition is limited to the removal of male sexual organs, and there exists no biblical prohibition with regard to the sterilization of a female. The terminology employed by Rambam, Issurei Bi'ah 16:11, and Shulḥan Arukh, Even haEzer 5:11, would seem to indicate that the position of the latter authorities is that surgical sterilization of women, while not an actionable offense, is nevertheless biblically proscribed. Although the reference in Leviticus 22:24 is limited to external male organs, R. Elijah of Vilna, Bi'ur ha-Gra, Even ha-Ezer 5:25–26, cites Sifra in explaining that the ban against the removal of the internal female sexual organs is derived from the formulation employed in the very next verse, Leviticus 22:25. Nevertheless, other authorities, including Hatam Sofer, Even ha-Ezer 5:22, maintain that, even according to Rambam, the prohibition against the sterilization of females is rabbinic in nature. Turei Zahav, Even ha-Ezer 5:6, goes beyond the position of other authorities in averring that there is no prohibition with regard to female sterilization per se, but that it is nonetheless forbidden to subject female animals to this procedure because of the general prohibition against causing pain to animals. Similarly, nontherapeutic sterilization of women would constitute an unlawful act of "wounding"—ḥavalah.

Seif 7 It is not forbidden to slaughter a mother and her offspring only if its a kosher domesticated animal, as it is said:(in Vayikra 22:28) Do not slaughter an ox or a sheep and its offspring on one day." However it is prohibited to slaughter it if it were a hybrid with a sheep or a goat" or with a wild animal such as a mountain goat or a deer, etc.

Seif 9 It is not forbidden to slaughter a mother and her offspring together if they are not ritually slaughtered as [Leviticus 22:28] states: "Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep]3 and its offspring on one day. However if one decapitates the first one or if it becomes a nevelah in his hand it is allowed allowed to ritually slaughter the second one. If a deaf person, or an imbecile or a child slaughter the first animal alone it is allowed to slaughter the second one, because what these slaughter is not considered slaughtered.

Sex-change operations involving the surgical removal of sexual organs are clearly forbidden on the basis of the explicit biblical prohibition, "And that which is mauled or crushed or torn or cut you shall not offer unto the Lord; nor should you do this in your land" (Lev. 22:24). Sterilization of women is also prohibited, as recorded in Even ha-Ezer 5:11.

The reason for this categorization is quite simple. A Jew is obligated to suffer martyrdom rather than renounce his faith-commitment. He is therefore obliged to allow himself to be killed rather than permit himself to be coerced into committing a transgression in public when such an act is construed as a renunciation of Jewish teaching and practice. This obligation is mandated by the commandment concerning kiddush ha-Shem, sanctification of the Divine Name. It is, of course, necessary to establish the precise definition of a "public" act for purposes of this obligation. The commandment is couched in the words, "And I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel" (Leviticus 22:32). On the basis of talmudic exegesis, the Gemara, Sanhedrin 74b and Berakhot 21a, establishes that a Jew is obligated to sacrifice his life rather than profane the Name of God in this manner only if it is demanded that the act of profaning the Name of God be performed publicly in the presence of the "congregation." The term "edah" or congregation is defined as denoting a group of ten Jews. An act is, therefore, considered to be performed in public if it is witnessed by ten people. Nevertheless, Shakh, Yoreh De'ah 154:5, rules that for purposes of the mizvah of sanctification of the Divine Name, an act is considered to be a public one not only if it is witnessed by ten persons, but even if the act is merely known to ten people. A transgression of which ten people have knowledge constitutes a "public" act of profanation of the Divine Name.

The halakhic problems associated with prostate surgery are not limited to the question of resuming marital relations, nor are they limited solely to the performance of a vasectomy. The biblical injunction, "neither shall you do this in your land" (Leviticus 22:24) constitutes a prohibition against castrating or otherwise maiming an individual in a manner which renders him a pezu'a daka. Hence a surgeon is forbidden to perform such a procedure other than for reasons of grave medical necessity.²³Minḥat Ḥinnukh, no. 291, opines that, unlike the prohibition concerning “rounding the comers of the head” which applies equally to the barber and to the person whose hair is cut, this transgression does not apply to the patient undergoing such procedure. This view is disputed by R. Pinchas Horowitz, renowned as the author of Hafla’ah, in his Netivot la-Shevet, Even ha-Ezer 5:7, and is a subject of doubt to R. Eliyahu Klatzkin, Dvar Eliyahu, no. 17. All agree, however, that the patient commits a prohibited act in “assisting” the surgeon who is prohibited from performing the act. Hazon Ish points out that drinking a "cup of roots," i.e., a potion which induces permanent sterility, is forbidden by rabbinic edict. Similarly, asserts Hazon Ish, it is forbidden to perform any procedure which leads to permanent sterility since all such procedures are analogous to drinking a "cup of roots."

Terumat ha-Deshen, Pesakim u-Ketavim, no. 105, and R. Elijah of Vilna, Bi'ur ha-Gra, Even ha-Ezer 5:40, cite a number of talmudic sources as the basis of Rema's ruling. Leviticus 22:24 serves to establish a prohibition against the emasculation of animals. Although the phenomenon is unknown to modern science, the Gemara, Shabbat 110b, regards removal of a rooster's comb as causing the rooster to become sterile but nevertheless permits the practice because it does not involve excision of a sexual organ.⁴⁴See Rema, Even ha-Ezer 5:13. Cf., Bi‘ur ha-Gra, Even ha-Ezer 5:31; and R. Jacob Emden, She’elat Ya‘avẓ, I, no. 111. This procedure is permissible despite the fact that it is obviously accompanied by pain. The attendant pain, argues Bi'ur ha-Gra, does not render the procedure impermissible because it is designed to promote a human benefit. Moreover, the Gemara, Hagigah 14b, tentatively considers the possibility that Scripture forbids only the emasculation of members of those species of animals which may be offered as sacrifices, an inference that might be drawn from the context of Leviticus 22:24. Since castration is necessarily accompanied by pain, this possibility could be entertained only if it is accepted as an antecedent premise that za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim is not forbidden when necessary to achieve a beneficial result. Furthermore, these scholars indicate that placing a heavy load upon a beast of burden, an act that is clearly sanctioned by the Gemara, Baba Mezi'a 32b, is in itself a form of za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim and is permitted only because the prohibition does not apply in situations in which the act is undertaken for human benefit.⁴⁵For a rebuttal of the evidence yielded by these sources see R. Yitzchak Dov Bamberger, Teshuvot Yad ha-Levi, I, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 196, and Teshuvot Imrei Shefer, no. 34, sec. 10.

That He prohibited an impure priest from serving [in the Temple]. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "that they separate themselves from the holy things of the Children of Israel" (Leviticus 22:2). And in the ninth [chapter] of Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83b), they said, "From where [do we know that] an impure priest who served is [punished] with death. As it is written, 'Speak unto Aharon and unto his sons, that they separate [... and not desecrate].'" And [that] He said in another place, "and die for it, since they desecrated it" (Leviticus 22:9). And just like that desecration is with death at the hands of the Heavens, so too is His saying, "and not desecrate My holy name" - so if he desecrated and served in impurity, he is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 4.)

Dr. Feldman further argues that in instances in which a minyan is required but in which women share equal obligations with men, Halakhah indeed provides that they may be counted equally with men for purposes of the necessary quorum. Rabbenu Nissim, for example, rules that women, who are obligated to hear the reading of the Megillah, may be counted as part of the minyan for this purpose. Some authorities maintain that the same is true with regard to the mizvah of sanctification of the Divine Name (kiddush ha-Shem). The verse "And I will be sanctified among the children of Israel" (Lev. 22:32) is also understood as meaning that martyrdom is not commanded other than in the presence of at least ten Jews. Rabbi Yosef Engel, Gilyonei ha-Shas, Sanhedrin 74b, and Margaliyot ha-Yam, loc. cit., rule that since the obligation with regard to sanctification of the Divine Name is equally incumbent upon both men and women, women are to be counted as part of the quorum for this purpose.

That He prohibited us from sprinkling the blood of animals with blemishes on top of the altar. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "you shall not offer to the Lord" (Leviticus 22:24). And the tradition came [to say] that this negative commandment would be [about the sprinkling of the blood, (although there is another opinion that it is)] from the receiving of the blood. For they said in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7:10), "'You shall not offer to the Lord' - is on account of, 'do not receive the blood.' But in the Gemara, Temurah (Temurah 7a), [they] said, "According to the first teacher, why do I need, 'you shall not offer?' He requires it for sprinkling the blood. But behold, he derives this from, 'upon the altar' (Leviticus 22:22)!'" This means to say from His saying, "and as a fire-offering you shall not place," it indicates that anything that is placed on the altar should not have a blemish. And it answered, "It is the manner of the verse, that it speaks like this." Meaning, that this negative statement - "and as a fire-offering you shall not place of them" - is coming about the burning of the innards. And you should not take it as a proof [about the blood], that He said, "the altar." As the statement could only be made orderly with it - how [else] would He say [it]: "and as a fire-offering you shall not place of them," by itself? Behold it has been explained from everything above that His saying, "you shall not offer to the Lord," is a prohibition for the sprinkling of the blood. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 1.)

He prohibited us from burning up animals with blemishes. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and as a fire-offering you shall not place of them" (Leviticus 22:22). And the language of Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7:4) is, "'And as a fire-offering you shall not place of them - these are the fats. I only [know about] all of them. From where [do we know even] some of them? [Hence] we learn to say 'of them' - even some of them." Behold it has been made clear to you that one who offers an animal with a blemish has already transgressed four negative commandments - when we count the burning of the innards as one negative commandment. However if we count it as two negative commandments - like the teacher that is speaking here - behold he would be transgressing five negative commandments. For he counts some of the innards as one matter and all of them as another matter; as he said, 'of them' - even some of them," even though it is one negative commandment. For this teacher holds that we give lashes for general negative commandments. Hence they said in the Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Section 7:5), "One who consecrates animals with blemishes to the altar transgresses on account of five negative commandments: On account of, do not consecrate; on account of, do not slaughter; on account of, do not sprinkle the blood; of, do not burn up all of it; and of, do not burn up part of it." [And in the Gemara (Temurah 7b), it says,] "Rava said, 'We do not give lashes for general negative commandments.' An objection was raised [from the Tosefta (1:10)]: One who consecrates animals with blemishes on the altar violates five categories. This is a conclusive refutation of Rava." Behold it has been made clear to you that that which they said that he transgresses five is with the logic that holds that we give lashes for a general negative commandment. And hence he counts the negative commandment that includes all of them and some of them as two categories. And this is well-known as the opinion of Abbaye in every place, as we explained in Principle 9 of this essay (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 9:5). But according to Rava, however, who says that we do not give lashes for general commandments, one is [only] liable four [set] of lashes for the burning up - as it is explained in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 63a), according to that which we illustrated in Principle 9. So, together, they are only four negative commandments, as is explained in Scripture. As one who consecrates and offers an animal with a blemish is lashed four [sets of] lashes for these four negative commandments, as we explained. And all of these negative commandments are with an animal with a permanent blemish, as is demonstrated by Scripture when it said, "(a limb) extended or contracted, [... (with its testes)] bruised or crushed or torn or cut" (Leviticus 22:23-24) - and these are all permanent blemishes. And the regulations of all the blemishes in animals - permanent and temporary - have already been explained in the sixth [chapter] of Bekhorot. And likewise have the regulations of these four negative commandments, of offering an animal with a blemish, been explained in scattered places in Tractate Temurah and Zevachim. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 1.)

He prohibited us from leaving over any of the meat of the thanksgiving-offering until the morning. And that is His saying about the thanksgiving-offering, "you shall not leave any of it until morning" (Leviticus 22:30). And we learned [about] the other consecrated animals from it - that everything that remains after the time of its eating, which is leftover (notar), is obligated to be burned. [But we do not give lashes for it,] since it is rectified by a positive commandment. And its burning is a positive commandment, as we explained in Commandment 91 of the Positive Commandments. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18.)

And one of these sins is one that illegally has money of a Jew in his hand, from the worth of a small coin and up - for example, he robs him or steals from him, or [money] that remained in his hand from a deposit that was deposited with him or because of a loan or a partnership. The principle of the matter is that [in a case] if he were to admit to him, he would be liable to pay by law, and the robbed or oppressed - or his inheritor or one that comes by his authority - sues him for it, but he denies it and swears falsely about it; when he repents and regrets his sin and returns the 'loot that is in his hand,' he is liable to bring this sacrifice that we said for his sin, besides the fifth that he is obligated to add on the principle and to give to the robbed, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:21), "A soul that sinned and misappropriated a misappropriation from God and denies his kinsman, etc." And Rabbi Akiva says, "What do we learn to say [from] 'a misappropriation from God?' Because any lender and borrower act only with witnesses, [therefore] when he denies, he only denies the witnesses; but one who borrows without witnesses and denies it, he denies the Third Party among them" - the Divine Presence - "That is why it states, 'and misappropriated a misappropriation from God and denies his kinsman, etc.'" (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22:4). And it is written after it (Leviticus 5 23-25), "And it shall be when he sins and is guilty" - meaning to say that he will repent, such that he takes responsibility for his own guilt - "and return the theft, etc. and he shall pay it from its principle, and a fifth shall he add upon it, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, a ram, etc." And this is what is called the guilt-offering of thefts; and this is from those that come whether for the inadvertent or for the volitional.

That He prohibited all outsiders (non-priests) from eating priestly tithe. And that is His saying, "And no outsider shall eat of the consecrated food (kodesh)" (Leviticus 22:10). And with this, "consecrated food," He meant, the priestly tithe and the firstfruits - as they are also called, the priestly tithe, as I will explain (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 149). And this is what I mean whenever I say, priestly tithe. And if one eats priestly tithe volitionally, he is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And he is only liable for the addition of a fifth [in its repayment] when inadvertent, as it is explained in Terumah in Chapter 7 (Terumot 7:1); and in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83a), among the nine that are liable for death at the hands of the Heavens - and an outsider that ate priestly tithe is one of them. And they positioned as a proof for this, "and die because of it for having profaned it" (Leviticus 22:9), and [it being written] after it, "And no outsider shall eat of [the consecrated food]." And in the second [chapter] of Bikkurim, (Bikkurim 2:1), [they] said, "For the priestly tithe and for firstfruits, one is liable for death [at the hands of the Heavens], and a fifth; and they are forbidden to outsiders." But Rav disagrees with these mishnahs, and says that an outsider who eats priestly tithe is [only] lashed. And it is well-known that Rav is [like] a Tanna, and [is therefore allowed to] disagree (Sanhedrin 83b). And we have already explained in our composition in the Commentary on the Mishnah that [regarding] any disagreement that does not involve a disagreement in practice, but just in theory alone - I will not determine the law and say, "The law is like x." Hence, I will not say, "The law is like Rav," and I will not say, "The law is like the unnamed mishnah." For he is lashed according to everyone, as we explained: For whoever is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens for one of the negative commandments is also lashed - as we explained in the introduction to this essay. And likewise, anyone who misappropriated consecrated foods volitionally is lashed, without a doubt. And that is their saying about a discerning one close [to becoming] an adult who consecrates [an item] - they said (Niddah 46b), "[If] he consecrated [an item], and others ate it: Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both say, 'We give lashes.'" (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 6.)

That He prohibited an uncircumcised one from eating the priestly tithe. And the law is the same for other consecrated foods - that an uncircumcised one is forbidden to eat them. But this [prohibition of] eating is not made explicit in Scripture, but is rather learned from a verbal analogy. Yet the receivers [of the tradition] have explained that this prohibition is from the Torah. And the language of the Gemara, Yevamot (Yevamot 70a), is, "From where [do we know] that an uncircumcised one does not eat priestly tithe? It is stated, 'A sojourner (toshav) and a hired servant' (Exodus 12:45) with regard to the Pesach-offering; and [it is stated, 'a tenant (toshav) of a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the consecrated food' (Leviticus 22:10),] with regard to priestly tithe. Just as 'a toshav and a hired servant,' stated with regard to the Pesach-offering, an uncircumcised one is forbidden from [eating] it; so too, 'a toshav and a hired servant,' stated with regard to priestly tithe, an uncircumcised one is forbidden from [eating] it." And the law is the same for other consecrated foods. And this is also the language of Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4:18). And there they said, "Rabbi Akiva said, '"A man, a man" (Exodus 12:4), is to include the uncircumcised.'" And there - meaning in the Gemara, Yevamot - it is made clear that according to the Torah, one [whose circumcised foreskin is] pulled may eat of the priestly tithe. But [rabbinically], they decreed about him [that he may not eat of it], because he looks like one who is uncircumcised. Behold it has already been made clear to you that one uncircumcised is forbidden [to eat] priestly tithe, from the Torah; whereas one who is pulled is forbidden [rabbinically]. And understand this. And there, they said, "One pulled must get circumcised [rabbinically]." (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 7.)

That He prohibited a desecrated woman (challalah) from eating the consecrated foods that had been permitted for her to eat - the priestly tithe, the breast and the thigh. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And if a priest’s daughter be married to an outsider, etc." (Leviticus 22:12). And in the Gemara, Yevamot (Yevamot 68a), they said, "'To an outsider' - once she has sexual relations with someone disqualified from her, he disqualifies her." And they said, "'From the priestly tithe of the consecrated foods (terumat hakodashim)' - that which is lifted (muram) from the consecrated foods - 'she shall not eat.'" [That] means to say, the breast and the thigh. And there, it is said, "Let Scripture write, 'from consecrated foods, she shall not eat.' What is [added by writing], 'the priestly tithe of the consecrated foods?' We understand two [things, and not just one]!" Meaning (those two things are): Once she has sexual relations with someone disqualified from her, he disqualifies her from [eating] priestly tithe; and if she marries an outsider and he dies, she returns to [eating] priestly tithe, but she does not return to [eating] the breast and the thigh. And it comes out that this negative commandment - which is "she shall not eat" - includes two matters. One of them is the prohibition of a desecrated woman eating consecrated foods; and the second is the prohibition for a priestess who married an outsider eating the breast and the thigh - even though her husband dies or divorces her. However the prohibition of her eating priestly tithe when she is [still married] to the outsider is not from this verse. Indeed, they brought a proof about it from His saying, "And no outsider shall eat of the consecrated food" (Leviticus 22:10); and they said, "One who is [married to an] outsider - I would say is like an outsider." And she is also lashed if she transgresses this negative commandment. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 6.)

And so [too,] from the matter of the commandment is that which they also said that one who sacrifices who has a disqualifying thought transgresses a negative commandment; as it is stated (Leviticus 7:18), "it shall not be counted (yichashev) for him (which can also be read as, 'he shall not think about it')." And we learned from the tradition (Zevachim 29b) that included in this warning (negative commandment) is about one who sacrifices, that he not have a disqualifying thought. But nonetheless, it is not considered to be from the tally of the three hundred and sixty-five negative commandments, since it is similar to one of the extensions of another negative commandment, which is calculated in the tally – and that is that which is written in the Order of Emor el HaKohanim, "There shall be no blemish in it" (Leviticus 22:21) – and they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Berakhot 33b), on account of the negative commandment of one who places a blemish in [sacrifices]; as we shall write with God’s help (Sefer Ha Chinukh 287). And also the content of one who has a disqualifying thought is considered similar to one who places a blemish. And hence they did not consider it in the tally. And in any event, he is not lashed for it, since there is no act [involved] with it, but rather only thought. And the rest of the laws of thoughts: which thought disqualifies, for example the thought of changing a name, the thought of a place and the thought of a time; and in which sacrifice; and which process, for example slaughter, sprinkling, reception, taking; and all of the details of the laws of piggul - and also of notar, which is similar to it - are elucidated in many places in the Order of Kedoshim.

That He prohibited us from eating the meat of a burnt-offering. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You may not eat in your cities, etc. and all your pledges that you pledge" (Deuteronomy 12:17) - as if He were saying, "You may not eat in your cities your pledges that you pledge." And the explanation (Sifrei Devarim 74:1) appeared [about it]: "'And all your vows' - that is a burnt-offering. The verse only came to teach you about one who eats a burnt-offering - whether before the sprinkling of its blood or after the sprinkling of its blood; whether inside the curtains or outside the curtains - he transgresses a negative commandment." And this negative statement is the prohibition for all who misappropriate. And one who transgresses this negative commandment - meaning that he eats from the meat of a burnt-offering; or benefits from the other consecrated foods about which one is liable for misappropriation, as explained in Meilah - is lashed if he was volitional; and brings a misappropriation-offering and repays what he benefited and adds a fifth if he was inadvertent, as we explained in (the Commentary on the Mishnah on) Tractate Meilah. [In Pesachim (Pesachim 83a),] they said, "One who volitionally misappropriates: Rabbi says, '[His punishment is] with death'; but the Sages say, 'With a prohibition.'" And they brought a proof - "and die for it" (Leviticus 22:9). ["It," and not misappropriation.] (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 11.)

That He prohibited the priests from eating firstfruits outside [of Jerusalem]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You may not, etc. and the tithe of your hand" (Deuteronomy 12:17) - that is the firstfruits. For He did not leave anything that requires being brought to a place in this verse that was not mentioned in the explanation. And among them, He mentioned, "and the tithe (terumah) of your hand" (Deuteronomy 12:17) - without a doubt, that is the firstfruits. Indeed, it is known that the priestly tithe (terumah) does not require bringing to a place - how would one be careful from eating it "in your cities?" And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 72:9) is, "The verse only came about one who eats firstfruits who has not recited the declaration over them, that he transgresses a negative commandment." And it has already been explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 19a) that we are only liable for them before he has placed them in the [Temple] courtyard. But once he has placed them in the courtyard, one is exempt for them, even though he has not recited [the declaration]. And the condition that there is with the second tithe also exists with firstfruits - meaning to say, that one is not liable for them when he eats them outside until they see the presence of the Temple. But when someone ate them outside after they saw the presence of the Temple before they are placed in the courtyard, he is lashed only if he is a priest. However an Israelite who eats firstfruits - even after the declaration - is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And in the second [chapter] of Bikkurim, (Bikkurim 2:1), [they] said, "For the priestly tithe and for firstfruits, one is liable for death, and a fifth; and they are forbidden to outsiders." So if an outsider eats them: If he was volitional, he is liable for death; and if inadvertent, he adds a fifth - exactly like the law of the priestly tithe. For since Scripture called them, "the tithe of your hand," it becomes liable to the laws of the priestly tithe. And it is appropriate for you to understand this properly until you will not get it confused: And that is that when the priest eats firstfruits from when they have seen the presence of the Temple before they have been placed in the courtyard, he is lashed; and its prohibition is from here - "You may not eat in your cities, etc. and the tithe of your hand," as is explained in Makkot (Makkot 17). [This is] like an Israelite concerning the second tithe, about which one is lashed for eating it outside of its place, even though it is his. Nevertheless, when an Israelite eats firstfruits after they have seen the presence of the Temple, he is liable for death anytime he eats them. And its prohibition is from, "And no outsider shall eat of the consecrated food (kodesh)" (Leviticus 22:10), as we explained in Commandment 133 of these (negative) commandments. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, First Fruits and other Gifts to Priests Outside the Sanctuary 3.)

That He prohibited us from eating tevel - and that is [produce] from which the priestly tithe and the [other] tithes have not been separated. And that is His saying, "And they shall not desecrate the consecrated items of the Children of Israel which they will set apart" (Leviticus 22:15). And one who transgresses this negative commandment - that he ate tevel - is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And the hint to this is surely His saying, "and they shall not desecrate"; and saying with the priestly tithe, "and the consecrated things of the Children of Israel, you must not desecrate" (Numbers 18:32). And it is learned [from the use of the same word,] desecrate with the priestly tithe, [the eating of] which is an iniquity [punished by] death, as we have explained. And the language of the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83a), is, "From where [do we know that] one who eats tevel is punished with death? As it is stated, 'They shall not desecrate the consecrated items of the Children of Israel' - that they are to give the Lord in the future." And that is from [the continuation of the verse], "which they will set apart." And after this verse, He said, "And so cause them to bear the iniquity of the guilt" (Leviticus 22:16). And in the Gemara in Makkot (Makkot 16b), they said, "One might have thought that one is liable for eating only tevel from which no gifts were taken at all; [but if] the great priestly tithe was separated from it, but the priestly tithe of the tithe was not separated from it, or if the priestly tithe of the tithe was separated but not the first tithe, or if the first tithe was separated but not the second tithe, or [even] if only poor man’s tithe [was not separated] - from where [do we know it]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You may not eat within your gates' (Deuteronomy 12:17); and there it states, 'and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied' (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as there, it is [referring to] poor man’s tithe, here too, it is [referring to] poor man’s tithe - and the [Torah] said, 'You may not.'" However this is [talking about] lashes. And the iniquity [punished with] death is only with the great priestly tithe and the priestly tithe from the tithe. For one who eats the first tithe, before the priestly tithe from the tithe has been separated, is liable for death. And that is His saying to the Levites, when He commanded to separate the tithe from the tithe, "and the consecrated things of the Children of Israel, you must not desecrate so that you not die." As this is the prohibition about eating the tithe while it is tevel. Hence one is liable for death because of it, as is explained in Demai. And also understood from this is that one who eats tevel before the great priestly tithe and the priestly tithe from the tithe were separated from it, is liable for death; and its prohibition is from, "and the consecrated things of the Children of Israel, you must not desecrate" - as I have explained in this commandment. But one who eats tevel after the separation of the great priestly tithe, but before the separation of all the [other] tithes, is liable for lashes; and its prohibition is from, "You may not eat within your gates." And hold on to this and do not err about it. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning tevel - have already been explained in [various] places in Demai and in Terumot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 10.)

That an impure priest not serve: That a priest not serve when he is still impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:2), "and they shall separate from the holy things of the Children of Israel and they shall not profane My holy name." And they, may their memory be blessed, said in the ninth chapter of Sanhedrin 83b, "From where [do we know] about an impure one who served that he is [punished] with death" - meaning to say, with death by the hands of the Heavens? "As it is written, 'Speak to Aharon and to his sons, and they shall separate from the holy things of the Children of Israel and they shall not profane'"; and it is written in another place (Leviticus 22:9), "and die for it, since they profaned it."

That an impure priest not serve: That a priest not serve when he is still impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:2), "and they shall separate from the holy things of the Children of Israel and they shall not profane My holy name." And they, may their memory be blessed, said in the ninth chapter of Sanhedrin 83b, "From where [do we know] about an impure one who served that he is [punished] with death" - meaning to say, with death by the hands of the Heavens? "As it is written, 'Speak to Aharon and to his sons, and they shall separate from the holy things of the Children of Israel and they shall not profane'"; and it is written in another place (Leviticus 22:9), "and die for it, since they profaned it."

That an impure priest not eat priestly tithe: That an impure priest not eat priestly tithe, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:4), "Every man from the seed of Aharon, etc. from the holy things he shall not eat, until he becomes pure." And we say in Tractate Makkot 14b, "From where [do I know about] a warning for priestly tithe" - meaning to say, that he not eat it [while he is] impure? "As it is stated, 'Every man, etc.'; what is the thing that is equal to the seed of Aharon" - meaning to say, that all of the seed eat it, males and females? "I would say, 'that is the priestly tithe.'" And the warning about this matter is repeated, as it is written (Leviticus 22:9), "And they shall keep My charge." And [it is] like they said in Sanhedrin 83a [in] the ninth chapter concerning those liable for death by the hands of the Heavens, that they learn [about] the one who is impure that eats priestly tithe, from "And they shall keep My charge and they shall not bear a sin for it."

That an impure priest not eat priestly tithe: That an impure priest not eat priestly tithe, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:4), "Every man from the seed of Aharon, etc. from the holy things he shall not eat, until he becomes pure." And we say in Tractate Makkot 14b, "From where [do I know about] a warning for priestly tithe" - meaning to say, that he not eat it [while he is] impure? "As it is stated, 'Every man, etc.'; what is the thing that is equal to the seed of Aharon" - meaning to say, that all of the seed eat it, males and females? "I would say, 'that is the priestly tithe.'" And the warning about this matter is repeated, as it is written (Leviticus 22:9), "And they shall keep My charge." And [it is] like they said in Sanhedrin 83a [in] the ninth chapter concerning those liable for death by the hands of the Heavens, that they learn [about] the one who is impure that eats priestly tithe, from "And they shall keep My charge and they shall not bear a sin for it."

That no foreigner eat priestly tithe: That no foreigner (non-priest) eat priestly tithe, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:10), "And any foreigner shall not eat the holy." And the received (traditional) understanding (Pesachim 23a) came that this "holy" is only the priestly tithe and anything that is called priestly tithe (terumah), but it does not come here to warn about other types of holy things. And that which is also called priestly tithe is the first fruits, as they, may their memory be blessed, expound from the tradition (Pesachim 36b), "'And the terumah of your hand' (Deuteronomy 12:17) - these are the first fruits."

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Gittin 12b) that a runaway slave of a priest eats priestly tithe, since he is his acquired property in any case. And so [too,] a rebellious wife, behold she eats; and any wife of a priest [may] eat, even if she is only three years and one day old. Also the betrothed of a priest would have been fitting to eat, except the Sages decreed that she not eat until they are married, as it appears in the beginning of the fifth chapter of Ketubot 57b. A Hebrew slave does not eat, as behold the Torah forbade both the perennial worker and the annual worker, as it is written (Leviticus 22:10), "the boarder of a priest and the hired worker may not eat the holy." But a Canaanite (gentile) slave eats, because he is his acquired property. Also, if the slave acquires other slaves they [may] also eat through him, since it is written (Leviticus 22:11), "when he acquires an acquired soul" - which has an implication that the acquired soul makes an acquisition. If, however, the second-tier slave acquires a third-tier slave, [the latter] may not eat. Since the [Torah] stated, "when an acquired soul makes an acquisition," and not "an acquisition of an acquisition." Any priestess who had intercourse with someone who disqualifies from the priesthood is permanently forbidden from eating priestly tithe (Yevamot 65a). The same is true for a hermaphrodite [priest], whether he had intercourse through his male organ or through his female organ. And even a stretched - and that is a person who stretched his foreskin so that he would appear as if he was uncircumcised - is rabbinically forbidden from eating until he is circumcised a second time (Yevamot 72a). And the rest of its many details are elucidated in Tractate Terumot.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Gittin 12b) that a runaway slave of a priest eats priestly tithe, since he is his acquired property in any case. And so [too,] a rebellious wife, behold she eats; and any wife of a priest [may] eat, even if she is only three years and one day old. Also the betrothed of a priest would have been fitting to eat, except the Sages decreed that she not eat until they are married, as it appears in the beginning of the fifth chapter of Ketubot 57b. A Hebrew slave does not eat, as behold the Torah forbade both the perennial worker and the annual worker, as it is written (Leviticus 22:10), "the boarder of a priest and the hired worker may not eat the holy." But a Canaanite (gentile) slave eats, because he is his acquired property. Also, if the slave acquires other slaves they [may] also eat through him, since it is written (Leviticus 22:11), "when he acquires an acquired soul" - which has an implication that the acquired soul makes an acquisition. If, however, the second-tier slave acquires a third-tier slave, [the latter] may not eat. Since the [Torah] stated, "when an acquired soul makes an acquisition," and not "an acquisition of an acquisition." Any priestess who had intercourse with someone who disqualifies from the priesthood is permanently forbidden from eating priestly tithe (Yevamot 65a). The same is true for a hermaphrodite [priest], whether he had intercourse through his male organ or through his female organ. And even a stretched - and that is a person who stretched his foreskin so that he would appear as if he was uncircumcised - is rabbinically forbidden from eating until he is circumcised a second time (Yevamot 72a). And the rest of its many details are elucidated in Tractate Terumot.

And the prohibition of the eating of priestly tithes for non-priests is practiced by all of Israel, males and females, in any place that there is priestly tithe from Torah writ - that is at the time that the Land of Israel is in its settlement, for then the obligation of priestly tithe is from Torah writ, as we will write in the Order of Shoftim (Sefer HaChinukh, 507) in the commandment of separating the great priestly tithe, with God's help. And at this time, this prohibition is practiced rabbinically with the fruits of the Land of Israel, and as we will write there. One who transgressed this and ate priestly tithe and is a "foreigner," such as an Israelite - who is a foreigner - or even a priest or priestess who was profaned from [their status in the] priesthood through one of the well-known [mechanisms of] profanation that our Sages, may their memory be blessed, have instructed us, is liable for death by the hands of the Heavens , as it appears in the ninth chapter of Sanhedrin 83b, from that which is written (Leviticus 22:9), "and die for it, since they profaned it," and afterwards, "And any foreigner shall not eat the holy."

That the boarder of a priest and the hired worker not eat priestly tithe: That the boarder of a priest and the hired worker not eat priestly tithe, as it is written (Leviticus 22:10), "the boarder of a priest and the hired worker may not eat the holy."

That an uncircumcised one not eat priestly tithe: That an uncircumcised one not eat priestly tithe; meaning to say, a priest that is not circumcised - whether he is volitional or inadvertent or from duress, such as when his brothers died because of circumcision, so that the fear of death prevented him from being circumcised; in any manner that it be - since he is uncircumcised, he is forbidden to eat priestly tithe. And the same is the law - that he is forbidden - with other consecrated foods. And this prevention is not elucidated in Scripture, but we rather learn it from an inferential comparison. And the transcriber wrote in the name of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvot Lo Taase 135), "The ones that received the tradition elucidated with this, that this prohibition is from Torah writ and not rabbinic. And the language of Yevamot 70a is, 'From where [do we know] that an uncircumcised does not eat priestly tithe? It is stated, "a boarder and a hired worker" (Exodus 12:45) with regard to the Pesach [sacrifice], and it is stated, "a boarder and a hired worker" (Leviticus 22:10) with regard to priestly tithe. Just as "a boarder and a hired worker" with regard to the Pesach, an uncircumcised is prohibited [from eating] it, so too, "a boarder and a hired worker" stated with regard to priestly tithe, an uncircumcised is prohibited [from eating] it.' And the same is the law for other holy foods. And this is likewise the language of Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4:18. And there it is stated, 'Rabbi Akiva says, "Every man (literally, A man, a man)" (Leviticus 22:4), [is] to include the uncircumcised.' And there - meaning in the Gemara Yevamot 72a - it is elucidated that a stretched [may] eat from priestly tithe from the word of the Torah, but [the Rabbis] decreed [that he may not] because he appears like one uncircumcised. And a stretched is one who stretched his foreskin in a way that he would appear as if he was uncircumcised, after he was circumcised. Behold, it is already elucidated that an uncircumcised is forbidden from the Torah and a stretched is forbidden rabbinically. And understand this. And there it is said that a stretched must be circumcised [again] rabbinically." To here [are his words].

That an uncircumcised one not eat priestly tithe: That an uncircumcised one not eat priestly tithe; meaning to say, a priest that is not circumcised - whether he is volitional or inadvertent or from duress, such as when his brothers died because of circumcision, so that the fear of death prevented him from being circumcised; in any manner that it be - since he is uncircumcised, he is forbidden to eat priestly tithe. And the same is the law - that he is forbidden - with other consecrated foods. And this prevention is not elucidated in Scripture, but we rather learn it from an inferential comparison. And the transcriber wrote in the name of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvot Lo Taase 135), "The ones that received the tradition elucidated with this, that this prohibition is from Torah writ and not rabbinic. And the language of Yevamot 70a is, 'From where [do we know] that an uncircumcised does not eat priestly tithe? It is stated, "a boarder and a hired worker" (Exodus 12:45) with regard to the Pesach [sacrifice], and it is stated, "a boarder and a hired worker" (Leviticus 22:10) with regard to priestly tithe. Just as "a boarder and a hired worker" with regard to the Pesach, an uncircumcised is prohibited [from eating] it, so too, "a boarder and a hired worker" stated with regard to priestly tithe, an uncircumcised is prohibited [from eating] it.' And the same is the law for other holy foods. And this is likewise the language of Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4:18. And there it is stated, 'Rabbi Akiva says, "Every man (literally, A man, a man)" (Leviticus 22:4), [is] to include the uncircumcised.' And there - meaning in the Gemara Yevamot 72a - it is elucidated that a stretched [may] eat from priestly tithe from the word of the Torah, but [the Rabbis] decreed [that he may not] because he appears like one uncircumcised. And a stretched is one who stretched his foreskin in a way that he would appear as if he was uncircumcised, after he was circumcised. Behold, it is already elucidated that an uncircumcised is forbidden from the Torah and a stretched is forbidden rabbinically. And understand this. And there it is said that a stretched must be circumcised [again] rabbinically." To here [are his words].

That a profaned woman not eat from the holy: That a profaned woman not eat from the holy - meaning to say from the priestly tithe, the breast and the thigh that fit daughters of the Children of Aharon are fitting to eat - as it is stated (Leviticus 22:12), "And the daughter of a priest when she shall be to a foreign man, she shall not eat that which is raised of the consecrated things." And we say in the Gemara Yevamot 68a, "'When she shall be to a foreign man' - such that she had intercourse with one disqualified to her, that he disqualified her." And from that which it is written, "that which is raised of the consecrated things," they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 68b), "With that which is raised from the consecrated things, they shall not eat" - meaning from the breast and the thigh. And there it is said, "Let the verse write, 'she shall not eat the consecrated things.' What is [the meaning of] 'that which is raised of the consecrated things?' We hear two [things] from it: One is that when she had intercourse with one disqualified, she is disqualified from eating priestly tithe, the breast and the thigh; and the other is that when she was married to a 'foreigner' and her husband dies, she returns to eating the tithe but does not return to [eating] the breast and the thigh." And it comes out that included in this negative commandment is the warning of the priestess that married a foreigner not to eat the breast and thigh even though her husband died or divorced her, which is not what we determine with priestly tithe - as a priestess that marries a foreigner and her husband dies, returns to eat priestly tithe. And the understanding of the verse is such: "when she shall be to a man foreign with that which is raised of the consecrated things" - meaning to say when she has intercourse with a foreigner, meaning one disqualified to her, and this is his foreignness, [then] she shall not eat that which is raised of the consecrated things, which is the priestly tithe, the breast and the thigh, as I have explained. And further there is also in the understanding of the verse, "when she shall be to a foreign man" - one who is not a priest; and so did Rashi, may his memory be blessed, write (Rashi on Leviticus 22:12), "To a Levite or Israelite," meaning to say that he is foreign from the priesthood - she does not eat "that which is raised of the consecrated things" at the time that she is his. But after his death or that he divorces her, when she eats of that which is raised of the holy things - as behold, she has left from being [in the domain] of the foreigner - she [still] does not eat from the breast and the thigh. As once she has married a foreigner, she is disqualified from the breast and the thigh forever. However, you should know that we did not learn the prohibition of a priestess eating from priestly tithe when she is still [in the domain of] her Israelite husband from this verse at all - as the [traditional] commentary does not come to expound this from that, but rather only that which we wrote. But this prohibition, the Sages - the masters of the received tradition - may their memory be blessed, learned (Yevamot 68b) from another place - from that which is written (Leviticus 12:10), "And any foreigner shall not eat the holy." As the commentary comes about it, that all the time that the woman is [in the domain of] her husband - meaning her Israelite husband - who is a foreigner from the priesthood, she 'shall not eat the holy.' [This is] since the wife of a foreigner is considered like a foreigner - and behold, she is like one of his ribs. And know this it and receive it, as it is the received truth.

To not eat tevel: To not eat tevel - whether an Israelite or a priest - and that is a thing that tithes and priestly tithes have not been taken away from it, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:15), "And they shall not profane the consecrated things of the Children of Israel that they shall raise to the Lord." And the received (traditional) explanation comes about this (Sanhedrin 83a) that the verse is speaking about tevel. And the content of the verse is to say that they should not profane the consecrated things in their still being mixed with the non-sacred. And that is [why] the expression is [in] future tense - meaning to say that it has not yet been raised. And so [too], is it in the Gemara Sanhedrin 83a, "From where [do we know] about the one who eats tevel that he is [punishable by] death? As it is stated, 'And they shall not profane the consecrated things of the Children of Israel that they shall raise to the Lord' - the verse is speaking about those that will be raised in the future; such that we learn [a comparison of] 'profane' [and] 'profane' from priestly tithe," about which it is written (Numbers 18:32), "and the consecrated things of the Children of Israel you shall not profane and not die." And [the latter] is with the death penalty - as we wrote above (Sefer HaChinukh 280), from that which is written (Leviticus 22:9), "and die for it, since they profaned it," and adjacent to it, "And any foreigner shall not eat the holy." And they, may their memory be blessed, also said about this matter in the Gemara Makkot 16b, "Perhaps one is only liable for eating tevel from which no [gifts] were taken at all; but if the great priestly tithe was taken from [the produce], but not the tithe of the tithe, or the first tithe or the second tithe, or even if only the poor tithe [was not separated]; from where [is it derived] that there is a liability in the thing? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You may not eat in your gates' (Deuteronomy 12:17), and later it states, 'and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied' (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as there, it is poor tithe, here too, it is poor tithe - and the [Torah] states, 'You may not.'"

To not eat tevel: To not eat tevel - whether an Israelite or a priest - and that is a thing that tithes and priestly tithes have not been taken away from it, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:15), "And they shall not profane the consecrated things of the Children of Israel that they shall raise to the Lord." And the received (traditional) explanation comes about this (Sanhedrin 83a) that the verse is speaking about tevel. And the content of the verse is to say that they should not profane the consecrated things in their still being mixed with the non-sacred. And that is [why] the expression is [in] future tense - meaning to say that it has not yet been raised. And so [too], is it in the Gemara Sanhedrin 83a, "From where [do we know] about the one who eats tevel that he is [punishable by] death? As it is stated, 'And they shall not profane the consecrated things of the Children of Israel that they shall raise to the Lord' - the verse is speaking about those that will be raised in the future; such that we learn [a comparison of] 'profane' [and] 'profane' from priestly tithe," about which it is written (Numbers 18:32), "and the consecrated things of the Children of Israel you shall not profane and not die." And [the latter] is with the death penalty - as we wrote above (Sefer HaChinukh 280), from that which is written (Leviticus 22:9), "and die for it, since they profaned it," and adjacent to it, "And any foreigner shall not eat the holy." And they, may their memory be blessed, also said about this matter in the Gemara Makkot 16b, "Perhaps one is only liable for eating tevel from which no [gifts] were taken at all; but if the great priestly tithe was taken from [the produce], but not the tithe of the tithe, or the first tithe or the second tithe, or even if only the poor tithe [was not separated]; from where [is it derived] that there is a liability in the thing? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You may not eat in your gates' (Deuteronomy 12:17), and later it states, 'and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied' (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as there, it is poor tithe, here too, it is poor tithe - and the [Torah] states, 'You may not.'"

That we not consecrate [animals] with blemishes for the altar: That we not consecrate [animals] with blemishes, to sacrifice, them for the altar. And even though he did not sacrifice them, there is a negative commandment for the consecration alone. And about the consecration alone is it stated (Leviticus 22:20), "All that has a blemish in it, you shall not offer" - on account of you shall not consecrate (Temurah 6a).

The commandment of the sacrifice being unblemished: That every sacrifice that we sacrifice be perfect from blemishes that come in Scripture and from those that the tradition comes about that they are blemishes for its specie. And that is [the understanding of] what is stated about this (Leviticus 22:21), "unblemished shall it be acceptable." And they said in Sifra, Emor, Section 7:9, "'Unblemished shall it be' - is a positive commandment." And they brought a proof (Menachot 87a) that the libations and flours and oils [also] be completely perfect from degeneration from that which is written (Numbers 28:31), "they shall be unblemished, and their libations."

That we not place a blemish upon consecrated animals: - That we not place a blemish upon consecrated animals; meaning to say that we not make any wound or any fracture upon a beast that is consecrated for the altar that disqualifies it as an offering - as it is stated (Leviticus 22:21), "and no blemish shall be upon it." And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Menachot 56b), "Read it as 'shall not be made in it.'" And the language of Sifra, Emor, Section 7:9 is, "'No blemish shall be upon it' - do not place a blemish upon it."

That we not sprinkle blood of an [animal] with a blemish on the altar: That we not sprinkle blood of [animals] with a blemish on top of the altar, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:22), "A blind or broken or creviced (charuts) or protrusion (yabelet) or boil-scar (garav) or yalefet; you shall not sacrifice these to the Lord." And the tradition comes about this negative commandment that it is a prevention of sprinkling the blood of [animals] with blemishes. And that is the opinion of the first teacher (tanna kamma) in the Gemara, Temurah 6b, and that is the law. As it says there, "And [for] the first teacher, why do I need this 'you shall not sacrifice to the Lord.' He requires it for sprinkling of the blood." All of the content of this warning (negative commandment) is like the warning of the placing of a blemish upon holy [animals] (Sefer HaChinukh 287) and the sacrifice of an [animal] with a blemish (Sefer HaChinukh 289) and the incineration of the entrails (Sefer HaChinukh 290). However we should not count it with the prohibitions that are practiced today; as due to our iniquities, we do not have an altar.

That we not slaughter an [animal with a blemish] for the sake of a sacrifice: That we not slaughter [animals] with blemishes for the sake of a sacrifice, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:22), "you shall not sacrifice these to the Lord." And the language of Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7:1 is "'You shall not sacrifice' - on account of you shall not slaughter." All of the content of this commandment is explained in the commandment preceding it. However we should not count this prohibition with those that are practiced today; as due to our iniquities, we do not have an altar to slaughter the sacrifices there.

That we not incinerate the entrails of [animals] with blemishes: Not to incinerate the entrails of [animals] with blemishes. I have written the understanding of entrails in the Order of Tsav in the commandment of the procedure of the sin-offering. And about this is it stated (Leviticus 22:22), "a fire-offering you shall not give of them upon the altar." The content of this commandment as well, and the elucidation of the place of its laws is written in the commandment prior to its colleague (Sefer HaChinukh 287). However we should not count this prohibition with those that are practiced today; as due to our iniquities, we do not have an altar upon which to incinerate.

Not to castrate one of all of the species: To not castrate one of all of the species - not a man and not a beast and not a bird, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:24), "and in your land you shall not do [it]." After the verse mentioned, "And a crushed, and a pounded and a disconnected and a cut," which is stated about the [sexual organs], it stated, "and in your land you shall not do [it]." And the explanation came about it (Chagigah 14b), "[To] all in your land you shall not do [it]" - meaning to say this shall not be done among Israel; or its explanation is from every species in your land you shall not do [it]. And "[to] all in your land you shall not do [it]" includes man and beast and all animals. And the content of the verse is not to say that there only be a prohibition of castration in the Land. And explicitly did they, may their memory be blessed, say in Shabbat 110b in the chapter [entitled] Shmoneh Sheratsim, "We learned, 'From where [do we know] about castration of a man, that it is forbidden? [Hence] we learn to say, "and in your land you shall not do [it]" - you shall not do it in (to) you.'"

And that which they also said (Shabbat 111a) that one who castrates after [another] who castrates is liable, and like Rabbi Chiya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yochanan said, "Everyone concedes that one who leavens after [another] leavened is liable, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:10), 'It shall not be baked leavened,' and (Leviticus 2:11) 'it shall not be made leavened'; that one who castrates after [another] castrates is liable, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:24), 'And a crushed, and a pounded and a disconnected and a cut' - if one is liable for one cut, is one not all the more so [liable] for one disconnected? Rather, [this comes] to include that one who disconnects after one who cuts is liable." How is this? Behold, one came and cut the member, and another came and cut the testicles or disconnected them, the last one is also liable; and so [too,] if one came and crushed the member, and another came and disconnected it, they are all lashed - even though the last one does not castrate, as it is already castrated. And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 111a) that if one neuters a female - whether a person or of the other species - he is exempt. And that which they said (Shabbat 110a) that [it] is forbidden to give a cup of roots to a man or to other creatures in order to sterilize them, but we do not administer lashes for this. And so [too,] one who places his fellow in water or in snow, until the power of his reproductive organs is neutralized, is not lashed until he castrates [him] manually. But it is fitting to strike [such a one with] lashes of rebellion. And a woman is permitted to drink a cup of roots that sterilize her, such that she not give birth; as women are not commanded about being fruitful and multiplying - as I wrote in the first commandment of the book. And the rest of its details are elucidated in [various] places in Tractate Shabbat and Yevamot (see Tur, Even HaEzer 5).

Not to sacrifice a sacrifice that is one with a blemish from the hand of the stranger: Not to sacrifice [animals] with blemishes from the hands of gentiles, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:25), "And from the hand of the stranger you shall not offer the bread of your God from all of these" - such that we not say, "Since he is a gentile, we can sacrifice one with a blemish for his sake." And it required a warning about this for them, since the Torah already permitted us to accept unblemished sacrifices from them; as it is stated (Leviticus 22:18), "Every man from the House of Israel and from the sojourner in Israel that offers his sacrifice for all of their vows and for all of their pledges." And the explanation comes about this (Menachot 73b; Chullin 13b), "'Man' to include the gentiles that promise vows and pledges." And we accept it from them.

Not to sacrifice a sacrifice that is one with a blemish from the hand of the stranger: Not to sacrifice [animals] with blemishes from the hands of gentiles, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:25), "And from the hand of the stranger you shall not offer the bread of your God from all of these" - such that we not say, "Since he is a gentile, we can sacrifice one with a blemish for his sake." And it required a warning about this for them, since the Torah already permitted us to accept unblemished sacrifices from them; as it is stated (Leviticus 22:18), "Every man from the House of Israel and from the sojourner in Israel that offers his sacrifice for all of their vows and for all of their pledges." And the explanation comes about this (Menachot 73b; Chullin 13b), "'Man' to include the gentiles that promise vows and pledges." And we accept it from them.

The commandment of a sacrifice that it be from eight days and above: That every sacrifice that we sacrifice of the beast be from eight days [old] and above, not less than that; and this is the commandment of the lacking in time of its body. And the verse that warns us about this is that which is written (Leviticus 22:27), "An ox or a sheep or a goat when it is born shall be with its mother seven days; and from the eighth day and onward, it shall be accepted." And the words of the Torah are [in short]; and the verse teaches that before then, the sacrifice is not accepted. And this - and that which is like this - they, may their memory be blessed, called 'a negative commandment inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment.' And therefore we do not administer lashes for it. And [it is] like they, may their memory be blessed, elucidated in Chullin 80b in the chapter [entitled] Oto ve'etvBeno - as there they said regarding the matter of lashes, "Leave lacking time alone, as Scripture has [connected] it to a positive commandment."

To not slaughter a beast and its child on one day: That we not slaughter a beast and its child on one day - whether consecrated or mundane - as it is written (Leviticus 22:28), "it and its child you shall not slaughter on one day."

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 sanctification of the Name: That we were commanded to sanctify the Name, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:32), "and I will be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel," - meaning to say that we surrender our souls for the observance of the commandments of the religion. And they, may their memory be blessed, have already elucidated from the tradition and from the verses in which manner and for which commandment, we are commanded about this. And even though it is written in the Torah, "and live by them" (Leviticus 18:5), which implies, and not that you should die by them - they already received that this verse is not stated in every matter and for every sin. And [it is] through the tradition that we live in all [the] words of the Torah. And in explanation, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 74a) that there are three commandments which one is always obligated to be killed and not transgress them. And these are: idolatry and any of its trappings - meaning, all of its matters that are prohibited on the strength of its specific negative commandments, as we will explain below with God's help; and also, sexual immorality and all of its trappings; and murder. Such that if they say to a person, "Worship idolatry or we will kill you," he should be killed and not worship. Even though his heart is pure in his faith with the fear of God, nonetheless he is commanded that he be killed and not commit this evil act, and not give room to the assailant to think that he has denied God. And the language of Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9:6, "For this reason I took you out of the Land of Egypt, so that you will publicly sanctify My name." And likewise for the other two that we mentioned - he must be killed and not transgress, as we said.

The commandment of resting on the first day of Pesach: To rest on the first day of Pesach, as it states about it (Leviticus 22:7), "On the first day, a holy occasion." And about all about which it is stated in the Torah, "a holy occasion," they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 12:4), "Make it holy." And the content of its holiness is that no work be done on it, except for that which is specific to eating; as the verse elucidated (Exodus 12:16), "but that which is eaten by every soul, that alone shall be done for you." And the proof that the rest of the holiday is considered a positive commandment is their, may their memory be blessed, saying (Shabbat 25a), "This 'shabbaton' is a positive commandment." And we learn from now that in every place that shabbaton is stated in the Torah with regards to a holiday, it is a positive commandment. And [what] also appears much in the Talmud is, "The holiday is a positive commandment and a negative commandment."

To not do work on the first day of Pesach: That we not do work on the first day of the holiday of Pesach - which is the fifteenth of Nissan - as it is stated (Leviticus 23:7), "On the first day, a holy occasion shall it be for you; all work of labor shall you not do." And Scripture already warned about this in the Order of Bo el Pharoah in the command of the holiday of Pesach; as it is stated there (Exodus 12:16), "all work shall not be done upon them." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, brought that verse (in Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 223) in his tally. But I have written this other one, so that the holidays be organized in one order. But it all comes to the same thing.

The commandment of resting on the seventh [day] of Pesach: To rest on the seventh day of Pesach, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:8), "and on the seventh day, a holy occasion." And I have already written above close by to this commandment (Sefer HaChinukh 297) that in every place in which it is stated in the Torah, "a holy occasion," its content is to say, make it holy, to not do work on it, and [that] it is a positive commandment. And a hint from the roots of the commandment from the angle of its simple understanding is also written there. And as is our custom, we will write a few of its laws with God's help in the negative commandment of the prohibition of work in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 298). And the entire content of resting on the seventh [day] is like the rest of the first day. And they are both considered one festival with regards to that which we do not say [the blessing over] time (shehechiyanu) on the seventh; and so with every matter - which is not the case on Shemini Atseret, which is a holiday on its own (Yoma 2b), and as we will write in its place (Sefer HaChinukh 323), with God's help.

And understand, my son, the difference that there is between an Israelite and a priest and remember it. As when a priest eats the first-fruits from when [the fruits] see the face of the [Temple] before they are placed in the yard, he is lashed; and its warning is from "You may not, etc." And do not wonder to say, how can the priest be liable for lashes for them, since he, himself, will eat them after they are placed in the yard. As behold, the same thing is done with the law of the second tithe, that an Israelite is liable for lashes when he eats it outside of Jerusalem, even though he, himself, eats it in the place that is fitting for it. And an Israelite that eats first-fruits is liable for death by the hand of the Heavens any time he eats them; and its warning is from "And any foreigner shall not eat the holy" (Leviticus 22:10), and as I wrote in the Order of Emor el Hakohanim in the commandment that no [non-priest] eat priestly tithe (Sefer HaChinukh 280).

“The custom of “kapprot¹⁸Kapparot, כפרות, which is plural for Kapparah, meaning expiation. This is a custom where the sins of a person are symbolically transferred to a fowl. This practice is mostly done on the day before Yom Kippur and in some congregations it is also performed on the day before Rosh HaShanah or on Hoshana Rabba. During the ceremony Psalms 107;10,14,17-21 and Job 33:23-24 are recited. Following this a cock is taken for a male and a hen for a female, the fowl is swung around one’s head three times while the person says: “This is my substitute, my vicarious offering, my atonement; this cock (or hen) shall meet death, but I shall find a long and pleasent life of peace”. It is thought by some (erroneously) that the fowl assumes the punishment for sins that the person would normally receive. Often the fowl is donated to the poor minus the intestines which are given to the birds. Some people substitute the monetary value of the fowl and donate that to the poor.
The custom is not a talmudic one. It first appears in the writings of the geonim (see footnote 19) in the ninth century. The connection between a man and a cock is that both can be referred to as a gever, so a gever (man) can transfer his sins on to another gever (cock). Another reason for the use of a cock or a hen was due to the fact that after the destruction of the Temple, no animal used in the sacrificial rite could be used for a similar purpose outside the Temple. The cock and the hen had no Temple cultic connection. Caro, along with R. Solomon b. Abraham Adret and Naḥmanides opposed this custom but Isserles included it because of its practice in the Ashkenazi community where it had taken on mystic interpretations from the Kabbalists.
Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 10, pp. 756-57.
The basic Hebrew sources and comments on Kapparot are the following:
Tur, טור, (see footnote 23) 605 - There are places where it is customary to slaughter a rooster as atonement (for Kapparah). And thus it is (related) in geonic (see footnote 19) responsa: “You asked; we customarily slaughter a rooster on the Eve of Yom Kippur, and we do not know the reason for this custom. If it is an “exchange” (substitute) for a sacrifice (if it symbolizes a sacrifice), then what is the difference between a rooster and cattle or a beast, but certainly there is a problem. However, there are two reasons: (1) a rooster is found more commonly in a household than any cattle, beast, or fowl; (2) There are places of wealthy people who substitute rams; and the main horned animal (for the Yom Kippur ceremony) is analogous to the ram of our father Isaac (which was substituted for him (Isaac) as a sacrifice), therefore the matter (of using a rooster) is not established (determined).”
In addition we have heard from the early scholars that even though the price of a cattle is higher than that of a rooster, nevertheless a rooster is chosen because its designation is gever (man, rooster) as is said in (Yoma 20a): What is the meaning of Kara Gavra, R. Sila says the meaning is that the rooster crows and since its designation is gever and the exchange is of one gever (rooster) for another gever (man), therefore it (using a rooster) is effective and superior (to any other animal). And this is the custom here, the congregational reader holds the rooster and lays his hand on its head (in the manner in which a sacrifice was performed in the Temple) and then he takes it (the rooster) and lays it upon the head of the one seeking atonement and says (the verses in the Prayer Book used in this service (Oẓar ha-Tefillot, volume 2, pp. 1090-91)). “This (gever, rooster) for this (gever, man), this substitutes this, this is in exchange for this,” and he (the reader) returns it upon him once (swings it around his (the one seeking atonement’s) head one time) and says (psalms 107:10,14,17,19-21) “Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron…He brought them out of darkness and and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder…Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities are afflicted… Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble and He saves them out of their distress. He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. Oh, that men would praise the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men.” “Thou shalt give life for life”, (Exodus 21:23). And he (the reader) does this according to this order three times, and after this he lays his hand on the head of the rooster in the way of the Semikhah, putting the hands on it (the animal’s head before slaughtering) and slaughter it immediately after the Semikhah, and they customarily give it (the slaughtered rooster) to the poor so there would be atonement for his own soul (for the one who gives it).
That it was customary to throw the insides of it (the rooster) on the roof in order to give them to the birds, there is some proof (indication, justification) for this from the Talmud tractate Ḥulin (95a) 110a: “Rami b. Tamri… once happened to be in Sura on the Eve of Yom Kippur. When the townspeople took all the udders (Tur: Liver and Kidneys) (of the animals) and threw them away, he immediately went and collected them and ate them”.
In the Prayer Book Oẓar ha-Tefillot, אוצר התפילות Published by Sefer, New York, 1946, page 1089, there is an extensive, detailed note with Rashi’s (description of) the custom of the Kapparot ceremony on the Eve of Yom Kippur. Rashi already described this custom meaning it was a common practice during his time.
The Kapparot ceremony is not mentioned in the Talmud, only in Rashi. It is mentioned in Maḥzor Vitry by R. Shimḥa bar Samuel, a disciple of Rashi who quotes the ceremony from the Pesikta, פסקתא, but our text of the Pesikta does not have it. The first mention of the Kapparot ceremony is by the geonic Sheshna in Sha’are Teshuvot, Responsum 299, and by Natronai Gaon in Bet Nekhot ha-Halakhot 50a. paragraphs 15 and 16.” (atonement ceremony) on the Eve of Yom Kippur” - Containing one paragraph.
The custom regarding the “kapparah” (atonement ceremony) on the Eve of Yom Kippur by slaughtering a rooster for each male and to say biblical verses over it should be stopped.
Hagah: There are some geonim¹⁹Geonim, (singular gaon) is the formal title for the heads of the academies in Sura and Pumbedita in Babylonia from around the end of the sixth century until the middle of the eleventh century. The geonim were the highest Jewish authorities. In the tenth and eleventh centuries heads of academies in Ereẓ Israel were also called geonim. The geonic period proper ended in 1040. The heads of the academies in Baghdad, Damascus, and Egypt were also called geonim and later it became a term applied as an honor to any rabbi who had great toraitic knowledge.
It cannot exactly be determined when the term gaon came into use. Prior to its use generally the term rosh yeshivah shel golah, the head of the academy of the Diaspora, was used. The heads of these academies were appointed by the exilarchs, the political leaders of the Jewish people in exile. People rose to the office of gaon often through an hierarchy of offices, thus not always did the most learned reach the position. Often the office was used for political purposes by the exilarch. An assistant to the gaon was referred to as the av bet din. The position of gaon usually fell upon an elderly man who could only serve for a rather short period of time, and therefore did not always make a great impression.
Babylonia was the center of world Jewry and the Jews looked to the geonim as a source of instruction for Jews and also as the deciders of Jewish law. The geonim formed many new halakhic decisions which evolved in the Diaspora. They formulated takkanot or ordinances which altered Jewish law according to the new situations. The geonim and their academies were supported by taxes levied against the people for this purpose.
The halakhic decision of a gaon generally had the effect of law and it was binding. Due to the new situation which the Diaspora provided many halakhic decisions of the geonim were based on minhagim, or customs, that took on the force of a law (the principle under which Isserles operated). Their responsa to halakhic questions were followed as law. The goal of the gaon in the Diaspora was mainly to interpret the Babylonian Talmud for the Babylonian Jews and to lessen their emotional attachment to Ereẓ Israel. This created much political animosity between the Jews of Babylonia and those left in Ereẓ Israel. Since the major scholars of the time where exiled to Babylonia, the center of Jewish leadership was in the hands of the gaon for a long period of time, more than four centuries.
The goanate, though, did lose its power even though some of the greatest geonim were among the later ones. From the late ninth century onward, most of the geonim did not live in the cities of the academies, Sura and Pumbedita, they lived in Baghdad along with the exilarch. Competition between the two academies and political disagreements over the appointment of geonim lessened their effectiveness as did the rise of new academies and their leaders. Scholars stopped sending them halakhic questions preferring their own ability to arrive at a decision. Jewish communities outside of Babylonia began taking on independence from the original center of the Diaspora. As the caliphate in Baghdad weakened, financial support from other Jewish communities ceased for the Babylonian academies. The gaonate ended as an institution around 1040.
The religious leaders of Baghdad and later Ereẓ Israel took on the title of gaon after the fall of the gaonate in Babylonia. The position of the gaon in Ereẓ Israel was one passed on by heredity. The geonim in Ereẓ Israel had to manage all Jewish affairs in addition to heading the academy. They ordained rabbis, appointed judges, and managed the economic affairs of the Jews. The title of gaon finally spread to Damascus and Egypt where it eventually died out in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Simha Assaf and Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 7, pp. 315-24. who listed this custom (as a proper custom) and likewise many of the aḥronim listed it thusly. And likewise it is the custom in all these lands,^19aThe following is a comment to the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, found in the Turei Zahav Magen David, or for short the Taz by David ben Samuel ha-Levi who lived from 1586 until 1667. David ben Samuel was born in the Ukraine. He married the daughter of Joel Sirkes, the author of Bayit Ḥadash (see footnote 20b.) in whose yeshivah he studied. The commentary Turei Zahav is found to all four parts of the Shulḥan Arukh. It is not a running commentary, but includes discussions of various points found in the Tur of Jacob Asher (see footnote 23) and in the Talmud and its commentators. The Turei Zahav is found in the inside margin of the Oraḥ Ḥayyim section of the Shulḥan Arukh opposite the commentary of Abraham Abel Gumbiner called Magen Avraham (see footnote 33), which is a running commentary but which has a closer relationship to the material found in the Tur than it does to the Shulḥan Arukh;
Shmuel Ashkenazi, E. J., v. 5, pp. 1354-55.
605:1 - “And so is the custom in all these lands”: In the Tur, טור, (see footnote 23 and the translation to this section of the Tur found in footnote 18) are written the verses that are recited and the following verse is mentioned there (in addition to the verses found in Psalms 107:10,14,17,-21), “Thou shalt give life for life” (Exodus 21:23).. and it is not to be changed because it is a custom of the pious. It is customary to take a rooster for each male, and for each female (to) take a hen, (בית יוסף בשם תשב״ץ).²⁰Beit Yosef, in the name of Tashbaẓ, בית יוסף בשם תשב״ץ.
The Beit Yosef, בית יוסף, the companion work written by Joseph Caro (1488-1575) to the Shulḥan Arukh. Caro began writing the Beit Yosef in 1522 and completed it in 1542 in Safed. It was first published in 1555. The Beit Yosef followed the format of the four Turim established by Jacob b. Asher in his book by that title. Caro included in the Beit Yosef all the halakhic material in use during his time which included the talmudic sources and also the post-talmudic scholars which he used to reach an halakhic decision. Caro linked himself to the Turim and did not repeat halakhic material already cited in the Turim. Caro employed the method of determining halakhah by following the majority decision of his “three pillars of halakhic decisions”, Alfasi, Maimonides, and Asher b. Jehiel. If there was no majority decision by these three he consulted and decided according to the majority of another five scholars, Naḥmanides, Solomon b. Abraham Adret, Nissim Gerondi, Mordecai b. Hillel, and Moses b. Jacob of Coucy. If none of these men dealt with a particular law he decided according to the opinions of the majority of “famous” scholars. Caro consulted thirty-two works in his research. In this extensive work Caro created a book of Jewish law. He wanted to create then a companion book that would truly be a code. Therefore he wrote the Shulḥan Arukh which basically listed only the decisions that Caro reached in the Beit Yosef and not all the arguments and sources. The Shulḥan Arukh merely stated what the halakhah was and how it was practiced. (For a more extensive explanation of the Beit Yosef and how it fits into the broad scope of code literature, see the introduction to this work.)
Tashbaẓ, תשב״ץ, is an abbreviation for Teshuvot Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ, which is a collection of responsa in three parts by Simeon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran who was also known as the “Rashbaẓ”, an acronym for Rabbi Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ, who lived from 1361 until 1444. The Rashbaẓ was born in Spain and later moved to North Africa and settled in Algiers where he became a dayyan, a rabbinic judge and the Chief Rabbi of Algiers in 1408. The Rashbaẓ was against formulating strict decisions, ḥumrot, which did not have talmudical basis. He argued that one could be stringent with oneself but had to be lenient with others.
In his decisions he would exhaust all existing sources and discuss all opinions. His decisions became the authoritative laws of North African Jewry. His takkanot, his changes in the law, were followed for many centuries. He was often quoted by later halakhic scholars and was well respected. His writings were extensive and they included philosophical and liturgical works as well as halakhic literature.
Hirsch Jacob Zimmels, E. J., v. 6, pp. 302-06. For a pregnant woman to take two roosters^20aThe following is a comment found in the commentary to the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim Magen Avraham by Abraham Abele Gumbiner (see footnote 33): 605:2 - “Two roosters”: That is to say a rooster and a hen. Even if the embryo is female, one hen is enough for a mother and for her daughter, because two persons (of the same sex) are allowed to take one Kapparah (see footnote 18), (Levush, לבוש; which is a code whose entire name is Levush Malkhut, The work presents the laws found in the Beit Yosef of Joseph Caro (see footnote 20) in an abbreviated form. The Shulḥan Arukh appeared which was basically a digest of the larger Beit Yosef, but the Levush was completed so as to include the laws observed by the Ashkenazi Jews of Behemia. Mordecai ben Abraham Jaffe (1535-1612) wrote the Levush. He was born in Prague and studied under Solomon Luria and Moses Isserles. While he was writing the Levush he learned that Isserles was attempting the same goal he was to include the Ashkenazi laws in the Shulḥan Arukh so he put aside his work. When Jaffe received the glosses of his teacher Isserles he thought it was too brief and therefore he set about completing his Levush. There are ten levushim in all, five are devoted to the Beit Yosef and the other five to other works; Ephraim Kupfer, E. J., v. 9, pp. 1263-64). And this is the custom even with two persons, and this is the implied meaning at the end of chapter 12 in (the Talmud Tractate) Menaḥot. And Ashkenazi R. Isaac (who was called Adoneinu R. Yitzḥak by the Ḥasidim, referring to Isaac Luria the Kabbalist) prescribed that she take three (chickens), (Shenei Luḥot ha-Berit, של״ה, “Two Tablets of the Covenant”; which is an extensive halakhic work including homily and Kabbalah giving directions as to how to live an ethical life. The vast work contains two parts, the Derekh Ḥayyim contains laws according to the order of the festivals in the calendar, and the Luḥot ha-Berit summarizes the 613 commandments in the order in which they appear in the Bible. The work was written by Isaiah ben Abraham ha-Levi Horowitz who lived from around 1565 until 1630. He was born in Prague but lived and studied mostly in Poland. He later moved to Ereẓ Israel and lead the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem. He was greatly influenced by Kabbalistic works and philosophy which is evident in his writings; Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson E. J., v. 8, 990-994). for the possibility she might give birth to a male (infant). The (custom is to) chose white roosters^20bA commentary by Magen Avraham (see footnote 33): 605:3 - “White roosters”: Anyhow, one should not try to get only white (chickens), which is similar to the practice of the Amorites (meaning, idol worshippers). If there happens to be a white one available he should buy it, (Bayit Hadash, בית חדש; which is a critical and comprehensive commentary on the Arba’ah Turim of Jacob b. Asher (see footnote 23), where each law is traced to its talmudic source, and the development of the law through successive generations of interpretation is followed. The work was prompted by the over-reliance on codes, especially the Shulḥan Arukh for halakhic decisions, without using the basic sources. The work was written by Joel Sirkes who lived from 1561 until 1640. He was born in Lublin but came to be the head of the bet din, the rabbinical court, in Cracow where he also headed a yeshivah in 1619. He was an adherent of Kabbalah but he rejected kabbalistic practices when they were contrary to the halakhah; Max Jonah Routtenberg, E. J., v. 14, pp. 1619-20.). And if there is no chicken, he should buy another kind of animal, and there are those who say even fish (can be used), (Levush, לבוש, see footnote 20a.). It seems to me that one should not take a thing (an animal that was used) for the sacrificial cult like doves so that it should not appear that one sacrifices holy animals outside the Temple, see in the Tur, טור, (see footnote 23), and we find it in Shabbat 81b, in the Rashi, that it was a custom to take a pot with seeds and to swing it around one’s head on the Eve of Yom Kippur, and one says the words: “This is the exchange for me, the substitute for me, the atonement for me”, which is an abbreviation meaning, חת״ך, which is the name of an angel, (Darkei Moshe, ד״מ, see footnote 6, and Hagahot Minhagim, הגמ״נ, which are commentary notes on the Minhagim, see footnote 13).
The following is a comment found in the Turei Zahav, (see footnote 19a.): 605:2 - “And the (custom is to) chose white ones”; My father-in-law (meaning the Bayit Ḥadash, Joel Sirkes, see above), may his memory be blessed, wrote that this is a bit like the way of the Amorites (idol worshippers), even though this is (found in) the Maharil, מהרי״ל, (see footnote 8), it is possible that one should not ask for it intentionally, rather if (the white chicken) just happens to him thus (if he can buy a white one) he choses it, but to ask for a white chicken and to pay a higher price, this is the way of the Amerites (idol worshippers), and this (tradition) I received from my father (Samuel ha-Levi), may his memory be blessed.
I found written that one should say, “This is your exchange, your substitution, and your atonement” which is an abbreviation for חת״ך, which means God will cut (חתך) (or determine) life for every living thing. (Notice the difference between this comment and the one translated above by Magen Avraham on the same subject.)
The following is a comment by the Wilna Gaon, which supplies the sources for references made in the Shulḥan Arukh. It is found under the text of the Shulḥan Arukh under the title Beure ha-Gra, ביארי הגר״א: 605:1 - “That which they customarily do…”: Because of the way of the Amorites (idol worshippers); see in the Rashba, רשב״א, (Solomon ben Abraham Adret, see footnote 90), chapter 395. since it says “though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow,” (Isaiah 1:18). It was customary to give the atonement chickens to the poor or to redeem them^20cThe following is a comment by Magen Avraham, (see footnote 33): 605:4 - “Or to redeem (replace) them (the chickens) (with charity money…”: This is better so as not to embarrass the poor (Shenai Luḥot ha-Berit, של״ה, see footnote 20a., and Maharil, מהרי״ל, see footnote 8), (with the money they can buy their own food which is less embarrassing than accepting a chicken). (replace them) with charity money which is given to the poor (for sustenance), (מהרי״ל).²¹Maharil, מהרי״ל, Jacob ben Moses Moellin; see footnote 8. There are places where it is customary to visit the graves and to increase (the giving of) charity which is all a beautiful custom. It is necessary to slaughter the atonement chickens immediately after completing the ceremony and laying one’s hands^21aThe following is a comment by Turei Zahav, (see footnote 19a.): 605:3 - “And one lays his hands (on it, the chicken)…”: Even though this thing (this practice) appears in the Tur, טור, (see the translation of this section in footnote 18 and see footnote 23) in the name of the geonim (see footnote 19), it is very perplexing in my eyes since this appears as sacrificing animals and slaughtering them outside of the Temple. And even though the rooster is not proper as a sacrifice, since we found that it is a forbidden practice in chapter 469 (of the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim) concerning the matter of such meat for the Passover for which the Maharil, מהרי״ל, (see footnote 8) forbid even a rooster, and how much the more so here, where one does it explicitly as a sacrificial matter, that this fear is present (this consideration that it might be prohibited is present). This being so it is better to prevent this matter, (following the dictum to sit and not do it is better. (This expression, ושב ואל תעשה, is found in Erubim 100a: if by performing a mitzvah you might transgress a law, you should not do it. In a case of doubt do not do such a thing.) And so it seems to me in my humble opinion. on it like (it was done with) the Sacrifice²²The “laying of the hands” of the priest onto the animal that was sacrificed was part of the rite which transformed the animal from a mere profane animal into a holy sacrifice to God. Sacrifice from the biblical through the temple Period in Jerusalem was the way in which man communicated with God. Extensive rituals and practices developed around the sacrifice which was performed by the special priestly class, the cohanim. The main thrust behind a sacrifice was the fact that man was surrendering to God a living thing of some value to man. This brought out vividly the fact that all things man has on earth are given by God and ultimately God has complete control over man and all He has given to man. Special concern was placed on the blood of an animal sacrifice for dam, דם, blood, was the symbol of life. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life (that is in it)”, (Leviticus 17:11). The people were therefore forbidden to eat the blood of an animal since it belonged to God. The offering to God of a sacrifice had to be an animal which was owned by the person offering it and the animal had to be domesticated and proper for food. In other words, it had to have some worth. Work animals were excluded from this. An animal had to be at least eight days old and totally without blemishes, (Leviticus 22:17-25).
A very large portion of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch, is concerned with the extensive ritual, ceremony, and material that went into a sacrifice. Also different types of sacrifices were outlined for different purposes. The following are separate types of sacrifices present in the Bible: Propitiatory, both Sin and Guilt Offerings, Dedicatory, Burnt, Meal, Libation, Fellowship, Peace and Thanksgiving, Wave, Votive, Freewill, and Ordination Offerings.
During the period of the First and Second Temple, elaborate sacrificial services took place twice daily, Shaḥrit, Morning and Minḥah, Afternoon, along with special sacrifices for Sabbaths, festivals, and special circumstances.
Yom Kippur, being the holiest day of the year had associated with it a special and unique sacrificial atonement ritual. The Avodah, עבודה, which means literally “service” was the name applied to the ritual, during the Temple period, which was the central part of the Musaf, מוסף, additional, sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. With the Avodah, which is a poetical recounting of the Temple ritual, became the central part of the Musaf liturgy (see footnote 166) for the Day of Atonement. The ritual itself was based on the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus where the special sacrifical ritual for atonement is described. After the detailing of the ritual is completed, the Bible established that the tenth day of the seventh month (the tenth of Tishrei which today is considered the first month) would be set aside as a special Sabbath for the purpose of atonement, (Leviticus 16:29-31). The extensive details associated with the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement are described in the Talmud in tractate Yoma.
It was on Yom Kippur, and only on Yom Kippur, that the high priest would enter the very center of the Temple, the Holy of Holies. He had to make special preparations for this ritual. One week prior to the Day of Atonement, the high priest would begin living in a special apartment in the Temple court where he studied with the scholarly elders all the special laws of Yom Kippur. Another priest would also stand-by and study in case something happened to the high priest. The day prior to Yom Kippur the high priest would enter the Temple and perform all the minute details involved in a sacrifice along with the other priests who were used to sacrificing. The high priest rarely performed the regular daily sacrifices, he only functioned on special occasions. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest himself would perform all the sacred and sacrificial duties.
After proper cleansing for the Musaf, or Avodah Service the high priest would first sacrifice a bull as his own personal sin offering after which he would confess and purify the sins of his own family, those of the priests (the tribe of Aaron), and finally those of the whole congregation of Israel, (Leviticus 16:6). The high priest, in the Holy of Holies, would carefully sprinkle and dispose of the animal’s blood as was prescribed. It was at this time, and only at this time, that he would utter the holy name of God, the Tetragrammaton, יהוה, and when he uttered this the people outside would prostrate themselves and respond, “Blessed be His Name whose glorious kingdom is forever ever and ever.” This was repeated ten times according to the Babylonian Talmud, (Yoma 2:2) and thirteen times according to the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 3:7).
The high priest then drew lots, one marked for “Azazel” and the other marked as a “sin offering for the Lord”. Depending upon the drawing of the lots, two he-goats had different parts to play in the remaining ritual. The goat marked “for Azazel” would be lead out of the Temple into the wilderness called Azazel. This he-goat symbolically carried the sins of Israel away and was lost over a cliff in the wilderness along with Israel’s sins. A red ribbon which had been tied to the goat was brought back to the people to display to them that the goat had been lost in Azazel. The he-goat marked as a “sin offering for the Lord” was offered as such. This was followed by a special incense-offering and a prayer for good weather, prosperity, and the sovereignty of Judah, whereupon the high priest would come out from the Holy of Holies marking the end to the Avodah ritual.
The Avodah liturgy expanded in its development from simply a description of the Temple service and the reading of Mishna Yoma, chapters 1-7 to an elaborate service rich with special liturgical poems, piyyutim (see footnote 149), most of them acrostics, their beginning word following the alphabet. Different Jewish communities developed separate rites. Most rites contain a brief synopsis of the history of Israel and the purity of its early generations culminating in a description of the Temple ritual on the Day of Atonement and the Holy of Holies. Some communities and rites even still call for a prostration on the floor of the synagogue during the Avodah Service as was done at the Temple upon the prononciation of the Tetragrammaton.
Piyyutim also close the Avodah Service expressing the misfortune of Israel who, because of her sins, is deprived of the Temple and its sacrificial cult and must suffer persecution and exile. The piyyutim call for the reestablishment of the Temple, which is followed by the seliḥot (see footnote 14) prayers (penitential prayers of forgiveness) of the Musaf Service.
Anson Rainey, E. J., v. 14, pp. 599-602; Hanoch Avenary, E. J., v. 3, pp. 976-80.; and they (it is customary) throw their intestines on the roofs or in a courtyard, a place from where fowls are able to take (the intestines of the slaughtered chickens), (טור).²³Tur, טור, is the singular for the word Turim or the Arba’ah Turim, the four columns, the major halakhic work of Jacob ben Asher who lived from around 1270 until 1340. He was the son of a famous halakhic authority, Asher b. Jehiel, known as the “Rosh”. Jacob ben Asher studied under his father and moved with him from Germany to Toledo in 1303. His work on the Turim was the result of the fact that in his time there was no one halakhic work free from controversy. Different opinions were present and there were no clear and authoritative halakhic decisions. Jacob ben Asher wanted to compose a work which would include all the laws and customs which applied in his day. He divided his work into four sections or turim, “rows”. Part one was called Oraḥ Ḥayyim. It contains 697 chapters on the laws of blessings, prayers, Sabbaths, festivals, and fasts. The second part was called Yoreh De’ah. It contains 403 chapters on the laws of ritual, Issur ve-Hetter (that which was forbidden and that which was permitted), and laws of mourning, idolatry, and usury. Part three, Even ha-Ezer, has 178 chapters on the laws affecting women; marriage, divorce, wedding contracts (Ketubbah), and childless widowhood (ḥaliẓah). The fourth part, Ḥoshen Mishpat, contains 427 chapters on civil law and personal relations.
Jacob ben Asher used the Talmud and its commentaries as well as the opinions of other authorities before him. He usually decided according to the opinion of Maimonides and his father, Asher b. Jehiel. He did though differ with Maimonides on questions of faith and belief.
The Turim was first published in 1475 and it became a widely accepted halakhic code. Joseph Caro used it and its organization as the basis for the Beit Yosef and the Shulḥan Arukh. (For a treatment of the Arba’ah Turim in relation to other code literature, see the introduction to this thesis.)
Ephraim Kupfer, E. J., v. 9, pp. 1214-16.

The order of Torah reading on Sukkot: We take out two Torah scrolls. From the first we read "When an ox or lamb..." from Emor [Leviticus 22:27], and from the second we read the maftir from the section on mussaf sacrifices "On the fifth day of the seventh month" [Numbers 29:12]. The haftarah is from Zachariah "Behold a day is coming..." [14:1].