Halakhah sobre Levítico 2:11

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."

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."

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).

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.)