Halakhah su Levitico 6:78

Some have the custom to say the passage of the Laver (Exodus 30:17-21), and afterwards the passage of the removal of the ashes (Leviticus 6:1-6), and afterwards the passage of the continual-offering (Numbers 28:1-8), and afterwards the passage of the Incense Altar (Exodus 30:7-10) and the passage of the spices of the Incense and its preparation (Exodus 30:34-36).

Some have the custom to say the passage of the Laver (Exodus 30:17-21), and afterwards the passage of the removal of the ashes (Leviticus 6:1-6), and afterwards the passage of the continual-offering (Numbers 28:1-8), and afterwards the passage of the Incense Altar (Exodus 30:7-10) and the passage of the spices of the Incense and its preparation (Exodus 30:34-36).

One should recite along with the sacrifice passages the verse: "And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord...." (Leviticus 1:11).

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.

The head of the house breaks the bread in order to show that he’s being generous with all he has.⁷¹According to b. Berakhot 46a. And the guest leads the blessing after the meal in order to bless the head of the house. The one who breaks the bread is the first to extend his hand into the common serving plate. And if he wants to show respect for his teacher or someone greater than him in wisdom, it’s his choice. And when he breaks a piece from the loaf, he should break a piece from the side of the loaf that is baked the best, for this is amongst the choicest of mitzvot to evoke the name of heaven over it, as it is said about the grain offering [minhah] of the priest: “offer it as a meal offering of the best baked pieces,”⁷²Lev 6:14. Modern commentators are uncertain about the meaning of the Hebrew word tofini, which I have translated here as “best baked,” based on R. Bahya’s interpretation. See the following note. for which the Tractate Zevahim said, “the word tofini would be the nicest baked part.”⁷³B.Menahot 50b. I suspect the Talmud is treating the word tofini as if it were derived from both yafeh – “nice” or “pretty,” and ‘afah –“baked,” a good example of the “creative philology” typical of midrash.

The Torah (Vayikra 6:21) teaches the laws concerning vessels in the Beit Hamikdash which absorbed “taste particles” of korbanot (sacrifices), and what happens when these tastes become forbidden as notar (leftovers from an expired korban).¹For example, a vessel in which a korban chatat (sin offering) was cooked contains notar taste particles within its walls the morning after the korban was brought. Since it absorbed the taste particles from the korban, the same laws apply to the particles as would apply to an actual offering. Thus, when the korban becomes notar, the vessel also becomes forbidden. The vessel may not be used until the taste particles have been purged from it. The Torah teaches that metal utensils may have their notar taste particles purged by being placed in boiling hot water and subsequently being rinsed in cold water. Outside of the Temple, the rinsing is not necessary, although it is done anyway as a reminder of the customs that were performed in the Temple (see Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 76b s.v. Mikan, and Aruch Hashulchan, Orach Chaim 452:20). The Torah states that earthenware vessels that were used to cook korbanot must be destroyed. The Gemara (Pesachim 30b) states, based on this verse, that the flavor absorbed by an earthenware vessel can never be completely purged. Thus we see that metal can be kashered while earthenware generally cannot. The only way to kasher earthenware is by running it through a kiln (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 451:1). Rabbeinu Tam (Tosafot, Pesachim 30b s.v. Hatorah) explains that a kiln does not purge the taste particles, but it recreates the utensil into a new object (cheftza), which has never been used to cook a korban.²I heard Rav Moshe Tendler state that a self-cleaning oven can function as a kiln in this respect. According to Rav Tendler, a non-kosher earthenware dish may be kashered by staying inside an oven for an entire self-cleaning cycle (assuming that the intense heat does not break or damage the dish). Obviously this kashering procedure cannot be used to kasher a dishwasher, since there is no practical way to put a dishwasher into a kiln without destroying the dishwasher. I have heard that Rav Yosef Weiss disagrees with this ruling, arguing that a self-cleaning oven will only subject the dish to intense heat but not actual fire. See Teshuvot Avnei Neizer (Yoreh Deah 110) for a discussion whether libun works because of fire touching the dishes or because of the dishes being subjected to intense heat.

For example, R. David ibn Zimra, Teshuvot Radvaz, IV, no. 1,223, (152) addresses a situation involving a defendant who was ordered to swear a solemn oath affirming that he did not owe a sum of money and who was quite prepared to swear to that effect. The claimant, knowing that the oath would be false, queried whether he should allow the defendant to swear falsely or whether he should withdraw his claim. Radvaz responded that the claimant was under no obligation²⁵Cf., the concluding statement in Teshuvot Radvaz, I, no. 354, in which Radvaz reports that, when he had reason to suspect that a defendant would swear falsely, it was his practice to effect a compromise between the litigants and recommends that other judges adopt a similar policy. to absolve the defendant from the required oath.²⁶In this responsum Radvaz focuses upon the financial loss that would be incurred in preventing a false oath and remarks that one who assumes such loss is a “pious fool.” Cf., however, Rashi, Shevu’ot 39b, s.v. halah, and Tosafot, Shevu’ot 47b, s.v. halah, who aver that a plaintiff who has entrusted his funds to an unworthy person is not without blame. See also R. Chaim Palaggi, Nishmat kol Ḥai, II, no. 9, who declares that there is no obligation to accept financial loss in order to prevent transgression on the part of another. Cf., however, R. Chaim Hizkiyahu Medini, Sedei Ḥemed, Kelalim, ma’arekhet ha-heh, sec. 45 and ma’arekhet vav, sec. 30. See also, Teivat Goma, ḥakirah daled, cited by Pitḥei Teshuvah, Yoreh De’ah 157:5. Accepting that premise, R. Shimon ben Gamliel may well be understood as announcing the principle hal’itehu la-rasha only as justification for avoidance of a financial burden such as is entailed in redemption of kerem reva’i. See R. Shimon ha-Levi Gottlieb, Ateret Mordekhai, no. 8, sec. 2. See also infra, note 31.
Cf., R. Aaron Halberstam, Teshuvot Muẓal me-Esh, no. 45, who poses the question more generally in querying how it is ever possible to demand an oath since doing so is, in effect, “placing a stumbling block before the blind” and a person is obligated to sacrifice his entire fortune rather than transgress a negative commandment. Muẓal me-Esh responds cryptically by invoking the principle hal’itehu la-rasha. See also R. Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach, Teshuvot Minḥat Shlomoh, I, no. 7. That comment, however, begs the question in that it fails to spell out why hal’itehu la-rasha supersedes other halakhic principles. Cf. also, R. David Shlomoh Frankel, Teshuvot Be’er David, no. 24, who argues rather tenuously that, because of the general nature of the prohibition, avoidance of lifnei iver requires an outlay of funds no greater than required for fulfillment of a positive commandment. Cf., ibid., no. 3. The issue is also addressed by R. Amram Bloom, Teshuvot Bet She’arim, Yoreh De’ah, no. 17. R. Chaim Halberstam, Teshuvot Divrei Ḥayyim, Ḥoshen Mishpat, no. 8, asserts that it is permissible to demand an oath because of a statutory presumption that the defendant will not swear falsely. See also the comments of Imrei Barukh on Turei Even, Megillah 28a. Cf., the comments of R. Chaim ibn Attar, Or ha-Ḥayyim, Leviticus 19:11, to the effect that the plaintiff is forbidden to cause the defendant to swear if he knows that the latter is swearing falsely. Cf., Sedei Ḥemed, Kelalim, ma’arekhet ha-heh, sec. 45 and ma’arekhet vav, sec. 30.
For a discussion of the propriety of, and punishment for, causing a person to swear even a truthful oath see Midrash Rabbah, Leviticus 6:5; Tosafot, Shevu’ot 47b, s.v. halah; Sema, Ḥoshen Mishpat 87:1; and R. Moses Sofer, Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Ḥoshen Mishpat, nos. 73 and 90.

That is that He commanded us with the process of the meal-offering sacrifices, according to the description that is mentioned for each and every type. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "When a person offers a sacrifice of a meal-offering to the Lord [...]. And if your meal-offering is on a griddle [...]. And if your meal-offering is in a deep pan" (Leviticus 2:1, 5, 7). And He said with the completion of the process, "And that is the law of the meal-offering" (Leviticus 6:7). And the regulations of this commandment and most of its content is explained in Tractate Menachot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 13.)

That is that He commanded the priests to eat the remainders of the grain offerings. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "What is left of it shall be eaten by Aharon and his sons; it shall be eaten as matzot" (Leviticus 6:9). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tzav, Section 9:1-2) is, "'It shall be eaten' - is a commandment. Similar to this, 'her levirate husband shall come to her' (Deuteronomy 25:5) - is a commandment." This means to say that eating the remainders of the grain offerings is like the sexual intercourse of the levirate husband, which is a positive commandment and not just a permitted matter. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Menachot. And the language of the Torah about this commandment is specific to males - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Every male among the Children of Aharon may eat it" (Leviticus 6:11). (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 10.)

The laws of the commandment: That which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Menachot 52b) that all meal-offerings that are offered on top of the altar come [as] matsa, as we said. And so [too, that] the remainders of the meal-offerings that the priests eat are not eaten chamets - even though [the priests] are permitted to eat them with any food or with honey - as it is stated (Leviticus 6:10), "You shall not bake their portion chamets," and [included] in its understanding is [that] even their portion shall they not render chamets. And if he renders its remainders chamets, he is lashed. And we administer lashes for each and every doing within it. How is this? [If] he kneaded it chamets or set it up chamets or cut it up chamets or broke it up chamets or baked it chamets, he is lashed - as it is stated, "you shall not make chamets," "you shall not bake chamets," to make liable for a single action in making it chamets; [he is] liable for lashes. And we do not dampen wheat kernels of meal-offerings lest they become chamets (Rashi on Pesachim 36a). And nonetheless they, may their memory be blessed, said (Menachot 55a) that baked meal-offerings were kneaded in lukewarm water, and they would guard them that they not become chamets, as priests are alacritous. And leaven and honey are forbidden (forbid) with the smallest amount, as it is stated, "you shall not burn from it" - meaning to say, even the smallest amount. And he is not liable unless he burns them with the offering or for the sake of the offering (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Things Forbidden on the Altar 5:1). And it is one whether he burns them by themselves or their mixture - he is lashed (Menachot 58a). But if he burned them on their own for the sake of [fire]wood, he is exempted; as it is stated (Leviticus 2:12), "upon the altar they shall not be brought up as a pleasing smell" - for a pleasing smell you shall not bring up, but you may bring up for the sake of wood (Zevachim 76b). And the rest of its details are elucidated in Tractate Menachot.

The commandment of the lifting of the ashes: That the priest remove the ashes each and every day from on the altar - and this is what is called the lifting of the ashes (trumat hadeshen), which was done every day - as it is stated (Leviticus 6:3), "And the priest shall dress in linen, etc. and he shall lift the ashes."

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yoma 23b) that the lifting of the ashes is one of the services of the priesthood. But the priestly garments in which they would lift the ashes were lowlier than the vestments that he would use for the other services; as it is stated (Leviticus 6:4), "And he shall take off his clothes and wear other clothes." And even thought this verse was stated about the removal of the ashes to outside of the camp, nonetheless also with the lifting of the ashes – which is when he removes it from on the altar and puts it down on the floor next to the altar – we should learn that it also not fitting to do that service with those clothes in which he serves (otherwise). And it is said about this metaphorically (Shabbat 114a), "He should not mix the cup for his master with the clothes that he cooked the food for his master."

The commandment of lighting fire on the altar every day: To burn (some have the textual variant, to have) fire on the altar every day perpetually, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:6), "A perpetual fire shall burn on the altar." And the explanation of perpetual came [that] it means to say to place wood in the morning and in the afternoon. And in the elucidation, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yoma 21b), “Even though the fire descends from the Heavens, it is a commandment to bring [it also] from the commoners. And do not let it be difficult for you, to say, "What is this commandment – is it not that they, in any case, had to burn a fire for the sake of the sacrifice that they were obligated to bring, as it is impossible [to do so] without fire." As this is a commandment on its own; since besides the fire for the sacrifice, they would place fire on the altar for this commandment – and as they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Yoma 45a), there were three arrangements of fire [derived] from the verses, as we will write in the laws of this commandment.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said that even though the fire descended from the Heavens in the days of Moshe, it is a commandment to bring [it] from the commoners, as it is stated (Leviticus 1:7), "And the sons of Aharon shall place fire, etc." And (Mishnah Tamid 2) they would set up wood in the morning and make a large arrangement of wood at the top of the altar, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:5), "and the priest would burn wood each morning." And besides the wood that was set up in the arrangement, it was a commandment upon the priest to bring up two blocks of wood, as it is stated, "and the priest would burn wood (etsim, which is plural)" - and the minimum of etsim is two. And so [too,] would they add two blocks of wood with the daily afternoon sacrifice; and two priests would bring them up, as it is stated, "and they shall set up" - but [for that] of the morning, [it was only] one priest.

And they would make three arrangements of fire on the altar every day. The first one was large, [and] upon it were the daily sacrifice and the other sacrifices offered; the second one on its side was smaller than it, [and] the fire was taken from it in the censer to burn the incense every day; and the third arrangement did not have anything upon it, so as to fulfill the commandment of the fire, as it is stated, "A perpetual fire shall burn, etc." (Yoma 43b). And there are three passages about the topic, which instruct about these three arrangements, as we learned from the tradition. As they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yoma 45b), "'Upon its burning' (Leviticus 6:2), that is the large arrangement; 'and the fire of the altar shall burn upon it' (Leviticus 6:2), that is the second arrangement of the incense; 'And the fire of the altar shall burn upon it' (Leviticus 6:5), that is the third arrangement for the fulfillment of the fire." And the rest of its details are elucidated in the fourth chapter of Yoma and the second of Tamid.

And they would make three arrangements of fire on the altar every day. The first one was large, [and] upon it were the daily sacrifice and the other sacrifices offered; the second one on its side was smaller than it, [and] the fire was taken from it in the censer to burn the incense every day; and the third arrangement did not have anything upon it, so as to fulfill the commandment of the fire, as it is stated, "A perpetual fire shall burn, etc." (Yoma 43b). And there are three passages about the topic, which instruct about these three arrangements, as we learned from the tradition. As they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yoma 45b), "'Upon its burning' (Leviticus 6:2), that is the large arrangement; 'and the fire of the altar shall burn upon it' (Leviticus 6:2), that is the second arrangement of the incense; 'And the fire of the altar shall burn upon it' (Leviticus 6:5), that is the third arrangement for the fulfillment of the fire." And the rest of its details are elucidated in the fourth chapter of Yoma and the second of Tamid.

To not extinguish the fire upon the altar: To not extinguish the fire upon the altar, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:6), "A perpetual fire shall burn on the altar, it shall not be extinguished."

The commandment of eating the remainders of the meal-offering: That the priests were commanded to eat the remainders of the meal-offerings - meaning to say after they separated from it that which they would offer on the altar, they would eat all the rest, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:9), "What is left of it shall be eaten by Aharon and his sons; as matsahs shall it be eaten, etc." And the language of Sifra, Tzav 2:9 is "'As matsahs shall it be eaten' is a commadmeent; 'her levirate husband shall have sexual relations with her' (Deuteronomy 25:5) is a commandment" - meaning to say that both of them are positive commandments, not optional.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Menachot 72b) that all of the meal-offerings that were offered on the altar were skimmed - and the skimming was completely incinerated on the altar, and the rest was eaten by the priests - except for the meal offering of the males of the priesthood, which ia not skimmed, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:16), "And every meal-offering of a priest shall be whole; it shall not be eaten." It comes out that the inauguratory meal-offerings and the griddled ones, and a priest that brought a sinner's meal-offering or a voluntary meal-offering - [all these offerings] were burnt on the altar and not skimmed. The meal-offering of a priestess (Sotah 23a) is skimmed and its remnants are eaten; as we say, it is specifically a priest [that is stated by the Torah], and not a priestess. And the rest of its details are elucidated in Menachot (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sacrificial Procedure 10).

And it is practiced at the time of the [Temple] by the males of the priesthood, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:11), "Every male of the Children of Aharon shall eat it." [If] he transgressed and did not eat it, he has violated this positive commandment.

To not make the remainders of the meal-offering chamets (leavened): To not cook the remainders of the meal-offerings [to make them] chamets - and that is the portion of the meal-offerings that is of the priests - as it is stated (Leviticus 6:10), "It shall not be baked chamets, their portion have I given it of my fire-offerings." And it is as if it said, "Their portion - which is the remainders of the meal-offering - you shall not bake chamets." And in the explanation, they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Mishnah (Menachot 55a), "And they are liable for its baking [to make it] chamets."

The commandment of the daily meal-offering of the high priest: That we were commanded that the high priest offer a daily meal-offering twice - in the morning and in the afternoon - as it is stated (Leviticus 6:13), "This is the sacrifice of Aharon and his sons that they shall bring to the Lord, etc." And it is what is called the grilled ones of the high priest, and it is also called the meal-offering of the anointed priest (so is it [written] in the Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 40).

To not eat the meal-offering of the priest: To not eat of the meal-offering of the priest, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:16), "And every meal-offering of a priest shall be whole; it shall not be eaten."

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Menachot 72b) [that] all of the meal-offerings that were offered on the altar were skimmed - and the skimming was completely incinerated on the altar, and the rest was eaten by the priests - except for the meal offering of the males of the priesthood, which is not skimmed, but we rather incinerate it completely, as it is stated (Leviticus 6:16), "And every meal-offering of a priest shall be whole; it shall not be eaten." We have learned from here that the inauguratory meal-offerings and the griddled ones, and a priest that brought a sinner's meal-offering or a voluntary meal-offering - all these [offerings] were burnt on the altar and not skimmed, as we said above in this order (Sefer HaChinukh 134). And the content of skimming is that the priest take from the flour with his handful - meaning to say with the tips of his fingers - in the way that any man skims: That he extends the palm of his hand and skims with the tips of his fingers (Menachot 11a) - meaning to say that his fingers cling to the palm and he does not hold much flour. But if he adds upon the handful, such as [if] he widened his fingers and [then] skimmed, he disqualified [it]. And the rest of the details of the commandment are in Menachot.

The commandment of the procedure of the sin-offering: That we were commanded that the priests process the sin-offering in the manner that is mentioned in Scripture - whatever sin-offering it should be of a beast or fowl - as it is stated (Leviticus 6:18), "This is the law of the sin-offering."

To not eat from the meat of the sin-offerings processed inside: To not have the priests eat from the meat of the sin-offerings inside - meaning to say from those sin-offerings that were sprinkled on the inner altar that was in the Sanctuary, as it stated (Leviticus 6:23), "And any sin-offering the blood of which is brought to the tent of meeting to atone in the Holy shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire." And the language of Sifra, Tzav 5:4 [is] "'It shall be burned with fire' - anything that requires burning, to [make] transgress a negative commandment for its eating." The matter is well-known [and famous] and explicit in the verses [that] all the sin offerings the blood of which required sprinkling inside - meaning to say, on the altar that was in the Sanctuary - were burned. And all the sin-offerings the blood of which was only sprinkled on the altar outside, were eaten. And about this is this verse stated, such that they not eat from any sin-offering, the law of which is with burning. And the details of the sin-offerings - which of them are burned and which of them are eaten is explicit in Scripture. And that which is not elucidated well in the verses is explained to us by our Sages, may their memory be blessed, in Zevachim. We have already said (Sefer HaChinukh 138), that we do not have any involvement in the details of the sacrifices. And this too - if it is eaten or if it is not eaten - is from their details.

He prohibited us from eating blood. And that is His saying, "And you shall not eat any blood" (Leviticus 6:26). And the prohibition about it has already been repeated [several] times. And the explanation that it is [punished] with excision which is in Scripture is His saying, "whoever eats it shall be excised" (Leviticus 17:14) - if it was volitional. But if inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 5 of Keritot. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 6.)

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).

He prohibited the destruction of male sexual organs of any animal species that it may be. And regarding this, there is no difference between man and others besides him. And that is His saying - after He said, "And [an animal that has its testicles] crushed, mangled, torn or cut, etc." - "and in your land you shall not do [so]" (Leviticus 22:24). And the explanation comes (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7:11) [that this is also [for a man] - "and in you (uvachem" - a combination of the first two letters and the last two letters of "uvearzechem"). And one who transgresses this negative commandment - meaning to say, one who castrates a being from any of the species - is lashed. And in the chapter [entitled] Shmoneh Sheratzim (Shabbat 110b), they said, "From where [do we know] about castration of people? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in your land (uvearzechem) you shall not do [so]' - and in you (uvachem), you shall not do so." And one is even liable for castration after castration: "As Rabbi Chiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Everyone agrees that one who leavens [a meal-offering] after it is leavened is liable - as it is stated, 'It shall not be baked leavened' (Leviticus 6:10); and, 'it shall not be made with leaven' (Leviticus 2:11). [And likewise] that one who castrates after one who castrates is liable - as it is stated, 'And [an animal that has its testicles] crushed, mangled, torn or cut, shall not be offered to the Lord, and in your land you shall not do [so].' If one is liable when it is cut; when it is detached, is he not all the more so liable? Rather, it is to include that one who detaches, after one who cuts, is liable." And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in [various] places in Shabbat and Yevamot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 9.)