Halakhah su Levitico 2:18

It is good to recite the passage of the Binding (Genesis 22:1-19), the passage of the Manna (Exodus 16:4-36), the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-13), and the passages of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:1-17), tribute-offering (Leviticus 2:1-13), peace-offering (Leviticus 3:1-17), sin-offering (Vayikra 4:27-35), and guilt-offering. Rem"a: But only in private is it permissible to recite the Ten Commandments each day: it is forbidden to recite them in congregation (Rashb"a Responsum 144).

It is good to recite the passage of the Binding (Genesis 22:1-19), the passage of the Manna (Exodus 16:4-36), the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-13), and the passages of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:1-17), tribute-offering (Leviticus 2:1-13), peace-offering (Leviticus 3:1-17), sin-offering (Vayikra 4:27-35), and guilt-offering. Rem"a: But only in private is it permissible to recite the Ten Commandments each day: it is forbidden to recite them in congregation (Rashb"a Responsum 144).

However, regarding the matter of lashes, there is a difference between [the examples]. As all those [simply] specified in one negative commandment only receive one [set of] lashes - for example, "the wage of a harlot and the price of a dog"(Deuteronomy 23:19); and "leaven and [...] honey" (Leviticus 2:11); "the case of a stranger [or] an orphan" (Deuteronomy 24:17), and all that is similar to them. But the negative commandments that [also] have a general category and are specified at the beginning or end [of the category] - for example, this negative commandment that specified "uncooked and boiled" and is [then] generalized, "Do not eat [...] but only roasted with fire"; and so [too], with a nazerite (Numbers 6:4), "from anything that is obtained from the grapevine [...] may he not eat," and afterwards it specifies, "seeds [...] or skin," ('and grapes wet and dry,' Numbers 6:3) - with these and those similar to them, we give lashes for each and every one. [This is] because the inclusion of the specification that was not needed, indicates lashes for each one [of them], as we have said. And the teacher was prolific in his proofs about this in the ninth shoresh in his Book of the Commandments - that the calculation of commandments is not the same as the calculation of [which commandments require] lashes [independently]. And that which I have said that Ramban, may his memory be blessed, will count each of the ones specified by their names individually - each one by itself - only when they are separate in their content, as we have written; [it] is, for example, [in the case of] 'leaven and honey,' [and] 'the wage and the price.' But in a case where it is the same content - even if they are specified by different names - they are only counted as one commandment. For example, "All male first-borns that are born in your herd and in your flock" (Deuteronomy 15:19) is only one commandment to sanctify all of the first-borns; and the specification is [also] only one commandment. And so [too], "All tithes of the herd or flock" (Leviticus 27:32) is only one commandment to separate to give the tithes of these animals. And so [too], "Judges and officers" (Deuteronomy 16:18) is only that we should establish justice through these people and it is one commandment. And so [too], "An honest balance, honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin" (Leviticus 19:36) is all one commandment, that we should not lie about measures.

The second type is when one negative commandment comes to forbid several matters that are connected to one another - and that is that He says, "Do not do such and such." And this type is divided into two divisions. For included in it is that about which they said in the Talmud, that he is liable for lashes on each and every one of the connected matters. But [also] included in it is that about which they said that he is only liable once, since it is a general negative commandment. And those negative commandments about which they explained that one is liable for each and every one of them - they are the ones that we count each and every one as a separate commandment; whereas that about which they explained that one is only liable once for all of them is counted as a single commandment. This is according to that which we established in this principle - that under no circumstances is one given two [sets of] lashes for one negative commandment . So when, in the explanation, they made one liable for each and every connected matter - to give lashes for each and every one of them when they were all done at once, to give several [sets of] lashes - we perforce know that they are several categories; and that each one should be counted separately. And I will mention several examples from both divisions until the intended matter becomes totally clear. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, about the lamb of the Pesach sacrifice, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in any way with water" (Exodus 12:9) - a negative commandment, which we count as one commandment. And we don't count, do not eat it raw, as one commandment; and do not eat it boiled, as another commandment. For He did not specify a separate negative commandment for each matter, to say "Do not eat any of it raw; and not boiled in any way" - but rather one negative commandment came to include both matters; and the one matter was appended to the other. And in the second chapter of Pesachim (Pesachim 41b), they said, "Abbaye said, 'If he ate it raw, he is given two [sets of] lashes; raw and boiled, he is given three." And that is because he holds that we give [distinct sets of] lashes for general negative commandments. So when he ate it raw, he transgressed two negative commandments: One of them is, "Do not eat any of it raw"; and the second [set of] lashes is from the general principle - as He is saying, do not eat it when it is not roasted, and he has already eaten it when it is not roasted. And according to his opinion, when he eats it raw and boiled, he gets three [sets of lashes] - one because he ate it raw; the second because he ate it boiled; and the third because he ate it when it was not roasted. And over there, they said about this statement, "But Rava said, 'One does not receive lashes for a general negative commandment.' Some say, at any rate, one [set of] lashes he does receive. And some say he does not receive even one [set of] lashes, as the negative commandment he transgressed is not specific to it, as is the negative commandment against muzzling." That means to say, like that which He, may be exalted, said (Deuteronomy 25:4), "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing" - which is one negative commandment that prohibits one matter. However for this negative commandment, which prohibits two things - raw and boiled - we do not give lashes. And you already know that it was clarified in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 63a), that we do not give lashes for a general negative commandment. And hence the statement of Abbaye is rejected; and the truth is that he is given one [set of] lashes: Whether he ate any of it raw and boiled, [just] raw or [just] boiled, he is only given one [set of] lashes. And so we shall count His, may He be exalted, saying, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled," as one commandment. And there, it is also stated, "Abbaye said, '[If a nazirite] ate a grape skin, he receives two [sets of lashes]; a grape pit, he receives two; a grape skin and a grape pit, he receives three. But Rava said, 'One does not receive lashes for a general negative commandment'" - meaning to say, "from anything that is obtained from the grapevine" (Numbers 6:4), for which Abbaye thinks we give lashes. And they also said in the fifth chapter of Menachot (Menachot 58b), "One who offers leaven and honey on the altar - Abbaye says, 'He receives lashes on account of leaven; he receives lashes on account of honey; he receives lashes on account of a mixture of leaven; and he receives lashes on account of a mixture of honey'" - meaning to say that His saying (Leviticus 2:11), "any," is including two things: That he not offer it by itself; and that he not offer a mixture of it, whatever the quantity [of what is mixed with it] may be. And this is all according to the principle of his approach - as he holds that we give [distinct sets of] lashes for general negative commandments. And it is stated there, "But Rava said, 'One does not receive lashes for a general negative commandment.' Some say, at any rate, one [set of] lashes he does receive. And some say he does not receive even one set of lashes, as the negative commandment he transgressed is not specific to it, as is the negative commandment against muzzling."

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.

It is a mitzvah to have salt on the table before breaking the bread and to dip the piece of bread over which Hamotzi was said, into the salt. The reason for this is that the table is compared to the Altar [in the Holy Temple] and the food symbolizes the offering, and it is said (Leviticus 2:13): "On all your offerings you shall offer salt." And because the table is compared to the Altar, it is best to take care not to kill any vermin [or other insects] on it.

That is that He commanded to offer the grain offering of the omer. And that is the grain offering of barley on the sixteenth day of Nissan. And with it, we offer an unblemished year-old lamb. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "you shall bring the omer, etc." (Leviticus 23:10). This grain offering is what is called, "first fruits." And He hinted to it in His, may His name be blessed, saying, "And if you offer an offering of first fruits" (Leviticus 2:14). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:22:1) is, "Every, if, in the Torah connotes optionality, except for three which are obligatory. One is, 'And if you offer an offering of first fruits.' You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional. [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall offer the offering of your first fruits.' It is obligatory, not optional." And the regulations of this commandment have already all been completely explained in the tenth chapter of Menachot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 17.)

The commandment of the meal-offering (mincha): To execute the procedure of the meal offering in the matter that is mentioned in the Torah in its sections, as it is stated (Leviticus 2:1), "And if a soul offers a meal-offering," and it is written (Leviticus 2:5), "If it is a meal-offering on a griddle," and it is written further (Leviticus 2:6), "If it is a meal-offering in a pan."

The commandment of the meal-offering (mincha): To execute the procedure of the meal offering in the matter that is mentioned in the Torah in its sections, as it is stated (Leviticus 2:1), "And if a soul offers a meal-offering," and it is written (Leviticus 2:5), "If it is a meal-offering on a griddle," and it is written further (Leviticus 2:6), "If it is a meal-offering in a pan."

The commandment of the meal-offering (mincha): To execute the procedure of the meal offering in the matter that is mentioned in the Torah in its sections, as it is stated (Leviticus 2:1), "And if a soul offers a meal-offering," and it is written (Leviticus 2:5), "If it is a meal-offering on a griddle," and it is written further (Leviticus 2:6), "If it is a meal-offering in a pan."

And these are all the types of meal-offerings that they would offer at the time of the [Temple] that come on their own - meaning to say that they do not come as meal-offerings of libations, meaning in the context of another sacrifice: There are three meal-offerings that come for the sake of the entire community and they are (Menachot 68b) the omer of Pesach, the two breads of [Shavouot] and the bread of display of each Shabbat - and the three of them are called, 'mincha.' And there are nine of the individual and these are them: 1) The meal-offering of a sinner - and that is the meal-offering that a poor person offers when he is liable for a sin-offering, but his hand does not reach [a more expensive sacrifice]; 2) the meal-offering of the sotah, which is the meal-offering of jealousy that is written in Parshat Nasso (Numbers 5:15); 3) the meal-offering that every priest offers when he enters the service that he offers in his hand, and this is called the meal-offering of inauguration; 4) the meal-offering that the high priest offers every day, and it is called the griddled meal-offering; 5) the meal-offering of fine flour, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 6) the meal-offering of the griddle, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 7) the meal-offering of the pan, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 8) the oven-baked meal-offering that is loaves, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 9) the oven-baked meal-offering that comes soaked in oil, and it comes as an oath or a vow. From these meal-offerings, some of them are fine wheat flour and some are barley; some of them are eaten by the priests except for the handful and some are all burnt. And one of them is chamets and that is the two breads of the day of Shavouot, as they are also called 'mincha,' but they are not offered on top of the altar. And it was not stated in the Torah about the two breads, when it more generally forbade, "Any meal-offering that you offer to the Lord, you shall not make chamets" (Leviticus 2:11). [Rather,] it specified these and excluded them from the rule. And about them is it stated there (Leviticus 2:12), "A first sacrifice shall you bring them to the Lord" - meaning to say, with these I did not prohibit chamets to you. And nonetheless, they would not go up on the altar, since there was chamets in them, and as it is stated about them, "upon the altar they shall not be brought up as a pleasing smell." And all of the rest was matsa. And the order of their bringing was thus (Sotah 14b): A man brings fine flour from his house in a vessel of silver or gold or of [another] metal and carries it to the priest; and the priest carries it to the altar, [he] skims a handful from it with the tips of his fingers and incinerates the handful; and the rest is eaten by the priests. This is the order of those eaten. And the order of those burned; the processes done with meal-offerings by non-priests and those done [only] by priests; and the rest of its details are elucidated in the tractate that is built upon this, and that it Tractate Menachot.

And these are all the types of meal-offerings that they would offer at the time of the [Temple] that come on their own - meaning to say that they do not come as meal-offerings of libations, meaning in the context of another sacrifice: There are three meal-offerings that come for the sake of the entire community and they are (Menachot 68b) the omer of Pesach, the two breads of [Shavouot] and the bread of display of each Shabbat - and the three of them are called, 'mincha.' And there are nine of the individual and these are them: 1) The meal-offering of a sinner - and that is the meal-offering that a poor person offers when he is liable for a sin-offering, but his hand does not reach [a more expensive sacrifice]; 2) the meal-offering of the sotah, which is the meal-offering of jealousy that is written in Parshat Nasso (Numbers 5:15); 3) the meal-offering that every priest offers when he enters the service that he offers in his hand, and this is called the meal-offering of inauguration; 4) the meal-offering that the high priest offers every day, and it is called the griddled meal-offering; 5) the meal-offering of fine flour, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 6) the meal-offering of the griddle, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 7) the meal-offering of the pan, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 8) the oven-baked meal-offering that is loaves, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 9) the oven-baked meal-offering that comes soaked in oil, and it comes as an oath or a vow. From these meal-offerings, some of them are fine wheat flour and some are barley; some of them are eaten by the priests except for the handful and some are all burnt. And one of them is chamets and that is the two breads of the day of Shavouot, as they are also called 'mincha,' but they are not offered on top of the altar. And it was not stated in the Torah about the two breads, when it more generally forbade, "Any meal-offering that you offer to the Lord, you shall not make chamets" (Leviticus 2:11). [Rather,] it specified these and excluded them from the rule. And about them is it stated there (Leviticus 2:12), "A first sacrifice shall you bring them to the Lord" - meaning to say, with these I did not prohibit chamets to you. And nonetheless, they would not go up on the altar, since there was chamets in them, and as it is stated about them, "upon the altar they shall not be brought up as a pleasing smell." And all of the rest was matsa. And the order of their bringing was thus (Sotah 14b): A man brings fine flour from his house in a vessel of silver or gold or of [another] metal and carries it to the priest; and the priest carries it to the altar, [he] skims a handful from it with the tips of his fingers and incinerates the handful; and the rest is eaten by the priests. This is the order of those eaten. And the order of those burned; the processes done with meal-offerings by non-priests and those done [only] by priests; and the rest of its details are elucidated in the tractate that is built upon this, and that it Tractate Menachot.

To not offer leaven or honey: To not offer leaven or honey on top of the altar, as it is stated (Leviticus 2:11), "for any leaven and any honey you shall not burn from it as a fire to the Lord." And the prevention is repeated at the beginning of the verse, as it is stated, "Any meal-offering that you offer to the Lord, you shall not make chamets." And honey is a general name for the well-known honey, as well as for the honey of dates - which is the undifferentiated honey of the Torah - and also for the sap that exudes from [other] sweet fruits. And included in "you shall not burn," is also not to put from it into the filling of the incense. And [it is] as the incense-makers say, "Honey is good for incense, but the Torah forbade it."

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.

To not offer a sacrifice without salt: To not suppress salt from upon the sacrifice or upon the meal-offering; meaning to say that the priests not offer any sacrifice or any meal-offering unless they place salt in them, as it is stated (Leviticus 2:13), "you shall not suppress the salt of your covenant with God from your meal-offering." And it is also written (there), "upon all your offerings you shall offer salt."

The commandment of salting the sacrifice: To offer salt on all of the sacrifices; meaning to say, that he place salt in the meat of the sacrifice and so [too,] in the flour of the meal-offerings, as it is stated (Leviticus 2:13), "upon all your offerings you shall offer salt."

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed said (Menachot 20a) that all the sacrifices are salted before they go up to the altar. And you do not have anything that approached the altar without salt, except for the libations, blood and wood. And this thing is a tradition and it does not have a [source in] Scripture. And if he transgressed and sacrificed without salt, the sacrifice is fit and acceptable - except for the meal-offering, [for which] the salt impedes it. As about it is it stated explicitly (Leviticus 2:13), "you shall not suppress the salt of your covenant with God from your meal-offering." And the rest of its details are elucidated in Sifra and in [various] places in Menachot (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Things Forbidden on the Altar 5:11).

From the laws of the commandment is, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Menachot 56a) that one who renders it chamets after [another has already] rendered it chamets is liable; and one who renders a disqualified meal-offering chamets is exempt, as it is stated (Leviticus 2:11), "that you shall offer to the Lord, you shall not make chamets" - one that is proper for God and not one that is disqualified. [If] he rendered it chamets on top of the altar, he is not lashed, as it is stated, "that you shall offer to the Lord, you shall not make chamets" - and this one was already offered. And the rest of its details are elucidated in Chapter Five of Menachot.

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).

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

He prohibited 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.)