diff --git "a/json/Halakhah/Sifrei Mitzvot/Sefer HaMitzvot/Sefer HaMitzvot/English/merged.json" "b/json/Halakhah/Sifrei Mitzvot/Sefer HaMitzvot/Sefer HaMitzvot/English/merged.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Halakhah/Sifrei Mitzvot/Sefer HaMitzvot/Sefer HaMitzvot/English/merged.json" @@ -0,0 +1,2018 @@ +{ + "title": "Sefer HaMitzvot", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Sefer_HaMitzvot", + "text": { + "Introductions": { + "Translator's Introduction": [], + "The Rambam's Introduction": [ + "Since we have already put out the famous composition that we called the Commentary on the Mishnah - and it was our intention in that composition to briefly explain the law from the Mishnah, but our intention was not to be exhaustive in the laws of each commandment, nor to bring all that is necessary about what is forbidden or permissible and obligated or exempt, as is clear to one who carefully studies that composition - I have also seen fit to write a composition that includes all of the laws of the Torah and their regulations, such that nothing be missing from it. And in it, I will follow my custom of leaving out mention of disagreements and rejected statements. Rather, I will only bring the final law. This composition will include all of the laws of Moshe's Torah - those that are necessary during the time of exile and those that are not necessary. I have also found it proper to remove the lengthiness and authority [involved] in mentioning those that possessed traditions, such that I will not say, \"these are the words of Rabbi x,\" or \"Rabbi y says this and that\" about each statement. Rather I will more generally mention the sages of the Mishnah and the sages of the Talmud, peace be upon them, at the beginning of the composition. I will mention that all of the regulations of the Torah - and that is the oral (orally transmitted) Torah - were passed down from x and from y, up until Ezra and up until our teacher, Moshe. And with each and every one, I will mention those that received it from him. All of this is for the sake of brevity. And I also saw fit not to write it in the parlance of the books of prophecy (Biblical Hebrew), because that parlance is too limited, in order for us to use it in explaining all the content of the laws. And I will also not write it in the parlance of the Talmud, since only a few among the people of our nation would understand it; and since some of its words are foreign or difficult even for those who are experts in Talmud. Rather I will write it in the parlance of the Mishnah, in order to make it simpler for most people. In it, I will include everything that has been certified and clarified about the Torah's words - such that there not be any imperative question missing, which I will not address or not [at least] address the root from which the question stems, [so that it can be seen] quickly without [requiring] in-depth study. For my intention in this is both brevity and completeness; such that everything be found in it that is found in the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Sifra, the Sifrei and the Tosefta - and that which the later Geonim deduced, clarified and explained - about that which is forbidden or permissible, impure or pure, disqualified or fit, obligated or exempt, requiring payment or not requiring payment and requiring an oath or being exempted from an oath. In general, [it will be written so] that in order to know any matter from the Torah that one needs - whether from the Torah [itself] or rabbinic - he not need any other book after the Torah besides it.", + "And once I had the intention of this purpose in mind, I gave thought to which way I should divide this composition and its sections. Would it be more fitting if I divided it according to the division of the Mishnah and let its approach suffice? Or should I divide it differently and arrange its sequence according to what is required for its analysis, so it would lend itself more easily to study? And it appears to me that it would be best for its division to be according to the various laws instead of the tractates of the Mishnah - such that one would say, the Laws of the Sukkah; the Laws of Tefillin; the Laws of of Tzitzit; and the Laws of the Mezuzah - and that I divide the topic into chapters and laws, as is done in the Mishnah. So, by way of illustration, there would be a first, second and third chapter in the Laws of Tefillin; and each chapter would be divided into laws. In this way, one who so desires may more easily memorize it or call up an item from memory. And it is clear that since the division is in this way - whether it is a positive or negative commandment, it would not be fitting to divide its laws into two topics. Rather anything that needs to be subdivided will be included in [different] chapters within that category. So sometimes there will be several commandments within one category - whether because one topic unites them or whether because the commandments have the same intent. So, for example, when I speak about idolatry, I will call the category, the Laws of Idolatry and I will attach many laws of many commandments to it: The inciter and the instigator; one who passes another to Molekh; one who prophesies in its name; one who worships it; and other commandments besides this that pertain exclusively to idolatry. And likewise when I discuss the laws of prohibitions of the altar, I will speak about leaven and honey; animals with defects; the wage of a prostitute and the sale revenue of a dog; and that which is similar to them in this category. For all of these commandments have one thing which unifies them, and that is that they are all things that are forbidden as sacrifices.", + "And because of this intention, I came to the conclusion and saw fit that I first write a list of all the commandments - both positive and negative - at the beginning of the book before I divide the book into their categories, so that no commandment escape without completing the discussion of its laws: Whether a specific discussion like that of sukkah or lulav or tzitzit - for each one of these warrant a specific discussion - or whether within a category of commandments like those which we mentioned. In that case - after we have mentioned [the category] - we shall say that these laws of idolatry have x positive commandments and these and those are them; and y negative commandments and these and those are them. All of this is to make sure that no matter is absent from [the composition], such that I not speak about it. And by mentioning all of the commandments by number, I will be sure about this.", + "But after I decided about this matter and began my efforts to write this book and mention all of the commandments plainly at the beginning of the book - according to their count - I was disturbed by a root issue that has been on my mind for many years. And that is that those that have listed the commandments have confused many matters, such that I cannot even recount the greatness of their disgrace. For all who begin to list them or to write a book that speaks about this intent are all drawn after the words of the author of the Halakhot Gedolot (Behag). And they all only differed from his approach a tiny bit in their counts, as if they were all frozen in front of this man's word. This is so much the case that I saw that the author of the famous Sefer HaMitzvot (of Rav Chefetz Gaon) noticed a small part of the confusion of the Behag and pushed away the counting - which the Behag had done - of visiting the sick and comforting the mourners; yet while what he pushed off was indeed off, he himself added things that were even further off. Moreover, he followed him in things that were worse, as will be clear to the one who studies our essay here. And God, may He blessed, knows, and His testimony is enough, that all that I have seen about their confusion - that they count things that one can see are not fit to be counted from the very first observation, and that they have followed each other without much observation - is a terrible misfortune to me. And to me, it has actualized the need for the [prophetic statement] to be fulfilled: \"So that all prophecy has been to you like the words of a sealed document; if it is handed to one who can read and he is asked to read it, he will say, 'I can’t, because it is sealed'\" (Isaiah 29:11).", + "And likewise have all of the many azharot (liturgical renderings of the commandments) - that are composed here in the land of Spain that I have heard - seized me with pangs, upon seeing the fame of this matter and its spread. And even though they are not to be blamed, for their authors were poets and not rabbis - and from the angle of their craft, they fulfilled that which was appropriate for them, with the sweetness of the lyric and the beauty of the arrangement - yet they were drawn in their meaning after the Behag and the other later rabbis. And when I reflected upon this and realized the fame of the matter among the masses, I knew that if I mentioned the true count that is fitting to count plainly without proof, even the first reader to read it will be certain that it is a mistake. And he will see it as a mistake, since he will see that it is different than that which was mentioned by x and y. For this is what happens in our time among the 'treasured people' - that they do not examine a statement according to its content, but rather by whether the statement agrees with the statement of those who preceded him, without examining that earlier statement. All the more so is this the case with the masses.", + "Hence I saw fit to preface the composition that I mentioned with an essay. And that is this essay that explains the topic of the commandments and how it is fit to count them. And I will bring proofs about this from verses of the Torah and the statements of the Sages as [their] explanation. And I will begin with principles that are appropriate to rely upon concerning the commandments and their count. And when their number is validated in this essay with clear proof - that has no doubt - the mistake of all those who counted differently than our count will become clear. And we do not need to respond to each one specifically to explain his mistake. As, for those that seek it, the intended goal and purpose of this essay will be accomplished without it. And that is because I will explain all of the commandments and count them one one by one, and bring a proof about anything that may be questionable. And my intention in this essay is not to explain the laws of any of the commandments, but rather just their [inclusion in the] count. So if I explain something about them when I mention them, I will be explaining it only in terms of [its] designation, such that it be known what a particular command or prohibition is talking about. And once you arrive at knowing their count with their proofs from this essay, I will mention them plainly at the beginning of the general composition, as we mentioned.", + "So I will now begin to mention the principles that are appropriate to rely upon in the count of the commandments, and they are fourteen. But first I will preface:", + "All of the commandments that are included in the book of the Torah that was given to us by God, may He be blessed, are 613. Of that, there are 248 positive commandments, the number of a person's limbs; and 365 negative commandments, the number of days in the solar year. And this number is mentioned about the commandments at the end of the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 23b). They said, \"There were 613 commandments stated to Moshe at Sinai, 365 corresponding to the number of days in the solar year, and 248 corresponding to the number of a person’s limbs.\" And they also said in homiletical style (see Tanchuma, Ki Tetzeh) that since the positive commandments are the number of the limbs, it is to say that each and every limb is saying to one, \"Do a commandment with me\"; and since the negative commandments are the number of the days of the year, it is to say that each and every day is saying to a person, \"Do not do a sin upon me.\" And this was not bumbled by anyone who counted the commandments, meaning that this is their number. However they were greatly confused in the mention of the things to be counted, as will be explained in this essay. And that is because they were not aware of the content of [all] these fourteen principles:", + "The first of these principles is that it is inappropriate to count rabbinic commandments in this category.", + "The second principle is that it is inappropriate to count anything that we learn from the thirteen hermeneutic principles through which the Torah is expounded or from a (formal technical) inclusion.", + "The third principle is that it is inappropriate to count commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations.", + "The fourth principle is that it is inappropriate to count commands that include the whole Torah.", + "The fifth principle is that it is inappropriate to count the reason for a commandment as a commandment on its own.", + "The sixth principle is that it is appropriate with a commandment that includes [both] a positive commandment and a negative commandment, to count the positive commandment in it with the positive commandments and the negative commandment in it with the negative commandments.", + "The seventh principle is that it is inappropriate to count the details of the laws of the Torah.", + "The eighth principle is that it is inappropriate to count the negation of a positive commandment with the negative commandments.", + "The ninth principle is that it is inappropriate to count the [statements] of the negative commandments and the positive commandments, but rather the items prohibited by them or commanded by them.", + "The tenth principle is that it is inappropriate to count preliminaries that are for one of various purposes.", + "The eleventh principle is that it is inappropriate to count each of the parts of a commandment on its own, when their combination is one commandment.", + "The twelfth principle is that it is inappropriate to count parts of work, that are required by a command, on their own.", + "The thirteenth principle is that the count of commandments not be increased according to the number of days that one is obligated in that commandment.", + "The fourteenth principle is that it is inappropriate to count the enactment of fences [punishments] among the positive commandments. " + ] + }, + "Shorashim": [ + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count rabbinic commandments in this category:", + "You should know that it is not [truly] appropriate to bring up this topic to explain it. For since the words of the Talmud (Makkot 23b) are, \"There were 613 commandments stated to Moshe at Sinai,\" how can we say about something rabbinic, that it is included in the count. However we have been prompted to it because many erred and counted the Chanukah light and the reading of the Megillah (Scroll of Esther) among the positive commandments. And likewise the hundred blessings each day; comforting the mourners; visiting the sick; burying the dead, clothing the naked; calculating the seasons; and the eighteen days in which we complete [the recitation of] Hallel. You can only stare at someone who hears [the Talmud's] statement, \"stated to Moshe at Sinai,\" and yet counts the recitation of Hallel in which David, peace be upon him, praised God, may He be blessed - that Moshe was commanded about it; or the Chanukah light which the Sages established during the Second Temple; or the reading of the Megillah. I cannot see anyone imagine - or it even coming to his mind - that it was nevertheless stated to Moshe at Sinai that he should command us that when, at the end of our monarchy, such and such happens to us with the Greeks, we will be obligated regarding the Chanukah light. And it appears to me that what led them to this is that we make the blessing [on these commandments], \"who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us\"; and the Talmud's question (Shabbat 23a) - \"And where we commanded?\" And they said, \"From 'you shall not veer'\" (Deuteronomy 17:11). But if they counted them from this, they should count everything rabbinic: For everything that the Sages commanded us to do and everything they prohibited to us [would then have] already commanded by Moshe, peace be upon him, at Sinai when he commanded us to do so. And that is his saying (Deuteronomy 17:11), \"According to the law that they instruct you, etc.\" And he prohibited us from violating anything that [the rabbis] ordained or decreed, by saying, \"you shall not veer.\" But if one counts everything rabbinic within the 613 commandments because it all fits into His, may He be blessed, saying \"you shall not veer\" - why would he count these in particular and not count others besides them? And just like they counted the Chanukah light and the reading of the Megillah, they should also have counted the washing of the hands and the commandment of eruv. For [we also] recite the blessing, \"who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us,\" [on these] - just like we recite the blessings on the reading of the Megillah and the Chanukah light. Yet it is all rabbinic! And in explantion, [the Sages] said (Chullin 106a), \"[Washing hands] is a commandment.\" And they said, \"What is the commandment? Abbaye said, 'It is a commandment to listen to the words of the sages.'\" This is like what they said about the reading of the Megillah and the Chanukah light, \"And where were we commanded? From 'you shall not veer.'\" And it is already clear that anything that the Sages and the prophets that arose after our teacher, Moshe ordained is also rabbinic. And in explanation, they said (Eruvin 21b), \"At the time that Shlomo ordained [the ordinances of] eruv and of washing hands, a heavenly voice emerged and said (Proverbs 27:11), 'My son, be wise and make My heart glad.'\" And they explained in other places that eruv is called rabbinic and washing hands is from the words of the Scribes. Behold that it is clear that everything that they decreed after Moshe is rabbinic. Indeed I am explaining all of this to you so that you not think that since the reading of the Megillah is an ordinance of the prophets, it is considered to be from the Torah. As eruv is rabbinic even though it was ordained by Shlomo and his court. And this was missed by someone besides us - so that they counted clothing the naked, because it is found in Isaiah 58:7, \"when you see the naked, you should clothe him.\" And he did not know that it is included in His, may He be blessed, saying (Deuteronomy 15:8), \"enough for his lack that he is lacking.\" For the content of this command is without a doubt that we feed the hungry, cover the naked, give bedding to one without bedding, give clothing to one without clothing, marry off a single man who does not have the wherewithal to get married and to give a horse to ride upon to one who is habituated to it [but can no longer afford it], as is made famous in the Talmud (Ketubot 67b). For this is all included in His saying, \"he is lacking.\" And the words of the Talmud for them were attached 'to a stammering jargon and an alien tongue.' For otherwise, they would not have counted the reading of the Megillah and that which is similar to it with the commandments that were stated to Moshe on Mount Sinai. And it is stated in the Gemara in Shevuot (Shevuot 39a:10), \"And I have only the commandments that were commanded at Mount Sinai. From where do I have commandments that were to be initiated in the future, such as the reading of the Megillah? The verse (Esther 9:27) states, 'they fulfilled and accepted' - they fulfilled what they [already] accepted.\" And that is that they would believe all of the commandments that the prophets and sages ordained afterwards. But it is a wonder: Why did they count positive rabbinic commandments, as we mentioned, and not also mention negative rabbinic commandments. And just like they counted reading the Megillah, the Chanukah light, the one hundred blessings each day and Hallel among the positive commandments, they should have also counted each and every rabbinic secondary sexual prohibition as a negative Torah commandment! It is as [the Sages] explained it and said (Yevamot 20a), \"The secondary sexual prohibitions are from the words of the Scribes.\" And it has already been explained in the Talmud about the statement of the Mishnah, \"the prohibition of a commandment\" - referring to secondary sexual prohibitions - saying, \"What is the commandment? To listen to the words of the sages.\" And it should have been lookwise appropriate for them to include the sister of the levirate wife, which is from the words of the Scribes. More generally, if we were to count every positive rabbinic law and every negative rabbinic law, it would add up to many thousands. And that is something clear. But the principle is that anything rabbinic is not counted in the category of the 613 commandments. For this category is completely [comprised of] that which is written in the Torah, such that there is nothing rabbinic in it - as we are explaining. However their counting some things that are rabbinic and leaving out others - according to their choice - is an unacceptable notion, no matter what they say! Behold we have explained this principle and its demonstrations such that there should be no doubt about it at all to anyone." + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count anything that we learn from the thirteen hermeneutic principles through which the Torah is expounded or from a (formal technical) inclusion.", + "We have already explained in the introduction of our composition, in the Commentary on the Mishnah, that most laws of the Torah have come out from the thirteen hermeneutic principles through which the Torah is expounded; and that there is sometimes a disagreement about a law that comes out through one of these principles; but that there are also, among them, laws the explanation of which was received from Moshe about which there is no disagreement. Nevertheless, they bring proofs about them from one of these thirteen principles. For it is the brilliance of Scripture that it is possible to find a hint or a verbal analogy in it, that indicates the received explanation - and we have already explained this topic there. And since the matter is such, behold: We can not say about every matter that the Sages brought out by a principle from the thirteen principles, that it was stated to Moshe at Sinai; and likewise can we not say about everything found in the Talmud in which they [only] supported it with one of the thirteen principles that it is rabbinic. For sometimes it will [nevertheless] be the received explanation from Moshe at Sinai. What is appropriate here regarding anything that is not found written in the Torah, but it is found that it is something they learned in the Talmud through one of the thirteen principles - if they themselves explain and say that it is a part of the Torah and that it is [a law] from the Torah, it is surely appropriate to count it. For those through which it is received said it is from the Torah. But if they did not explain this and did not say this, it is rabbinic - for there is no verse here indicating it. And this is also a principle that someone besides us has already been confused about; and therefore he counted fear of the sages as a positive commandment. And that which appears to have brought him to this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva (Pesachim 22b), \"'You shall fear et the Lord, your God' (Deuteronomy 6:13) - to include Torah scholars.\" So he thought that anything that is arrived at through the thirteen principles is in the category [of the 613 commandments]. But if the matter was as he thought it, why did he not count honoring a mother's husband or a father's wife; and likewise not count honoring an older brother? For we learned that we are obligated to honor these individuals by inclusions. They said (Ketubot 103a), \"'You shall honor et your father' - to include your older brother and your mother's husband; 'and et your mother' - to include your father's wife.\" That is just like they said, \"'You shall fear et the Lord, your God' - to include Torah scholars.\" If so, why did they count these and not those? But they have come to even greater foolishness than that in this matter. And that is when they found a teaching about a verse, in which the teaching obligates an action or the distancing from something - but they are rabbinic without a doubt - they counted them among the commandments, even though the simple meaning of the verse does not indicate any of these things at all. This is in spite of the principle that [the Sages], peace be upon them, taught us about it - a verse may not be taken out of its simple meaning. So the Talmud asks everywhere where a verse is found from which we learn many things by way of explanation and proof, \"What was the simple understanding of the verse written about?\" But those who relied on this [mistaken] thinking counted visiting the sick, comforting the mourners and burying the dead in the category of the commandments, because of the teaching that is found about His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and make known to them the way in which they are to go and the practices that they must do\" (Exodus 18:20). And [the Sages] said about this (Bava Kamma 100a), \"'The way' - that is acts of kindness. 'They are to go' - that is visiting the sick. 'In which' - that is burial of the dead. 'The practices' - that is the laws. 'That they must do' - that is [conducting oneself] beyond the letter of the law.\" And [the ones mistaken about what can be counted] thought that each and every one of these actions was a separate commandment. And they did not know that all of these actions - and those that are similar to them - fall under one commandment written in the Torah, when it is explained. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and you shall love your neighbor like yourself\" (Leviticus 19:18). And in this exact same way, they counted the calculation of the seasons as a commandment because of the teaching from, \"it is your wisdom and your understanding\" (Deuteronomy 4:6). And that is their saying (Shabbat 75a), \"Which is the wisdom and understanding that is in the eyes of the nations? You shall say, it is the calculation of the seasons and the constellations.\" And [even] if one would [only] count what is clearer than this and what is more appropriate to count - that being, to count everything that we learn in the Torah from the thirteen hermeneutic principles through which the Torah is expounded - the count of commandments would add up to many thousands. And if you might think that I am running from counting them because they are not true; whether the law that comes out of it is true or not - that is not the reason. Rather the reason is that any extension that a person, and even if it was Moshe himself, draws out from the root principles that were told to Moshe at Sinai with their explanation - and these are the 613 commandments - is not appropriate to count. And the proof of this all is their saying in the Gemara, Temurah (Temurah 16a), \"One thousand and seven hundred a fortiori inferences, verbal analogies, and precise inferences of the Scribes were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moshe. Even so, Otniel, son of Kenaz, restored them through his sharpness, as it is stated (Joshua 15:16-17), '\"To he who smites Kiryat Sefer, and takes it, etc.\" And Otniel, son of Kenaz took it.'\" And if this was what was forgotten, what was the total from which this amount was forgotten?! For it would certainly be false to say that everything that was known was forgotten. So, without a doubt, those laws that were drawn out by a fortiori inferences and the other principles were many thousands - and they were all known at the time of Moshe. And yet they are called precise inferences of the Scribes, because anything that they did not hear explained at Sinai is certainly from the words of the Scribes. Behold it has now been shown that that which was learned out through the thirteen principles even during Moshe's time, peace be upon him, is not to be counted among the 613 commandments that were stated to him at Sinai. Hence all the more so should that which was derived in later times not be counted among them. However it is nevertheless true that what was an explanation received from him is counted. And that is what the transmitters explain, and say that this thing is something forbidden to do and its prohibition is from the Torah; or they say that it is a part of the Torah. Behold that we count this, since it is known from tradition and not through a verbal analogy. Indeed, their [possible] mention of a verbal analogy and their bringing a proof for it from one of the thirteen principles [in such a case] is only to show the brilliance of Scripture, as we explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah." + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations. ", + "You should know that that which they said (Makkot 23b), \"613 commandments were stated to Moshe at Sinai,\" indicates that this is the number of the commandments that are practiced for [all] generations. For commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations do not have a connection to Sinai - whether they were stated at Sinai or elsewhere. However their intention in saying, \"at Sinai,\" was that the main giving of the Torah was at Sinai. And that was His, may He be elevated, saying, \"Come up to Me on the mountain and be there, and I will give [it] to you\" (Exodus 24:12). And in explanation, they said, \"What is the verse [that alludes to this]? 'Moshe commanded us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov' (Deuteronomy 33:4)\" - meaning to say - \"the numerical value of [the word,] Torah is 611. In addition, 'I am the Lord your God' and 'You shall have no other gods' (Exodus 20:2, 3), that we heard from the mouth of the Almighty.\" And with them, the total of the commandments is 613. They wanted to say with this indication that the thing that Moshe commanded us - and that we did not hear from anyone but him - was the number of 611 commandments. And he called it, \"an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov.\" And a commandment that is not practiced for [all] the generations is not an inheritance for us. For it is indeed only that which will be continuous for the generations - as it is stated (Deuteronomy 11:21), \"like the days of the heavens upon the earth\" - that will be called an inheritance for us. And likewise, their statement (Tanchuma, Ki Tetzeh), that it is as if each and every limb commands a person to do a commandment; and it is as if each and every day is warning a person from sin. This is a proof that the number will never be lacking. But if commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations were included in the count of the commandments, behold that the number would be lacking once the obligation of such a commandment ceased. And then this statement would only be correct for a limited time. However someone besides us already erred in this principle as well and counted - because he was forced by a need - \"But let them not go inside and witness the dismantling of the sanctuary\" (Numbers 4:20); and \"he shall serve no more\" (Numbers 8:25), concerning the Levites. Yet these were also only practiced in the wilderness. And even though they said (Sanhedrin 81b:18), \"From where is there a hint about one who steals a jar for the Temple service (that he is killed)? 'But let them not go inside and witness the dismantling of the sanctuary'\" - there is enough [clarification here] in their saying, \"a hint.\" But the simple understanding of the verse is not like this; and it is not even included in those liable for the death penalty at the hands of the Heavens - as is explained in the Tosefta (Tosefta Keritot 1) and in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83a). And I am wondering about this, why they mentioned these negative commandments. Why did they not [also] count about the manna, \"Let no one leave any of it over until morning\" (Exodus 16:19); or that which He, may He blessed said, \"Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war\" (Deuteronomy 2:9), and likewise the prohibition that came about the the Children of Ammon, \"do not harass them or start a fight with them\" (Deuteronomy 2:19). And likewise should he count among the positive commandments, \"Make a seraph figure and mount it on a standard\" (Numbers 21:8); and its saying, \"Take a jar and put one omer of manna in it\" (Exodus 16:33) - like he counted the tithe of the [booty] (Numbers 31) and the dedication of the altar (Numbers 7). And he should have also counted, \"Be ready for the third day\" (Exodus 19:15); \"neither shall the flocks and the herds graze\" (Exodus 34:3); \"they shall not destroy, to come up\" (Exodus 19:24); and many like these. And no intelligent person will doubt that all of these commandments were given to Moshe at Sinai as commands and [prohibitions; however they were all temporary and not practiced for [all] generations. And therefore they were not counted. And because of this principle, it is inappropriate to count the blessings and the curses that they were commanded at Gerizim and Eval; nor to count the building of the altar that we were commanded to build when we entered the Land of Canaan - for all of these were temporary commandments. And likewise, not the command that we were commanded to sacrifice any animal, from which we want to eat, as peace-offerings - as this was only a temporary command. And that was its saying, \"and you shall bring them to the Lord\" (Leviticus 7:8).\" And they said in Sifrei, Achrei Mot, \"'And you shall bring them' is a positive commandment\" - but it was only so in the wilderness. For the dispensation to eat meat for pleasure is explained in [Deuteronomy]; and that is its saying, \"you may eat meat whenever you wish\" (Deuteronomy 12:20). And had it been appropriate to count everything of this type - meaning all that Moshe was commanded from the day he was appointed to be a prophet until the day he died - there would be more than three hundred commandments, besides the commandments that are practiced for [all] generations. This is when we count all the commands that came in Egypt, everything about the preparations [for the tabernacle service], and the other ones besides them - some are positive commandments and some are negative commandments, but they are all written in the Torah. And since he did not count all of them, he is perforce also obligated not to count any of them; and not like this other man, who took [only] some of these things to help him, when he toiled to find the [right] tally. And this is the critique we wanted to make about him regarding this principle." + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count commands that include the whole Torah.", + "Behold that there are commands and warnings that appear in the Torah that are not about a specific thing, but rather include all of the commandments. It is as if it says, \"Do everything I have commanded you to do and be careful about anything from which I have prohibited you\"; or \"Do not transgress anything of what I have commanded you about.\" And there is no room to count this command on its own - as it does not command us to do a specific act, such that it should be a positive commandment; nor does it warn us from doing a specific act, such that it should be a negative commandment. And this is like its saying, \"Be on guard concerning all that I have told you\" (Exodus 23:13); and what is stated, \"And you shall keep my statutes\" (Leviticus 19:19); \"And you shall keep my judgements\" (Leviticus 18:4); \"and you shall keep My covenant\" (Exodus 19:5); \"And you shall keep My charge\" (Leviticus 18:30), and many like these. And [others] have already erred in this principle, such that they counted, \"You shall be holy\" (Leviticus 19:2), to be included among the positive commandments. And they did not know that \"You shall be holy,\" and \"you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy\" (Leviticus 11:44) are commands to keep the whole Torah. It is as if it said, \"Be holy by doing everything I have commanded you and being careful about anything I have prohibited to you.\" And the words of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1:1) are, \"'You shall be holy' - you shall be separated - meaning to say, separate from all the disgraceful things that I have prohibited to you.\" And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:30:1), \"Issi ben Yehudah says, 'When the Holy One, Blessed be He, originates a commandment for Israel, He adds holiness to them'\" - meaning to say this command is not a command in itself, but rather follows from the commands that they have been commanded. So one who fulfills this command will be called, holy. And there is no difference between it saying, \"You shall be holy,\" or if it had said, \"Do my commandments.\" Would you see that that which is being said [here] is a positive commandment, in addition to the commandments that it is referring back to, that we have been commanded? Likewise should we not say that \"You shall be holy,\" and that which is similar to it, is a commandment - for it has not commanded us to do anything besides what we [already] know. And the words of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 115:1): \"'You shall be holy' - that is the holiness of the commandments.' Hence behold what we have been working around is clear. And also based on this principle is its saying, \"Cut away the thickening about your hearts\" (Deuteronomy 10:16) - meaning to say, that one accept and obey all of the commandments already mentioned. And so too, \"and stiffen your necks no more\" (Deuteronomy 10:16) - meaning to say, do not harden your heart and accept that which I commanded you, and do not transgress it." + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count the reason for a commandment as a commandment on its own.", + "Sometimes the reasons for commandments are similar to negative commandments and are thought of as being included in that which should be counted by itself. And this is like its stating, \"Then the first husband who sent her away shall not take her to wife again [...] you must not bring sin upon the land\" (Deuteronomy 24:4): Its stating, \"you must not bring sin upon the land,\" is the reason for the prohibition that preceded it. It is as if it is saying that if you do this, you will cause great loss to the land. An it is [also] like its stating, \"Do not profane your daughter and make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry\" (Leviticus 19:29). For its stating, \"lest the land fall into harlotry,\" is the reason. It as if it said that the reason of this prohibition is so that \"the land not fall into harlotry.\" And so too, its stating, \"you shall not make yourselves unclean therewith and become unclean with them\" (Leviticus 11:43): After mentioning the prohibition of the various species that are forbidden to eat, it gave a reason for this and said, \"you shall not make yourselves unclean\" by eating them. It is as if it is saying that which caused this to be prohibited is the making of oneself impure. And to explain that which He, may He be blessed, said after He prefaced not taking ransom from a murderer, \"You shall not defile the land\" (Numbers 35:34) - they said in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:13), \"The verse is telling us that spilling blood defiles the land.\" Hence behold it is clear that this negative statement is the reason for the previous negative commandment, not something else. And likewise regarding that which is stated, \"He shall not go outside the sanctuary and not profane\" (Leviticus 21:12) - if he does go outside, he profanes. And someone besides us already erred about this principle as well, and counted all of these [as] negative commandments, without observation. However whoever counted them will be embarrassed when they ask him and say, \"What thing does this negative commandment prohibit?\" And he will not have anything to answer at all. So through this, it becomes clear that it is not be counted. And this is what we intended to clarify about this principle." + ], + [ + "That it is appropriate with a commandment that includes [both] a positive commandment and a negative commandment, to count the positive commandment in it with the positive commandments and the negative commandment in it with the negative commandments.", + "You should know that one thing can have in it [both] a positive commandment and a negative commandment in one of three ways: If any act should be a positive commandment; but one who violates it transgresses a negative commandment, like Shabbat and holidays and the release [of the seventh year] - in which work is a negative commandment and rest upon them is a positive commandment, as will be explained. And likewise the fast of Yom Kippur is a positive commandment, but eating upon it is a negative commandment. Or when it is a negative commandment that is preceded by a positive commandment; like it states about a rape (Deuteronomy 19:29) or one who puts out a bad name (Deuteronomy 19:19), \"and she shall be as a wife for him\" - which is a positive commandment - but it also states, \"he many not send her away all of his days,\" and that is a negative commandment. Or if the negative commandment is first and is afterwards rectified by a positive commandment, such as \"do not take the mother together with her young\" (Deuteronomy 19:6); and then \"You shall surely send away the mother\" (Deuteronomy 19:7). And in each of these types, it is appropriate to count the positive commandment in it among the positive commandments and the negative commandment in it among the negative commandments. As the Sages said, in explaining each one of them, that they are a positive commandment and a negative commandment. And many times they will say, \"the positive commandment in it,\" and \"the negative commandment in it.\" And this matter is clear, for the content of the command in them is different than the content of the prohibition. And both of them are two different matters, one that He commanded and one that He prohibited. And no one ever erred about this principle." + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count the details of the commandments.", + "You should know that a commandment is a received legal construct, and that many commands and prohibitions flow out from its base - and those are the laws of the commandment. An example of this is levirate marriage (yibum) and chalitsah, which are two positive commandments. About this, there is no argument. But when we observe the laws of these commandments, what flows out from these Torah bases is that some women are obligated to do chalitsah and may not do levirate marriage; some of them must do levirate marriage and may not do chalitsah; some may do either chalitsah or levirate marriage; and some may not do chalitsah or levirate marriage. And likewise with men - that is to say the ones [theoretically obligated] to initiate the levirate marriage - some must do chalitsah and may not do levirate marriage; some must do levirate marriage and may not do chalitsah; some may do chalitsah or levirate marriage; and some may not do chalitsah or levirate marriage. And likewise are there found some women subject to levirate marriage that do chalitsah with one and do levirate marriage with another; and some that do chalitsah with the one and the other (added by Ibn Tibbon: and some that do levirate marriage with the one and the other). And there are some that are permissible to their husbands but forbidden to their levirate husbands; some who are permissible to their levirate husbands but are forbidden to their husbands; some who are forbidden to both; and some who are permissible to both. And if we were to count each one of these details of the commandment as a commandment on its own, the count of commandments only from Tractate Yevamot would add up to more than a hundred commandments. As they would all be either a commandment or a prohibition, such that one would say that this one is obligated to do chalitsah in the way we would describe. Or one would say, that this one is not permissible to that one; or that chalitsah is completely impossible for her, or levirate marriage. And such would be the way with each and every commandment. ", + "But since this is so, and there is no disagreement about it, it is not appropriate to count the details of the commandments even when they are written in the Torah. For it is not just because Scripture explained and detailed a commandment or the conditions for it that we should count each condition or component - which is a detail - and say that it is commandment. And many have already erred in this and counted everything that they found written [in the Torah] without observation [as to what is] the root of the commandment and [what are] its details or its conditions. An example of this is that in the book of Leviticus, Scripture obligates someone who defiles the sanctuary or its holy objects that are mentioned with it, to bring a sacrifice of a sin-offering. And that is a positive commandment without a doubt. And afterwards, Scripture details what this sacrifice will be and says, a female sheep or a female goat; and if he cannot afford its cost, he brings two turtledoves or two young pigeons; and if he cannot afford their cost, he brings a tenth of an ephah of fine flour - this is a variable burnt-offering. But this is truthfully an explanation of the sacrifice that he is obligated. Hence it is inappropriate to count it as three commandments, and to say that the command is that he was commanded to bring a tenth of an ephah. For they are surely not three commands but rather one; and that is that he bring a sacrifice for his mistake, and that this sacrifice should be like this - or like that, if [the first] is impossible. And also of this type is making a mistake about a commandment. And this is what Scripture has in the book of Leviticus, that one who made a mistake and transgressed one of God's commandments bring a sacrifice. And it is a positive commandment that the one who made a mistake bring a sin-offering, on condition that the mistake be about something that volitional sin would obligate excision as a result of an act [that violates] a negative commandment - as is explained in the chapters of Horayot and Keritot. Afterwards, Scripture details the description of this sacrifice, and then Scripture writes about it and says that if the errant one was from the people of the land, he brings a female sheep or a female goat; if he was a chieftain, he brings a male goat; if he was a high priest, he brings a bull; and if the mistake was with idolatry, he brings a female goat - whether he is a chieftain, a commoner or a high priest. And it is not because of the variation in the type of animal that he sacrifices, that the one sacrifice increases and becomes many commandments. For were it to be like this, we would have also been obligated to count that which it says, a female sheep or a female goat, as two commandments; and its saying two turtledoves or two young pigeons as two commandments. But the matter is not like this. The command of the sacrifice is the positive commandment - whatever [specific] sacrifice one brings - whereas not every condition of the commandment is counted as a commandment. And understand this very well, for the mistake in it is subtle and only someone with understanding will be aware of it.", + "And also of this type is His, may He be exalted, saying that a betrothed maiden that is promiscuous is [killed] by stoning; but [if she is] the daughter of a priest, by burning - which are the filling out of the details of the law of [adultery with] a married woman. And everyone, who I have heard of already, erred in this - counting a married woman as a commandment, a betrothed maiden as [another] commandment and the daughter of a priest as [yet another] commandment, when the matter is not like this. Rather it is as I shall explain. And that is that His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall not commit adultery\" (Exodus 20:13), is a commandment from the tally of the commandments - and the tradition came that this negative commandment is the prohibition of the married woman. Afterwards, Scripture explained that one who violates this negative commandment is killed; and that is its saying, \"they shall surely be killed, the adulterer and the adulteress\" (Leviticus 20:10). Afterwards, Scripture filled in this detail and the conditions of this issue and judgement. So it stipulated conditions and said that that which is stated - \"they shall surely be killed, the adulterer and the adulteress\" - has distinctions: If she was a married woman that was the daughter of a priest, she is burned; if she was a betrothed virgin maiden, she is stoned; and if she was married but was not the daughter of a priest, she is strangled. But it is not that the stipulations of the laws of [its] death penalty expand it into several commandments; for we have not exited the prohibition of the married woman in all of this. And in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 51b:10), they said in explanation, \"All were included in 'the adulterer and the adulteress': [Then] the verse singled out the daughter of an Israelite for stoning and the daughter of a priest for burning.\" With this, they meant that regarding the prohibition of a married woman, all are included in that which Scripture said about them, \"they shall surely be killed, the adulterer and the adulteress\" - however Scripture differentiated about this death, and had some people to be burned and some of them to be stoned. And were it appropriate to count the detail of a commandment when it is written in the Torah, we would have been required to not list one who kills a soul by mistake being exiled as a single commandment, since Scripture has already detailed this commandment (Numbers 35:16-28). So we would have also counted the statement of Scripture, \"But if he strikes him with a metal instrument,\" as one commandment. And the second commandment would have been its saying, \"And if he struck him with a stone tool.\" And the third commandment would have been, \"Or struck him with a wooden instrument.\" And the fourth commandment would have been its saying, \"The blood-avenger shall put the killer to death.\" And the fifth would have been its saying, \"Or if he pushed him with hatred.\" And the sixth would have been its saying, \"or hurled something at him on purpose.\" And the seventh would have been its saying, \"Or if he struck him with his hand in enmity.\" And the eighth would have been its saying, \"But if suddenly without enmity.\" And the ninth would have been its saying, \"or hurled any object at him unintentionally.\" And the tenth would have been, \"Or any deadly object of stone without seeing.\" The eleventh would have been, \"and he dropped it upon him and he died, though he was not an enemy of his.\" The twelfth would have been, \"And the congregation shall protect the killer.\" The thirteenth would have been, \"and the congregation shall bring him back to his city of refuge.\" The fourteenth would have been, \"and there he shall remain until the death of the high priest.\" The fifteenth would have been, \"But if the killer surely goes outside.\" The sixteenth would have been, \"and after the death of the high priest, the killer may return.\" And had we done this with each and every commandment, the number of commandments would have added up to more than two thousand. And the damage [of doing so] is clear, since they are all details of the topic. But the commandment that is counted is the law of one who kills a soul by mistake, and that is the law about which we have been instructed to evaluate the laws and details that are written about it. And likewise did God call them, regulations; and He did not call them, commandments - but said (Numbers 35:24), \"And the congregation shall judge between the killer and the blood-avenger according to these regulations.\"", + "And the author of the Halakhot Gedolot was already aware of some of these matters and went around them by counting sections (as a whole and not each part of them). And in counting them, he [called them], the section of inheritances, the section of vows and oaths, the section of putting out a bad name. And he counted many sections like this. However he was not completely clear about this topic and did not arrive at it [fully]. And hence he counted in these sections that which had already been counted earlier, without sensing it. And since this principle escaped those besides us concerning the commandment of tsaraat, he counted it as twelve commandments and did not know that they are [actually just] one commandment; and that everything mentioned by Scripture is actually a detail or a condition. And the explanation of this is that He instructed us that tsaraat of a person makes one impure; and his impurity is such that he is obligated regarding that which impure people are obligated regarding distancing from the Sanctuary and its holy things, and to go outside of the camp of the Divine Presence. But we would not [yet] know which tsaraat renders impure and which does not render impure. So Scripture came to explain it and differentiate the regulations, such that if he was like this, he would be pure, but if he was like that he would be impure; if he was like this, he would have to stand so much time like this, but if he was like that, he would have to stand [a different amount of] time. And in explanation, they said (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 16:13), \"'To declare it pure or to declare it impure' (Leviticus 13:59) - just as it is a commandment to declare it pure, so it is a commandment to declare it impure.\" So the commandment is in fact for [a priest] to say, impure or pure. However it is inappropriate to count the differentiations of the their content - such that some are impure and some are pure - since they are its conditions and details. And this is like our saying that sacrificing animals with defects is forbidden to us. But if [we understand that] it is a negative commandment, it remains for us to know what the defects are. Could you see us calculating each and every defect as a commandment? If this were the case, its count would be close to seventy defects. But just like we do not count the defects - which of them are [an actual] defect and which of them are not [an actual] defect - but rather the prohibition is that we have been prohibited from an animal with a defect; so too is not fitting to count all of the signs of tsaraat - which of them are impure and which of them are pure - but rather only that the person with tsaraat is impure. And all of the rest is an explanation of what tsaraat is. And in this way, it it appropriate to count each and every type of impurity as one commandment [each]; and not count all the details of that type of impurity and its conditions, as will be explained. And understand this principle, as it is a pillar of the teaching in which we are [involved]. " + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count the negation of a positive commandment with the negative commandments.", + "You should know that a prohibition is one of the two divisions of commands. For you can command a subject to do a certain thing or that he not do it. As you would command him to eat, and you would say to him, \"Eat\"; or you would command him to distance himself from that eating and say to him, \"Don't eat.\" But in the Arabic language, there is no noun that includes both of these matters together. And scholars (mutakallimun) of grammar theory have already noted this, and they said as follows: Indeed there is no noun in the Arabic language that brings together both the command and the prohibition, such that they have been required to refer to both (when they want to refer to both together) by one word - and that is, \"command.\" Behold that it is hence already clear to you that a prohibition is a type of command. However the famous word in Arabic used for a prohibition is the word, \"lah (no).\" And this [overall] content is found without a doubt in every language - meaning to say, that you are commanding a subject to do something or not to do it. If so, it is clear that both positive and negative commandments are full-fledged commands - things that He commanded us to do; and things that He prohibited us from doing. And the name for the command that is to be done is a positive commandment; and the name for that from which we are prohibited is a negative commandment. And the noun that includes both of them together in the Hebrew language is gezerah. And likewise the Sages call all of the commandments - whether positive or negative - gezerat (decree) of the King. ", + "However negation of the positive is a different matter. And that is that you negate the predicate from the subject. As when you say, \"X did not eat yesterday; y did not drink today; Reuven is not Shimon's father\" - and that which is similar to this - it has nothing to do with the notion of a commandment at all. Behold this is all negation of the positive, and there is no trace of a command in it. And the word with which to negate in Arabic is generally mah, but they also negate with the word, lah. But the Hebrews generally negate with the word, lo, which is exactly the same word they use to prohibit. However they also negate with ayin and that which is connected to it, such as eino, einam, einchem and the other ones. Indeed negation in Hebrew is with the word lo, as when it states, \"Lo arose another prophet like Moshe\" (Deuteronomy 34:10); \"Lo a man is God that He should be untrue\" (Numbers 23:19); and many like these. And negation with ayin is like its saying, \"and man was ayin\" (Genesis 2:5); \"but the dead einam know anything\" (Ecclesiastes 9:5); and many others. Hence behold that the difference between a prohibition and a negation is already clear to you - and that is that a prohibition is a type of command and will only come with the exact verb of a command. That means to say, just like the verb of a command will always be in the future, so too will [the verb of] a prohibition. It is not possible for a command to be in the past, and so too with a prohibition. And there is no room to group a command as a [type of] narrative sentence: For a narrative sentence requires a predicate and a subject; whereas a command is a complete sentence (without an explicit subject) - as is explained in the books written about this. And a prohibition is also not to be included with a narrative sentence. But a negation is not like this, for a negation can be a narrative sentence. And negation can be in the past, the future or the present. And this is all self-evident with some observation. And since this is so, it is inappropriate to include negative statements that are negations as negative commandments in any way. And this is a demonstrable matter - there is no need for affirmation of it, besides that which we mentioned about the understanding of the nature of words, so as to differentiate between a prohibition and a negation.", + "But this was already missed by someone besides us to the point that he counted, \"she does not go out like the release of slaves\" (Exodus 21:7) - and he did not know that this was a negation and not a prohibition. And the explanation of this is as I will explain. And that is that since God already determined about someone who struck his [gentile] slave or maidservant - and at the time of the strike, caused him to lack one of his main limbs - that [the slave or maidservant] goes out to freedom, it would enter our minds that if the matter is like this with a gentile slave, all the more so would it be the case with a Jewish maidservant and that she would go out to freedom if she loses one of her main limbs. And He negates this conception from us, by His saying, \"she does not go out like the release of slaves\" - as if to say, there is no obligation for her to be sent out to freedom with the loss of her limbs. So this is the negation of a law about her, and not a prohibition. And the masters of the tradition also explained it like this: And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 21:7), \"'She does not go out like the release of slaves' - she does not go out with the main limbs in the way that [gentile] slaves go out.\" Behold that it is hence already clear to you that it is the negation of another law, which He is negating from her - not that He prohibited anything to us. And there is no difference between His saying, \"she does not go out like the release of slaves,\" and His saying (Leviticus 13:36), \"the priest does not examine the yellow hair, he is impure\" - it is only a negation, not a prohibition. And that is that it is explaining to us that he does not require quarantine because of this indication (of impurity), and that there is no doubt about him - he is impure. And likewise is His saying (Leviticus 19:20), \"they are not put to death, since she has not been freed,\" a negation and not a prohibition. For He is saying that they are not liable for the death penalty, since [her] freedom is not complete. And it would be inappropriate to explain this as if it were stated, \"you shall not put them to death\" - such that it would go from a matter of negation to a matter of prohibition. For His saying, \"they are not put to death, since she has not been freed,\" is like His saying (Deuteronomy 22:26), \"the girl has no sin worthy of death\" - which negates the death penalty from her because of the rape. And likewise [here], He negated the liability of death from them because of [her] slavery - as if to say, they have no sin worthy of death. And likewise is His saying (Numbers 17:5), \"and not be like Korach and like his congregation,\" a negation. And the Sages clarified that it is a negation: They explained its content and said (Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13:1) that He, may He be exalted, was telling us that anyone who argues about and challenges the priesthood will not have what happened to Korach and his congregation happen to him with regards to being swallowing up or burned; but rather his punishment will truly be like that which the Lord said through Moshe - meaning to say, tsaraat. For He, may He be elevated, had said to him (Exodus 4:6), \"Put your hand into your bosom.\" And they brought a proof [for this] from what happened to King Uzziah of Judah (II Chronicles 26:19). And even though we find a different expression in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 110a) - and that is their saying, \"Anyone who maintains an argument, transgresses a negative commandment, as it is stated, 'and not be like Korach and like his congregation\" - this is by way of an asmakhta (homiletic support), and not that their intention in this is the simple meaning of the verse. However the prohibition about this is included in a different negative commandment, which I will explain in its place. ", + "But there is nothing that will clarify the difference between a negation and a prohibition to you besides the content of the statement. Indeed it will surely not be clarified by the word, for the word for negation and prohibition are the same in Hebrew; and that is the word, lo. So one learned must understand the content of the statement. And then he will quickly grasp which negative statement is a negation and which negative statement is a prohibition, according to our preceding explanation. And [the Sages], peace be upon them, already alluded to this matter. And that is in that which we find disagreement about a certain negative statement, as to whether it is a negation or a prohibition. And that is His saying regarding a bird sin-offering (Leviticus 5:8), \"pinching its head at the nape, and he does not sever it.\" For behold our tanna - and that is the tanna that speaks in the mishnah (Zevachim 6:4) - holds that this is a prohibition; and therefore said that if he separated it, it is disqualified. And according to this, this negative statement would have to be a negative commandment. That is that if he severed it, it is disqualified - as if he brought leaven or honey [on the altar]. But Rabbi Elazar (ben Shimon) holds that this negative statement is a negation and not a prohibition; and that His saying, \"he does not sever it,\" is intending to say, one does not have to sever the head, but rather one can cut it in any way that it might be. And hence - according to his opinion - if one severed it, it is [still] fit. And accordingly, they said in the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 65b), \"Rabbi Elazar ben Shimon would say, 'I have heard that we sever the bird sin-offering.' [Then] what is [the meaning of], 'he does not sever it?' He does not have to sever it.\" And they asked about this and said, \"But from this - concerning a pit, about which it is written (Exodus 21:33), \"and he does not cover it,\" is it also the same?\" And the answer was, \"There, it is written (Exodus 21:34), 'The one responsible for the pit must make restitution' - it is implied that he needs to cover it.\" Behold it has been clarified that they took a proof as to whether it is a negation or a prohibition from the content of the statement. And from it, it has become clear that His saying, \"he does not sever it,\" is a negative commandment - according to what is written in the mishnah. And it has [also] become clear that His saying with a bird burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:17), \"And he shall tear it open by its wings, he does not sever it,\" is inappropriate to count as a negative commandment - as it is a negation. And according to everyone, if he severs it, it is [still] fit. For it is because He said with an animal fire-offering (Leviticus 1:12), \"And you shall cut it up into sections,\" that it would enter your mind that a bird burnt-offering is also like this. So He said that you do not need to sever it, but just tear it. So if he severed it, it is [still] fit - as is explained in its place. ", + "And also included in these negative statements that are negations is His saying (Leviticus 27:29), \"Any human being who has been proscribed is not ransomed.\" Indeed, once you know what the content of this statement is, it is clear to you that this is a negation and not a prohibition. And that is that Scripture here has already discussed the set values of appraisals according to the amount of years of the one appraised and whether they are male or female. And there is no difference whether one said, \"My appraisal is upon me\"; or \"the appraisal of x is upon me\" - as we see who this person is and how old he is, and he gives according to that. But if the one appraised was someone who was liable for a death penalty of the court and his judgment has been completed - and after that someone said, \"The appraisal of that one is upon me\" - he is not obligated to give anything, since that one is considered as if he is dead, for there is no value to him once his judgment has been completed. And this is the content He wanted [to express] by saying, \"is not ransomed\" - meaning to say, he has no value, such that the appraiser should give it. So this is one of the laws of appraisals and their regulations mentioned by Scripture, and not a prohibition. And the language of the mishnah (Arakhin 1:3) is, \"One who is moribund and one who is taken to be executed is not vowed about nor appraised.\" And the Talmud (Arakhin 6b) explains that this is on condition that he has come out of a Jewish court with a guilty verdict. And the words of the Mekhilta are, \"Those who are liable for the death penalty do not have redemption, as it is stated, 'Any human being who has been proscribed is not ransomed.'\" And reflect upon the language of the statement and be precise in your study of it - how they explained that this negative statement is a negation and not a prohibition, by their saying, \"do not have redemption\"; and they did not say, \"we may not redeem them.\" And they explained this very matter in the Sifra in the section about appraisals (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 12:7) and said, \"From where is it derived that if one liable for the death penalty of the court said, 'My value is upon me,\" he has said nothing? We learn to say, 'is not redeemed.'\" That is to say [that the question was,] from where is it that [we know that] he is not liable [for any] value. And we have already explained this matter with complete clarity, such that no question is left about it, even for one whose intellect is the most dense among all people. And since we have spoken about this matter, you should know that the words that can connote a prohibition in the Torah are four. And anything that is prohibited by one of these four is called a negative commandment. And they are guard, lest, do not and no (hishamer, pen, al, lo). And in explanation, they said (Makkot 13b:5), \"Wherever it is stated, guard, lest, or do not, it is nothing other than a negative commandment.\" But there is one thing that remains for us to explain in order to complete the intent of the section. And that is that when the Torah tells and commands us to cleanse ourselves by negating actions x and y, behold that action is included in the negative commandments. And even though the negative statement through which it comes is a negation and not a prohibition - since it commands us to negate it from ourselves, and say, \"I have not done such and such,\" we perforce know that such and such an action is prohibited to us. And this is like when Scripture commands us to say, \"I have not eaten of it while in mourning, I have not cleared out any of it while I was unclean and I have not deposited any of it with the dead\" (Deuteronomy 26:14) - it is indicating that all of these actions are prohibited to us. And behold that this explanation will come in its place, when we speak about these commandments." + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count the [statements] of the negative commandments and the positive commandments, but rather the items prohibited by them or commanded by them.", + "You should know that the commands of the Torah and its prohibitions are about four things: Beliefs, actions, traits and speech. And [beliefs] is that He commanded us to believe in the unity of the Lord, to love God and fear Him; and that He prohibited us from many beliefs, such as his prohibiting us from any divinity besides Him. And He also commanded us in certain actions, such as His commanding us to bring sacrifices and building the Temple; and prohibited us from certain actions, such as His prohibiting us from sacrificing to anyone besides Him, may He be blessed, or from bowing down to anything that is worshipped besides Him. And he also commanded us to act with a certain trait, like that which He commanded us about compassion, mercy, charity and kindness and His saying, \"you shall love your neighbor like yourself\" (Leviticus 19:18); and he prohibited us from acting with certain traits, like that which He prohibited us from hatred, vengeance, grudge-bearing, bloodlust and other bad traits, as I will explain. And He commanded us that we should say certain statements, like that which He commanded us to praise Him, to pray to Him, to confess our iniquities and our sins and that which is similar to this, as will be explained; and He prohibited us from certain speech, like that which He commanded and forbade us from swearing falsely, talebearing, evil speech, cursing and that which is similar to it. And once these matters that we have been commanded about, or prohibited from, have come to us - whether they be actions, speech, perspectives, or traits - we do not look at the amount of times we are commanded it, it if is a command; or that we are prohibited from it, if it is a prohibition. For they are all to strengthen it. As sometimes He comes back to the very same matter, with one prohibition after the other, to reinforce it. And likewise will one command come after the other to reinforce [a singular commandment]. This is unless you find some statement of the Sages to differentiate the matter, such that the commentators (meaning to say, the Sages of the Talmud) explain to you the positive commandment in it or the negative commandment in it that is not included in the [previous parallel] positive or negative commandment. For then, it would be appropriate to count it [as a separate commandment] without a doubt. As it would not still [just] be reinforcement, but rather additional content - even though what appears from Scripture is that it is about the same content. For we are only forced to say that a verse is repeated to reinforce it, and is not new content, if we do not come to a statement of the commentators - who are the receivers of its tradition - otherwise. However when we find that the tradition says that this command or this prohibition has such content and this command or prohibition that is repeated has different content, this [understanding] has priority and is better - such that the verse not be repeating, but rather [containing additional] content. And then it would be appropriate to count this one by itself and that one by itself. Nevertheless, when there is no new content there, you should know that it is only truly being repeated to reinforce it; and in order that it be known that this matter is a very great iniquity - given that one prohibition after another is coming about it; or to learn a law about the commandment; or to learn from it [one of the laws of another commandment. This is as it is explained in the Talmud, \"it is statement exported for a verbal analogy,\" or to learn from it] a parallel. And behold we saw that they, peace be upon them, alluded to this matter in the Gemara, in the second chapter of Pesachim (Pesachim 24a). And this is what they intended about one of the negative commandments that appeared to be repeated - since the prohibition [already] came from another [verse] - and they sought to establish it to be about about additional content. And it was said about it as a difficulty, \"Ravina said to Rav Ashi, 'And say that it comes to have one violate two negative commandments [for the same act]?'\" This is meaning to say, \"That which you want to establish this negative statement about a different matter than the matter that came as a result of the other negative statement - what is your need to toil about this; perhaps it was repeated about the exact same matter, in order that the person who does this matter be liable for two negative commandments?\" But the answer was, \"He said to him, 'Anywhere that it is possible to expound, we expound - and we do not establish the verse as containing an extra negative commandment [for the same act].'\" Behold it is has been clarified to you that any negative statement that is not coming for additional content is surely called, extra - that is to say that it is repeated. And even if they will say it comes to have one violate two negative commandments, behold it is nevertheless an extra negative commandment - as is clear from this statement. Hence it is inappropriate to count it. Behold, it is already clear that the commandments are not multiplied by the multiplicity of positive or negative statements [about the same content].", + "It is already well-known that there is a command to cease work on Shabbat and that it was repeated twelve times in the Torah. Would you see someone who counts the commandments saying that they are included as commandments of resting on Shabbat, and that they are twelve commandments? And likewise does the prohibition of eating blood come seven times. Would any learned one also think to say that the prohibition of blood is seven commandments? And this is something that no one would err about - meaning that resting on Shabbat is [only] one of the positive commandments. And you should know that even when you find the expression of the Sages, that one who transgresses prohibition x has transgressed so many negative commandments or when he who negates matter y has negated so many positive commandments - it does not necessarily come out of this that you should count each one of those negative commandments or positive commandments individually; for it is the same content and there is no [true] multiplicity. Indeed, they [are saying] that he transgresses so many positive or negative commandments on account of the repetition of the command or the prohibition of that commandment; for he transgressed many [statements of the] prohibition. This is unless you find that they say, he is given two or three [sets of] lashes. For then, each one is counted individually. For one cannot be given two [sets of] lashes for one category (shem), as is clarified from that which is made known in the Talmud in Makkot (Makkot 16a) and Chullin (Chullin 82b) and other places. Indeed one receives two [sets of] lashes for two categories - meaning for two matters about which a prohibition comes for each one. And that is the difference between their saying, \"He transgresses for this and that,\" and their saying, \"He receives two [sets of] lashes,\" or \"three [sets of] lashes.\" And the proof to that which we are saying is their saying (Menachot 44a), \"Whoever does not have tzitzit (fringes) on his garment violates five positive commandments\" - since the language of the command is repeated five times (in Numbers 15:38-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12): The first is, \"let them attach to the tzitzit at each corner.\" The second is, \"make for themselves tzitzit.\" The third is, \"That shall be your tzitzit.\" The fourth is, \"You shall make tassels for yourself.\" And the fifth is, \"on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.\" But we found a clear statement from them that tzitzit is [only] one commandment, as I will explain when I discuss it (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 14). And in this exact way do they say (Menachot 44a), \"Whoever does not don tefillin violates eight positive commandments\" - because of the repetition of the command about them, of the head and of the arm, eight times. And likewise their saying, \"Any priest who does not go up on the platform (to bless the congregation) violates thirteen positive commandments\" - because of the repetition of the command about it thirteen times. And none of those who count the commandments would be so foolish as to say that the blessing of the priests is thirteen commandments, that tzitzit is five commandments and that tefillin is eight commandments. And had it been so, it would have been appropriate for us to count abuse of a convert as three commandments, because of the repetition of the prohibition about it - on account of their saying in the Gemara in Bava Metzia (Bava Metzia 59b), \"One who abuses the convert transgresses three negative commandments and one who oppresses him transgresses three negative commandments.\" But they are only two commandments - do not abuse and do not oppress him - however their prohibition was repeated. And this is clear and there is no doubt about it. And in explanation, they said in the Gemara, \"For what reason are we warned in the Torah in thirty-six places with regard to a convert? It is due to the convert’s inclination being evil.\" Would it be possible for one to say that this is thirty-six commandments out of the 613 commandments? No one would be foolish enough to say it!", + "Behold it is already been completely explained that it is inappropriate to count every negative or positive commandment that is found in the Torah, for it [may be] a repetition. Indeed it is appropriate to count [only] the content that we are commanded about or prohibited from. And it is impossible to have knowledge of a repeated negative or positive commandment that is coming to give additional content, without a teacher that instructs it. And [these teachers] are those that received the traditional explanation, peace be upon them. And do not err also because the prohibition is repeated with different words - like His, may He be exalted, saying (Leviticus 19:10), \"You shall not pick (teollel) your vineyard bare,\" once He also said (Deuteronomy 24:19), \"and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it,\" and He said (Deuteronomy 24:20), \"When you beat down the fruit of your olive trees, do not extract (tefaer) again.\" For these are not two negative commandments, but rather one prohibition about one matter - and that is that he not take that which he overlooked from the grain or the fruits when he gathers them. And He brought two examples about them - from grapes and from olives. And He called what is left of the grapes ollelot; and of the olives, \"pe'erot. And the understanding of tefaer is do not remove that which you have overlooked in some of your pe'erot - and those are the branches. (See the glosses on this book.) And to this principle, it is appropriate to attach that which I will [now] say. And that is that when I say that it is appropriate that they count the content about which we are commanded or from which we are prohibited, it is on condition that the content that we are prohibited is a separate negative commandment for each and every matter; or that the transmitters [present] a proof that separates one matter from another and that each of them requires [its own] prohibition. However when there is one negative commandment that includes many matters, only that negative commandment is counted, and not all of the content that is included in that negative commandment. And this is a general prohibition, for which we do not give lashes - as we will now explain. And that is that they said (Sanhedrin 63a) in explanation of His saying, \"You shall not eat upon the blood\" (Leviticus 19:26), \"From where [do we know] that one who eats from an animal before its soul departs is in [transgression of] a negative commandment? As it is stated, 'You shall not eat upon the blood.' Another matter: From where is it derived that one who eats the meat of an offering before the blood has been sprinkled [on the altar] is in [transgression of] a negative commandment? We learn to say,'You shall not eat upon the blood' - you shall not eat the meat when the blood is still in the bowl. Rabbi Dosa says, 'From where [do we know] that we do not provide a meal for mourners of those executed by the court? We learn to say, \"You shall not eat upon the blood.\"' Rabbi Akiva says, 'From where [do we know] that a Sanhedrin that killed a soul (i.e., that sentenced a person to death) may not taste anything that entire day? We learn to say, \"You shall not eat upon the blood.\"' Rabbi Yochanan says, 'From where [do we know] the prohibition against the behavior of a stubborn and rebellious son? We learn to say, \"You shall not eat upon the blood.\"'\" Behold that we are prohibited from all of these five things, but they they are all included under one negative commandment. And they also said (Berakhot 10b), \"From where [do we know] that a person should not taste anything until he prays? We learn to say, 'You shall not eat upon the blood' - you may not eat before you pray for your blood.\" And in explanation, they said in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 63a), \"For all of [these specific prohibitions], he is not given lashes - as it is a general negative commandment.\" And they also explained that a general negative commandment is when two or three prohibitions come from one negative commandment. So it is inappropriate that they should count each and every prohibition it included as a separate negative commandment; but rather only the one negative commandment that includes all of them. And similar to this negative commandment - meaning, \"You shall not eat upon the blood,\" - is His saying, \"you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind\" (Leviticus 19:14). As it also includes many matters, as will be explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 299). And likewise, His saying, \"You must not carry a false rumor\" (Exodus 23:1) - behold, it too includes many matters, as will be explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 281). And this is one of the types of general negative commandments.", + "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 after it has been explained that His saying, \"Do not eat any of it raw or boiled\" is [only] one commandment; and likewise all of the negative commandments that arise from the prohibition for the nazirite of all that comes out from the vine are one commandment, since they are all details, as is explained in the Gemara; and they likewise said that, \"any leaven and any honey,\" is one commandment - we should also count, \"No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted\" (Deuteronomy 23:4), as one commandment. And likewise, His saying, \"You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan\" (Exodus 22:21). And likewise, His saying, \"You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the orphan\" (Deuteronomy 24:17). And likewise, His saying, \"he may not diminish her food, her clothing or her conjugal rights\" (Exodus 21:10). Each of these negative commandments is one commandment. This means to say that each of these is exactly like, \"Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in any way,\" and like, \"for no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke as an offering.\" There is no difference between them. And likewise, His saying, \"You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the sale revenue of a dog\" (Deuteronomy 23:19), is one commandment. And likewise, His saying, \"Drink no wine or other intoxicant, etc. And to differentiate [...] And to instruct\" (Leviticus 9-11). That is to say, with one negative commandment did He prohibit [a priest] to enter the Sanctuary or to give instruction while drunk. And that is one of the divisions of the second type of general negative commandments. And the second division is [made up of cases with] words exactly like those of the previous division. However [in such cases], it is the traditionally received explanation that we give separate lashes for each and every one of those connected matters. And that is that when he does them all - even at one time - he is given lashes for each and every one as a distinct prohibition. Of this type is His saying, \"You may not eat within your gates of the tithes of your new grain or your wine or your oil\" (Deuteronomy 12:17). They said in Keritot (Keritot 4b), \"[If one] ate the tithe of grain, wine, and oil (outside Jerusalem), he is liable [separately] for each and every one.\" And they raised a difficulty and said, \"But is one given lashes for a general negative commandment?\" And the answer was, \"The verse is written superfluously. How is this? It is written, 'And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, etc.' (Deuteronomy 14:23); why did He need to come back and write, 'You may not eat within your gates?' And if you shall say that it is to [make it into a full-fledged] negative commandment - if so, let the verse say, 'You may not eat them within your gates.' Why did the verse need to go back and write all of them ('your new grain or your wine or your oil')? We hear from this, that it is to separate [it into three distinct commandments].\" And there, after give and take, it is clarified that it was not necessary for Him to say, \"and parched grain\" (Leviticus 23:14), such that it was truly mentioned to separate - that one would be liable for parched grain on its own. And in the Talmud, they asked by way of rejection, \"Maybe one is separately liable to receive lashes for parched grain\" - for it is truly mentioned for this - \"whereas for bread and fresh stalks, one is [only] liable for one [set of] lashes?\" So they answered, \"For what law did the Merciful One write, 'parched grain,' in between [the others]? To tell you that one who eats bread, parched grain and fresh stalks is liable for each and every one [individually].\"", + "Exactly parallel to this is His, may He be exalted, saying \"Let no one be found among you who passes his son or daughter through the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer. One who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts or familiar spirits, or one who inquires of the dead\" (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).\" For each one of these things is counted as a separate negative commandment; and they have nothing to do with the first of the two divisions of the second type. The proof about this is His saying, \"a soothsayer, a diviner,\" in the middle; whereas each of them was already clarified to be a separate negative commandment. And that was His saying [this verse], after a soothsayer and a diviner were each also mentioned separately in another verse - and that was His saying, \"do not divine and do not soothsay\" (Leviticus 19:26). And just like soothsayer and diviner are separated, so too do they separate those before them and after them (in the verses in Deuteronomy), [to be] like soothsayer and diviner - as we explained, about bread, parched grain and fresh stalks. And someone besides us already erred about this topic - whether because his mind did not comprehend all of these things, or whether [because] he forgot them. So he counted His saying, \"A harlot or a profaned woman they shall not marry; a woman divorced from her husband they shall not marry\" (Leviticus 21:7), as one commandment. And it was already clarified in the Gemara, Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77a), that he is liable for each and every one [separately], even if it is [all included] in one woman - as we will explain in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 161). And we can grant him an excuse for counting a harlot and a profaned woman as one commandment - as he thought it to be a general negative commandment. And in his thinking, His saying, \"A harlot or a profaned woman they shall not marry,\" was for him, like His saying, \"Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in any way.\" And he did not know that the one was to be separated and the other was not to be separated. And likewise did he not distinguish between His saying, \"you shall not eat bread, parched grain and fresh stalks,\" and His saying, \"he may not diminish her food, her clothing or her conjugal rights.\" However I will not attack him about this. Yet [regarding] his counting a divorcee together with a harlot and a profaned woman as one commandment - he has no argument for this at all. For it's - meaning the divorcee - being separate is clear. And that is His saying, \"a woman divorced from her husband they shall not marry.\" Behold we have explained this great principle - meaning to say, the general negative commandment - and its questions. And we have informed you of those that are separated and those that are [limited] only to the general negative commandment, such that we are only liable for it once; and that the content which is separated is counted as several commandments and that which is not separated is counted as one commandment. And always place this principle in front of your eyes; for it is a great key in verifying the count of the commandments. " + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count preliminaries that are for one of various purposes.", + "You should know that sometimes commands appear in the Torah; yet those commands are not commandments, but rather preliminaries to the doing of the commandment - as if He is recounting how it is appropriate for you to do the commandment. An example of this is His saying, \"You shall take fine flour and bake of it\" (Leviticus 24:5). As it is inappropriate to count the taking of fine flour as a commandment or the making of bread as a commandment. Rather that which is counted is His saying, \"And on the table you shall set the bread of display, to be before Me always\" (Exodus 25:30). Behold the commandment is that the bread always be before the Lord. And afterwards, He explained how this bread should be, and from what it should be - and He said that it should be from fine flour and that it should be twelve loaves. And in this very same way is it inappropriate to count His saying, \"to bring you clear oil of beaten olives\" (Exodus 27:20); but rather \"for lighting, for kindling lamps regularly\" - which is the maintenance of the lamps, as is explained in Tamid 83a. And in this very same way does one not count, His saying, \"Take the herbs to yourself\" (Exodus 30:34); but rather the offering of the incense every day - as Scripture explains about it, \"he shall burn it every morning when he tends the lamps. And when Aharon lights the lamps\" (Exodus 30:7-8). And that is the commandment that is counted; whereas His saying, \"Take the herbs to yourself,\" is only a preliminary of the command, to explain how you should do this commandment and what matter this incense should be from. And likewise should one not count, \"Take choice spices for yourself\"; but rather certainly count the command that He commanded that we anoint the high priest, the kings and the holy vessels with the anointing oil described. And apply this to all that is similar to it, such that you will not add what is inappropriate to count. And this is our intention about this principle, and it is a clear matter. However we mentioned it and it has come to our attention because many have erred also about this, and counted some of the preliminaries of the commandments with the commandments themselves as two commandments. This is clear to the one who understands the count of sections that Rabbi Shimon ben Kiara mentioned - he and all those who followed him - to mention the sections in their counts." + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count each of the parts of a commandment on its own, when their combination is one commandment.", + "Sometimes there will be a command which is one commandment, but it has many parts - such as the commandment of lulav, which has four species. Behold that we do not say that (Leviticus 23:40), \"the fruit of goodly trees,\" is a separate commandment; \"the boughs of thick trees,\" are a separate commandment; and \"willows of the brook,\" are a separate commandment. For they are all parts of the [one] commandment - since He commanded to combine them. And after they are combined, the commandment is to take all of them into the hand on the designated day. And by the exact same comparison, it is inappropriate to count His saying about purifying someone with tsaraat - that it is with (Leviticus 14:4-5) two living birds, cedar wood, hyssop, fabric dyed scarlet, living water and a ceramic vessel - as six commandments. Rather purifying someone with tsaraat is one commandment in all of its description, and all of these requirements and others - meaning, shaving. For all of these are parts of the commandment that we have been commanded - being the purification of someone with tsaraat - and that is that it be done in the prescribed way. And the exact same comparison applies to that which He commanded us to do regarding recognition of someone with tsaraat - while he is impure - so that he is kept away from. And that is His saying, \"his clothes shall be rent, his head shall be left bare, and he shall cover over his upper lip, etc.\" (Leviticus 13:45). And none of these acts are a separate commandment, but it is rather their combination that is the commandment - and that is that we are commanded to bring about recognition of someone with tsaraat, such that someone who sees him stay away from him; and that his recognition be with this and that. This is like that which we have been commanded to rejoice in front of the Lord on the first day of Sukkot - and its explanation was that the joy be in the taking of this and that (the four species of the lulav). ", + "And this principle is very subtle in its understanding. And I will explain the nature of its subtlety: It is understood concerning everything about which the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said, \"X and y impede one another\" - like the four species of the lulav - that it is one commandment. Likewise the bread of display and the pure frankincense that is made with it - as their words about this are (Menachot 27a), \"The bread of display and the bowls (of frankincense) impede one another.\" So it is clear that it is one commandment. Likewise anything about which it is understood that the desired outcome is not accomplished by one of the parts - it is then understood that their combination is the matter that is counted. This is like recognition of someone with tsaraat; as it is understood by you that were his clothes rent, but he did not leave his head bare, and he did not cover over his upper lip and he did not call out, \"Impure, impure\" - he will not have done anything. For his recognition will not be accomplished until he does all of them. And likewise is his purification not accomplished without all that is mentioned about the birds, the cedar wood, the fabric dyed scarlet and the shaving. However the point of difficulty is in the things about which they said, \"They do not impede one another.\" For one would have thought that since each one of these parts do not require their counterpart, each one would be a separate commandment. As with their saying (Menachot 38a), \"The blue-purple (tekhelet) is not impeded by the white, and the white is not impeded by the blue-purple\" - it would have been possible for us to say that the white and the blue-purple be counted as two commandments. This is if we had not found a clear statement [otherwise] from them in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael. It says there, \"It is possible that they are two commandments, the commandment of the white and the commandment of the blue-purple. [Hence] we learn to say (Numbers 15:39), 'That shall be your tzitzit (fringes)' - it is one commandment and not two commandments.\" So it has been already made clear to you that even parts that do not impede one another sometimes constitute one commandment - when their content is singular. For the intention of the tzitzit, is \"in order that you should remember\" (Numbers 15:40). If so - that the principle of the required thing is the remembering - it is counted as one commandment. Behold that it follows that in the count of the commandments, we may not look at their saying, it impedes or it does not impede - but rather only at the content. Is the content singular or is it multiple? [This is] as we explained in the ninth principle of these principles that we are trying to elucidate. " + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count parts of work, that are required by a command, on their own.", + "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.", + "And it is clear that the priest taking that which he may take is one of the parts of the commandment, as we mentioned with the hide of the burnt-offering. Likewise the first shearings - the whole commandment, is that we separate it and [then] give it to the priest - and likewise the tithe that we give to the Levite. But they have already erred about this, such that they have counted the gifts to the priesthood as a commandment after they have counted some of the commandments that those gifts were a part of - as we explained with the hide of the burnt-offering, and the breast and the thigh of the peace-offerings. And because this principle was hidden from others besides us and they were not aware of it all and they did not comprehend it - they came to counting pouring, mixing, crumbling, salting, presenting, waving and incinerating as separate commandments; and they did not know that they were all parts of the process of the grain-offering. And that is that we were commanded the grain-offering; and afterwards He explained about this topic that was mentioned and what it is about - and that is the precept of the grain-offering. And He said that it should be from fine flour and from bread that is made according to this description or that description - meaning [in] a pan, or a deep-pan or baked in an oven - that it be mixed in oil according to a certain measure, crumbled, that salt and frankincense is put upon it, that it is presented, waved, some of it is taken and incinerated, according to the facets that were explained in Tractate Menachot. But these are all parts of the process. And the matter that follows this whole description is called a grain-offering. If so, the commandment is the command that the process of the sacrifice of bread or of fine flour be that we offer it completely according to this arrangement. And similar to these things in the commandment of the grain offering - meaning its pouring, its mixing, its crumbling, its salting, its presenting, its waving and its incinerating - is His, may He be exalted, saying about chalitsah, \"and she shall remove his shoe, spit in front of him, and declare and say\" (Deuteronomy 25:9). And just like the commandment of chalitsah is one and we do not count chalitsah (removing the shoe) and spitting [separately] - since it is their combination, which is the process of chalitsah, that is one commandment - so too, would we not count [separately], \"and you shall pour oil upon it,\" \"and he shall place frankincense upon it,\" \"you shall surely salt it,\" \"and he shall wave\" and \"and he shall incinerate.\" And this would only be hidden from someone who bases his words on his first impressions without [further] analyzing them - as the Sages, may their memory be blessed, say, \"He said it on the run\" - meaning it was said without observation, but rather what first came to his mind. And this principle [relates to] the commands of the sacrifices and how it is appropriate to count them, such that no new mistakes or confusion creep in at all - as we have explained." + ], + [ + "That the count of commandments not be increased according to the number of days that one is obligated in that commandment.", + "It is clear that there are commandments that are obligated for a set amount of time: Some are attached - that is that one is obligated to do that commandment one day after another, like the sukkah and the lulav. And others are done on certain days, like the sacrifices. As an example, we would say that the additional sacrifice of Rosh Chodesh (offered once a month) is one commandment; and likewise the additional offering of each and every holiday of the five holidays - even though they are obligated on several adjacent days. For just like He said, \"and you shall rejoice before the Lord, your God, seven days\" (Leviticus 23:40) - He also said, \"seven days shall you bring a fire offering\" (Leviticus 23:36). Just like the commandment of lulav is singular, so too is the commandment of the additional sacrifice of Passover singular. And likewise with the additional sacrifice of each and every time period. And according to this, it is clear that the holiday (chagigah) offering is also one commandment, even though it is obligated at three [different] times; and so too the sacrifice of appearance and the sacrifice of joy. And this is something that no one erred about, nor would they consider something different. But they made a great disgraceful mistake about something that relates to this. And that is that they counted all of the additional sacrifices as one commandment - the additional offering of Shabbat, the additional sacrifice of Rosh Chodesh and the additional sacrifice of the holidays. But according to this way of counting, they would have been obligated to count the rest of every holiday as one commandment; yet they did not do this. Of course, it is not appropriate to attack them for any of this; since they did not make any type of order in their count, but rather 'ascended to the heavens and descended to the depths.' But the obvious truth is what we told you - that each and every additional sacrifice is a separate commandment, just like each rest is a separate commandment. And that is the true and straightforward arrangement [about counting]." + ], + [ + "That it is inappropriate to count the enactment of (fences) [punishments] among the positive commandments.", + "Regarding this principle, you should know that all positive and negative commandments are immediately divided into two divisions. The first one is where Scripture does not explain any punishment in any way. Rather it commands or prohibits, but does not make the transgressor liable for punishment, or specify a scourge, on account of that command or that specific prohibition. And the second is that in which the punishment for it is explained. However within this division in which the punishment is explained, there are some commandments for which He, may He be blessed, commanded that the punishment for one who transgresses them is that we stone them with stones; and some about which He commanded us to burn one who transgresses them with fire; and some about which He commanded us to smite one who transgresses them with a sword - as is explained in the received tradition. And there are some about which He commanded us to strangle one who transgresses them, as appears in the explanation; and some of them about which He commanded us to give lashes to one who transgresses them; and some of them about which He designated excision. And that is that the one who transgresses not get a death penalty, but rather - should he die with his sin - not have a share in the world to come, as we explained in the chapter [entitled] Chelek. And there are some of them about which only death was designated. And that is that God shall kill him for his sin, and his death shall atone for him. And they have already explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 13) regarding any prohibition for which one who transgresses is only liable for excision or is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens - when it is confirmed that he did that sin with witnesses and a warning, [the court] gives him lashes, even though his main judgement is given over to the Heavens. And there are some of them about which He, may He be blessed, commanded us to punish the one who transgresses them, only with his money and not with his body - as He decreed with a robber, an addition of a fifth; and with a thief, a double payment of what he stole. And there are some of them about which He, may He be blessed, commanded us that the one who transgresses them should offer a sacrifice for his transgression and that will atone for him. And behold that all of these punishments are positive commandments. And that is that He commanded us to kill that one, that we should give lashes to the other, that we should stone the third and that we should offer sacrifices for that which we have transgressed. ", + "And the manner of their count is that we count the four death penalties as four positive commandments. And the language of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 49b) is, \"This is the commandment of those stoned.\" And likewise did they say (Sanhedrin 52a), \"How was the commandment of those burnt, how was the commandment of those stangled, how was the commandment of those killed?\" And they also said (Sanhedrin 35b) that what He, may He be blessed, said, \"You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements\" (Exodus 35:3) came to prohibit the punishments on Shabbat. And that which He prohibited the commandment of burning and said, \"throughout your settlements,\" was to say - in the settlement that is a court, do not kindle a fire - even though [the kindling is part of] a positive commandment. They said, \"Burning was within a category. So why was it singled out? [Because] just like burning is specified in that it is one of the four death penalties of the court and does not push off the Shabbat, so too do the other death penalties of the court not push off Shabbat.\" And this is clear, such that no one should have a doubt about it. And likewise is it appropriate to count lashes as a commandment. But it is inappropriate to count every specific punishment as a separate commandment, until we would say, for example, that the commandment that we have been commanded to stone those that profane the Shabbat is a positive commandment, the stoning of someone with an ov is another commandment and the stoning of idolatry is a third, to the point where the count of the commandments would be according to the [classes of] people that are liable for the death penalties of the court - as did someone besides us without contemplation. For if the matter would be like this, it would be appropriate to also perforce count each and every set of lashes on its own, to the point that the lashes for eating a carcass would be a separate commandment, the lashes for eating pork would be a second commandment, the lashes the eating of meat in milk would be a third and the lashes for wearing a forbidden mixture (shatnez) would be a fourth. And for him, the positive commandments should then be according to the count of negative commandments for which we give lashes; and then the positive commandments would perforce be more than four hundred. But just like we do not count all those liable for lashes, but rather only count the type of punishment - and that is lashes - so too do we only count the types of death penalties. And those are stoning, burning, killing (decapitation) and strangulation.", + "And likewise do we not count those liable for a sacrifice according to their details, to the point that we would say the sin-offering for Shabbat would be a commandment and the sin-offering of idolatry would be [another] commandment. Rather we only count the types of sacrifices, just as we [only] counted the types of death penalties. And you already know that the types of sacrifice change according to the different transgressions for which one is liable for that sacrifice. For there are transgressions for which one is liable an uncertain guilt-offering; and some for which one is liable a variable burnt-offering, and some for which the liability is a definite guilt-offering, and some a fixed sin-offering. And so, the sin-offering is not counted with the guilt-offering. Rather we shall count the obligation of the fixed sin-offering as a commandment, the obligation of the definite guilt-offering as a commandment, the obligation of an uncertain guilt-offering as a commandment and the obligation of the variable burnt-offering as a commandment - regardless of who is the one who is liable for that sacrifice. And we do not pay attention to the different transgressions for which each one would be liable a sacrifice - just like we count lashes as a commandment and do not look at the different transgressions for which each one of them would get lashes. And so there is a separate section [in the Torah] for each of them. And someone besides us has already gotten unnecessarily mixed up about this principle. And due to the great confusion of these matters, it is not [even] appropriate to answer him. ", + "And I am surprised at a man who counted all of those that are liable for the death penalties of the court - every single one, those liable for excision and those liable for death - among the negative commandments, when he also counted among the the negative commandments, the things from which they were prohibited for which one is liable for death. As the author of the Halakhot Gedolot (Behag) counted one who desecrates the Shabbat among those that are liable for stoning, and then [also] counted, \"you shall not do any work\" (Exodus 20:10). There is no other option but that they without a doubt first thought that the punishments were [individual] negative commandments. But how could one count both the punishment and the matter about which one is liable for that punishment among them? And more difficult than this is that he counted those that are liable for excision and death at the hands of the Heavens as negative commandments; and that they thought that the liability for excision is the counted commandment. So much so that the author of the Sefer HaMitzvot (of Rav Chafetz Gaon) revealed his opinion about this and said this thing in the first chapter - while explaining what is included in that chapter. These are his words: \"And among them are thirty-two matters that He told us that He, may He be blessed, is designated for its doing and not us; and all of them are guaranteed.\" Indeed, by saying, \"among them,\" he is saying that they are from the things he is including in that chapter. And the content of the thirty-two are the twenty-three sins for which one is liable for excision and the nine for which one is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens, as he counted. And the content of his saying, \"guaranteed,\" is that He, may He be blessed, guarantees that he will excise or kill him. If so, there is no doubt that he did not retain with him that he is to believe that all of the 613 commandments are obligations upon us; but rather [thought] that there are are some of them that we are obligated, and some of them that He, may He be blessed, is obligated - as I will explain. And he said that He is designated for their doing, not us! Upon my life, this is a great confusion to me! It is inappropriate to [even] speak about this in any way, as they are clearly empty words. However they all made this mistake by counting the punishments as commandments and became confused by them. Sometimes they would count them by themselves and sometimes they would count [both] the punishments and the thing for which one is punished, and they made them all negative commandments - without reflection. But the true way of counting is that which I have mentioned - that each type of punishment be a positive commandment, such that the law of the payment of a thief be a positive commandment; for we were commanded to punish him with his money according to this measure. And likewise is the addition of a fifth a positive commandment; and the law of the obligation of a fixed sin-offering is a commandment; and the law of the obligation of a definite guilt-offering is a commandment; and the law of an uncertain guilt-offering is a commandment; and the variable sacrifice is a commandment. And each one of these punishments - burning, stoning, killing, strangling and hanging - is its own positive commandment. This is regardless of the [class] of people that are liable for it; just as lashes are one commandment regardless of who is liable. And this is what we wanted to preface about this principle. And with it are all the principles completed, the prefacing of which will assist you in that which we are involved.", + "It is also appropriate for us to attach this preface: And that is that anything for which one is liable a death penalty of the court or excision is perforce a negative commandment - except for the Passover (sacrifice) and circumcision. For they involve excision, even though they are positive commandments - as they said at the beginning of Tractate Keritot (Keritot 2a). But besides them, there are absolutely no positive commandments for which one who transgresses them would be liable for excision; all the more so a death penalty of the court. And anything about which it appears in the Torah, that if one does a certain action, he is to be killed or become liable for excision - it is certainly known that this act is prohibited and that it is a negative commandment. But behold sometimes Scripture explains the punishment alongside the prohibition, such that it explains the punishment and the prohibition. For example, the desecration of Shabbat and idolatry - about which it states, \"you shall not do any work\" (Exodus 20:10), and \"you shall not worship them\" (Exodus 20:5); and afterwards renders the one who does work [on Shabbat] or who worships idolatry liable for stoning. And sometimes the prohibition is not made clear as a definite negative commandment in Scripture; but He rather mentions the punishment and omits the prohibition. But the principle amongst us is that Scripture does not punish [for something] unless it prohibited [it], and that it is impossible not to have a prohibition for anyone who is liable a punishment. And hence, it is said in every place, \"We have heard the punishment; from where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, such and such.\" And when the prohibition is not in Scripture, it is learned out by one of the Talmudic methods - like that which they mentioned about the prohibition of cursing one's father and mother and of striking one's father and mother, which is not explicit in Scripture at all. As it did not say, \"You shall not strike your father.\" Yet it made one who strikes or curses liable for a death penalty. Hence we know that they are negative commandments; and we derived the prohibition for them - and those like them - from other places, by way of analogy. And this does not contradict their saying, \"We do not derive a prohibition from an inference,\" nor their always saying, \"And can we derive a prohibition from a derivation?\" For we only say, \"We do not derive a prohibition from an inference,\" regarding the derivation from an analogy of a prohibition that is not understood at all. However when we find the punishment for one who does this action explicit in the Torah, we perforce know that it is a forbidden action from which we are prohibited. Yet we regardless derive it from an analogy, so that the principle of their saying, \"Scripture did not punish [for something] unless it prohibited [it],\" be reinforced. But once the prohibition has come to us - not to do that thing - the one who transgressed and did [it] will become liable for excision or death. And know this principle and guard it together with the previous ones, to remember it in all that is coming up." + ] + ], + "Introduction to the counting of the Mitzvot": [ + "And now I will begin mentioning each and every commandment, and I will explain their designation - as we set our goal at the beginning of our essay - for this is the intention of the book. Behold that I find it proper to add an addition to this intention: And that is that when I mention the commandment for which one receives a punishment - whether it be a positive or a negative commandment - I will mention its punishment. And I will say, \"One who transgresses it will be liable for death, or excision, or a certain sacrifice, or lashes, or one of the death penalties of the court or payments.\" And you should know that that about which we do not mention any punishment: If it is a negative commandment, it is like that which they said, \"It is like he is transgressing the commandment of the King,\" such that it is not for us to punish him. However with all positive commandments - whenever one is obligated to do one of them, we should give lashes to the one who refrains from doing it until he dies or does it. But if the time [for it] has passed, we refrain from this. Like, for instance, with one who transgressed and did not dwell in a sukkah - we do not give him lashes after Sukkot for his transgression. And know this. And also when I mention commandments for which women are not obligated - both positive and negative commandments - I will say this: \"And women are not obligated in it.\" However it is well known that women do not judge, or testify, or bring sacrifices on their own or fight optional wars. So for all commandments that are contingent upon the court, or witnesses, or the Temple service or optional wars, I do not need to say, \"And women are not obligated in this.\" For this [would be] extraneous speech and there is no need for it. Moreover, when I mention commandments that are only practiced in the Land of Israel or in the presence of the Temple - be they positive or negative commandments - I will say, \"These are only obligated in the Land of Israel or in the presence of the Temple.\" However, it is also well known that all of the sacrifices are only done in the Temple and that the Temple service is only permitted in [its] courtyard; and likewise that capital punishments are only judged when the Temple is standing. And the language of the Mekhilta is, \"From where [do we know] that we only sentence to death in the presence of the Temple? [Hence] we learn to say, 'from My altar you will take him to die' (Exodus 21:14) - behold, if you have the Temple you put him to death, if you don't have the Temple you do not put him to death.\" And there it also says, \"From where do we know that the Sanhedrin needs to be close to the altar? As it is stated, 'from My altar.'\" And it is also known that both prophecy and monarchy have departed from us until we refrain from our constant transgressions. And then He will atone for us and be merciful to us - as He set out - and bring them back, as it is stated (Joel 2:28), \"And it will be after that, I will pour My spirit on all flesh, your sons and your daughters will prophesy.\" And regarding the return of the monarchy, He said, \"On that day I will restore the fallen sukkah of David, and I will repair its breaches, etc., I will build it as in the days of old\" (Amos 9:11). And it is well known that war and conquering of the cities cannot be without a king and without the counsel of the Great Sanhedrin and without a high priest, as it is stated (Numbers 27:21), \"And he shall present himself in front of Elazar the Priest.\" And hence all of these are well-known to most people - all the positive or negative commandments that are contingent upon sacrifices, Temple rituals, capital punishments, the Sanhedrin, a prophet, a king or optional wars - so that I will not need to say about it, \"This is only obligated in the presence of the Temple,\" since it is [already] clear, as we explained. But, with God's help, I will draw attention to that about which it is possible to have a doubt and about which some would err. And now I will begin the mentioning of each and every commandment of the Omnipresent." + ], + "Positive Commandments": [ + [ + "That is the command that He commanded us to believe in God. And that is that we believe that there is an Origin and Cause, that He is the power of all that exists. And [the source of the command] is His saying (Exodus 20:2), \"I am the Lord your God.\" And at the end of the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 23b), they said, \"There were 613 commandments stated to Moshe at Sinai [...] What is the verse [that alludes to this]? 'Moses commanded to us the Torah' (Deuteronomy 33:4)\" - meaning to say, the numerical value of [the word,] Torah. And they asked about this and said, \"That is 611.\" And the answer was, \"They heard, 'I am the Lord, your God, and '[You] shall have no [other gods]' (Exodus 20:2, 3), from the mouth of the Almighty.\" Behold it has been made clear to you that \"I am the Lord, your God,\" is included in the 613 commandments. And that is the command about belief in God, as we explained. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 1.)" + ], + [ + "This is the command that he commanded us about belief in [God's] unity. And that is that we believe that the Power over existence and its First Cause are one. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One\" (Deuteronomy 6:4). And in many midrashic texts, you will find them saying, \"On condition that they unify My name, on condition that they unify Me,\" and many like these. What they want with [such] a statement is that He indeed took us out of slavery and did the various kindnesses and benefits on condition that we believe in His unity; as we are obligated in this. And they often said, \"The commandment of unification.\" And they also called it the commandment of the yoke of Heaven. As they say, \"In order to accept upon himself the yoke of Heaven\" - meaning, acknowledgement of His unity and belief in it. (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about loving Him, may He be exalted. And that is that we think about and contemplate His commandments, His statements and His actions until we comprehend Him and derive the greatest pleasure from that comprehension. And that is the love that is obligated. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 33:1) is, \"Since it is stated, 'And you shall love,' I would not know how a man is to love the Omnipresent. [Hence] we learn to say, 'And these things that I command you today shall be upon your heart' (Deuteronomy 6:6) - that through this, you will recognize the One that spoke and the world [came into being].\" Behold we have explained to you that comprehension will come to you through contemplation and you will [then] come to pleasure, and perforce the love will come. And we have already clarified that this commandment also includes that we call all people to His service, may He be exalted, and to believe in Him. And that is since when you love a person, you will recount his praises and magnify him, and call on other people to love him. And this is, by way of analogy, the same with true love of Him, may He be exalted: When comprehension of His truth comes to you, you without a doubt call out to the fools and silly ones to know the true knowledge that you know. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 32:2) is, \"'And you shall love the Lord, your God' - cause Him to be loved by the creatures, like your father Avraham (did); as it is stated (Genesis 12:5), 'and the souls that they had made in Charan.'\" And it means to say: Like Avraham who loved [God] - as Scripture testifies, \"Avraham, who loves me\" (Isaiah 41:8), and this was from his great comprehension - to the point that he called people to Him. (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 2.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to believe in His awe, may He be exalted, and to be afraid of Him. And we should not be like the heretics who walk brazen-heartedly and heedlessly, but should be scared with the fear of His punishment at all times. And that is His saying, \"And you shall fear the Lord, your God.\" And in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 56a), they said by way of give and take about His saying, \"And if he pronounces (nokev) the name, Lord, he shall be put to death\" (Leviticus 24:16) - \"Say that [nokev] is to mention, as it is stated (Numbers 1:17), 'who were mentioned (nikvu) by name,' and its prohibition is from, 'And you shall fear the Lord, your God.'\" That is to say, maybe His saying, \"And if he pronounces,\" is only that he mention [God's] name [even] without cursing. And if you will say, \"What transgression is there in that\" - we will say that it is because he neglected fear. For included in the fear of God is not to mention His name gratuitously. The answer to this question, and its rejection, was, \"First, you need the name with the name\" - as they said, \"Yossi should smite Yossi\" - \"and also, that this is [only] a prohibition of a positive commandment. And any prohibition of a positive commandment is not called a prohibition\" - for it is a command and a positive commandment, and we cannot prohibit with a positive commandment. Behold it has been made clear to you that His saying, \"And you shall fear the Lord, your God,\" is a positive commandment. (See Parashat Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah.) " + ], + [ + "That is that we are commanded to serve Him. And this command is repeated several times: His saying, \"And you shall serve the Lord, your God\" (Exodus 23:25); and His saying, \"and you shall serve Him\" (Deuteronomy 13:5). And although this command is from the inclusive commands - as we explained in Principle Four (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 4) - it nevertheless has specificity, since it is the command to pray. The language of the Sifrei is, \"'And to serve Him' (Deuteronomy 11:13) - that is prayer.\" And they also said, \"'And to serve Him' - that is [Torah] study.\" And in the Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Rabbi Yose HaGelili, they said, \"From where [do we know that] the essence of prayer is a commandment? From here - 'You shall fear the Lord, your God, and you shall serve Him' (Deuteronomy 6:13).\" And they said, \"Serve Him through His Torah; serve Him in His Temple.\" This means, direct [yourself] towards it, to pray [towards] there, as Shlomo, peace be upon him, explained. (See Parashat Mishpatim: Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to associate with the sages, to gather with them and to constantly be involved with them in all manner of work and interaction - in eating and drinking and business, so that it comes to us to imitate their actions and believe the truth of their words. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and to Him shall you cling\" (Deuteronomy 10:20). And this command has also already been repeated - \"and to cling to Him\" (Deuteronomy 11:22). And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 49:2), it appears, \"'And to cling to Him' - cling to the sages and their students.\" And they accordingly brought a proof about this obligation of a person - to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar, to feed Torah scholars and to give them business - from His saying, \"and to Him shall you cling\": And they said, \"And is it possible for a person to cling to the Divine Presence? And behold, it is written (Deuteronomy 4:24), 'For the Lord, your God, is a consuming fire!' Rather, anyone who marries his daughter to a Torah scholar, or who marries the daughter of a Torah scholar or who benefits a Torah scholar - Scripture considers it as if he clung to the Divine presence.\" (See Parashat Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to swear by His name when it is necessary to ratify something or to deny it. For there is aggrandizement, glory and exhalation through this. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and by His name shall you swear\" (Deuteronomy 10:20). And in the explanation, they said, \"The Torah said, 'Swear,' and the Torah said, 'Do not swear' - meaning to say, just like it prohibits an oath for which there is no need, and it is a negative commandment; so too is there a commandment [to make] an oath when it is needed, and it is a positive commandment. And as a result, it is not permitted to swear by any of all the creatures, such as the angels or the stars, except by way of nullifying what is attached. This is like one who swears by the sun, but he means to say, the Master of the sun. And in this way, our nation swears by the name of our teacher, Moshe - how glorious is his name - as if the one swearing was swearing by the Master or by the One who sent him. But so long as the one who swears is not intending this, but is swearing by one of the creatures, to believe in it - that it has intrinsic truth, to the point that he swears by it - he has already transgressed and associated something else with the name of the Heavens. About this comes the explanation (Sukkah 45b), \"Anyone who associates the name of the Heavens with something else is uprooted from the world.\" And this is matter that the verse, \"and by His name shall you swear,\" intended - meaning that only about Him should you believe that there is truth by which it is appropriate to swear. And they already said at the beginning of Temurah (Temurah 3b), \"From where [do we know] that we may swear to perform the commandments? As it is written, 'and by His name shall you swear.'\" (See Parashat Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Oaths 11.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to imitate Him, may He be exalted, according to our ability. And that is His saying, \"and you shall go in His ways\" (Deuteronomy 28:9). And this command has already been repeated, [when] He said, \"and to go in all of His ways\" (Deuteronomy 11:22). And in the explanation, it appears (Sifrei Devarim 49:1), \"Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, is called merciful; you too, be merciful. Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, is called pious; you too, be pious.\" And this matter was already repeated in different words: He said, \"Go in the ways of the Lord.\" And in the explanation, it appears (Sotah 14a) that He meant to say to imitate His good deeds and glorious traits by which God, may He be exalted, is described, by way of analogy - He is exalted over everything with great exaltation. (See Parashat Ki Tavo; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to sanctify His name. And that is His saying, \"and I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel\" (Leviticus 22:32). And the content of this commandment is that we are commanded to publicize this true faith in the world, and that we not fear the injury of any aggressor. And even though an oppressor seeks to coerce us, we may not listen to him, but rather must give ourselves over to dying; and not deceive him to think that we have denied [God or His Torah] - even if we [regardless] believe in Him, may He be exalted, in our hearts. And this is the commandment of sanctifying [God's] name, that the Jewish people is commanded as a whole - meaning, to allow ourselves to die at the hand of the coercer on account of our love for God, may He be exalted, and our faith in His unity. This is like that which was done by Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah at the time of the evil Nevuchadnetsar, when he commanded to bow down to an image and all of the masses bowed down to it, including the Jews; and there was no one there sanctifying the name of the Heavens. Rather all were afraid; and this was a great disgrace for all of Israel, since the commandment was lost from all of them. And this commandment (in such circumstances) is only commanded in such a large and public stand in which everyone is afraid. And this was a designated publicization of [God's] unity which was designated by God through Yishayah - that the disgrace of Israel not be complete during this stand, but that young men would appear at that difficult time; and death would not scare them and they would allow their lives [to be taken], such that they would publicize the faith and sanctify [God's] name among the masses. This is as He promised us when He said, \"no more shall Yaakov be shamed, no longer his face grow pale. For when he - that is, his children - behold what My hands have wrought in his midst, they will sanctify My name, etc.\" (Isaiah 29:22-23). And the language of the Sifra is, \"On this condition did I bring you out of Egypt: On condition that you sanctify My name among the masses.\" And in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 74b), they said, \"Is a gentile (ben Noach) commanded about the sanctification of [God’s] name, or is he not commanded? Come and hear - the Children of Noach were commanded to observe seven commandments. And if you say like this, there would be eight.\" Behold it has become clear to you that it is among the commandments that are obligatory for the Jews. And they brought His saying, \"and I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel,\" as a proof for this commandment. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Emor ; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to read the recitation of Shema in the evening and the morning. And that is His saying, \"and you shall speak about them\" (Deuteronomy 6:4). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Berakhot; and there (Berakhot 21a), it is explained that the recitation of Shema is [an obligation] from the Torah. And it is written in the Tosefta (Tosefta Berakhot 3:1), \"Just like the Torah established [a set time for] the recitation of Shema, so too did the Sages establish a time for prayer.\" This means to say that the times of prayer are not from the Torah - though the actual obligation to pray is from the Torah, as we explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 5) - and the Sages, may their memory be blessed, arranged times for them. And this is the content of their saying (Berakhot 26b), \"They established the prayers corresponding to the daily sacrifices\" - meaning, that they fixed their times according to the times of the sacrifices. And women are not obligated in this commandment. (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Reading the Shema 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to study Torah and to teach it. And that is His saying, \"And you shall teach them to your sons\" (Deuteronomy 6:4). And it is written in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 34:4), \"'To your sons' - these are the students. For students are called, sons, as it is stated, (II Kings 2:3) 'And the sons of the prophets came forth.'\" And there (Sifrei Devarim 34:1), it says, \"'And you shall teach (shinantam, which is related here to the word, shen, tooth) them' - they shall be sharp in your mouth, so that if one questions you about something, you will not stammer to him, but tell him forthwith.\" And this command was already repeated several times - \"and you shall teach them (and) [to] do them\" (Deuteronomy 5:1); \"in order that they shall learn\" (Deuteronomy 31:12). And the command and the encouragement of this commandment has already been scattered throughout many places in the Talmud. And women are not obligated in it, from His saying, \"And you shall teach them to your sons\" (Deuteronomy 11:19) - His saying, \"your sons,\" and not, \"your daughters,\" as it is explained in the Gemara (Kiddushin 30a). (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to put on the head tefillin. And that is His saying, \"and they shall be for symbols between your eyes\" (Deuteronomy 6:8). And this command has already been repeated four times. (See Parashat Bo, Vaetchanan and Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Tefillin, Mezuzah and the Torah Scroll 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to put on the hand tefillin. And that is His saying, \"And you shall tie them as a sign upon your hand\" (Deuteronomy 6:8). And this command was already repeated four times. And the proof that the head tefillin and the hand tefillin are two commandments is their saying in the Gemara (Menachot 44a) in surprise at one who thinks that one not put on the head tefillin or the hand tefillin without the other, but rather only if they are both together - and this is the language of the statement - \"one who does not have two commandments, should he also not do the one commandment?\" This means to say, should one who cannot do two commandments not do the one - that is not the case, but rather he should do the one commandment that presents itself. Hence he should put on either one of them that presents itself to him. Behold it has been made clear to you that they called the hand tefillin and the head tefillin, two commandments. And these two commandments are not obligatory for women on account of His, may He be exalted, saying, as a reason for their obligation, \"in order that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth\" (Exodus 13:9) - and women are not obligated in Torah study. And so did they explain in the Mekhilta. And likewise did they explain all the regulations of these two commandments in the fourth chapter of Menachot. (See Parashat Bo, Vaetchanan and Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Tefillin, Mezuzah and the Torah Scroll 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to make tzitzit (fringes). And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"to make for themselves fringes [...] let them attach to the fringe at each corner\" (Numbers 15:38). And [the two colors of strings are] not counted as two commandments, even though the main understanding for us is that the blue-purple does not impede the white and the white does not impede the blue-purple. For it is said in the Sifrei, \"It is possible that they are two commandments, the commandment of the white and the commandment of the blue-purple. [Hence] we learn to say (Numbers 15:39), 'That shall be your tzitzit' - it is one commandment and not two commandments.\" And women are not obligated in it, as is explained in the first [chapter] of Kiddushin (Kiddushin 33b). And the regulations of this commandment were already explained in the fourth chapter of Menachot. (See Parashat Shelach; Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to make a mezuzah. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates\" (Deuteronomy 6:9). And note that this command was repeated; and they have already explained the laws of this commandment in the third chapter of Menachot. (See Parashat Vaetchanan and Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Tefillin, Mezuzah and the Torah Scroll 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to assemble the people on the second day of Sukkot at the end of the sabbatical year, and to read some sections of Deuteronomy so they can hear it. And that is His saying, \"Assemble the people, the men, etc.\" - and that is the commandment of assembly. And they said in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 33b-34a), \"Women are exempt from all positive, time-bound commandments.\" And they asked, \"But behold, assembly is a positive, time-bound commandment, and women are obligated!\" However they explained at the end of the matter, \"We do not learn [all cases] from general statements (i.e. 'all positive time-bound commandments').\" And the regulations of this commandment and everything regarding who is to read, how he is to read and what things he is to read are already explained in the seventh chapter of Sotah. (See Parashat Nitzavim.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us that any king from our nation that sits on the royal throne should write a Torah scroll for himself, and that it not be separated from him. And that is His saying, \"When he is seated on his royal throne, he shall have a copy of this Torah written for him\" (Deuteronomy 17:18). And all of the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 2 of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Tefillin, Mezuzah and the Torah Scroll 7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that every man among us should write a Torah scroll for himself. And if he writes it with his hand, Scripture accounts it to him as if he received it at Mount Sinai. But if it is impossible for him to write it, he should buy it or hire someone to write it for him. And this is His saying, \"write for yourselves this song \" (Deuteronomy 31:19). And it is not permitted to write [only] sections. For when He said, \"this song,\" He intended the whole Torah, which includes this song (of Haazinu). And the language of the Gemara (Sanhedrin 21b) is, \"Rabbah said, 'Even if his ancestors left him a Torah scroll, it is a commandment to write a scroll of his own, as it is stated, \"write for yourselves.\"' Abaye raised an objection to him (from a baraita concerning the king’s Torah scroll), '\"And he writes himself a Torah scroll for himself, so that he does not become proud from the Torah scroll of his ancestors.\" A king, yes, but an ordinary person, no!'\" And the answer was, \"No, [the ruling of that baraita] was only necessary [to teach that the king is commanded to write] two Torahs; as it is taught in a baraita, 'And he must write two Torahs for himself.'\" This means to say that the difference between a king and an ordinary person is that every man is obligated to write a Torah scroll, whereas a king, two - as it is explained in the second chapter of Sanhedrin. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning to say, the writing of a Torah scroll and its stipulations - have already been explained in the third chapter of Menachot and in Shabbat, Chapter 16. (See Parashat Nitzavim; Mishneh Torah, Tefillin, Mezuzah and the Torah Scroll.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to bless Him after eating. And that is His saying, \"And you shall eat and be satiated, and bless the Lord, your God\" (Deuteronomy 8:10). And the language of the Tosefta (Tosefta Berakhot 6:1) is, \"Grace over the meals is [an obligation] from the Torah, as it is stated, 'And you shall eat and be satiated, and bless.'\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in many places in Tractate Berakhot. (See Parashat Ekev, Mishneh Torah, Blessings 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that we were commanded to build a choice house for Divine service, in which there will be sacrifices and an eternal burning of fire; and to which there will be journeying and pilgrimage on the festivals, and gatherings every year. And that is His saying, \"And let them make Me a sanctuary\" (Exodus 25:8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 67:1) is, \"Three commandments were commanded to Israel upon their entrance to the land: To appoint a king over themselves; to build themselves a choice house; and to cut off the seed of Amalek.\" Behold it has been made clear to you that the building of the choice house is a separate commandment. And we have already explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 12) that this aggregate includes many parts, such as the menorah, the table, the altar and the rest of them - all of them are parts of the Temple. And all of it is called, Temple, even as each and every part has an individual command. However, His saying about the altar, \"Make for Me an altar of earth\" (Exodus 20:21), could have been thought of as a separate commandment, besides the commandment of the Temple. And the content of this is as I will tell you: True, the simple understanding of the verse is indeed clearly speaking about the time of the permissibility of altars - as at that time, it was permitted for us to build an earthen altar and sacrifice upon it. But [the Sages] have already said that the [actual] content in this is that He commanded us to to build an altar that is connected to the ground, and that it not be detached and moved, as it was in the desert [journey from Egypt]. And that is their saying in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai 20:21) in explanation of this verse, \"When you come to the land, make Me an altar that is attached to the ground.\" And since the matter is so, behold that this command is practiced for [all] generations; and it would be one of the parts of the Temple - meaning that specifically an altar of stones be built. And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:22:1) in explanation of, \"And if an altar of stones you make for Me\" (Exodus 20:22), \"Rabbi Yishmael says, 'Each and every, if, in the Torah [connotes] optionality, except for three.'\" And one of the them is, \"And if an altar of stones.\" They said, \"'And if an altar of stones you make for Me.' This is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Of whole stones shall you build [the altar of the Lord]' (Devarim 27:6).\" And the regulations of this commandment as a whole - meaning to say, the building of the Temple and its description and the building of the altar - have been explained in the tractate associated with it, and that is Tractate Middot. And likewise is the form of the menorah, the table and the golden altar; and the location of their placement in the chamber explained in the Gemara, Menachot and Yoma. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to fear this Temple very much, to the extent that we place a burden of fear and awe upon ourselves - and that this be from the fear of the Temple. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and you shall fear My sanctuary\" (Leviticus 19:30). And the designation of this fear is like that which they mentioned in the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7:9), \"Which is fear? One should not enter the Temple Mount with his staff, with his shoes, with his money-belt and with the dust on his feet; and he must not make a short-cut of it and, a fortiori, [not spit].\" And it has already been explained that it is only permitted for kings of the House of David to sit in [its] courtyard. And this is all from His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and you shall fear My sanctuary.\" And this is obligatory forever; and even in our times, when it has been destroyed on account of the increase in our transgressions. And this is the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7:8), \"This tells me only of the time when the Temple existed. From where [do we know that the same is true] even when the Temple does not exist? [Hence] we learn to say, 'My Sabbaths you shall keep, and My sanctuary you shall fear' (Leviticus 19:30) - just as the keeping of the Shabbat is eternal, so too, is fear of the Temple eternal.\" And there (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7:7) it is also said, \"It is not the Temple that you fear, but He who makes His Divine Presence dwell in that place.\" (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to guard the Temple and to constantly walk around it, to honor it, to exalt it and to aggrandize it. And that is His saying to Aharon, \"while you and your sons under your charge are before the Tent of the Testimony\" (Numbers 18:2). And this command has already been repeated with different language, and that is His saying, \"and keep the charge of the Tent of Meeting\" (Number 18:4). And it is written in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 116:1), \"'While you and your sons under your charge are before the Tent of the Testimony' - the priests within, and the Levites outside.\" And in the Mekhilta, they said, \"'And keep the charge of the Tent of Meeting' - this tells me only that it is with a positive commandment. From where [do we know that] it is also with a negative commandment? [Hence,] we learn to say, 'And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary.'\" Behold it has been made clear to you that guarding the Temple is a positive commandment. And there it is said, \"It is an aggrandizement to the Temple that it has guardians; and a palace that has guardians is not the same as a palace that does not have guardians.\" And it is well known that, palace, is a name for the [Temple] chamber. They said that the aggrandizement and exaltation of the chamber is [generated by the presence] of the guards that are assigned to it. And the regulations of this commandment have already all been explained in Tractates Tamid and Middot. (See Parashat Korach; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 1.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that only the Levites were commanded to serve in the Temple in specific [types of] service, such as shutting the gates and reciting song at the time of the sacrifice. And that is His, may He be exalted and praised, saying, \"And the Levite shall serve\" (Numbers 18:23). And this is the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 119:5), \"I would understand [that] if he wishes, he serves; and if he does not wish, he does not serve. [Hence,] we learn to say, 'And the Levite shall serve' - [even] against his will.\" That is to say that it is an obligatory command that is placed upon him by force - and that is the service of the Levites. And it has already been explained in several place in Tamid and Middot, and it is also explained in the second chapter of Arakhin (Arakhin 11a), that only the Levites could recite song (during the Temple service). And the command for this commandment was already repeated with different language, and that is His saying, \"And he shall serve in the name of the Lord, his God, like all his fellow Levites\" (Deuteronomy 18:7). And they said in the second chapter of Arakhin (Arakhin 11a), \"What is service that must be in the name of the Lord? You must say that this is song.\" (See Parashat Korach; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 3.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded the priests to wash their hands and their feet any time they needed to enter the [Temple] chamber and do the service. And this is the sanctification of the hands and the feet. And this is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And let Aharon and his sons wash their hands and feet [from it]. When they enter the Tent of Meeting\" (Exodus 30:19-20) And one who transgresses this positive commandment is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens - meaning to say that a priest that serves in the Temple without sanctification of the hands and feet is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And that is His, may His name be blessed, saying, \"they shall wash with water, that they may not die\" (Exodus 30:20). And the regulations of this commandment have already been completely explained in the second chapter of Zevachim. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 8.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded the priests to kindle the lamps regularly in front of the Lord. And that is His, may His name be blessed, saying, \"Aharon and his sons shall set them up\" (Exodus 27:21).\" And this is the commandment of arrangement of the lamps. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the eighth chapter of Menachot, in the first chapter of Yoma and in Tractate Tamid. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 3.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded the priests to bless Israel. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Thus shall you bless the people of Israel.\" And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the last chapter of Megillah and of Taanit and in the seventh chapter of Tractate Sotah. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 14)." + ], + [ + "That is that he commanded us to place the bread of display always in front of Him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And on the table shall you set the bread of display, to be before Me always\" (Exodus 25:30). And you already know the language of the Torah about placing new bread every Shabbat, and that frankincense be with it and that the priests eat the bread made for the previous Shabbat (Leviticus 23:8,7,9). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 11 of Menachot. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded the priests to burn incense every day twice on the golden altar. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"On it Aharon shall burn incense of spices: he shall burn it every morning when he arranges the lamps\" (Leviticus 30:7). And the regulations of this commandment and the process of burning every day have already been explained at the beginning of Keritot and various places in Tractate Tamid. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offering and Additional Offerings 3.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to burn a fire on the altar every day continuously. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"A continual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, not to go out\" (Leviticus 6:6). And this is only possible with His having commanded to place fire continually on the wood in the morning and in the afternoon, as it is explained in the second chapter of Yoma and in Tractate Tamid. And in the explanation, they said that even though the fire descends from the heavens, it is a commandment to bring it from the commoners (humans). And the laws of this commandment - meaning the arrangement of the fire which they are to do every day on the altar - have already been explained in Yoma and in Tamid (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded the priests to remove the ashes from off the altar every day. And this is what is called, removing the ashes. And that is His, may His name be blessed, saying, \"he shall put on other vestments, and carry the ashes\" (Leviticus 6:3). And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tamid and Yoma. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to send away the impure from the camp. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"that they remove from camp anyone with tsaraat or a discharge\" (Numbers 5:2). And this camp is the camp of the Divine Presence, outside of which are the compartments of the courtyard - as we explained at the beginning of the Order, Tahorot, in the Commentary on the Mishnah. And it is written in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 1:1), \"'That they remove from camp' - this is a prohibition for the impure not to enter the Temple while impure.\" And this command was already repeated with a different language, \"If anyone among you has been rendered unclean by a nocturnal emission, he must leave the camp\" (Deuteronomy 23:11) - meaning the camp of the Divine Presence. And the language of the Mekhilta is, \"'Instruct the Israelites that they remove from camp' is a positive commandment. From where [do we know that] it is a negative commandment? 'And they shall not defile the camp' (Numbers 5:3).\" And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 255:4), \"'He must leave the camp' - that is a positive commandment.\" (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 3.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to honor the seed of Aharon, to adorn and glorify them, and that we should place them on a level of priority and precedence. And even if they decline, we should not listen to them - this is all aggrandizement of God, may He be exalted, since He took them and chose them for His service and to offer His sacrifices. And this is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, \"And sanctify him, since he offers the bread of your God\" (Leviticus 21:8).\" And the explanation appears - \"And sanctify him,\" in every matter of holiness: To start first, to bless first and to take a nice portion. And the language of the Sifrei is, \"'And sanctify him' - against his will.\" This means to say this is a command that we are commanded, and it is not the priest's choice. And likewise did they say, \"'They shall be holy to their God' (Leviticus 21:6) - against their will; 'and they shall be holy' - to include those with blemishes.\" This is so that you not say, \"Since this one is not fit to serve the bread of His God, why should we give him the level of priority and honor?\" Hence His saying, \"and they shall be holy\" - all of this honored seed, both unblemished and blemished. And the stipulations required by them, such that it will be fit to treat them with this practice, have already been explained in scattered places in the Gemara - in Chullin, in Shabbat, in Bekhorot and in the other [tractates]. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 4)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded the priests to wear special garments for glory and adornment, so they can then serve in the Temple. And that is His saying, \"And make holy garments for your brother Aharon, for glory and adornment\" (Exodus 28:2); \"Then bring his sons forward; clothe them with tunics\" (Exodus 29:8). And this is the commandment of the priestly garments - eight garments for the high priests and four for an ordinary priest. And anytime the priest serves with less than this number of special garments, or more than them, his service is disqualified and he becomes liable for death at the hands of the Heavens - meaning for the one was lacking clothes and served. And likewise did they count him in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 83b) as one of those liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And this explanation does not appear in Scripture. But what does appear in Scripture is, \"and you shall gird them with sashes [...] and they shall have priesthood\" (Exodus 29:9). And the explanation appears - when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; when their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them, and they are outsiders (non-priests). Behold it has been made clear to you that an outsider that serves [in the Temple receives] the death penalty. And they said in the Sifra (Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Milium 1:7), \"'And he placed the breastplate upon him': This section was learned for its time and for [all the] generations; for the daily service and for the Yom Kippur service. [However] every day he serves in the golden garments; and on Yom Kippur, in the white (linen) garments. And it already appears in the [Sifra], that wearing these garments is a positive commandment. And this is their saying (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8:10), \"From where [do we know] that Aharon did not wear the garments for his aggrandizement, but only to fulfill the decree of the King? As it is stated, 'and he did as the Lord commanded Moshe' - that is to say, the wearing of the garments.\" And even though they are the utmost in beauty - given that they are from gold, onyx, jasper and the other precious and beautiful stones - he should not have intention [in wearing them,] for their beauty, but rather only to fulfill the command that God, may He be exalted, commanded Moshe. And that is that he always wear these garments in the Temple. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Zevachim, Yoma and Sukkah. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded the priests to carry the ark on their shoulders, when we want to move it from place to place. And that is His saying, \"they bore it on their shoulders\" (Numbers 7:9). Even though this command came to the Levites at that time, that was in fact because of the paucity (at that time) of priests who were [actually] obligated with the commandment. If so, the commandment is obligatory on the priests; and they would be the ones to carry it, as it is explained in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 3:6) and in the Book of Samuel (II Samuel 15:25). And when David commanded that the ark be carried the second time, he said in Chronicles (I Chronicles 15:15), \"The Sons of Levi carried the Ark of God by means of poles on their shoulders, as Moshe had commanded, in accordance with the word of the Lord.\" And likewise when it mentions the divisions of the priests into twenty four watches in Chronicles, it states (I Chronicles 24:19), \"According to this allocation of offices by tasks, they were to enter the House of the Lord according to the ordinance given to Aharon their father, as the Lord, God of Israel, had commanded him.\" The Sages, may their memory be blessed, explained that this hints to the service of the priests being to carry the ark on the shoulder. And that is (what is meant by), \"as the Lord, God of Israel, had commanded him.\" And the language of Sifrei is \"'According to the ordinance, etc., as the Lord had commanded him' - where did He command him? 'But to the Sons of Kehat he did not give any; since theirs was the service of the [most] sacred objects, they bore it on their shoulders.'\" Behold it has been made clear to you that this commandment is included in the commandments. (See Parashat Nasso, Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 2.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that we have oil made according to the special recipe, ready to anoint the high priest when he is appointed - as He said, \"The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured\" (Leviticus 21:10). And some of the kings were [also] anointed with it, as it is explained in the the law of this commandment. And the Tabernacle and all of its vessels have already been anointed by it. The vessels are not anointed for [all of the] generations (when new ones are made). For they said in the explanation, in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 44), \"That with the anointment of these\" - meaning the vessels of the Tabernacle - \"all the future vessels were consecrated.\" He, may He be elevated and may His name be blessed, said, \"This shall be an anointing oil sacred to Me throughout the ages\" (Exodus 30:31). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Keritot. (See Parasht Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 1.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us that the priests serve in watches, each watch serving one week. And the hand of all should not be mixed together (in service); except on festivals when all of the watches serve equally and anyone who comes from them can offer a sacrifice. And this has already been explained in Chronicles (I Chronicles 9:22) - how David and Shmuel divided them into twenty-four watches. And it is explained in Sukkah (Sukkah 55b) that the hand of all [priests] are equal on festivals. And the language of this commandment is His saying, \"If a Levite would go, etc. he may come as he pleases. He may serve in the name of the Lord, his God [...] They shall eat equal shares\" (Deuteronomy 18:6-8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 168:5, 169:3) is, \"'He may come as he pleases.' I might think always. [Hence] we learn to say, 'from one of your gates' (Deuteronomy 18:6) - when all of Israel are assembled within one gate; and that is during the three festivals. I might think that all of the watches are [also] equal for offerings brought on the festival not for the sake of the festival. [Hence] we learn to say, 'aside from the sale of the fathers' (Deuteronomy 18:8) - what the fathers sold to each other, i.e., 'You [take them] on your Shabbat, and I on my Shabbat.'\" This means their agreement about all of the watches of the service, one watch for each week. And so did Onkelos (Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy 18:8), explain, \"except for the allotment which comes on Shabbat, as our (fore)fathers have regulated.\" And they have already explained the laws of this commandment at the end of the Gemara in Sukkah. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 4.)" + ], + [ + "That is that the priests were commanded to become impure for the relatives that are mentioned in the Torah. Since, on account of Scripture preventing them from becoming impure, for their glory, yet allowing them to become impure for the relatives, they perhaps would think that the option is theirs - if they want to become impure, they become impure; and if they do not want, they do not become impure. [Hence] He made a decree upon them and made it obligatory upon them. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, \"for her he shall defile himself\" (Leviticus 21:3) - that is to say, for his sister. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Section 2:12) is, \"'For her he shall defile himself' - it is a commandment. If he does not want to become impure, we force him to become impure. And it happened with Yosef the priest, whose wife died on the eve of Pesach, and he did not wish to become impure for her, that the Sages pushed him and made him do so against his will.\" And this is actually the commandment of mourning - meaning that any Israelite is obligated to mourn for his relatives: That is, the six dead [relations about which he is] commanded. And to strengthen this obligation, He explained it with a priest, for whom impurity is prohibited - that he must become impure regardless - so that the law of mourning not be uprooted. And it has already been explained that the obligation of mourning is a positive commandment - however only on the first day, whereas the rest is rabbinic. And in the explanation, they said in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 14b), \"He does not observe mourning on the festival. If the mourning is from before, the positive commandment of the many pushes off the positive commandment of an individual.\" Behold it has been made clear to you that the obligation of mourning is a positive commandment - however only on the first day, whereas the rest is rabbinic. And even a priest is obligated to observe mourning on the first day and become impure for his relatives - and understand this. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Berakhot, in Ketuvot and in the Sifra, Parashat Emor. And women are not obligated in this, that one be obligated to become impure for one's relatives. For the one that is prohibited from becoming impure for others besides the relatives is also the one who is commanded to become impure for the relatives. Whereas women of the priestly order, who were not prohibited from becoming impure with a corpse - as will be explained in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 166) - were likewise not commanded to become impure. But they do practice mourning and are permitted to become impure. And know this. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Mourning 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded a high priest to marry a virgin. And that is His saying, \"He shall marry a woman who is a virgin.\" And they said in the explanation (Ketuvot 30a), \"Rabbi Akiva would designate as a mamzer even [a child resulting from the union of] those prohibited by a positive commandment.\" And the explanation of this is that it is when a high priest would have sexual intercourse with someone who is not a virgin - about which he is prohibited by a positive commandment. For the principle with us is that a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment is [also] a positive commandment. And behold the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Yevamot, in Kiddushin and in Ketuvot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to sacrifice two one-year old lambs in the Temple everyday, and these are called the daily offerings (temidin). And this is His saying, \"two a day as a regular burnt offering\" (Numbers 28:3) And the order and process of their offering has already been explained in Yoma and in Tractate Tamid. (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that the high priest offer a regular grain offering every day in the morning and in the afternoon. And that is called the griddle-cakes of the high priest and it is also called the grain offering of the anointed priest. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"This is the offering of Aharon and his sons\" (Leviticus 6:13). And the regulations of this commandment and when it is offered have already been explained in Menachot, in Yoma and in Tamid. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 3.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded to offer a sacrifice on every Shabbat in addition to the regular offering of every day. And that is His saying, \"two one-year old lambs\" (Numbers 28:9). And the order of their offering has already been explained in the second chapter in Yoma and in Tamid. (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 4)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded to offer a sacrifice on every Rosh Chodesh (first day of the month) in addition to the regular offering of every day. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, \"And on the beginnings of your months, etc.\" (Numbers 28:11). (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded to offer a sacrifice on all seven days of Pesach in addition to the daily offering. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Seven days shall you offer a fire-offering to the Lord\" (Leviticus 23:36). (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 7.)" + ], + [ + "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.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded to also offer an additional sacrifice on the fiftieth day from the offering of the omer, [the latter being on] the 16th of Nissan. And that is the additional sacrifice of Atzeret (Shavuot) mentioned in the Book of Numbers. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"On the day of the first fruits, when you offer\" (Numbers 28:26). (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 8)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to bring two breads of chametz to the Temple with the sacrifices that come with the bread on Shavuot - which is fixed for the bringing of the sacrifice, as it appears in Leviticus - and that the priests eat the two breads, after their waving, with the lambs of the peace offering. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, \"You shall bring from your settlements bread as a wave offering\" (Leviticus 23:17). And it has already been explained in Menachot (Menachot 45b) that this sacrifice that comes because of the bread is separate from the additional sacrifice of the day, and that this one is different than that one. And we ourselves have already explained this with sufficient elucidation in the commentary on Tractate Menachot (Commentary on the Mishnah). And the regulations of this commandment have already all been explained in Tractate Menachot, Chapters 4, 8 and 11. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Daily and Additional Offerings 8.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded to offer an additional sacrifice on the first day of Tishrei. And that is the additional sacrifice of Rosh Hashanah. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"In the seventh month, on the first day [...] You shall offer a burnt-offering as a pleasing odor to the Lord\" (Numbers 29:1-2). (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 9.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded to offer an additional sacrifice on the tenth day of Tishrei. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"And on the tenth day of the seventh month [...] You shall offer a burnt-offering as a pleasing odor to the Lord\" (Numbers 29:7-8). (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to do the service of the day - meaning, the sum of all of the sacrifices and the confessions arranged for the fast of Yom Kippur, in order for them to atone for all of our transgressions, as it appears in Scripture. And this is the service that is written in Achrei Mot (Leviticus 16). And the proof about the sum of all of it being [only] one commandment is their saying in Tractate Yoma (Yoma 60a), \"The whole process of Yom Kippur must be in order. If one performed one of the actions before another, he has not done anything.\" And all of the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Yoma. (See Parashat Achrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Service on the Day of Atonement 4). " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded to offer an additional sacrifice on the holiday of Sukkot. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall offer a burnt-offering\" (Numbers 29:13). And that is the additional offering of the holiday. (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 10:3.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded to offer an additional sacrifice on the eighth day of the Holiday (Sukkot). And that is the additional offering of the eighth day holiday of Atzeret. And that which obligates us to count this additional offering separately - separate from all the days of Sukkot - it that we expound that the eighth day Atzeret is its own festival. And that is completely clear. (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to ascend to the Temple three times a year. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Three times a year shall you have a holiday for me\" (Exodus 23:14). And it is already explained in Scripture that this holiday is that all who ascend do so with a sacrifice to offer. And behold that this command has been repeated twice. And their language (Chagigah 6b) is, \"Three commandments are practiced on the festival - the festival-offering, the sight-offering and the joy-offering.\" And the content of this festival-offering is that it be offered as a peace offering. But women are not obligated to do it. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Chagigah. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering.) " + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to appear [at the Temple] on festivals. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying \"Three times a year all your males shall appear\" (Deuteronomy 16:16). And the content of this commandment is that a man should ascend to the Temple, with every male son that he has who is able to walk on his own feet, and offer a burnt-offering upon his appearance - and this is called a sight-offering. And we have already mentioned their saying (Chagigah 6b), \"Three commandments are practiced, etc.\" And the regulations of this commandment - meaning the commandment of appearance - have already been explained in Tractate Chagigah. And also this do women not practice, and they are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to rejoice in the the festivals. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall rejoice in your festival\" (Deuteronomy 16:14). And this is the third of the three commandments that are practiced on the festival. And the first matter that is hinted to us with this command is that we offer a peace-offering no matter what. And these peace-offerings, that are in addition to the holiday peace-offerings. are called peace-offerings of joy. And they said (Chagigah 6b) that women are obligated in these. And Scripture has already appeared [about it], \"And you shall sacrifice peace-offerings, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 27:7). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chagigah. And included in, \"You shall rejoice in your festival,\" is what they said to also rejoice on them with various types of joy. And among them are to eat meat, to drink wine, to wear new clothes, to distribute types of fruits and sweets to children and women, to play with musical instruments and to dance specifically in the Temple - and that is the joy of the house of water drawing (simchat beit hashoevah). All of this fits into His saying, \"You shall rejoice in your festival.\" And that one is specifically obligated in the drinking of wine is because it is uniquely associated with joy. And the language of the Gemara (Pesachim 109a) is that one is obligated to rejoice his sons and daughters on the festival with wine. And there, they said, \"It is taught in a bereita: Rabbi Yehuda says, 'When the Temple is standing, rejoicing is only through meat, as it is stated, \"And you shall sacrifice peace-offerings [and you shall eat there and you shall rejoice].\" But now, rejoicing is only with wine, as it is stated (Psalms 104:15), \"And wine that gladdens the heart of man.\"'\" And they also already said (Pesachim 109a), \"Men, with what is fit for them; and women, with what is fit for them.\" And the language of the Torah is that we include the weak, the poor and converts in this joy - when He, may He be blessed, says, \"the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow\" (Deuteronomy 16:14). (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to slaughter the Pesach-offering on the fourteenth of Nissan in the afternoon. And one who transgresses this command and does not sacrifice it in its time is liable for excision - whether it is a man or a woman. And it has already been explained in the Gemara (Pesachim 91b) that the first Pesach is a commandment [also] for women and that it pushes off the Shabbat. That means to say, its sacrifice must be on the fourteenth [even when it] comes out on a Shabbat, [for women] - just like for every Jewish man. And the Torah's language about the liability for excision is His saying, \"and refrains from offering the Pesach-offering, that person shall be cut off\" (Numbers 9:13). And at the beginning of Keritot (Keritot 2a) when it lists the commandments for which one who transgresses them becomes liable for excision - and they are all negative commandments - it says, \"And the Pesach-offering and circumcision, among the positive commandments.\" And we already mentioned this in the introduction (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 14). And this commandment has already been explained in Pesachim. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to eat the lamb of the Pesach-offering on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan according to the stipulations mentioned - and that is that it is roasted, that it is eaten in one house and that is eaten with matzah and bitter herbs (maror). And that is His saying, \"They shall eat the meat that night; they shall eat it roasted with fire, with matzah and with bitter herbs\" (Exodus 12:8). And perhaps a questioner will challenge me and say, \"Why do you count the eating of the Pesach-offering, matzah and the bitter herbs as one commandment and not count them as three commandments?\" I would [then] answer him that it is true that the eating of matzah is a separate commandment, as I will explain later (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 158); likewise is the eating of the meat of the Pesach-offering a separate commandment, as we have mentioned. However the bitter herbs are an extension of the eating of the Pesach-offering and are not counted as a separate commandment. And the proof of the matter is that the meat of the Pesach-offering is eaten to fulfill the commandment, whether bitter herbs are available or whether they are not available. But bitter herbs are only eaten with the meat of the Pesach-offering - as His saying, \"upon [...] bitter herbs shall they eat it\" (Numbers 9:11). But [if one ate] bitter herbs without meat, he has not done anything; and we do not say that he has already fulfilled a commandment. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:8:3) is, \"'They shall eat it roasted with fire, with matzah and with bitter herbs' - tells [us] that the commandment of the Pesach-offering is roasted meat, matzah and bitter herbs.\" This means that the commandment is the combination of these. And there, they said, \"From where [do we know that] which you say, that if they do not have matzah and bitter herbs, they fulfill their obligation with the Pesach-offering? [Hence] we learn to say, 'shall they eat it'\" - meaning the meat by itself. \"I might think that if they do not have a Pesach-offering, they [do not] fulfill their obligation with matzah and bitter herbs. Behold you argue: The Pesach-offering is a positive commandment and matzah and bitter herbs are a positive commandment. Behold you have learned that if they do not have matzah and bitter herbs, they fulfill their obligation for the Pesach-offering; so too, if they do not have the Pesach-offering, they fulfill their obligation for matzah and bitter herbs. ([Hence] we learn to say, 'upon matzah and bitter herbs shall they eat it.')\" And there, they [also] said, \"'They shall eat it' - From here, [we know] that the Pesach-offering is to be eaten in a state of satiety, but matzah and maror are not [necessarily] to be eaten in a state of satiety.\" That is because the essence of the commandment is the eating of the meat - as He said, \"They shall eat the meat that night,\" whereas the bitter herbs are an extension of the eating of the meat; and their obligation is explained from these verses, for those that understand them. And the obvious proof of this is the [following statement] in the Talmud - and that is their saying (Pesachim 120a), \"Bitter herbs in our days is rabbinic.\" For there is no obligation from the Torah to eat them by themselves. Rather they should be eaten with the meat of the Pesach-offering. And that is a clear proof that they are from those things that are extensions of the commandment [of the Pesach-offering], and that their eating is not a separate commandment. And the regulations of this commandment are also explained in Tractate Pesachim. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that whoever was prevented from slaughtering the first Pesach-offering, slaughter the second Pesach-offering. And that is His, may be exalted, saying, \"They shall offer it in the second month [...] at twilight\" (Numbers 9:11). And here there is room for the questioner to challenge me, \"Why do you count the second Pesach-offering? That contradicts what you have prefaced in the Seventh Principle, when you said that a law of a commandment is not counted as a separate commandment!\" The questioner of this challenge should know that the Sages already argued about whether the second Pesach-offering is a law of the first, or a distinct command. And the legal decision was that it is a command stated on its own. So therefore it is appropriate to count it separately. In the Gemara (Pesachim 93a), they said, \"'One is liable for excision for [not observing] the first, and one is liable for excision for [not observing] the second.' These are the words of Rabbi (Yehuda HaNasi). Rabbi Natan says, 'One is liable for excision for [not observing] the first, but one is exempt from excision for [not observing] the second.' Rabbi Chananiah ben Akaviah says, 'Even for [failing to observe] the first, one is only liable if he did not fulfill the second.'\" And the Talmud [then] asked and said, \"With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi holds that [the second Pesach] is its own festival, whereas Rabbi Natan holds that it is a redress for the first, etc.\" Behold we have already made clear, that which we were referring to. And there (Pesachim 93b), they said, \"Therefore, one who was volitional about this one and that one\" - meaning that he volitionally did not offer the first Pesach-offering nor the second Pesach-offering - \"is liable according to everyone; and one was inadvertent about this one and that one, is liable according to everyone. If one was volitional about the first but inadvertent about the second - according to Rabbi and Rabbi Natan, he is liable; according to Rabbi Chananiah ben Akaviah, he is exempt. And likewise, if he was volitional about the first, but sacrificed the second, he is liable according to Rabbi.\" As according to his opinion, there is no redress for the first. (See Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 5, where he writes, \"If he was volitional about the first, he should sacrifice the second\" - and that is the opposite of what he wrote here.) And the law in this is completely like Rabbi. But women are not obligated in this commandment; as it has already been explained there that the second [Pesach-offering] is optional for a woman. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the Gemara, Pesachim. (See Parashat Behaalotecha; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to eat from the meat of the second-Pesach offering on the night of the fifteenth of Iyar over matzah and bitter herbs. And that is His saying, \"upon matzoh and bitter herbs shall they eat it\" (Numbers 9:11). And they said that women are not obligated in it. For just as its slaughter is not obligatory for them - as we explained (in the previous commandment) - so too is its eating, without a doubt, not obligatory. (See Parashat Behaalotecha; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 1.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to blow with trumpets in the Temple during the bringing of the holiday offerings. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And on your joyous occasions and on your festivals [...], you shall blow, etc.\" (Numbers 10:10). In the explanation (Rosh Hashanah 26b), they said that this commandment (on public fasts) is with the trumpets. And the regulations of this commandment were already explained in the Sifrei, in Rosh Hashanah and in Taanit. And likewise are we commanded to blow with trumpets at times of need and of distress, when we yell out in front of God, may He be exalted. And that is His saying, \"When you are at war in your land against an aggressor who attacks you, etc.\" (Numbers 10:9). (See Parashat Behaalotecha; Mishneh Torah, Fasts 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that we were commanded that any animal sacrifice that we offer be eight days old or more - and not less. And this is [the commandment of] that which is lacking time in its body. And that is His saying, \"it shall stay seven days with its mother\" (Leviticus 22:27). And this commandment has already been repeated with a different language. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"seven days it shall stay with its mother\" (Exodus 22:29). And this commandment completely includes all of the sacrifices. And there is a proof that it is not accepted before then from His saying, \"and from the eighth day, it will be accepted as a burnt-sacrifice to the Lord\" (Leviticus 22:27). Behold the prohibition of offering that which is lacking time has already been demonstrated. However it is a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment. Hence we do not give lashes for it. So one who sacrifices [an animal] which is lacking time does not receive lashes, as it is explained in the chapter [entitled] Oto ve'et Beno (Chullin 80b). And there, it is said, \"Leave that which is lacking time, as Scripture rectified it by a positive commandment.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the Sifrei and at the end of Tractate Zevachim. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 3)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that all of that which we offer Him be consummate for its type - flawless from blemishes that appear in Scripture and those that they pronounced as such from tradition. And this is His saying, \"it must, to be acceptable, be flawless\" (Leviticus 22:21). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra Emor, Section 7:9) is, \"'It must, to be acceptable, be flawless' - is a positive commandment.\" And they already brought a proof that the wines of the libations and their oils and the fine flour must be the best and clean from any corruption - from His saying, \"flawless for you, with their libations\" (Numbers 28:31). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Menachot. (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 6.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to offer salt on every sacrifice. And that is His saying, \"on all of your sacrifices, offer salt\" (Leviticus 2:13). And the regulations of this commandment were already explained in the Sifra and in Menachot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us with the process of the burnt-offering sacrifice. And that is that every burnt-offering sacrifice - whether it be the sacrifice of an individual or of the community - be according to this and that stipulation and according to this description. And that is His saying, \"a man - when one of you offers [...]. If his sacrifice is a burnt-offering, etc.\" (Leviticus 1:2-3). (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us with the process of the sin-offering sacrifice, according to the description that is mentioned - whatever sin-offering it may be. And that is His saying, \"This is the law of the sin-offering\" (Leviticus 6:18). And in Leviticus, it is also explained how it is offered, what is burnt from it and what is to be eaten. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us with the process of the guilt-offering sacrifice - according to the description that is mentioned - with His saying, \"And this is the law of the guilt-offering\" (Leviticus 7:1). And Scripture explained how it is offered, what is burnt from it and what is to be eaten. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 9.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us with the process of the peace-offering sacrifices - according to the description that is mentioned - with His saying, \"And if his sacrifice is a sacrifice of peace-offerings\" (Leviticus 3:1). And He said further with the completion of the process, \"And this is the law of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings [...]. If he offers it for thanksgiving\" (Leviticus 7:11-12). These four processes - meaning the process of the burnt-offering, the sin-offering, the guilt-offering and the peace offerings - are all the processes of sacrifices. For all animal sacrifices that are sacrificed by an individual or the community are perforce one of these four types. However the guilt-offering is exceptional, in that it is always the sacrifice of an individual - as we have explained many times. And Tractate [Zevachim] also includes the laws of these four commandments, and those things which are connected to them by being similar to them in terms of obligation and exemption; the disqualified process and the one done properly. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 9.)" + ], + [ + "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 us that the court should offer a sacrifice if they erred in a directive. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And if the whole community of Israel has erred, etc.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Horayot and Zevachim. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 2.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that anyone who erred in a sin and is an individual offer a sin-offering sacrifice. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And if a person sins in error.\" And that is a fixed sin-offering - meaning that is always an animal sin-offering. And we have already explained that sins for which we are liable for a sin-offering when inadvertent, we are liable for excision when volitional - and that is on condition that they are negative commandments and that they involve an action, as it is explained at the beginning of Keritot (Keritot 2). And the regulations of this commandment are explained in Tractate Menachot and Keritot, and in Tractate Shabbat, Shevuot and Zevachim. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to offer a sacrifice when a doubt arises about one of the big sins for which we are liable excision when volitional, and a fixed sin-offering when inadvertent. And this sacrifice is called an uncertain guilt-offering. And that is when there were two portions in front of him - one was of permissible fat and the other of forbidden fat - and he ate one of the two, and the other was lost. And the doubt arises for him and he does not know which one he ate. So he must offer a sacrifice for this doubt that arises, and it is atoned. And this is called an uncertain guilt-offering. But if afterwards it is demonstrated to him that the portion that he ate was [forbidden] fat, it has become demonstrated that he erred, such that he must offer a fixed sin-offering sacrifice. And the verse [that appears] about this sacrifice is His saying in Leviticus (Leviticus 5:17-18), \"And when a person sins in regard to any of the commandments, etc. so the priest shall atone on his behalf for the error that he committed inadvertently.\" And this matter, the Sages called, \"he was not aware.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 1.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us that one who does certain sins must offer a guilt-offering sacrifice. And that is what is called a definite guilt-offering. And the sins for which one is liable for this sacrifice are misappropriation; theft; one who has sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant; and one who swears falsely with an oath over a deposit. And that is one who misappropriated in error and derived benefit worth a perutah (a small coin) from sanctified property - whether sanctified for Temple upkeep or whether sanctified for the altar; one who robbed the value of a perutah or more from his fellow and took an oath; one who had sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant, whether inadvertent or volitional. [In these cases,] he is obligated to offer a sacrifice for his sin, and it is not a sin-offering sacrifice; indeed, it is a guilt-offering, and it is called a definite guilt-offering. And He said regarding misappropriation, \"and he sinned in error, etc. and he shall bring his guilt offering\" (Leviticus 5:15). He [also] said, \"and he denied his countryman [...] and swore falsely, etc. his guilt offering shall he bring.\" (Leviticus 5:21-25). And He said, \"and she is a designated maidservant for a man [...]. And he shall bring his guilt offering\" (Leviticus 19:20-21). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 9.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He also commanded us to bring a variable burnt-sacrifice for certain specific sins. And the sins for which one is liable for this sacrifice are impurification of the Temple and its sanctified objects; an oath of speech; and an oath of testimony. And that is one who is impure from one of the primary sources of impurity - as we set out in the introduction to the Order of Purities (Commentary on the Mishnah) - and entered the Temple or ate consecrated [food] inadvertently; and that is impurification of the Temple and its consecrated objects. Or that he swore falsely, as with an oath of speech that he inadvertently transgressed; or if he swore falsely with an oath of testimony - whether inadvertently or volitionally. Behold for any of these actions, he must bring a sacrifice that is called a variable burnt-offering. And that is His saying, \"And if a person sin, and hear the voice of adjuration [... Or when a person touches any unclean thing...] and it be hid from him [and he come to know of it, and be guilty]. Or if a person swear, speaking with his lips [...] And it shall be, when he shall be guilty [...]. And he shall bring his guilt offering [...]. But if his means do not suffice\" (Leviticus 5:1-7). And for this reason is it called a variable burnt-offering - because it does not remain one type; but rather he will once bring this type, and another time that type. Everything is according to what the means of the sinner, who is obligated to offer the sacrifice, suffice. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot and in Shevuot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 10.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to confess the transgressions and sins that we have done before God and to say them together with [our] repentance. And that is confession. And its intent is that one say, \"Please, Lord, I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have rebelled and I have done such and such.\" And he should prolong the statement and request forgiveness about this matter according to the polish of his speech. And you should know that even the sins for which one is liable for the types of sacrifices that are mentioned - that He said that one offer them and it atones for him - do not suffice with the sacrifice when it is without confession. And that is His saying, \"Speak to the children of Israel [saying], a man or woman who commits from any of the sins of man [...]. And they shall confess the sins that they did\" (Numbers 5:6-7). And the language of the Mekhilta is, \"Since it is stated (Leviticus 5:5), 'and he shall confess that which he has sinned upon it' - it is to be upon the sin-offering when it is in existence, not after it has been slaughtered. It is only understood that an individual confesses for entering the Temple [impure]\" - for this verse appears in Parashat Vayikra about one who renders the Temple and its sanctified objects impure, and that which is mentioned with it, as we explained; and so the Mekhilta there raises the possibility that we would only learn the obligation for confession from Scripture about one who renders the Temple impure. \"From where are you to include all the other commandments? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Speak to the children of Israel [...]. And they shall confess.' And from where [do we know] even [sins that bring punishments of] excision and death penalties of the court? It states, 'the sins,' to include negative commandments; 'that they did,' to include positive commandments.\" And there it says, \"'From any of the sins of man' - for theft, for robbery, for evil speech; 'to commit a trespass' - to include one who swears falsely and a blasphemer; 'and be guilty' - to include all those guilty of death penalties. It might be even those who are killed according to the testimony of colluding ones. I only said, 'and that man be guilty.'\" That means to say that he is not obligated to confess when he knows that he has not sinned, but rather what was testified against him was false. Behold it has been made clear to you that we are obligated to confess for all types of transgressions, big and small - and even [for] positive commandments. But because this command - that is, \"And they shall confess\" - appeared with an obligation for a sacrifice, it could have entered our mind that confession is not a commandment by itself, but is rather from those things that are an extension of the sacrifice. [Hence] they needed to clarify this in the Mekhilta with this language - \"It might be that when they bring their sacrifices, they confess; when they do not bring their sacrifices, they do not confess. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Speak to the children of Israel [...]. And they shall confess.' But still, the understanding of confession is only in the Land [of Israel]. From where [do we know], also in the diaspora? [Hence] we learn to say, 'their iniquities [...] and the iniquities of their fathers' (Leviticus 26:40).\" And likewise did Daniel say, \"To You, Lord, is justice, etc.\" (Daniel 9:7). Behold that which we have mentioned has been made clear to you - that confession is a separate obligation; and that it is an obligation for the sinner for every sin that he did. Whether in the Land or outside of the Land; whether he brought a sacrifice or did not bring a sacrifice - he is obligated to confess, as it is stated, \"And they shall confess for their iniquities.\" And the language of the [Sifra] is, \"'And he shall confess' - that is confession of words.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Yoma. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Repentance 1)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that any man who is healed from a discharge offer a sacrifice. And this is the sacrifice of the zav; and he is lacking [full] atonement until he offers it. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, \"When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge [...]. On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves\" (Leviticus 15:13-14). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 1-3.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that any woman who is healed from a discharge offer a sacrifice - and that is two turtledoves or two young pigeons. And this is the sacrifice of the zavah; and she is lacking [full] atonement until she offers it. And perhaps the questioner will challenge me and say, \"Since the sacrifice of the zav is like the sacrifice of the zavah, why don't you [just] count the type of sacrifice that one is obligated, regardless of who is obligated - like you did with the sacrifice of the sin-offering, the definite guilt-offering, the uncertain guilt-offering and the variable sacrifice? As you counted each and every one as only one commandment, each; and you did not concern yourself with the multiplicity of transgressions for which one is liable, such that one is liable a sacrifice for each and every one of them. So it would have been appropriate for you not to concern yourself with the multiplicity of [classes of] people that are liable for the fowl offering!\" That questioner should know that the sacrifices of the zav and the zavah are not for sins, but rather for a specific matter. And if the matter of discharge were the same in men and women, like the name is the same - as the name of one is zav and the name of the other is zavah - it would have then been appropriate to count them as one. But the matter is not like this. For the displacement of blood in a woman - if blood would [likewise] be displaced in a man, he would not be liable for a sacrifice. And the word, zivut, relates to the matter of displacement. But the displacement is not the same in both of them. So in the explanation (Niddah 32b), they said, \"A man becomes impure with white, and a woman with red.\" And the law of the zav and the zavah is not like the law of a man with tsaraat and a woman with tsaraat. And the open proof about this is their saying in Keritiot (Keritiot 8b), \"Four are lacking [full] atonement: The zav; the zavah; the woman after childbirth; and one with tsaraat.\" Behold you see how they counted the zav and the zavah as two, but counted tsaraat as one - whether it is a man or a woman. For the discharge of a man is different than the discharge of a woman. And the verse that appears about this matter is His saying, \"When she becomes clean of her discharge [...]. On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons\" (Leviticus 15:28-29). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 1-3.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that any woman after childbirth offer a sacrifice - and that is a one-year old lamb as a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin-offering. But if she was poor, she should offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons - one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. And she is also lacking [full] atonement until she sacrifices them, as He said, \"On the completion of her period of purification, for either son or daughter, she shall bring a one-year old lamb for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin-offering, etc.\" (Leviticus 12:6). (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that someone with tsaraat offer a sacrifice when he is healed from it. And that is three animals - a burnt-offering, a sin-offering and a guilt-offering - and a log of oil. But if he was poor, he should offer a lamb for a guilt-offering and two turtledoves or two young pigeons. And this is the fourth of those lacking [full] atonement - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"On the eighth day he shall take two flawless male lambs, one one-year old ewe lamb, etc.\" (Leviticus 14:10). And one will perhaps say, \"Why don't you count the sacrifice of those lacking [full] atonement as one commandment, since they all have one thing that brings them all together - and that is their lack of atonement, such that this would be a certain type of purification. And it would have been appropriate for you to say, 'It is x commandment that He commanded us that the purity of some impure ones not be complete until they offer a sacrifice - and that is the zav; the zavah; the woman after childbirth; and one with tsaraat.' Just like you count purification in a mikveh as one commandment - whatever the specific impurity might be - and you don't concern yourself with the type of impurity with which they became impure; so too, would it have been appropriate for you to count the sacrifice of those lacking atonement as one commandment, and we would not be concerned about their [specific] impurities!\" God knows that this would no doubt have been appropriate if the sacrifice of each one of these four that lack atonement were the same and did not differ; just like purification in the mikveh is a specific type of purification for every impure one. However as a result of the variation of their sacrifices - as you can see - it is perforce required to count each sacrifice individually. For the thing with which one [of them] completes purification is different from the thing with which the other one completes it. This is like waters of purification (mixed with ashes of a red heifer), the waters of a mikveh and the four species for the one with tsaraat are three commandments, even while they are all to purify the impure - as I will explain. And the regulations of these four that lack atonement and the regulations of their sacrifices have already been explained - in general and in detail - in the eighth chapter of Nazir, at the end of Negaim, in Tractate Kinnim and in scattered places in the Talmud. But most of them and their principles are in the places we named. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 4.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to extract a tenth of the animals that are born to us each year, to offer their fat and blood and to eat the rest in Jerusalem. And that is His saying, \"And all tithes of the herd or flock\" (Leviticus 27:32). And that is the animal tithe. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the last chapter of Bekhorot. And there it is explained that this commandment is practiced also outside of the Land and also not in the presence of the Temple. However the Rabbis decreed - lest [people] eat it without a blemish because we have no Temple (which prevents the eating of such an animal) - and said that it is only practiced in the presence of the Temple. But when the Temple was built, it was practiced both in the Land and outside the Land. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to consecrate firstborn animals - meaning, to separate and designate them for what is appropriate for one to do with them. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"Consecrate to Me every firstborn\" (Exodus 13:2). And it is explained in the Torah that these animals are only cattle, sheep and the species of donkeys. And this command about the firstborn pure animal was already repeated - and that is the commandment that we are speaking about now - when He said, \"Every firstborn that is born, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 15:19). And this law of the firstborn pure animal is that they bring it to the priest, he offers its fat and its blood, and they eat the rest of it in Jerusalem. And the regulations of this commandment have already been completely explained in Tractate Bekhorot. And at the end of Tractate Challah (Mishnah Challah 4), it is explained that this commandment is only practiced in the Land. And the language of the [Sifrei] (Sifrei Devarim 106:2) is, \"I might think that one brings the firstborn from outside of the Land (to be sacrificed). [Hence] we learn to say, 'And you shall eat before the Lord, your God [...] the tithe of your grain [… and the firstborn]' (Deuteronomy 14:23). From the place where you bring the grain, you bring the firstborn.\" Behold it has been made clear to you that that this commandment is only practiced in the Land - whether the Temple is in existence or whether it is not in existence, like it is [not in existence] now in our times - like the tithe of grain. (See Parashat Bo, Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 1.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to redeem the firstborn man, that we should give the money to the priest. And that is His saying, \"you shall give me your firstborn sons\" (Exodus 22:28). And He explained to us how this giving should be: And it is that we redeem him from the priest; and it is as if [the priest] already acquired him, and we purchase him from him for five sela - and that is His saying, \"but surely redeem the firstborn man\" (Numbers 18:15). And this commandment is the commandment of redeeming the son. And women are not obligated in it - indeed it is one of the commandments of the son that is upon the father, as it is explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 29a). And all of the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Bekhorot. However Levites are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that we should redeem the [firstborn] donkey specifically with a sheep, and it should not be redeemed with anything else. And one should give that sheep to a priest. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"But the firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a sheep\" (Exodus 34:20). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Bekhorot. And the Levites are also not obligated in this commandment. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to behead the [firstborn] donkey if we do not redeem it. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"if you do not redeem it, you must behead it\" (Exodus 34:20). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Bekhorot. And the questioner may challenge and say, \"But why did you count its redemption and its beheading as two commandments; and why did you not count them as one commandment, such that its beheading be from the laws of the commandment - like [you explained] in the seventh principle?\" Behold God knows that the analogy requires this, were it not that we found with our Rabbis a language that indicates that they are two commandments. And that is their saying, \"The commandment of redemption precedes the commandment of beheading; the commandment of levirate marriage precedes the commandment of chalitzah\" (Bekhorot 13a). And just like a levirate wife is suited for either levirate marriage or chalitzah; and levirate marriage is one commandment and chalitzah is [another] commandment - so too, is a [firstborn] donkey suited for either redemption or beheading; and each of them is a commandment, as we have said. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to bring all of the sacrifices that are incumbent upon one during the first holiday of the three pilgrim holidays that we encounter, such that none of the three pilgrim holidays pass without each one of us sacrificing any sacrifice that he is obligated. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and there shall you come. And there you shall bring\" (Deuteronomy 12:5-6). And the content of this command is that it is saying that when you come there - and that is on each of the holidays of the three pilgrim holidays - you are obligated to bring every sacrifice incumbent upon you. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 63:4-5) is, \"'And there shall you come. And there you shall bring.' Why is it stated? To make them obligatory on the first holiday that he encounters.\" And there, it says, \"He is not in transgression of 'you shall not delay' (Deuteronomy 23:22) until all three of the pilgrim holidays of the whole entire year have passed him by.\" This means to say that he has transgressed a negative commandment [only] after three pilgrim holidays have passed him by, and he has not brought [them]. However when one holiday passed him by, he has surely violated a positive commandment. And in the Gemara, Rosh Hashanah (Rosh Hashanah 4b), [it says,] \"Rabbi Meir says, 'Once [even] one holiday has passed, one transgresses, \"you shall not delay.\"'\" And it is said there, \"And Rabbi Meir, what is his reason? As it is written, 'and there shall you come. And there you shall bring.' But the Rabbis [reason, this verse only] comes to [indicate] a positive commandment.\" Behold it has already been explained there that His saying, \"and there shall you come. And there you shall bring,\" is a positive commandment. And that is that he bring all that He is obligated from God's laws and dispose of them on each and every holiday. And whether it is any of the types of sacrifices, monies, appraisals, consecrations, gleanings (leket), forgotten sheaves or corner produce (peah) - the dispensation of one's obligation with any of these on the first holiday that he encounters is a positive commandment, as is explained in the Gemara, Rosh Hashanah. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 14.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to offer all of the sacrifices in the [Temple]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"there you shall bring up your burnt-offerings and there you shall do\" (Deuteronomy 12:14). And because they wanted to confirm the prohibition not to offer any of all the sacrifices outside [of it], they took the proof from His saying, \"lest you bring up your burnt-offerings [in any place]\" (Deuteronomy 12:12). And they said in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 70:5-6), \"This tells me only of burnt-offerings. From where [do we know the same is true for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and there you shall do all that I command you' (Deuteronomy 12:14). But I still would say that only burnt-offerings are subject to a positive and a negative commandment. From where [do we know the same is true for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and there you shall do'\" - as we will explain in its place, when we speak about the prohibition (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 89). And the content of their saying, \"burnt-offerings are subject to a positive commandment and a negative commandment,\" is that one who offers a burnt-offering outside would be transgressing a positive and a negative commandment. Indeed, the negative commandment is His saying, \"lest you bring up your burnt-offerings\"; and for the positive commandment, it is His saying, \"there you shall bring up.\" [And their saying,] \"Other offerings would only be a positive commandment,\" is meaning to say, His saying, \"and there you shall do,\" by itself. But it is explained that even for other offerings, one also transgresses a negative commandment, along with a positive commandment. And it has already been explained at the end of Zevachim (Zevachim 119b) that all offerings that are sacrificed outside [are a violation of] a positive and a negative commandment, and one is liable excision on their account. Behold it has been made clear to you from all that I said that His saying, \"and there you shall do,\" is a full-fledged positive commandment. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to bring any sin-offering, burnt-offering, guilt-offering and peace-offerings, which we are obligated, to the [Temple]. And even when, they are outside of the Land - meaning to say, we became obligated for them outside of the Land - we are surely obligated to bring them to the [Temple]. And that is His saying, \"But your consecrated things as you may have, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 12:26). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 77:1-2) is, \"'Your consecrated things' - [...] rather it must be speaking of consecrations outside of the Land. 'Shall you bear and you shall come' - this teaches that he must care for what he brought until he brings it to the Temple.\" And they decided there that this is actually regarding the sin-offerings, burnt-offerings, guilt-offerings [and peace-offerings] that each person is obligated. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to redeem consecrated animals which have developed blemishes, such that it becomes mundane and permissible to slaughter and eat it. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"But whenever you desire, you may slaughter and eat\" (Deuteronomy 12:15). And the language of the Sifrei is, \"'But whenever you desire' - it is only speaking about consecrated items that were disqualified and are to be redeemed.\" And the [laws] of this commandment - meaning the redemption of consecrated items - have already been explained in Tractate Bekhorot, Terumah and in various places in Chullin, Arakhin and Meilah. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that the substitute [of a consecrated item] be consecrated. And in the explanation in Tractate Temurah (Temurah 4b), they said that His saying, \"he shall not substitute for it,\" is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment. And it is also said there - in order to give a reason for the one who substitutes to get lashes, even though it is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment - and they said, \"A positive commandment should not come and uproot two negative commandments.\" That is to say, this prohibition of substitution has been repeated twice - \"He may not exchange or substitute it\" (Leviticus 27:10) - but [only] one positive commandment appears; and that is, \"it and its substitute shall both be holy\" (Leviticus 27:33). Behold what we have wanted to explain has been explained. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Temurah - meaning when it stands and when it does not stand and what its law is. (See Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Substitution 1.)" + ], + [ + "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.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded the priests to eat the meat of consecrated animals - meaning the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, which are the most consecrated of the consecrated (kodshei kedoshim). And that is His saying, \"And they shall eat those with which they atoned\" (Exodus 29:33). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2:4) is, \"From where [do we know] that the eating of offerings is atonement? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and it, has He given to you to forgive the sin of the congregation' (Leviticus 10:17). How is this? Priests eat and the owners are atoned for.\" And from the stipulations of this commandment - and that is the eating that is the commandment - is, however, that it be for the day and the night, until midnight. And afterwards, the eating of that sin-offering or guilt-offering is forbidden. Indeed, the commandment of eating is for a limited time. And women are not obligated in it, since women do not eat the most consecrated of the consecrated, about which the verse appears. However the other consecrated foods, meaning the less consecrated of the consecrated (kodshim kalim), are eaten for two days and a night - except for the thanksgiving-offering and the ram of the nazarite, which are for one day and the night until midnight, even though they are of the less consecrated of the consecrated. And women also eat from the less consecrated of the consecrated. And its eating is also an extension of the commandment; likewise is the eating of the priestly tithe an extension of the commandment. However the eating of the less consecrated of the consecrated and of priestly tithes is not like the eating of the meat of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. For the atonement of the penitent is completed with the eating of this meat from the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, as we explained; and the language of the command is about their eating, which is not the case with the less consecrated of the consecrated and priestly tithes. And therefore it is [only] an extension of the commandment; but one who eats them does a commandment. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 116:2) is \"'I give you your priesthood as a service of gift' (Numbers 18:7) - to make the eating of consecrated items in the [outer] limits like the Temple service in the Temple: Just like for the service of the Temple, he washes his hands and then eats; so too does he wash his hands and then eat the consecrated items [outside the Temple]. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Zevachim. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded to burn consecrated items that have become impure. And that is His saying, \"Meat that touches anything impure [... shall be burned in fire]\" (Leviticus 7:19). And in the Gemara Shabbat (Shabbat 25a), it comes to explain the reason for that which it is forbidden to kindle priestly tithes of oil that have become impure on a holiday - and they said about this, \"'Shabbaton' (Leviticus 23:24) [indicates] it is a positive commandment, such that [rest from work on] the holiday is a positive commandment and a negative commandment. And a positive commandment does not push off a negative commandment and a positive commandment.\" And the content of this statement is that the doing of work on a holiday is forbidden: And one who does it transgresses a positive commandment, since [work] is the negation of a positive commandment. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying about the holiday, \"it shall be a Shabbaton for you.\" And he [also] transgresses a negative commandement, since he is doing what has been forbidden to him. And that is His saying, \"no work shall be done on them\" (Exodus 12:16) - meaning on the holidays. Whereas the burning of consecrated items is a positive commandment. Hence it is not permitted to burn it on a holiday, on account of the principle that it mentioned: \"A positive commandment does not push off a negative commandment and a positive commandment.\" And there, they also said, \"Just like it is a commandment to burn consecrated items that have become impure, so too is it a commandment to burn priestly tithes of oil that have become impure.\" And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Pesachim and at the end of Termurah. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded to burn leftovers (notar). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"What is left over of the meat of the sacrifice shall be burned\" (Leviticus 7:17). And in explanation of His [also] saying about the Pesach lamb, \"You shall not leave over from it\" (Exodus 12:10), they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 12:10), \"It comes to give a positive commandment and a negative commandment.\" And in many places in Pesachim and Makkot and other places besides them, it says in explanation, that it is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment; and therefore we do not receive lashes for it. And the positive commandment is that which we mentioned, \"What is left over from it, you shall burn\" (Exodus 12:10). And the law of leftovers and improper (pigul) [sacrifices] is the same, as I will explain in the Negative Commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 132). For the improper has already been referred to by the expression, \"leftovers.\" And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Pesachim and at the end of Temurah. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a nazarite should grow his hair. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"he shall let grow untrimmed, the hair of his head \" (Numbers 6:5). And the language of the Mekhilta is, \"'He shall be holy' - its growth is to be in holiness; 'and he shall let grow untrimmed' - is a positive commandment. And from where [do we know that it is also] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'no razor shall touch his head.'\" And it is said there, \"This is what I have given as a positive commandment [only] - one who scrubs [his scalp] with earth and one who places herbs\" - meaning when a nazarite puts them on his head to remove the hair, he would then not be transgressing the negative commandment. For he did not remove it in the manner of a razor. He did however transgress the positive commandment, which is, \"he shall let grow untrimmed\" - and this one did not grow [it]. As a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment - that is a principle with us. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Nazir. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to shave the nazarite's head and to bring his sacrifices at the culmination of his nazariteship. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 2:6) is, \"Three shave, and their shaving is a commandment: The nazarite; the metsora; and the Levites.\" However the shaving of the Levites was in the [Sinai] desert, and not for [all] generations, whereas the shaving of the metsora and the nazarite is practiced for [all] generations. And it is explained that there are two shavings for the nazarite, a shaving of impurity and a shaving of purity. And that is His saying, \"on the day that his term as nazarite is completed\" (Numbers 6:13). And it is inappropriate to count the two shaving as two commandments. For the shaving of impurity is one of the laws of the commandment of nazariteship. For his commandment is to grow his hair untrimmed, in purity - as that verse explained and taught about this. So if his nazariteship becomes impure, he shaves and brings a sacrifice; and then he returns to growing it untrimmed in holiness - as at the beginning - for the number of days that he obligated himself. It is like the metsora that also has two shavings; yet that is one commandment, as I will explain in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 111). And I will also explain the reason for our counting the shaving of the nazarite and the sacrifice, as one commandment; and the shaving of the metsora and his sacrifice, as two commandments. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning the shaving of the nazarite - have also already been explained in their place, in Tractate Nazir. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 8.)" + ], + [ + "That is that we were commanded to fulfill everything that we we take upon ourselves in speech, whether in an oath, a vow, charity, a sacrifice or anything else besides them. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"What issues from your lips shall you observe\" (Deuteronomy 23:24). And even though they have already separated the words of this verse and arranged each word of it for various content, the intention that nevertheless comes out of all that [they] said to you is that it is a positive commandment for a person to fulfill everything that he accepts upon himself, whatever it may be. And one who violates it, [also] violates a negative commandment; and behold I will explain this in my mention of the negative commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 157). And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 265:2): \"'What issues from your lips' is a positive commandment.\" And you know that there is no content to the statement, \"what issues,\" alone. However the intention is that which I mentioned to you - to understand the simple meaning of the verse, that He commanded to do what one puts out with his mouth. And behold that this commandment is repeated; and that is His saying, \"according to all that issues from his mouth shall he do\" (Numbers 30:3). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in many places - in Shevuot, in the end of Menachot and in Tractate Kinnim as well. That is to say that the specifics of concerning oneself to do the thing that one has obligated oneself; and how one exempts oneself when he has a doubt about what he said, is found there. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Sefer Haflaah.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to administer the nullification of vows - meaning the precept that He instructed us about these laws. However the content is not that we are obligated to annul vows no matter what. And you should understand this issue itself from me - any time you hear me counting one of the laws [as a commandment], it [need] not be a command of a specific compulsory action. Rather it is a commandment by virtue of our being commanded to administer this law for this thing (when it arises). That the husband and the father can annul them is, behold, already explained in Scripture (Numbers 30). But the tradition comes [and informs us] that a sage can also annul a vow, as well as an oath. And the hint to this is in His saying, \"he may not void his word\" (Numbers 30:3) - he may not void his word, but others may void it for him. More generally, there is certainly no proof to this from Scripture; and they say (Chagigah 10a), \"The annulment of vows floats in the air.\" So it does not have any [bona fide] support, but it is rather [known] from the true tradition. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Nedarim. (See Parashat Matot; Mishneh Torah, Vows 12.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that when any person touches a carcass, he becomes impure. And this commandment includes the impurity of a carcass and all of its laws. And I will now present a preface that is appropriate that we remember anytime we mention the various types of impurity. And it is that that which we count each type as a positive commandment - its content is not that we are obligated to become impure with a certain impurity, and also not that we are prohibited from becoming impure from it and that it be a negative commandment. Rather the Torah said that anyone who touches this type [of object] becomes impure; or that this thing renders one who touches it impure according to this description. And that is the positive commandment - meaning that this law with which we have been commanded is a positive commandment. And that is His saying, whoever touches this according to this description has become impure; and whoever according to that description does not become impure. But the matter itself is optional - if he wants, he becomes impure; if not, he doesn't become impure. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4:10) is, \"'And their carcass do not touch' (Leviticus 11:8) - I might think that if one touched a carcass, he receives lashes. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and to these you shall become impure' (Leviticus 11:24). I might [then] think that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become impure from it. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and their carcass do not touch.' How is this? You shall say, it is an option.\" And this commandment that has been told to us about this law - that one who touches this become impure; and that he will be impure, such that he will be obligated about everything that impure people are obligated, [such as] to exit from the camp of the Divine Presence, not to eat consecrated food, not to touch it and other things besides this - this is the command. That means to say, one becoming impure from this type when he touches it or was proximate to [it] in such a manner. And remember this matter with every one of the types of impurity. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to [administer the laws of impurity] of eight creeping creatures. This commandment includes the impurity of the creeping creature and its regulations. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to administer [the laws of] impurity of foods and drinks. And this commandment includes the impurity of foods and drinks in its entirety. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods 16.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a menstruant woman be impure. And this commandment includes the impurity of the menstruant woman and all of her regulations. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat 4.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a woman after childbirth be impure. And this commandment includes all of the regulations of a woman after childbirth. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a metsora be impure. And this commandment includes all of the laws of tsaraat of a person: That which is pure from it, that which requires quarantine, and that which needs shaving - that is shaving of the scab - along with quarantine, and that which does not need it; and its other laws and the nature of its impurity. (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 1-7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to administer the laws of the impurity of a garment that has tsaraat, such that it be impure. And this commandment includes all the types of impurity of tsaraat of a garment - how they are impure and how they generate impurity, which ones need quarantine or tearing or burning or washing and purification - and the other things that appear in Scripture or through the tradition about it. (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 12.)\n" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a house that has tsaraat be impure. And this commandment includes [the various] impurities of a house - which ones need quarantine or the destruction of some of its walls or the destruction of all of it, with what they become impure and how they become impure. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 14.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a zav be impure. And this commandment includes the laws of the things that would make him a zav and the description of his transmitting his [impurity]. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that semen be impure. And this commandment includes the regulations of [the impurity of] semen. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a zavah be impure. And this commandment includes the exact ways through which the zavah transmits impurity to others after [it] has come to her. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to administer [the laws of] the impurity of a corpse. And this commandment includes all of the regulations of the impurity of a corpse. (See Parashat Chukat; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse 1-25.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us and instructed us [to administer] the laws of purification water, about which they said that it renders impure in one way and purifies in another way - as is explained in the analysis of this commandment. And you should know that these thirteen types of impurities, the counting of which preceded this - being the impurities of a carcass; of creeping animals; of foods and drinks; of a menstruant woman; of a woman after childbirth; of tsaraat of a person; [of tsaraat of garments;] of tsaraat of houses; of a zav; of a zavah; of semen; of a corpse; and of purifying waters - and the purification of each one of them, is written in the Torah in many verses and with many laws and stipulations, as are written in Parashat Shemini, Parashat Tazria and Metzora and in Parashat Parah. And these four sections completely include all of these impurities. Moreover, the Order of Tahorot includes all of the laws of all of these types and the analysis of each type. Tractates Tahorot, Makhshirin and Oktzin - these three tractates only contain the impurity of food and that which is attached to [this topic], and those laws from other types of impurities the mention of which is relevant to it. However they only appear contingently. And likewise Tractate Niddah includes all the laws of [the impurities of a menstruant woman and a woman after childbirth. And some of the laws of a woman after childbirth are also in Tractate Keritot. And in Tractate Negaim are the laws of the blemishes of people, garments and houses. And Tractate Zavim includes the laws of] of a zav, a zavah and of semen. And Tractate Oholot contains the laws of the impurity of a carcass. And Tractate Parah includes the purifying waters, to render impure and to purify. But no tractate was dedicated to the impurity of carcasses or the impurity of creeping animals; however their laws are scattered in many places in this order, and the majority are in Tractates Kelim and Tahorot. And likewise did they speak about many questions about these topics in Tractate Eduyot. And we have already explained this order in its entirety (in the Commentary on the Mishnah) - meaning the Order of Tahorot. It is a commentary that does not require any other book with it for any topic related to impurity. (See Parashat Chukat; Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer 1-15.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that we immerse in the mikveh waters, and that we then become pure from one of the various types of impurities with which we have become impure. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and he shall bathe in water\" (Leviticus 15:16). And it comes in the tradition that it is water that all of one's body can enter, and that is the measurement of a mikveh - unless the waters are running waters, which have no measurement; as is explained in the analysis of this commandment. And it is among the stipulations specifically for the zav, that the waters that purify him be running - as in the Torah, it says, \"living waters\" (Leviticus 15:13). And the intention of the statement that immersion is a positive commandment is not that anyone impure is obligated to perforce be purified, in the same way that anyone covered by a cloak must make tzitzit, or anyone with a home must make a parapet. Rather what is intended is the law of immersion - and that is that the Torah told us that anyone who wants to be purified from his impurity will only complete it with immersion in water; and he will then be purified. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 5:3) is, \"'And he shall bathe [...] in water' (Leviticus 16:26) - I might think that it is a decree of the King (that he must immerse). [Hence] we learn to say, 'and then he may come to the camp' - from his impurity.\" This hints to the principle that we have explained - that the law is only that anyone who wants to become pure do this. That is the law, and that is the commandment - and not that he be obligated perforce to immerse. Rather, anyone who wants to remain impure and not enter the camp of the Divine Presence for a certain time is allowed [to do so]. And it has already appeared in the books of truth that one who becomes impure and immerses is purified, but he does not complete his purification until the sun goes down for him. And it also appears in the accepted tradition that when he immerses, his naked flesh must be in contact with the water itself and that there not be anything separating between him and the water. Behold this commandment has been explained to you - and that is the commandment of immersion; and it includes the regulations of the mikveh, the regulations of bathing and the regulations of one who has immersed that day (before sunset). And this law is explained in Tractate Mikvaot and in Tractate Tevul Yom. (See Parashat Metzora Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools 1-11)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that the purification from tsaraat be according to the process written in Scripture (Leviticus 14). And that is [with] cedar wood, hyssop, crimson dyed cloth, two living birds and living waters and that he do everything stated, with those things. And through this exact process, the person becomes pure - as Scripture explains. Behold it has already been made clear to you that there are three types of things that purify from impurity - one of them is general and two of them are specific to two types of impurity. Indeed, the general one is purification in water; the second type is the [sprinkling of] purification water, and that is something specific for the impurity of a corpse; and the third type is cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet dyed cloth, two living birds and living waters - and that is something specific for tsaraat. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning the purification of someone with tsaraat - have all already been explained in the first [chapter] of Tractate Negaim. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 11.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded the metsora (a person with tsaarat) to shave, and that is its second purification - as it is explained at the end of Negaim. And that is His saying, \"And [...] on the seventh day, he shall shave\" (Leviticus 14:9). And the essence of their words has already preceded [this] (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 93), \"Three shave, and their shaving is a commandment: The nazarite; the metsora; and the Levites.\" And the laws of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Negaim. And here I will explain the reason for our counting the shaving of the metsora and the bringing of his sacrifice as [two] separate commandments. And that is because there is no connection for the metsora between the shaving and the bringing of his sacrifices. And the purpose of the shaving is distinct from the purpose that is accomplished by bringing his sacrifices. And that is because the purification of the metsora is dependent upon his shaving. And in the sixth chapter of Nazir (Nazir 44b), they said, \"What is the difference between a nazarite and a metsora? It is only that the purification of this one is dependent upon days and the purification of that one is dependent upon his shaving\" - meaning to say the metsora. And when the metsora shaves and completes his second shaving, he is pure from [continuing to] give off impurity like a creeping animal, as is explained at the end of Negaim (Negaim 14). However, he is still lacking [complete] atonement until he brings his sacrifices - like the other ones that lack [complete] atonement, as is explained there. So the purpose of his shaving was to be pure from [continuing to] give off impurity like a creeping animal - whether or not he brought his sacrifices. Whereas the purpose of bringing his sacrifices is the completion of his atonement - like the other ones that lack [complete] atonement, meaning the zav, the zavah and the woman after childbirth. And we have already been preceded by their saying (Keritot 8b), \"Four are lacking [complete] atonement.\" And there it is made clear that the nazarite is not one lacking atonement. Rather that action (his sacrifice) is included in it - meaning to say that the [shaving] and the bringing of the sacrifice permit him to drink wine; however one of them will not suffice without the other. Instead, the shaving is connected to the sacrifice and the sacrifice is connected to the shaving, and they [only] achieve their purpose when they are combined - and that is that they permit those things that were forbidden to him in the days of his being a nazarite. And in the sixth [chapter] of Nazir (Nazir 46b), they said, \"One who shaves over his sacrifice, and it is found to be disqualified - his shaving is disqualified and his sacrifices do not count for him.\" Behold it has been made clear to you that the shaving is from the stipulations of the sacrifice and the sacrifice is from the stipulations of the shaving. And it is also explained in the Tosefta (Nazir 15a) that a nazarite that has completed his days is [still] forbidden to shave, to drink wine and to become impure with corpses until he does that whole process - and that is the shaving of purification, as it is explained in the sixth [chapter] of Nazir (Nazir 45b). And that is that he shaves at the opening of the Tent of Meeting, throws his hair under the urn and offers his sacrifices - as Scripture explains. And you will find that in most places, they called the bringing of [these] sacrifices, \"shaving.\" And in some places in the Mishnah, they said in explanation (Nazir 11b), \"[One who says,] 'Behold I am nazarite and it is upon me to shave, etc.'\" - by which, he means that he will bring the sacrifices of the nazarite and offer them on his behalf. Behold it has already been made clear to you that \"shaving\" is used [to mean] the bringing of the sacrifices. And the reason for this is that it is a part of them - as we have explained - and it is with their combination that the status of nazarite is removed, and the nazarite may drink wine. However the shaving of impurity (of a metsora) is a law of the commandment, as we have explained earlier (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 93). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 11.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a metsora (a person with tsaarat) be known to all, such that people will separate from him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"As the person with a leprous affection, his clothes shall be rent [... and he shall call out, 'Impure; impure!]'\" (Leviticus 13:45). And the proof about its being a positive commandment is their saying in the Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12:5-6) \"Because it is stated (of the high priest, Leviticus 21:10), 'his hair he shall not grow long and his clothes he shall not rend, etc.,' I might think (that this holds) even if he is afflicted. And how will I fulfill, 'his clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long?' With all other people besides the high priest. [Hence] we learn to say, 'with a leprous affection' - even if he be the high priest - his clothes shall be torn; 'and his hair shall grow long' - he shall grow out his hair.\" And it is clear that a high priest is [prohibited] with a negative commandment from renting [his clothes] and growing [his hair] long. And the principle with us is that any place you find a positive commandment and a negative commandment - if you can fulfill both of them, that is best; but if not, the positive commandment pushes off the negative commandment. And since we have found that their language instructs that when the high priest has tsaarat, he grows [his hair] out and rents [his clothes], it indicates that it is a positive commandment. And the tradition has already come [to teach] that people with other impurities are also obligated to make a sign about themselves, such that other people will distance themselves from them. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12:9) is, \"From where [do we know that the same holds for] someone impure from a corpse or one who had sexual intercourse with a menstruant woman? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and he shall call out, \"Impure; impure!\"'\" And the explanation is that anyone impure must announce his impurity and place a sign upon himself, through which it will be known that he is impure, and one touches him is impure - hence they will distance themselves. And behold it has been explained that women are not obligated in [providing for] the recognition of a metzora. And that is their saying (Sotah 23a), \"A man grows [his hair] out and rents [his clothes], but a woman does not grow [her hair] out and rent [her clothes].\" But she does cover the lip and makes known that she is impure, like other impure people. (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 6.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to process the red heifer, so that its ashes be ready for one who needs it for purification from the impurity of a corpse - as He said, \"and it shall be for the congregation of the Children of Israel\" (Numbers 19:9). And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Parah. (See Parashat Chukat; Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer 1-15.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to administer the law of human appraisals. And that is one who says, \"My appraisal is upon me,\" or \"The appraisal of x is upon me\": If he is a male, he pays such and such; but if she is a female, he pays such and such - according to the age - as appears in Scripture; and according to the condition of the appraiser (the financial situation of the one who makes this declaration). And that is His saying, \"the appraisal of souls\" (Leviticus 27:2). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Arakhin. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us with the law of animal appraisals. And that is His saying, \"the animal shall be presented before the [priest]. And the priest shall appraise it\" (Leviticus 27:11-12). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Arakhin. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about house appraisals. And that is His saying, \"If anyone consecrates his house to be holy\" (Leviticus 27:14). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Arakhin. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about field appraisals. And that is His saying, \"If anyone consecrates any field that he holds [...] And if a field that is not of his holdings\" (Leviticus 27:16-22). And likewise with a field of his holdings, \"its appraisal shall be in accordance with its seed requirement\" (Leviticus 27:16); and with a purchased field, \"The priest shall compute for him the proportionate appraisal\" (Leviticus 27:23). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Arakhin. And one should not think that these four types of appraisals have a commonality, such that it would be necessary to count them as one commandment. Rather they are four commandments. Each one has a law that is separate from the law of the other. However what is common to them is [only] the name, appraisal; such that they share one name. And with [careful] observation, this is clear. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 4.)" + ], + [ + "That is that we were commanded that anyone who benefits from consecrated property add a fifth; likewise if he eats consecrated food - meaning if [a non-priest] ate from the priestly tithe - inadvertently, he pays for what he ate or the measure of what he benefitted, with the addition of a fifth. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"He shall pay for that wherein he was remiss about the consecrated things, and he shall add a fifth to it\" (Leviticus 5:16); as well as His saying, \"But if a man eats of consecrated things inadvertently, etc.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Meilah and in Tracte Terumah as well. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Trespass 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that the sapling of the fourth year be completely holy. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"all its fruit shall be holy for jubilation before the Lord\" (Leviticus 19:24). And its law is that one brings it up to Jerusalem and its owners eat it there, exactly like the second tithe. And the priests do not have any [portion] in it, as it is stated (Numbers 5:10), \"And every man will have his consecrated things.\" Scripture drew all of the consecrated things and gave them to the priest. The only [ones] left over from them were the thanks-offering, the peace-offerings, the Pesach-offering, the animal tithe, the second tithe and the fourth year sapling - which are the owners'. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the last chapter of Maaser Sheni. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 9.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to leave over the corner of the produce, the trees and that which is similar to them. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall leave them\" (Leviticus 19:10), after His mentioning, the corner. And it is explained in Tractate Makkot (Makkot 15b) that the [law of the] corner is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment. Indeed, the negative commandment is His saying, \"you shall not wholly reap\" (Leviticus 19:9); and the positive commandment is His saying, \"you shall leave them.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Peah. But by Torah law, it is only practiced in the Land [of Israel]. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to leave over the gleanings. And that is His saying, \"you shall not gather the gleanings of your harvest\" (Leviticus 23:22). And it too is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment, as is explained about the corner in Tractate Makkot. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Peah. But by Torah law, it is only practiced in the Land [of Israel]. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to leave over the forgotten [produce]. And that is His saying, \"and you have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow\" (Deuteronomy 24:19). Behold, His saying, \"it shall be,\" is the command to leave it. And it is a positive commandment; like it is a positive commandment when He said, \"Leave them,\" with the gleanings and the corner, as we explained. But by Torah law, it is only practiced in the Land [of Israel]. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Peah. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to leave over that which is called ollalot (incomplete clusters) for the poor when we harvest the vineyard. And Scripture comes [to say], \"Leave them,\" after it mentions the ollalot (Leviticus 19:10). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Peah. But by Torah law, it is only practiced in the Land [of Israel]. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to leave over for the poor, that which falls and breaks off from the grapes when we harvest them. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and you shall not gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger\" (Leviticus 19:10). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Peah. But by Torah law, it is only practiced in the Land [of Israel]. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to extract the first-fruits and bring them to the Temple. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"The choice first-fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the Lord, your God\" (Exodus 23:19). And it is explained that this commandment is only practiced in the presence of the Temple and only comes from fruits of the Land of Israel, Syria and Transjordan, and from the [designated] seven species. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Bikkurim. And there it is explained that the first-fruits are the property of the priest. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, First Fruits and other Gifts to Priests Outside the Sanctuary 1.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to extract the great (priestly) tithe (terumah gedolah). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"The first portion of your grain [...] are you to give him\" (Deuteronomy 18:4). But this commandment is only practiced in the Land of Israel. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Terumah. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 2.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to extract the tithe from agricultural produce. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"All tithes from the land [...] are the Lord's\" (Leviticus 27:30). And the verse already explains that this tithe is for the Levites; and the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Maaserot. And it is what is called the first tithe. But by Torah law, it is only practiced in the Land [of Israel]. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Tithes 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to extract the second tithe. And that is His saying, \"You shall surely set aside [a tithe of all the yield of your sowing that is brought from the field every year\" (Deuteronomy 14:22). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 105:1-2) is, \"'You shall surely set aside' - teaches that the tithe is not to be taken from one year for another. This tells me only of the second tithe, of which Scripture speaks [here]. From where [do we know] to include other tithes? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall surely set aside.'\" And the language of the Torah is that this tithe be brought up to Jerusalem and that its owners eat it there; and this was already [discussed] earlier (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 119). And Scripture already specified about this commandment, that if it is impossible for him to bring it - due to the far distance - he redeems it, brings up its money to the Chosen [Temple] and spends it there exclusively for food. And that is His saying, \"should the place be too far from you, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 14:24). And the language of the Torah also already appeared about the law of this commandment - that if he redeemed it for himself, he adds a fifth. And that is His saying, \"And if a man will at all redeem of his tithes, [he shall add to it the fifth part of it]\" (Leviticus 27:31). And the regulations of this commandment have all already been explained in Tractate Masser Sheni. And it too is only an obligation with the produce of the Land of Israel by Torah law. And this tithe is only eaten in the presence of the Temple; and the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 106:4) compares the eating of the firstborn animals to the second tithe, \"Just as firstborn animals are eaten only in the presence of the Temple, so too is [the second] tithe eaten only in the presence of the Temple.\" (See Parashat Reeh; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded the Levites to extract a tithe from the tithe that they take from Israel, and give it to the priests. And that is His saying, \"Speak to the Levites and say to them, 'When you receive the tithes from the Children of Israel, etc.'\" (Numbers 18:26) And Scripture explains that this is called the priestly tithe from the tithe (terumat maaser) and is given to a priest. And Scripture [also] explains that this tithe is taken either from the goodly part of it or from the superior part of it, by its saying, \"from any of its best portion (chelbo)\" (Leviticus 18:29). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, when you have set aside from it, the best of it\" (Leviticus 18:32). And this negative commandment is the negation of the obligation that He said, \"And you shall bear no sin\" when they extract it from the fine part. So it indicates that when they extract it from the inferior part, they sin. And its content is that of a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment, which is not counted with the negative commandments. This means to say that since He commanded to extract from the superior part, He indicated that they should not extract it from the inferior part. And the language of the Sifrei is, \"From where [do we know to] say that if they extracted it not from the superior part that they have transgressed? [Hence] we learn to say, 'And you shall bear no sin by reason of it.'\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Terumot, Maaserot and in some places in Demai. (See Parashat Korach; Mishneh Torah, Tithes 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to extract the poor tithe every third year of the sabbatical [cycle], as well as the third year from every third year - meaning the sixth year of the sabbatical [cycle]. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"At the end of three years, you shall extract, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 14:28). But by Torah law, this too is only practiced in the Land of Israel. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractates Peah and Maaserot; and some of its issues are scattered in many place of the tractates of Zeraim and in Tractates Makhshirin and Yadayim. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to declare in front of Him the fulfillment of the regulations of the tithes and the priestly tithes; and to be clear from them also in speech, the same way we are clear from holding them back in deed. And that is that which is called the declaration of tithes (vidui maaser). And the command about this is with His saying, \"And you shall declare before the Lord, your God, 'I have disposed of the consecrated portion from the house'\" (Deuteronomy 26:13). But by Torah law, this too is only practiced in the Land of Israel. And the regulations of this commandment and the nature of the [tithes'] disposal and its content have already been explained in the last chapter of Tractate Maaser Sheni. (See Parashat Ki Tavo; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 11.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to tell over His kindnesses that He benefited us and saved us - and one begins with the topic of our father, Yaakov, and finishes with the toil of the Egyptians and their afflicting us - to praise Him about all of this; and to request from Him to continue the blessing, at the time that one brings the first-fruits. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And You shall lift your voice and say before the Lord, your God\" (Deuteronomy 26:5) - and all that appears after that in this section. And all of this commandment is that which is called the recitation of the first-fruits (mikra bikkurim). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Bikkurim and in the Chapter 7 of Sotah. But women are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Ki Tavo; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 11.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to separate the loaf (challah)-tithe from our dough and to give it to the priest. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"[From] the first portion of your doughs, you shall separate a loaf as a tithe.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Challah and in Tractate Terumah. But by the law of the Torah, it is only obligatory in the Land of Israel alone. (See Parashat Shelach; Mishneh Torah, First Fruits and other Gifts to Priests Outside the Sanctuary 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to render ownerless all that grows from the ground during the sabbatical year and permit the growth of all of our lands to any person. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"But in the seventh you shall release it and let it lie fallow.\" And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 23:11) is, \"And were the vineyard and olive tree not in the category? So why were they specified? To compare to them: Just like the vineyard is particular in that it is a positive commandment and [if we do not let it rest], we transgress it as a negative commandment; so too [with] everything that has the positive commandment, we would [also] transgress the negative commandment.\" And the content of this statement is what I will explain. So that which He said, \"But in the seventh you shall release it and let it lie fallow,\" includes everything that will grow from the ground in the seventh year - figs, grapes, olives, peaches, pomegranates, wheat, barley and other things. However this command came only about the vineyard and the olive tree on account of Scripture having come to specifically prohibit gathering of the produce of the vineyard - and that is His saying, \"you shall not gather the grapes of your untrimmed vines\" (Leviticus 25:5). And just like the vineyard, which the positive commandment rendered ownerless, has surely been prevented with a negative commandment; so too, is the olive tree: Anything that grows in the seventh year - which it is explained that it has been rendered ownerless by the positive commandment - is [also] prevented by the negative commandment. And the law of the olive tree and the law of other produce is the same. Behold it has been made clear to you from all of the above that the release of what grows during the seventh [year] is a positive commandment. And the regulations of this commandment are already explained in Tractate Sheviit. And it too is only practiced and obligatory by Torah law exclusively with the produce of the Land of Israel. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 4.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to rest from any agricultural work on the seventh year. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you must cease plowing and harvesting\" (Exodus 34:21). And this command has already been repeated several times: He said, \"[But] in the seventh year, the land shall have a sabbath of complete rest (shabbaton)\" (Leviticus 25:4) - and we have already seen (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 90) that this, \"shabbaton,\" is a positive commandment. And He also said, \"and the land shall rest\" (Leviticus 25:2). And the regulations of this commandment are also already explained in Tractate Sheviit. But its obligation by Torah law is only in the Land of Israel. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to sanctify the fiftieth year - that is to say, to cease working during it. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year\" (Leviticus 25:10). And in the explanation (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3:2), they said, \"Whatever is stated about the sabbatical year, that is also stated about the Jubilee\" - meaning that there is equivalence between them regarding the command, just like Scripture equalized them with the negative commandment, as is explained. And the regulations of the sabbatical year and the Jubilee year are the same regarding the cessation of work and the ownerlessness of that which grows. And both of these things are included in His saying, \"And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year.\" And Scripture has already explained that the matter of its sanctification is that its fruits and its produce be ownerless, by His saying, \"For it is the Jubilee; it shall be holy to you\" (Leviticus 25:12). But this Jubilee is only practiced in the Land of Israel, and upon condition that each and every tribe dwell in its place - meaning, dwell in its portion in the Land of Israel and not intermingled with each other. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to blow the shofar on the tenth day of Tishrei of this year to announce the freedom of the slaves, and that every Jewish slave go out to freedom on the tenth day of Tishrei. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Then you shall sound the blowing of the shofar, etc.\" (Leviticus 25:9); and then He said, \"and you shall proclaim freedom\" (Leviticus 25:10). And behold that it has been explained that Jubilee and Rosh Hashanah are the same regarding the blows and the blessings; and the regulations of the blowing of the shofar of Rosh Hashanah have already been explained in Tractate Rosh Hashanah. However it is known that the blowing on the Jubilee is to publicize the freeing [of the slaves] and that it is a type of proclamation. And that is His saying, \"and you shall proclaim freedom in the land for all of its inhabitants\" - in the mentioned land. And its content is not the same as the blowing of Rosh Hashanah. As that is for remembrance before God, and this is to bring out the slaves. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to return all the lands to their owners in this year, and that they go out from their buyers without [payment]. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying \"And in all the land of your possession, you shall grant a redemption for the land\" (Leviticus 25:24). And He explained to us that this redemption be in this year; and that is His saying, \"In the year of this Jubilee\" (Leviticus 25:13). And Scripture has already been exacting about its commandments and explained what the law would be like for the seller and the buyer, if [the seller] wants to redeem his inheritance - that was sold - before the Jubilee year. And it explained further and said that this law is particular to the lands that are outside the city wall; and that the law of the houses built in the fields is exactly [like] the law of the orchards and gardens - since they are not built within the wall. And these are the houses of the villages (chatzerim), about which Scripture said, \"it shall be considered as a field of the land\" (Leviticus 25:31). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Arakhin. But it too is only practiced in the Land of Israel, and at the time when Jubilee is practiced. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that there be [the possibility of] redeeming lands sold within the city wall only until the end of a year. And after [that] year, it remains with the buyer and does not go out in the Jubilee. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, \"And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city\" (Leviticus 25:39). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Arakhin. But it is only practiced in the Land [of Israel]. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 12.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to count the years and the sabbatical cycles until the Jubilee year, once the land has been conquered and we have subdued it. And this commandment - meaning the counting of the years of the sabbatical cycle is given over to the Great Court, meaning the Great Sanhedrin. For they are the ones that count each year of the fifty years, just like each and every one of us counts the days of the omer. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And you shall count off seven weeks of years\" (Leviticus 25:8). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Behar, Section 2:1) is, \"I might think that one counts seven sabbatical years, one after the other, and then have the Jubilee. [Hence] we learn to say, 'seven years, seven times.' [This was not] until both verses were stated; if not, we would not have understood [the law.]\" That is to say that the nature of this commandment's performance is only attained with two verses - and that is that he counts the years individually and counts the cycles with them, seven times. And once it says that this matter is only attained from two verses, it indicates that they are perforce one commandment. For had they been two commandments - meaning the counting of the sabbatical cycles and the counting of the years - they would not have said, \"[This was not] until both verses were said.\" For we always learn two commandments from two verses; and likewise always learn every singular commandment from one verse. However, it is said that this is not at all [understood] until two verses were said for this one commandment - the knowledge of which would be incomplete without the two verses. This is like [the commandment of] the firstborn animal that comes from the verse, \"All that opens the womb is Mine\" (Exodus 34:19). However this alone would indicate that the firstborn would be the Lord's, whether male or female. But another verse comes - \"the males are the Lord's\" (Exodus 13:12). However that verse by itself would indicate that all the males are the Lord's - whether they are a firstborn or [not]. Rather the content of the commandment comes from the two verses, which is that it is only a firstborn male, like they explained in the Mekhilta. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to release monies - meaning all debts - on the sabbatical year. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"but that which you have with your brother, release your hand\" (Deuteronomy 15:3). And this command was already repeated with His saying, \"And this is the matter of the release\" (Deuteronomy 15:2). And the language of the Tosefta (Gittin 36a) is, \"Scripture is speaking about two releases, the release of lands and the release of monies.\" But by Torah law, the commandment of the release of monies is only practiced at the time that the release of land is [applicable]; and it is practiced in every place. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Sheviit in the first chapter. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 9.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to press the gentile and to force him to pay his debt, just as we have been commanded to pity the Jew and have been prohibited from pressing him. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"The gentile shall you press\" (Deuteronomy 15:3). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 113:1) is, \"'The gentile shall you press' - this is a positive commandment.\" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to give to the priest, the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach from every sacrifice of pure animals that we slaughter. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And this shall be the due of the priests\" (Deuteronomy 18:3). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the tenth chapter of Chullin. But Levites are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 9.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to give the first shearing to the priest. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"The first shearing of your sheep [...] shall you give him\" (Deuteronomy 18:4). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 11 of Chullin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to administer the laws of dedications. And that is that when anyone dedicates something of his and says, \"This is dedicated,\" that thing is given to a priest - though if he specified that it would be for Temple upeep, it will be for Temple upkeep - since undifferentiated dedications are for the priests. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"However, any dedication that a man will dedicate, etc.\" (Leviticus 27:28). And the hint to us about undifferentiated dedications being for the priests, is its being stated (Leviticus 27:21), \"like a field that was dedicated, it shall belong to the priest.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the eighth chapter of Arakhin and the first chapter of Nedarim. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to slaughter a beast, animal or bird and then to eat its meat; and that it only be permissible to eat their meat by slaughtering [it]. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep\" (Deuteronomy 12:21). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 75) is, \"'And you may slaughter' - just as offerings are with slaughtering; so too, mundane animals are with slaughtering. [...] 'As He commanded you' - [this] teaches that Moses was commanded about the gullet and windpipe, and about the [cutting of] the majority of one [of these being the criterion for proper slaughter] in a bird and the majority of both, in a beast.\" And the regulations of this commandment and its analysis have already been explained in Tractate Chullin. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to cover the blood of a [wild] animal or bird after they are slaughtered. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth\" (Leviticus 17:13). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 6 of Chullin. (See Parashat Ahrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to send away [the mother bird from] the nest. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You must surely send away the mother, and the offspring take for yourself,\" (Leviticus 17:13). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the last chapter of Chullin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to check for the signs of beasts and animals that can be slaughtered - and that is that they chew the cud and have split hooves - and it is then permissible to eat them. And in that we are commended to check them for these signs, it is a positive commandment. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"These are the animals that you may eat\" (Leviticus 11:2). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Chapter 3:1) is, \"'Such may you eat' (Leviticus 11:3) - it may be eaten, but an unclean beast may not be eaten.\" This means to say, a beast that has these signs is permissible to eat; so it indicates that a beast that does not have these signs is not permitted to eat. And this is a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment - which is a positive commandment, as is a principle with us. And therefore, it said after this statement, \"This tells me only of a positive commandment. From where [do we know that he also transgresses] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'the camel, etc.'\"(Leviticus 11:4) - as I will explain in the Negative Commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 172). Behold it has already been made clear that His saying, \"such may you eat,\" is a positive commandment. And the content of this commandment is that we are commanded to check for these signs in the beasts and animals; and it is not permissible to eat them without this. And this law is the commandment. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Chullin and in Bekhorot. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to check for the signs of birds, such that only some of them are permissible. And the signs of the birds are not stated in the Torah. They rather come from an investigation of our finding the birds that are written to be forbidden, and our [then finding] phenomena that they have in common - and these are the signs of an impure bird. And since also regarding birds are we involved with the issue of which is impure and which is pure, that [involvement] is a positive commandment. And the language of the Sifrei is, \"'You may eat any clean bird' (Deuteronomy 14:11) - that is a positive commandment.\" Behold what we have hinted was made clear. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chullin. (See Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to check for the signs of locusts as well. And [the signs] are written in the Torah - \"all [...] that have, above their feet, jointed legs\" (Leviticus 11:21). And the content of this commandment is like that which we explained in the commandment before this; and the verse about it is His saying, \"Of these you may eat the following - locusts\" (Leviticus 11:22). And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Chullin. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to check for the signs of [permissible] fish, which are written [in the Torah]. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"These are what you may eat from all that is in the water\" (Leviticus 11:8). And in explanation, they said in the Gemara (Chullin 66b), \"One who eats an impure fish transgresses a positive and a negative commandment.\" As its statement - \"These are what you may eat\" - [makes] me understand that one besides these may not be eaten. And a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Behold it has been made clear that its statement, \"These are what you may eat,\" is a positive commandment. And the content of our saying that this is a positive commandment is what we have mentioned to you; and that is our being commanded to administer these signs, and to say that this is permissible to eat and this is not permissible to eat - as it is stated (Leviticus 20:25), \"And you shall distinguish the clean beast from the unclean.\" And their distinguishment is though the signs. And therefore each and every one of these four types and their signs is a separate commandment - meaning the signs of the beasts and the animals; the birds; the locusts; and the fish. And we have already explained their expressions in each of the verses as an individual commandment. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning the signs of the fish - have already been explained in Chapter 3 of Tractate Chullin. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 1.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to sanctify (proclaim) the months (in other versions, and to calculate the months) and years. And that is the commandment of sanctifying the month. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months\" (Exodus 12:2). And the explanation (Rosh Hashanah 22a) comes [and tells us] that \"this testimony is given over to them\" - meaning that this commandment is not given over to each and every individual, like the Shabbat of creation, towards which every individual counts six days and rests on the seventh. [Here, it is not] that when each and every individual sees the [new] moon, he determines that today is Rosh Chodesh (the first of the month), or that he should count some Torah matter and establish the new month or look into the lateness of the Spring - or something else that is fitting to observe - and add a month. Rather, this commandment is always only done by the High Court, and only in the Land of Israel. And the sighting [of the new moon] has therefore been annulled for us today with the absence of the High Court, just like the offering of sacrifices has been annulled with the absence of the Temple. And the heretics called Karaites have referred to this and erred about it. And this is a principle that even some of the rabbis did not concede and followed them into the darkness and the shade. You should know that the calculation that we count with today, through which we know Rosh Chodesh and the holidays, is impossible to do outside of the Land. However in the absence of sages in the Land of Israel, it is possible for a court that was ordained in the Land of Israel to intercalate years and determine months outside of the Land, like Rabbi Akiva did - as is explained in the Talmud (Berakhot 63a) - yet there is a great and strong question about this. And it is known that the Great Court, however, was in the Land of Israel; and that they were the ones that determined the months and intercalated the years in ways that were passed on to them, [doing so] in their gathering together. And this is one of the great principles of the faith - only those that have a deeper knowledge know it and see it in its place. And that is that that which we count today outside of the Land with the work of intercalation that is in our hands - and say that this day is Rosh Chodesh and that day is a holiday - is not because we have determined the holiday from our [own] calculation in any way. Rather, it is because the Great Court in the Land of Israel had already determined that this day is Rosh Chodesh or a holiday. And since they said that today is Rosh Chodesh or a holiday, it is [actually] Rosh Chodesh or a holiday - whether this action of theirs was through calculation or sighting - as appears in the explanation (Rosh Hashanah 25a), \"'These are the set times of the Lord [...] which you shall proclaim as sacred occasions' (Leviticus 23:4); I have no other set times besides these\" - meaning to say, the ones that they say are the sacred times, even under duress, even in error, even inadvertently - as it appears in the tradition. And we indeed consider the day determined by them - meaning the inhabitants of the Land of Israel - to be Rosh Chodesh. As it is upon [their] work itself that we count and determine [it] - not upon sighting; and it is upon their calculation that we rely, and not upon our [own] calculation. Rather our calculation is just an exposition of the matter. And understand this. And I will explain to you further. If we were to assume, by way of illustration, that the [Jewish] residents of the Land of Israel disappeared from the Land of Israel - God forbid that God would do this, since He promised that He would not erase the traces of the nation [there] totally - and that there would not be a court there, nor a court outside the Land of Israel that was ordained there. [In such a case,] this calculation of ours would surely not help us at all in any way. For we may only calculate months and intercalate years outside the Land of Israel according to the conditions mentioned, as we have explained - 'for out of Zion comes forth Torah.' And when someone with a complete intellect examines the [related] statements of the Talmud with this approach, everything that we said will become clear, without a doubt. And note that there were hints that appear in Scripture that indicate the principles of this work upon which we should rely to know Rosh Chodesh and the intercalation of years. Among them is His saying, \"You shall keep this ordinance at its set time from year to year\" (Exodus 13:10). They said (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 13:9), \"It teaches that we only intercalate the year during the period that is proximate to the sacred occasion (Pesach).\" And they said [further], \"From where [do we know] that we only sanctify the month during the day? [Hence] we learn to say, 'from year to year (literally, from day to day).'\" And they [also] said (Megillah 5a), \"You calculate months for years, but you do not calculate days for years.\" This indeed indicates that the addition in this is in fact a full month. And they said [further], \"'A month of days' - you count the days of a month, and you do not count the hours of a day.\" And His saying, \"Observe the month of Spring\" (Deuteronomy 16:1), indicates that it is fitting that we preserve the seasons of the year in our years, and that is why it is [also] solar. And the regulations of this commandment have already all been completely explained in the first chapter of Sanhedrin, in Tractate Rosh Hashanah and in Berakhot. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Sanctification of the New Month 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to rest on Shabbat. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"but on the seventh day you shall rest\" (Exodus 23:12). And note that this commandment has been repeated several times. And He explained to us that rest from types of work is an obligation upon us and upon our animals and our slaves. And behold that the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Tractate Shabbat and [Beitzah]. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Shabbat 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to sanctify the Shabbat and to say things at its beginning and its culmination. In them, we mention the exodus from Egypt, the holiness of the day and its elevation and distinction from other days that precede it and follow it. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"Remember the Shabbat day, to sanctify it\" (Exodus 20:8) - meaning to say, mention it and sanctify it with a blessing. And in explanation they said (Pesachim 106a), \"Mention it over wine at its beginning and its culmination\" - meaning, Havdalah, which is also part of mentioning the Shabbat and the arrangement of its commandments. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Pesachim and in other places. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Shabbat 29.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to destroy chametz from our homes on the fourteenth day of Nissan. And this is the commandment of disposal of leaven. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"on the very first day you shall dispose of the leaven from your homes\" (Exodus 12:15). And behold the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Pesachim (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 2.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to tell about the exodus from Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan - at the beginning of the night - according to the speaker's linguistic abilities. And it is better for one to add upon the telling and stretch out the words, by magnifying that which God did for us, what the Egyptians did to us in terms of injustice and oppression and how God avenged us upon them, and to thank Him, may He be exalted, for all of the good with which He benefitted us. It is like they said, \"Anyone who is expansive in his telling about the exodus from Egypt - behold, he is praiseworthy.\" And the verse that appears about this command is His saying, \"And you shall tell your son on that day\" (Exodus 13:8). And the explanation (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:8) comes [to say], \"'And you shall tell your son' - perhaps from Rosh Chodesh [Nissan. Hence] we learn to say, 'on that day.' Perhaps while it is still day. [Hence] we learn to say, 'for the sake of this' - when [this] matzah and bitter herbs are resting in front of you,\" meaning, you recount [it] at the beginning of the night.\" And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 13:2) is, \"It is implied from its being stated, 'when your son asks you' (Exodus 13:14) - perhaps if he asks you, you tell him, etc. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and you shall tell your son' - even though he does not ask you. I only [know] at the time that he has a son. [If he is] by himself [or] with others, from where [do I know it? Hence], we learn to say, 'And Moshe said to the people, \"Remember this day\"'\" - meaning to say that He commanded them to remember it, just like He said, \"Remember the Shabbat day\" (Exodus 20:8). And you already know the language of their saying, \"And even if we are all sages, all understanding, all knowing the whole Torah, it is a commandment upon us to tell about the exodus from Egypt\" (Haggadah). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Pesachim (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 8.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to eat matzah on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan - whether there is a Pesach lamb or not. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"at evening, you shall eat matzot\" (Exodus 12:18). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Pesachim (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to rest on the first day of Pesach. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And on the first day, a sacred occasion\" (Exodus 12:16). And the explanation (Rosh Hashanah 32a) came [to say] - \"Sanctify it\" - that is, that you should not do any work on it except that which is specific for eating alone, as is explained in Scripture. And their language already appeared (Sefer Hamitzvot, Positive Commandments 90), \"This term, Shabbaton, is a positive commandment\" (Shabbat 25b). This means to say, that every holiday about which God said, Shabbaton, is as if He said, \"Rest,\" or \"You shall rest\" - and these are all commands to rest. God's days of rest are called sacred occasions, meaning to say, holidays. And their saying - \"a holiday is a positive commandment and a negative commandment\" - has already come in explanation in many places. This means that the negation of work on a holiday is a positive commandment; and that [not] doing certain work is a negative commandment. And hence one one who does certain work on it has transgressed a positive commandment and a negative commandment. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning resting - have already been explained in Tractate [Beitzah]. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to rest from work on the seventh [day] of Pesach. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"a sacred occasion on the seventh day\" (Exodus 12:16). (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to count forty-nine days from the harvesting of the omer. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall count for yourselves seven weeks from the morrow of the Shabbat, etc.\" (Leviticus 23:15). And you should know that just like the court is obligated to count the years of the Jubilee, year by year [and] cycle by cycle - as we explained in what came previously (Sefer Hamitzvot, Positive Commandments 140) - so too is each and every one of us obligated to count the days of the omer, day by day and week by week. And that is His having said, \"you must count fifty days\" (Leviticus 23:16), and \"Seven weeks shall you count for yourself\" (Deuteronomy 16:8). And just like the commandment of counting the years and the sabbatical cycles is one commandment - as we explained - so too is the counting of the omer, one commandment. And do not be fooled by their saying (Menachot 66a), \"It is a commandment to count days and it is a commandment to count weeks,\" and think that they are two commandments. For it is a commandment to do each and every part of commandments that have have different parts. However had they said, \"From where [do we know that] the days are a commandment; and from where [do we know that] the weeks are a commandment\" - it would have been two commandments. And this will not be lost on the one that will not be fooled by the words. Since were you to say, \"It is an obligation to do such and such,\" it surely does not necessarily make that action a separate commandment. And the clear proof for this is our counting every night that it is such and such weeks and such and such days. And were it to be a separate commandment, we would only arrange its content on the night of Shavuot; and we would say two blessings - on the counting of the omer; and on the counting of the weeks of the omer. But the things are not like this. Rather the commandment is counting the omer daily and weekly [together], as they ordained. And women are not obligated in this commandment. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to rest from work on the day of Atzeret (Shavuot). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"On that same day you shall call, etc.\" (Leviticus 23:21). (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to rest from work on the First of Tishrei. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"on the first day of the month, you shall have a Shabbaton\"(Leviticus 23:24). And we have already [seen] that this [term], Shabbaton, is a positive commandment. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to fast on the tenth day of Tishrei. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"afflict your souls\" (Leviticus 16:29). And the explanation appears in the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 7:3), \"'Afflict' - affliction that destroys a soul. And what is that? [Abstention from] eating and drinking.\" And the tradition (Yoma 73a) likewise came [to teach] that it is forbidden for bathing, anointing, wearing shoes and sexual relations. And the resting is designated for all of these actions by His saying, \"It is a Shabbat of Shabbaton, and you shall afflict your souls\" (Leviticus 16:31): It is as if He said that the obligation is the specific resting from work and the specific resting from nourishment for the body and its preservation. And He hence said, \"Shabbaton.\" And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8:3) is, \"From where [do we know] that [...] bathing [and] anointment [...] are forbidden on Yom Kippur? [Hence] we learn to say, 'It is a Shabbat of Shabbaton.'\" That is to say that the resting be from all of these things until he arrives at affliction. (See Parashat Acharei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.) " + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to rest from work and [certain] actions on Yom Kippur. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"It is a Shabbat of Shabbaton for you\" (Leviticus 16:31). And we have already explained several times that this rest is a positive commandment. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to rest from work on the first day of Sukkot. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, \"The first day shall be a sacred occasion\" (Leviticus 23:35). (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to rest from work on the eighth [day] of the holiday of Sukkot. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and on the eighth day, a sacred occasion\" (Leviticus 23:26). And you should know that regarding this rest that is incumbent upon us on each and every one of these six days, its laws are uniform and there is nothing unique in the rest of any one of them. And likewise is it permissible for us to do [preparation of] food of sustenance (okhel nefesh) on each holiday. And the regulations of this resting have already been explained in Tractate [Beitzah]. Indeed the rest that is incumbent on Shabbat and Yom Kippur is also this very resting, but with many additions. For these two days, [preparation of] food of sustenance is not permitted. And there are also things that are permissible on holidays that are forbidden on Shabbat even though they are not [preparation of] food of sustenance, as is explained in Tractate [Beitzah]. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to dwell in the Sukkah seven days on the days of the holiday. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"And you shall dwell in Sukkot seven days\" (Leviticus 23:42). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Sukkah. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to hold the lulav and to rejoice in front of the Lord seven days. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"And you shall take for yourselves on the first day, etc.\" (Leviticus 23:40). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the third chapter of Tractate Sukkah. And it was explained there that the obligation of this commandment seven days is only in the Temple. However in other places, they are only obligated by the Torah on the first day. And women are not obligated in this commandment. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 6.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to listen to the sound of the shofar on the first day of Tishrei. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"it shall be a day of blowing for you\" (Numbers 29:1). And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Rosh Hashanah. (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to give over a half shekel-coin each year. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and a man shall give a ransom for his soul to the Lord\" (Exodus 30:12), and His saying, \"This shall they give, every one that passes among them that are numbered, etc.\" (Exodus 30:13). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Shekalim; and it is explained there that this commandment is only practiced in the presence of the Temple. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Sheqel Dues 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to listen to all of the prophets, to do all that he commands - even against a commandment or a group of these commandments. And this is on condition that this be temporary, and that he not command a permanent addition or eradication - as we explained in the introduction of our composition in the Commentary on the Mishnah. And the verse in which the command appears is His saying, \"to him shall you listen\" (Deuteronomy 18:15). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 175:2) is, \"'To him shall you listen' - even if he tells you to transgress one of the commandments of the Torah [...] temporarily, listen to him.\" And one who transgresses his word is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And [if] anybody does not listen to the words [of the prophet] who speaks in My name, I will require it of him\" (Deuteronomy 18:19). And it has already been made clear in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 89a), \"[In the case of] three, their execution is at the hands of the Heavens: One who transgresses the statement of a prophet, a prophet who violated his own statement and one who suppresses his prophecy.\" It is all from His saying, \"does not listen (yishma) to the words [of the prophet] who speaks.\" Read into it, \"Who shall not voice (yashmia).\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to appoint a king upon us - [that] he gather all of our nation and lead us. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"You surely may set a king over you\" (Deuteronomy 17:15). And the language of the Sifrei already preceded us (Sifrei Devarim 67:1), \"Three commandments were commanded to Israel upon their entrance to the land: To appoint a king over them; to build the [Temple]; and to cut off the seed of Amalek.\" And the [further] language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 157:6) is, \"'You surely may set a king over you' [...] - that his awe be over you.\" And [likewise] that we place in our hearts about him, the utmost honor, glory, praise and status of the highest magnitude which has nothing above it - until his level for us is greater than the level of one of the prophets that will be in his generation. Anytime that the commandment of the king does not contradict a commandment of the Torah, we are surely obligated to listen to his commandment. And one who transgresses his commandment and does not listen to him is surely fit - and it is permissible - for the king to kill [him] as he wishes; and as Israel said about themselves (Joshua 1:18), \"Any man who flouts your commands, etc.\" And anyone who rebels against the monarchy can have his blood avenged by a king who was established according to the Torah. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sanhedrin and in Chapter 1 of Keritot and 7 of Sotah. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to listen to the Great Court and to do everything that they command us, to forbid and to permit. And there is no difference in this whether the matter is one that they have understood from reason, that they have derived from analogies by which the Torah is expounded, that they agreed that it was prohibited by the Torah or according to some content that that they think is correct and by which the Torah is reinforced - [about] all of it are we obligated to listen, to do and to practice, according to their words; we are not to diverge from this. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"In accordance with the instructions given you\" (Deuteronomy 17:11). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 154:3) is, \"'And [the judgment] that they tell you, shall you do' - that is a positive commandment.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to follow the majority when there is a disagreement among the sages about any of the laws of the Torah. And likewise should we be drawn and directed in a private decision - by way of illustration - between Reuven and Shimon: If there is a disagreement between the judges of their city, whether Shimon or Reuven is liable, we are drawn after the majority. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"after the majority to incline.\" (Exodus 23:2). And in the explanation (Chullin 11a), they said, \"[Judgement according to the] majority is from the Torah.\" And the regulations of this commandment, its analysis and its clarification have already been explained in [various] places in Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to appoint judges and officers to force the implementation of the Torah's commandments and to bring those inclining away from the true path back towards it. And they will command to do the good and to come back from evil and will establish fences for the transgressor, such that the commandments and prohibitions of the Torah will not be decided according to the beliefs of each individual. And from the stipulations of this commandment is that these judges be one level above another. And that is when twenty-three judges are appointed in every city, all of them gathering in one place, in the gate of the city which is fit for this number. And these are the minor Sanhedrins. And the Great Court in Jerusalem is appointed of seventy judges. And one [judge] is appointed over these seventy, and he is the head of the yeshiva; and he is the one that the Sages also called the Nassi. And they are all gathered in one place designated for them. And a city with few inhabitants which is not fit for a minor Sanhedrin must appoint three [judges] to administer the minor laws; and the complicated matter they bring to the [court] above them. And they appoint officers [that] supervise the people. They go around the city, in the marketplaces and the streets, and observe the actions of the people in their carrying forth - until no injustice is done, even in a small matter. And the statement in which the commandment appears is His saying, \"Judges and officers shall you appoint for yourself in all of your gates\" (Deuteronomy 16:18). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 144:1-4) is, \"From where [do we know] that we appoint a court [...]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Judges [and officers…].' [...] And from where [do we know] that we appoint one over all of them? [Hence] we learn to say, 'shall you appoint for yourself.' [...] And from where [do we know] that we appoint a court for each tribe? [Hence] we learn to say, 'for your tribes.' [...] 'and they shall judge the people' - [even] against their will.\" And this command of appointing seventy elders has already been repeated; and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Gather for Me seventy men\" (Numbers 11:16). And they said (Sifrei Bamidbar 92:1), \"Wherever 'for Me,' is stated, it surely endures [forever]; like [with the priests], 'that they minister for Me' (Shemot 28:41).\" That means to say it is not a temporary commandment, but it is [intrinsically] fitting, and obligatory for all generations. And you should know that all of these appointments - meaning great Sanhedrins, minor Sanhedrins, courts of three and other appointments - are indeed done in the Land of Israel. And when there is ordination in the Land of Israel, it is then possible for those ordained to judge in the Land and outside of the Land. But they may not judge capital cases - whether in the Land or outside of the Land - unless the Chosen [Temple] is standing, as we explained at the beginning of the essay. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Zuta, brought in Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 788:12) about His saying [about] one who smites a soul inadvertently, \"Such shall be for you,\" saying, \"in all your settlements\" - \"perhaps the cities of refuge should also be practiced outside the Land of Israel. [Hence] we learn to say, 'these.' These judges practice whether in the Land or outside the Land. But cities of refuge are only practiced in the Land.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already all been explained in Sanhedrin. (See Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 1)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded all judges to equalize the litigants, that each of them be heard - whether his words are long or short. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"with righteousness shall you judge your fellow\" (Leviticus 19:15). And the explanation appears in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:4) - \"that one not be allowed to speak at length, and the other told, 'Speak briefly.'\" And that is one of the intentions included in the command. And it also comes [to teach] that each person is commanded to judge an argument between two litigants [according to] Torah law, if he knows [the law]. And they said in explanation (Sanhedrin 3a), \"By Torah law, one must judge one's fellow - as it is stated, 'with righteousness shall you judge your fellow.'\" And also included in it is that one is obligated to judge his fellow favorably and interpret his actions and his words only for the good. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in scattered places in the Talmud. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 21.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to testify in court about everything that we know. Whether the testimony about one will bring a death penalty or save him, or [save] his money or destroy it - we are obligated to testify about all of this and to inform the judges about that which we have seen or heard. And behold that they brought a proof about the obligation of telling over testimony from His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of it\" (Leviticus 5:1). And the punishment for one who transgresses this commandment and suppresses his testimony is great. And that is His saying, \"if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.\" And this is a general matter. But if the testimony he suppressed was testimony about money, and he denied it and swore falsely [about it], he is liable for a variable offering - as is explained by Scripture - according to the stipulations mentioned in Shevuot. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Testimony 9.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to investigate the testimony and to inquire [about] it well; and afterwards we judge the case and reach the truth. And we enhance this to the greatest of our ability, such that we not judge the case quickly with the first word and kill the innocent. And that is His saying, \"You must inquire and investigate\" (Deuteronomy 13:15). And the regulations of this commandment and its content - and how the investigation and inquiry is to be, and what we enhance it with; and how the testimony is established or nullified according to these investigations and inquiries - have already been explained in Tractate Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Testimony 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to render witnesses that testify falsely liable for the punishment that they thought to bring about with their testimony. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"And you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother\" (Deuteronomy 19:19). And this is the law of scheming witnesses: If they testified to cause a loss of money, we make them lose the same as [the accused would have]; if they testified something that would bring a death penalty, we kill them with that death penalty; and if they testify something that would bring lashes, we give them lashes. And the regulations of this commandment - and the issues that have arisen, and how we certify that the witnesses were scheming to the point that we judge them with this law - have already been explained in Tractate Makkot. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Testimony 18.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to behead a calf according to its commandment when a corpse is found in the field and it is not known who killed him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"If you find a corpse, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 21:1). And this is the law of the beheaded calf. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the last chapter of Sotah. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 8.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to prepare six cities of refuge, such that they be ready for the accidental manslaughterer, that a path to them be fixed, that it be straightened and that nothing be left that would impede the fugitive from running [to them]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall prepare the path\" (Deuteronomy 19:3). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sanhedrin, Makkot, Shekalim and Sotah. And we have already mentioned (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 176) their saying [that the laws of these cities] are only practiced in the Land [of Israel] (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 8.) " + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to give cities to the Levites to dwell, since they do not have a portion and inheritance in the Land. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"And they shall give to the Levites [...] cities to dwell\" (Numbers 35:1). And these cities of the Levites are cities of refuge that provide a shelter according to the description specified in Tractate Makkot. (See Parashat Masei; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 13.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to remove obstacles and dangers from all of our inhabitations. And that is that we build a wall around the roof, the pits, the ditches and that which is similar to them - so that the one in danger will not fall over them or into them. And likewise all dangerous and rickety places should all be built up properly to remove the ricketiness and the danger. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall make a parapet for your roof\" (Deuteronomy 22:8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 229:6) is, \"'And you shall make' - that is a positive commandment.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Bava Kamma. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 11.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to destroy idolatry and all of its houses with all types of destruction, annihilation, breaking, burning, demolishing and cutting - every type according to what will be most enhanced and quickest in the destruction. And the intention is that we should not leave a trace of them. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You must surely destroy all the sites at which they worshiped, etc. And tear down their altars\" (Deuteronomy 12:2-3); and His also saying, \"you shall tear down their altars\" (Deuteronomy 7:5). And because in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 89b), it mentions their saying, \"the positive commandment of idolatry,\" they said by way of wonder, \"What positive commandment is there in idolatry? Rabbi Hisda explained, 'And tear down.'\" And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 60:1) is, \"From where [do we know] that if he cut down [idolatry] even ten times and it grew again, he must cut it down? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You must surely destroy.'\" And they say there (Sifrei Devarim 60:10), \"'And you shall destroy their name [from that place]' - In the Land of Israel, you are commanded to pursue it (its complete destruction); but you are not commanded to pursue it outside of the Land.\" (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to kill all the people of a condemned city (ir hanidachat) and to burn the city with everything that is in it. And this is the law of a condemned city. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and you shall burn the city with fire and all its spoil totally\" (Deuteronomy 13:17). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sanhedrin. (See Parshat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 4.)" + ], + [ + "And that is that He commanded us to kill the seven nations that dwelled in the Land of Canaan and to destroy them, since they are the root of idolatry and its first base. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you must surely annihilate them\" (Deuteronomy 20:17). And He explained to us in many verses that the reason for this is so that we do not learn from their heresy. And many verses come to hint about this - meaning their killing - to strengthen it; and the war against them is a commanded war. And perhaps one might think that this commandment is not practiced for [all] the generations, since the seven nations have already ceased to exist. However it is [only] one who does not understand the topic of a practice that is practiced for the generations or that is not practiced for the generations who will think this. For it is not said about a command that is finished by the arrival of its purpose - without it being dependent upon a specific time - that it is not practiced for the generations. Rather it is practiced in each and every generation that the thing is found to be possible. Would you think that when God, may He be exalted, destroys the seed of Amalek and cuts it off with finality - as it will soon be, as He promised us by His saying, \"I will surely blot out the memory of Amalek\" - it is not for the generations? This would never be said! Rather it is practiced in each and every generation: Any time that the seed of Amalek is found, it is commandment to cut it off. And so too is killing the seven nations and destroying them a statement that was commanded; and it is a commanded war. And we are commanded to search for them in each and every generation until they are finished and not a single man of them remains. And so did we do in the days of David. [Then their] remnants scattered and mixed in with the [other] nations, until no root of them remained. But it is not because they have been cut off that this commandment that we have been commanded [should be considered] a commandment that is not practiced for the generations - and even after they have been finished and they have been destroyed. For these commandments are not connected to a specific time or place, like the commandments that were specific to the desert. Rather they are connected to to all times that it is found that this command is possible. And more generally, it is surely appropriate for you to understand and know the difference between commandments and that thing about which we were commanded. For, many times, the commandment will be practiced for the generations, but the thing about which we were commanded has already disappeared from certain times and places. But it does not turn into a commandment that is not practiced for the generations with the disappearance of the thing about which we were commanded. Rather it is [considered] not practiced for the generations when the matter is the opposite. And that is when certain content is in existence, but one is [only] obligated to do an action or a law at a certain time. But today it is not practiced, even though the thing is found with that matter. For example, a Levite who was disqualified in the desert is suitable today with us, as is explained in its place (Chullin 24a). And understand this principle and place it upon your heart. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to exclusively cut off the seed of Amalek - males, females, adults and children - from among the rest of the descendants of Esav. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall blot out the memory of Amalek\" (Deuteronomy 25:19). And we already mentioned (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 173), \"Three commandments were commanded to Israel upon their entrance to the land: To appoint a king over them; to build the [Temple]; and to cut off the seed of Amalek.\" And this war is a commanded war. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 1 of Sotah. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to remember what Amalek did to us in its coming forward to do us evil, to hate it at all times, to arouse the spirits with statements to fight with it and to make the nation alacritous to hate it - such that the commandment not be forgotten with [the passing of] so much time. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Remember what Amalek did to you\" (Deuteronomy 25:17). Perhaps only in your heart? When it states, \"you shall not forget,\" behold that is forgetting of the heart. So what do I establish [with] \"Remember?\" That hatred for it be in your mouth. Do you not see - that at the beginning of Shmuel's doing this commandment - how he first mentioned its evil acts and [only] then did he command to kill them? And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"I have remembered what Amalek did to Israel\" (I Samuel 15:2). (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us the law that He gave to us in a war with the other nations; and that is called an optional war. And we are commanded about this when we fight with them: That we promise them, only their lives, if they make peace with us and give us the land; and we obligate them to give us taxes. And we do not listen to them until they accept all of it upon themselves. And that is that they give us a set [amount] each year - according to that which the king decrees it should be at that time - that they be under his control, that they lower themselves and they humble themselves. And this is the content of subjugation. But if they don't make peace with us, we have been commanded to kill every male adult in that province and to take everything they have and the women. And that is His saying, \"And if they do not make peace with you, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 20:12). And all of this comes under the definition of an optional war. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the eighth [chapter] of Sotah and the second [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to appoint a priest that rebukes the people with the rebukes [needed for a] war and recalls whoever is not fit to fight - whether from weakness [or because] his thoughts will be on a matter that will lead to a lack of courage in war - and these are the three things explained by Scripture. And they then go to war. And this priest is called, the anointed one for war - and he says the words of the rebuke that are written in the Torah; and he adds [other] statements that arouse the hearts to war and lead them to endanger themselves to help God's religion, to serve Him, to observe His commandments and to take vengeance on the foolish ones that ruin the propriety of the states. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And it shall be, when you have come near to the war, that the priest shall approach, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 20:2). And afterwards, he commands to announce the procedure of the troops - that the weak-hearted ones, and all who have built a new house and have not inaugurated it, or planted a vineyard and have not eaten of it or betrothed a woman and not married her, return [home] - as is explained by the language of Scripture. And they said in the Gemara (Sotah 43a), \"The priest speaks and the officer amplifies [it].\" And all of this - meaning to say, the rebuke of the anointed one of war and the announcement in the war camp - is an obligation in an optional war. And the law of rebukes is during it; but they said that in a commanded war, there is nothing of this - not the rebukes and not the announcement, as is explained in the eighth [chapter] of Sotah. And the regulations of this commandment are explained there. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that when our soldiers go out to war, we prepare them a path outside of the camps, such that the people go out and a man not do his needs everywhere and between the dwellings, like the [other] nations do. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And there shall be a yad for you\" (Deuteronomy 23:13). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 257:1) is, \"A yad is nothing other than a place.\" (See Parashat Ki Tetzei.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that there be a digging tool together with the other tools of war with each one of the men of war; so as to dig with it in the place that he defecates on that path that is designated for this. And he then covers the feces after his defecating, such that the feces not be seen upon the ground at all in the war camp, as He said at the beginning of Parashat Ki Tetzei. And the language of this commandment is, \"With azenecha, you shall have a spike\" (Deuteronomy 23:14). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 257:3) is, \"Azenecha is nothing other than the place of zayanecha (your weapons).\" (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to return the stolen item itself, if it is still remaining as itself - with the addition of a fifth if he swore [about it] - or to give its value, if it was transformed. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and he shall return the stolen item\" (Leviticus 5:3). And they already explained in Tractate Makkot (Makkot 16a) that the negative commandment of robbery is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment. And they said [about this] that Scripture said, \"you shall not rob\" (Leviticus 19:13), \"and he shall return the stolen item.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Bava Kamma. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to give charity (tzedekah) and to strengthen the weak and to ease [their situation]. And this command has already appeared with varying words: His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you must surely open your hand, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 15:8); and He said, \"you must support him\" (Leviticus 25:35); and He said, \"and your brother shall live with you\" (Leviticus 25:36). But the intention of all these expressions is one; and that is that we help them and support them sufficiently for their requirements. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in many places in Ketubot and Bava Batra. And the received tradition has appeared about this, that even a poor person living off of charity is obligated in this commandment - meaning charity - whether to someone lower than him or similar to him, and even with something small. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to reward a Hebrew (Jewish) slave when he goes free, and not to have him leave [his owner's domain] empty-handed. And that is His saying, \"You shall surely reward him\" (Deuteronomy 15:8). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Kiddushin. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 3.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to lend to the poor, to lighten his poverty from upon him and to ease [his condition]. And this commandment is stronger and more obligatory than the whole commandment of charity. For the anguish of one who has [already] been revealed and disgraced to ask from people is not the same as the one who hides that he needs to be helped, so that his poverty not be revealed and he be disgraced. And the statement of this commandment is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"If (Im) you lend money to My people\" (Exodus 22:24). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:22:1) is, \"Every, if, in the Torah connotes optionality, except for three.\" And this is one of them. And they said, \"'If money,' is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and you shall surely lend him.' It is obligatory, not optional.\" And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Ketubot. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to demand interest from idolaters. (Raavad and Ramban disagree with him - that this is not a positive commandment at all. And the Sifrei [quoted below] is only saying that when one lends to a Jew with interest, one transgresses a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment. And this is the consensus of all the decisors.) And we may then lend to him. [This is so] that we not benefit him or help him; and even when [its] content is such that he gives it to him in such a way as was prohibited to do with a Jew. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"To a stranger, you may charge interest\" (Deuteronomy 23:21), such that the received explanation comes [to teach] that this is a positive commandment. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 263:1) is, \"'To a stranger, you may charge interest' - is a positive commandment; 'but to your brother shall you not charge interest' - is a negative commandment.\" But this commandment also has rabbinic stipulations. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Bava Metzia. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 5)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to return the surety to its Jewish owner at the time that he has a need for it: If the surety is from that which he needs during the day - such as tools of his craft or his activity - he returns it to him during the day and holds it in surety at night; and if it is from that which he needs at night - such as a pillow or a blanket - he returns it to him at night and holds it in surety during the day. And the language of the Mekhilta is, \"'Before the sun goes down, you shall return it to him' (Exodus 22:25) - this refers to a day-garment, that you can return the entire day. [...] From where [do you know about] a night-garment that it can be returned the entire night? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall surely return the pledge to him when the sun goes down' (Devarim 24:13). From here the Sages said, 'A day-garment that is taken as a pledge is returned during the whole day, and a night-garment is returned during the whole night.\" And it is already been explained in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 16a), that His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you must not enter his house to seize his pledge\" (Deuteronomy 24:10), is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment. And the positive commandment is His saying, \"You shall surely return.\" [This verse also] teaches that we return a night-garment at night and a day-garment during the day. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 3)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to give the wage of an employee on its day, and not to delay it to another day. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You must pay him his wage on the same day\" (Deuteronomy 24:15). And the law of this commandment is that a day-worker is to collect [his wage] during any of the night, and a night-worker is to collect during any of the day - as we will explain in the negative commandment (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 238). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 9 of [Bava] Metzia. And there, it is explained that this is obligatory with any daily worker, whether a stranger or a Jew - it is a positive commandment to pay on time. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Hiring 11)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that an employee eat from the thing he is working upon, at the time of his work - when the thing is attached to the ground. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"When you enter the vineyard of [...] When you enter the standing grainstalks of\" (Deuteronomy 22:25-26). And it has already been explained in the Gemara, Metzia (Bava Metzia 87b) that we learn from these two verses that a man may eat while at work from what is attached to the ground; and that one verse would not suffice without its fellow [being together] with it. [This is] as we explained earlier here (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments, 140), when they said, \"Until both verses are stated. And, if not, we would not have understood [it].\" Hence the content of this positive commandment - meaning the employee's eating from that which is connected - arose from two verses. And in the explanation (Bava Metzia 87a), they said, \"These may eat, from the Torah, etc.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 7 of [Bava] Metzia (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Hiring 12)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to unload the load from upon an animal when it gets tired from its load upon the way. And that is His saying, \"you shall surely azov it with him\" (Exodus 23:5). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 23:5) is, \"'Surely azov' - that is [an expression] of unloading.\" And there, it is said, \"'And you might not want to help him, you shall surely azov' - we find to learn that he transgresses a positive and a negative commandment.\" This is to say, that we have been commanded to unload the load from upon it, and we have also been prohibited from leaving [the animal] struggling under its load. And if one leaves it, he has transgressed a positive and a negative commandment. Behold it has been made clear that, \"you shall surely azov,\" is a positive commandment. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 2 of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 13.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to raise up the load upon an animal or a person when he is alone, after someone besides us has put it down. For just as we have been commanded to unload it, so too have we been commanded to raise it up. And that is His saying, \"you shall surely raise it up with him\" (Deuteronomy 22:4). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 23:5) is, \"'You shall surely raise it up with him' - that is [...] loading.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the second [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. And there, it is explained that is a commandment from the Torah to load and it is [also] a commandment from the Torah to unload. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 13.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to return a lost object to its owners. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall surely return it to your brother\" (Deuteronomy 22:1). And in the explanation (Bava Metzia 32a), they said, \"Returning a lost object is a positive commandment.\" And they also said about a lost object (Sifrei Devarim 222:2), \"We have found to learn that one transgresses a positive and a negative commandment\" - and behold we will explain the negative commandment in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 269.) And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the second [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 11.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to rebuke a sinner, or one who wants to sin, and to prevent him from it with words of rebuke. And it is not fitting to say, \"Since I am not sinning, if someone besides me sins, what do I have to do with his God?\" This is the opposite of the Torah. Rather we are commanded not to sin, and that we not let someone else of our faith rebel. And if he tries to rebel - and even if there is no testimony that has come out against him and judgement passed against him - we are obligated to rebuke him and bring him back. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall surely rebuke your kinsman\" (Leviticus 19:17). And included in this command is that some of us rebuke others of us when one man sins to another man, such that we not bear a grudge in our heart and we not think iniquitously about him. Rather, we are commanded to rebuke him with words until no [enmity] remains in the soul. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:8) is, \"From where [do we know] that if he reproved him [four or five] times, he should keep on reproving him? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall surely rebuke.' I might think that he must rebuke him [even if] his face changes color (in shame); [hence] we learn to say, 'but do not bear sin because of him.'\" And the sages already explained that the obligation of this commandment is upon every man; and even the lesser one is obligated to rebuke the honored one. And even if he curses him and disgraces him, he must not turn away from rebuking him, until he [reaches the limit] - as the receivers of the Torah explained and said (Arakhin 16b) - \"until [he] strikes [him].\" And this commandment has stipulations and regulations that have been explained in scattered places in the Talmud. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to love each other like we love ourselves, and that one's love and compassion for one's brother be like the love and compassion for himself regarding his money - regarding his body and regarding everything that is in his domain. If he wants it, I want it; and all that I will want for myself, I will want the same for him. And that is His saying, \"and you shall love your neighbor as yourself\" (Leviticus 19:18). (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to love converts. And that is His saying, \"And you shall love the stranger\" (Deuteronomy 10:19). And even though he was included regarding this with [all of] Israel, in His saying, \"and you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18) - since this stranger is a convert (and a full member of Israel) - however because he entered into our Torah, God added love upon love and designated an additional commandment for him. [This is] as He did with the prohibition of, \"And you shall not oppress\" (Leviticus 25:17); He [also] said, \"And you shall not oppress a stranger\" (Exodus 22:20). And it is explained from the language of the Gemara (Bava Metzia 59b) that we are liable by oppressing the convert on account of, \"And you shall not oppress,\" and on account of, \"And you shall not oppress a stranger.\" [So] we are also obligated to love him on account of, \"and you shall love your neighbor as yourself,\" and on account of, \"And you shall love the stranger.\" And this is clear - there is no doubt about it. And I do not know a [single] man from whoever counted the commandments that botched this. And in most [books of] Midrash, they explained that God commanded about the convert, just like He commanded us about Himself - He said, \"And you shall love the Lord, your God\" (Deuteronomy 6:5), and He said, \"And you shall love the stranger.\" (See Parashat Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to justify the leveler, the scales, the weights and the measures; and to maximize their exactness. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Just scales\" (Leviticus 19:36). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim 8:7) is, \"'Just scales' - justify the scales well. 'Just weights' - justify the weights well. 'A just ephah' - justify the ephah well. 'And a just hin' - justify the hin well.\" And it is already known that the ephah is the dry measure and the hin is the wet measure. And all of these matters are one, [even] if the type of measure varies according to the thing that is weighed or measured - regardless, it is a measurement that is evaluated. And all of these - meaning, the leveler, the scales and the ephah - are called measures; and the command, that we have been commanded to maximize the exactitude of the accepted measurement for each and every type, is called the commandment of measures. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim 8:10) is, \"On this condition, I brought you out of the Land of Egypt - that you take upon yourselves the commandment of measures. For all who acknowledge the commandment of measures, acknowledge the exodus from Egypt; and all who deny [it], deny the exodus from Egypt.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the fifth [chapter] of [Bava] Batra. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 8)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to honor the sages, to rise in front of them and to glorify them. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"In the presence of the elderly you shall rise and you shall respect an elder\" (Leviticus 19:32). And the language of the Sifra is, \"Rising that has honor.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Kiddushin. And you should know that even if this commandment is obligatory for all people in general - meaning to honor sages, and even [towards] a sage that is one's equal in wisdom, like they explained in their saying (Bava Metzia 33a), \"The Torah scholars in Babylonia would stand up for one another\" - you should know that there are additional [obligations] of honor for the student. And that is because the honor a student is obligated towards his teacher is much more than the honor due to a sage [in general]. And along with the honor, he is obligated to fear him. For they have already explained that the law of his teacher upon him is like the law of his father, whom Scripture has obligated him to honor and fear. And they already said (Sanhedrin 5b) that it is not permissible to disagree with his rabbi - meaning a disagreement that breaks with his instruction and legal decision, such that he relies upon his [own] wisdom and teaches or decides and instructs, unless [his teacher] gives him permission. And it is not permissible to quarrel with him, nor to get upset with him. And he may not suspect him regarding his actions or words with various suspicions, as it is possible that this was not [his teacher's] intention. And in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 110a), they said, \"Anyone who disagrees with his teacher is as if he disagrees with the Divine Presence, as it is stated (Numbers 26:9), 'when they strove against the Lord.' And anyone who argues with his teacher is as if he argues with the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated (Numbers 20:13), 'These are the waters of Meribah, [where the children of Israel quarreled with the Lord].' And anyone who gets upset with his teacher is as if he is upset with the Divine Presence, as it is stated (Exodus 16:8), 'Your complaints are not against us, but against the Lord.' And anyone who suspects his teacher is as if he suspects the Divine Presence, as it is stated (Numbers 21:5), 'And the people spoke against God, and against Moses.'\" And this is completely clear, since the disagreement of Korach and the argument of the Children of Israel - and their complaint and their accusation and their suspicion - was with Moshe, who was the teacher of all of Israel; but Scripture put all of these matters of theirs towards God. And in the explanation (Avot 4:12), they said, \"The fear of your teacher is like the fear of the Heavens.\" And [this fear] is all deduced and proved from Scripture's commanding [us] to honor parents and sages, as is explained in many places in the Talmud - but that [does not make] it a separate commandement. And understand this. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Torah Study)." + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to honor [our] father and mother. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall honor your father and mother\" (Exodus 20:12). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the Talmud, primarily in Kiddushin. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1:10) is, \"Which is honor? Giving to eat, giving to drink [...], bringing in and taking out.\" (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to fear [our] father and mother - and that is that one behave with them according to what is customary towards one whom he fears, such as a king. And he should be with them like one who is afraid of them and beware of something coming from himself that will be untoward. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"A man shall fear his mother and father\" (Leviticus 19:3). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1:10) is, \"Which is fear? He shall not sit in his place, and he shall not speak in front of him, and he shall not contradict his words.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Kiddushin. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, with the intention of preserving the species. And that is the commandment of piryah verivyah. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And you, be fruitful and multiply\" (Genesis 9:7). And they have already explained (Berakhot 16a) that a groom is exempt from the recitation of Shema on account of being busy with [this] commandment. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 7 of Yevamot. But women are not obligated in this commandment. And in the explanation, they said (Yevamot 65b), \"A man is commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but not a woman.\" (See Parashat Bereishit; Mishneh Torah, Marriage 15.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to marry with kiddushin: To give something into the hand of the woman; through a contract; or through sexual intercourse. And that is the commandment of kiddushin. And the hint to this is, \"When a man takes a wife, and marries (which can also mean, has intercourse with) her etc.\" (Deuteronomy 24:1) - indicating that he effectuates [the marriage] with intercourse; and His saying, \"And she leaves [...] and becomes\" (Deuteronomy 24:2) - since just like the leaving (divorce) is with a contract, so too is the becoming (marriage) with a contract. And likewise have we learned that [it is effectuated] with money, from His saying about a Hebrew maid-servant, \"there is no money\" (Exodus 21:11) - to this master, there is no money, but there is money to another master. And who is that? The father [of a bride]. But kiddushin from the Torah is nevertheless explained to be with intercourse, as is explained in [various] places in Ketubot, Kiddushin and Niddah. And the regulations of this commandment have already been completely explained in Tractate Kiddushin. But women are not obligated in this commandment. And in the explanation, they said (Kiddushin 9b), \"Kiddushin with intercourse, which is from the Torah.\" (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Marriage.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a groom be with his wife a full year, such that he not go outside of the city, nor go out to the army nor undergo any of the things that are similar to these, but rather rejoice with her until the completion of a full year. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"he shall be free for his home one year\" (Deuteronomy 24:5). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Sotah. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to circumcise a boy. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying to Avraham, \"every male among you shall be circumcised\" (Genesis 17:10) - and, after it, that whoever negates this commandment is liable for excision. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 18 of Shabbat and 4 of Yevamot. But a woman is not commanded to circumcise her son, like the father is commanded about this - as is explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 29a). (See Parashat Lech Lecha; Mishneh Torah, Circumcision.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a yavam (levirate husband) marry the wife of his brother when [the latter] dies without leaving offspring. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"her yavam will have intercourse with her\" (Deuteronomy 25:5). And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Yevamot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a yevamah (levirate wife) release her yavam if he does not marry her. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and she shall release his shoe\" (Deuteronomy 25:9). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Yevamot. And you already know their saying (Yevamot 39b), \"The commandment of yibum (levirate marriage) takes precedence over release.\" And that is why [the tractate] is called Yevamot, even though it includes the laws of levirate marriage and of release, equally. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that a rapist marry the woman he raped. And that is His, may He be exalted and may He be blessed, saying, \"and she shall be his wife\" (Deuteronomy 22:29). And it has already been explained in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 15a), that this negative commandment of rape - that \"he cannot send her away all of his days\" - is a negative commandment that is preceded by a positive commandment. Hence it has already become clear that this, \"and she shall be his wife,\" is a positive commandment. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in [Chapter] 3 and 4 of Ketubot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Virgin Maiden.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us the law of the one who puts out a bad name - meaning to say, that He commanded us to give him lashes and that she be his wife. For also with her does, \"and she shall be his wife\" (Deuteronomy 22:19), appear. And it has already also been explained in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 15a), regarding this negative commandment, like it was explained about rape - meaning to say, that this negative commandment is preceded by a positive commandment. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the third and fourth [chapters] of Ketubot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Virgin Maiden.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of the seducer. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"If a man seduces a virgin\" (Exodus 22:15). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the third and fourth [chapters] of Ketubot. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Virgin Maiden 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of the [captive woman of] beautiful form. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And you see among the captives, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 21:11). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Kiddushin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us - if one wants to divorce - to divorce with a contract under all circumstances. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"he shall write her a scroll of divorce\" (Deuteronomy 24:1). And the regulations of this commandment have already been completely explained in Tractate Gittin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Divorce)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of the sotah (suspected adulteress). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"if a man’s wife has gone astray\" (Numbers 5:12). And the regulations of this commandment - how she is made to drink, how she offers her sacrifice and her [other] stipulations besides this - have all already been explained in Tractate Sotah. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Woman Suspected of Infidelity 3)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to give lashes with a whip to those that transgress certain commandments. That is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and the judge shall have him lie down and be given lashes\" (Deuteronomy 25:2). And when we mention the negative commandments, we shall [indicate] those that require lashes for those that transgress them. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Makkot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 16.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to remove an accidental killer from his city to a city of refuge. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and he shall dwell [in it] until the death of the high priest\" (Numbers 35:25). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 181:4) is, \"['And he shall dwell there' - he does not leave there forever, as it is stated,] 'there' - [...] there will be his death, there will be his burial.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Makkot. (See Parashat Masei; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 5.) " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to kill, with a sword, those that transgress certain commandments. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"he must surely be avenged\" (Exodus 21:20). And behold, in the negative commandments, we shall [indicate] those which require chopping off the head. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 14, 15.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to strangle those that transgress certain commandments. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"he shall surely be put to death\" (Exodus 21:16). And behold, in the negative commandments, we shall [indicate] those which require strangulation. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 14, 15.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to immolate those that transgress certain commandments. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they\" (Leviticus 20:14). And behold, in the negative commandments, we shall [indicate] those which require immolation. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 14, 15.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to stone those that transgress certain commandments. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and you shall stone them with stones that they die\" (Deuteronomy 22:24). And behold, in the negative commandments, we shall [indicate] those which require stoning. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the sixth chapter of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 15.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to hang some of those killed by the court. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"and you shall hang him from a tree\" (Deuteronomy 21:22). And behold, in the negative commandments, we shall [indicate] those commandments that one who transgresses them requires hanging. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 15.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to bury those killed by the court on the day that they are killed. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"but you must surely bury him on that day\" (Deuteronomy 21:23). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 221:7) is, \"'But you must surely bury him' - that is a positive commandment.\" And the law is the same for the other dead - meaning to say, that we bury all the dead of Israel on the day of their death. And therefore a corpse that has no one to be involved with its burial is called a corpse of commandment (met mitzvah) - meaning a corpse about which it is a commandment upon everyone to bury it, by His saying, \"but you must surely bury him.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the sixth [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded about the law of a Hebrew (Jewish) slave. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"When you acquire a Hebrew slave\" (Exodus 21:2). And [while] most of the laws of this commandment have already been explained explicitly in the Torah, all of the laws of this commandment are explained in Tractate Kiddushin. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us that the master who acquired a Hebrew (Jewish) maidservant marry her - [he] or his son. And that is the commandment of designation [that] has precedence over the commandment of redemption, by His saying, \"who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed\" (Exodus 21:8). But you should know that the law of a Hebrew slave and a Hebrew maidservant are only practiced at the time that the Jubilee is practiced. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 4 of Tractate Kiddushin. " + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to redeem the Hebrew maidservant. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"he must let her be redeemed\" (Exodus 21:8). This redemption has many details and conditions and there are many regulations for it - and they have been explained in Tractate Kiddushin. And the law of the Hebrew maidservant is completely explained there. And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:11:1) they said in explanation of, \"And if these three he does not do to her\" (Exodus 21:11), \"Designate (marry) [her] yourself, to your son, or redeem her.\" (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 4.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of the Canaanite (gentile) slave. And that is that we enslave him forever, and that he only [attain] freedom through [the master's destruction of his] tooth or eye - and the law is the same for other limbs that do not regenerate, as appears in the received explanation. And that is His saying, \"you shall enslave them forever\" (Leviticus 25:46); and it is written \"When a man strikes, etc.\" (Exodus 21:26). And the language of the Gemara, Gittin (Gittin 38a), is, \"Anyone who liberates his slave transgresses a positive commandment, as it is written, 'you shall enslave them forever.'\" But it comes in the Torah that he is freed with a tooth and an eye. And the regulations of this commandment have already been completely explained in Kiddushin and Gittin. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of one who injures his fellow. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And when men quarrel\" (Exodus 21:26); and this is called, fines. And a verse already came that includes all of the laws of fines - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"as he has done, so shall it be done to him\" (Leviticus 24:19): That [which is] taken away from him is in exchange for that which he hurt him, according to the measure of the hurt - as it appears in the tradition. And even if it was only that he embarrassed him; behold he is fined this measure of his money. And you should know that all of these laws of fines that are laws between one person and another - and likewise, when an animal damages a person or a person damages an animal - are indeed only judged and fined by a court of those who have been ordained in the Land of Israel. And the details of the law of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 1 of Bava Kamma. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to administer the laws of the ox [that causes damage]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And when an ox gores\" (Exodus 21:28); and \"And when an ox injures\" (Exodus 21:35). And this law has already been explained in the first six chapters of [Bava] Kamma. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Damages to Property 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to administer the laws of the pit [that causes damage]. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"And when a man opens a pit\" (Exodus 21:33). And the analyses of the law of this commandment have already been explained in the third and fifth [chapters] of [Bava] Kamma. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Damages to Property 12.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to administer the laws of the thief - that we fine him with the law of double-payment or four or five times, we kill him if he comes surreptitiously, we sell him and all of the regulations of the thief more generally, as explained in Scripture. And all of the analyses of this law have already been explained in Chapter 7 of [Bava] Kamma, 8 of Sanhedrin, 3 of [Bava] Metzia and in a few places in Ketubot, Kiddushin and Shevuot. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Theft 3.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of grazing. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"When a man lets graze\" (Exodus 22:4). And the details of this law have all been completely explained in the second and fifth [chapters] of [Bava] Kamma and the fifth [chapter] of Gittin. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Damages to Property 1, 3.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of fire damage. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"When a fire extends, etc.\" (Exodus 22:4). And the details of this law have already been explained in the second and sixth [chapters] of [Bava] Kamma. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Damages to Property 14.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of the unpaid guardian. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"When a man gives to his neigbor money\" (Exodus 22:6). And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 9 of [Bava] Kamma and of [Bava] Metzia and 8 of Shevuot. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit 1-5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of the [paid guardian] and the renter - since the law of the two of them is the same, as they explained and said (Shevuot 49b), \"There are three laws for four [categories of] guardians.\" And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"When a man gives to his fellow, etc.\" (Exodus 22:9). And all the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 6 and 8 of [Bava] Kamma, 8 of [Bava] Metzia and 8 of Shevuot. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit 1-5.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of the borrower. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"When a man borrows from his neighbor\" (Exodus 22:13). And the details of this law have already been explained in Chapter 8 of [Bava] Metzia and 8 of Shevuot. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit 1-3.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of buying and selling - meaning the ways in which the sale between the seller and buyer is effectuated. And they already brought as a proof about these ways, His saying, \"When you surely sell to your kinsman, or buy from the hand, etc.\" (Leviticus 25:14). And they already said (Bava Metzia 47b), \"Something that is acquired from one hand to another - meaning to say, [by] pulling [it].\" And there, it is already explained that, from the Torah, money effectuates an acquisition, whereas the pulling (meshikhah) of movable objects is an ordinance of the Sages, and likewise giving over (mesirah) and raising up (hagbaha). And in explanation, they said there, \"In the same way that they established, pulling for [purchases], they established pulling for guardians.\" Behold it has already been made clear to you that they needed pulling for sales and therefore made an ordinance, as is explained in its place. Moreover, the rest of the ways with which one acquires lands and other things - meaning a contract or a holding (chazakah) - were also surely [only] attached to verses (and not derived from them). And the regulations of this law - meaning the ways through which a sale is effectuated with each and every type - have already been explained in Chapter 1 of Kiddushin and Chapter 4, 8 and 9 of [Bava] Metzia] and 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of [Bava] Batra. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sales 1-10.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us about the law of claimant and defendant. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, \"For all manner of trespass [...] of which one can say, 'This is it'\" (Deuteronomy 21:22). And the language of the Mekhilta is, \"'This is it' - until he makes a partial admission.\" And included in this law are all the claims that transpire between people - some of them against others of them - that involve admission and denial. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in [Chapter] 3 of [Bava] Kamma and 5 and 6 of Shevuot; and there are also many questions about it scattered in many places in the Talmud and in Chapter 1 and 8 of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant 1- 16.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He commanded us to save someone pursued, even through the life of the pursuer - meaning that we are commanded to kill the pursuer, if we are only able to save the pursued by [taking] the life of the pursuer. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And you shall cut off her hand; you shall have no pity\" (Deuteronomy 25:12). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 292:5-293:1) is, \"'By his genitals' (Deuteronomy 25:11) - what is unique about his genitals? They place his life in danger - hence it [comes] with, 'And you shall cut off her hand.' This teaches that you are obligated to save him through [cutting off] her hand. From where [do we know] that if you are not able to rescue him through her hand, that you may rescue him with her life? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall have no pity.'\" Behold that the content of this command has already become clear to you; and that His saying, \"the wife of one,\" was the verse merely speaking with what is common. But the intention is to save the pursued through [injuring one] of the limbs of the pursuer. And if it is impossible to save him without the death of the pursuer, he should kill him at once. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 5 of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He instructed us about the laws of inheritance. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"‘If a man dies and he has no son\" (Numbers 27:8). And included in this law without a doubt is that the first born [son] inherits double, as this is one of the regulations of inheritances. And all the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in [Chapter] 8 and 9 of [Bava] Batra. (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 1-11.)" + ] + ], + "Conclusion for Positive Commandments": [ + "And you should know that, that which we said, [that] their regulations are in place x - our intention was not that all of the regulations of that commandment would be included in that chapter or that tractate, to the point that no question would remain. Rather I am mentioning the place in which there is the main law of the commandment and most of its regulations. However there will be many questions about the regulations of that commandment that are scattered in many places in the Talmud, but I will not mention their places now. ", + "And when you now examine all of these commandments that were previously mentioned, you will find among them commandments that are an obligation on the community - not on each and every individual - like the building of the choice [Temple], the establishment of a king and the cutting off of the seed of Amalek. And there are [also] among them, commandments that are obligatory on an individual if he did a certain act or something happens to him - such as a sacrifice for an inadvertent or volitional [sin]. And among these commandments are also laws, like those we explained - such as the [law] of the Hebrew slave, the law of the Hebrew maidservant, the law of the Canaanite slave, the law of the unpaid guardian, the law of the borrower and the others that were previously mentioned - it is possible that an individual will live all of his life and not deal with it, and so not be obligated in this commandment. And also among them are commandments that are only practiced when the Temple is in existence, such as the festival-offering, the sight-offering and the commandment of assembly - and we have already mentioned each one. And among them are also those that are only practiced by someone with property, such as tithes, priestly tithes, gifts to the priesthood and the portions of the poor - meaning, gleanings, forgotten [produce], the corner and ollalot. And sometimes one will not have these possessions, so he will not be obligated in [these commandments]; and a man may live his whole life and he will not become obligated by any of the commandments of this type. But charity is not included in this, since charity is obligatory even on a person that subsists on [charity], as we have explained. And among them are those that are definitely obligatory - at all times, in all places and whatever the circumstance - such as tzitzit, tefillin and the observance of Shabbat. And the commandments that are of this type are called definite commandments, because they are definitely obligatory for every Jewish man that reaches that age - at any time, in any place and whatever the circumstance. And when you examine these 248 positive commandments, you will find that the definite commandments are sixty. And that is with the stipulation that his situation is the situation of most people: That is that he lives in a house in a city, eats the foods associated with the human species - meaning to say, bread and meat - engages in commerce with people, marries a woman and fathers children. And these sixty commandments according to the order in which we have arranged them are these:", + "Commandments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in which women are not obligated, 11 in which women are not obligated, 12 in which women are not obligated, 13 in which women are also not obligated, 14 in which women are also not obligated, 15, 18 in which women are not obligated, 19, 26 which is specific to male priests, 32, 54, 73, 94, (141), 143, 147, 149, 150, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 in which women are not obligated, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 in which women are not obligated, 169 in which women are not obligated, 170 in which women are not obligated, 172, 175, 184, 195, 197, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212 in which women are not obligated, [213 in which women are not obligated, 214 in which women are not obligated, and 215 in which women are not obligated (and 231)]. ", + "Behold it has been made clear to you that from these sixty definite commandments, there are forty-six commandments that women are also obligated, and fourteen that women are not obligated. And the mnemonic for these definite commandments will be, \"Sixty are the queens\" (Song of Songs 6:8). And the mnemonic for the lessening of fourteen for the women will be, \"the might (yad, the letters of which have a numerical value of fourteen) is gone\" (Deuteronomy 32:36). Or the mnemonic of the forty-six commandments of the women will be \"As for you also, because of the blood (badam, the letters of which have a numerical value of forty-six) of your covenant, I have sent forth your prisoners\" (Zechariah 9:11) - meaning, the obligation upon them is the number, badam; and that is a covenant that is definitely obligatory for women. And that is what I wanted to hint regarding the number of the positive commandments. ", + "The positive commandments have been completed." + ], + "Negative Commandments": [ + [ + "That is that He prohibited us from believing in a god besides Him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall have no other gods before Me\" (Exodus 20:3). And it has already been explained in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 23b) that this negative commandment is included in the 613 commandments. And that is their saying, \"There were 613 commandments stated to Moshe at Sinai, etc.\" - as we explained about the first positive commandment (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 1). (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from making an idol to serve - and there is no difference whether one made it with his hands or commanded that it be made. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image\" (Exodus 20:4). And one who transgressed this negative commandment - meaning the negative commandment of making an idol - is liable for lashes. And [this is the case] even if someone besides him made it for him, and even if he did not worship it. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from making an idol for those besides us, in order that they serve it - and even if the one who commanded [us] to make it was a gentile. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"do not make molten gods for yourselves\" (Leviticus 19:4). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1:12) is, \"'Do not make' - even for others.\" And there it says, \"One who makes an idol for himself transgresses on account of two negative commandments.\" [This] means to say that he transgresses on making it with his hands - even if he made it for someone besides himself - as is explained in this third commandment; and he also transgresses on account of acquiring an idol and keeping it with him, even if someone besides him made it for him, as that which came before in the second commandment. And hence, he receives two [sets of] lashes. And the law of this commandment and the one before it has already been explained in Tractate Avodah Zarah. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from making images from wood, stones, metal and other [substances] - and even though they are not made to worship. And this distancing, of not making images at all, is in order that one not think that which the foolish worshippers of idolatry think about them - that the images have power. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not make any gods of silver or gods of gold with Me\" (Exodus 20:20). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael Chapter 20:20:2) regarding the content of this negative commandment, by way of explanation is, \"'You shall not make any gods of silver' - that you should not say, 'Behold I shall make it for ornamentation, as others do in the provinces.' [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not make [...] for yourselves.'\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for lashes. And the regulations of this commandment - and which forms can be fashioned and which cannot be fashioned and what is the description of fashioning - have already been explained in Chapter 3 of Tractate Avodah Zarah. And it has already been explained in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 7b) that this negative statement - meaning to say, His saying, \"You shall not make\" - includes content beyond this commandment. But the simple understanding of the verse is that it is speaking about that which we mentioned, as is explained in the Mekhilta. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from bowing to an idol. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"You shall not bow to them\" (Exodus 20:5). And it is clear that by our saying, idol, we mean anything worshipped besides God. And the intention is not only bowing, and nothing else. Indeed, He mentioned one of the ways of worship - meaning to say, bowing - but we are also prohibited from sacrificing to them, offering libations and burning incense [to them]. And one who has transgressed one of these and bowed, sacrificed, offered libations or burned incense is liable for stoning. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:19) is, \"'One who sacrifices to gods shall be proscribed' (Exodus 22:19) - we have [thus] heard the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not bow to them and you shall not worship them.' Sacrifice was included (in serving), and it was singled out to teach [that] just as sacrificing is distinctive, in that we worship the Heavens in a similar way and one is liable for it, whether he worships it or he does not not worship it - so too, one is liable for all the ways that are similar to how we worship the Heavens, whether he worships it or he does not not worship it.\" And the content of this statement is that these four types of worship - being bowing, sacrificing, offering libations and burning incense - through which we have been commanded that we worship God, may He be blessed: Anyone who worships an idol through one of them is liable for stoning, even if this is not one of the ways of worshipping this thing that was worshipped. And that is what is called, not in the way of its worship. [Yet] since he worshipped in one of these ways, he is liable for stoning if he was volitional; excision if the court did not know about him or they did not execute the punishment; or to bring a sacrifice if he was inadvertent. And likewise when one accepts something as a god in a way of accepting. And this prohibition has already been repeated - meaning to say, the prohibition of their worship through one of these four ways, and even [when] it is not in its way. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And that they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goats\" (Leviticus 17:7). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 9:8) is, \"'Goats,' is nothing other than demons.\" And in the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), it is explained, however, that this negative commandment is with slaughtering to the idol, even if the slaughtering is not the way of its worship. They said, \"From where [do we know about] one who slaughters an animal as an offering to Mercury, that he is liable (even though this is not its way of worship)? As it is stated, 'And that they may offer their sacrifices no more.' If its content is not [applied to] in its way [of worship], as [that is already derived from] its being written, 'How do these nations serve' (Deuteronomy 12:30); then apply its content to [worshipping] not in its way.\" And one who transgresses it volitionally [gets] excision and stoning - as we said - and must bring a sacrifice if it was inadvertent. And the language of Scripture is, \"One who sacrifices to gods shall be proscribed.\" And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from worshipping an idol, even besides the four ways that preceded; but on condition that the worship be according to its way - meaning to say, that one serves it in the way that this worshipped thing is worshipped, such as to expose oneself to Peor, or to cast a stone at Mercury. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying in prohibition of this, \"you shall not worship them\" (Exodus 20:5). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:5:1) is, \"'You shall not bow to them and you shall not worship them' - to make liable for the worship separately.\" And hence one who casts a stone at Peor or exposes himself to Mercury is not liable, for it is not its worship - as He, may He be blessed, said, \"How do [these nations] serve\" (Deuteronomy 12:30). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for stoning or excision when volitional; and a sacrifice when inadvertent. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Sanhedrin. And there (Sanhedrin 64b), they said, \"There are three exicisions for idolatry: One according to its way; one that is not according to its way; and one that is to Molekh.\" [This] means to say: That one who worships any idol that it may be through one of the ways of worship is surely liable for excision, but on condition that he worships it according to its way, like exposing himself to Peor or casting a stone at Mercury or passing his hair to Khamosh; likewise one who worshipped any worshipped thing that it may be through one of the four ways of worship is liable for excision, even if this is not the way of its worship, such as if one sacrificed to Peor or bowed to Mercury - and that is not according to its way; and the third excision is for one who passes some of his offspring to Molekh, as I will explain (in the next commandment). (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from giving over some of our children to that object of worship that was famous at the time of the giving of the Torah, the name of which was Molekh. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not give over any of your children to be passed through to Molekh\" (Leviticus 18:21). And its worship was like that which is explained in the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 64b). And that is that they would kindle a great fire in front of the statue and [one would] take one of his children and give him to the functionary that deals with this worshipped thing, and the functionary would pass him through the fire, from one side to the other. And the prohibition of this act has already been repeated by His saying, \"Let no one be found among you who passes his son or daughter through the fire\" (Deuteronomy 18:10). And one who transgressed this negative commandment volitionally is liable for stoning, and excision if he is not stoned; and he is liable for a fixed sin-offering, if inadvertent. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 7 of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Achrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from making an ov - and that is that one burn a certain incense and do specific acts and it appears to him that he hears speech from below his underarm that answers what he asks it. And this is one type of its varieties. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Do not turn to the ovot\" (Leviticus 19:31). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7:10) is, \"Ov - that is a wizard, who speaks from his armpits.\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment - meaning to say, that he does the act himself and is occupied with it himself - volitionally is liable for stoning, and excision if he is not stoned; and is liable for a fixed sin-offering, if inadvertent. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from doing the procedure of the yidaoni - and this too is one of the types of idolatry. And that is that one takes the bone of a bird, the name of which is yidoa, and places it in his mouth, burns incense, yells out and does [various] acts until he is visited by a state similar to a seizure and is overcome by a trance and speaks in clairvoyance. And they said (Sanhedrin 65b), \"A yidaoni [is one who] places a bone of a bird, the name of which is yidoa, in his mouth, and [the bone] speaks on its own.\" And the prohibition about this comes with this language - \"Do not turn to the ovot and to the yidaonim\" (Leviticus 19:31). But do not think that this negative commandment is a general negative commandment. For He already separated it in the mention of the punishment and said, \"or a yidaoni\" (Leviticus 20:27). And he is punished for each one of them [with] stoning and excision, when volitional. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"A man or a woman who has an ov or a yidaoni [shall surely be put to death].\" And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10:1) is, \"Since it says, 'A man or a woman,' we have heard the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Do not turn to the ovot [and to the yidaonim].'\"And for [violation of] this negative commandment inadvertently, one is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from inclining towards idolatry and occupying ourselves with its narratives - meaning to say, into this study of spirituality. [That] means, star x descends according to this description and [then] does such; and [when] they burn incense to y and stand before it according to this description, it does thing z - and that which goes in this way. For thought about these things and study with these [types of] expressions is what arouses a person to seek them and their worship. And the verse that prohibited us from this content is His saying, \"Do not turn to the idols\" (Leviticus 19:4). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1:11) is, \"If you turn to them, you make them gods.\" And there (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1:10), they said, \"Rabbi Yehudah says, 'Do not turn to see them'\" - it is not even permissible to observe the appearance of the image's form and the thought of its construction, so that one not spend any time [involved with any] part of it. And in the chapter [entitled] Shoel Adam (Shabbat 149a), they said, \"[Regarding] writing that is under a picture or under graven images (deyokenaot), it is prohibited to read it on Shabbat. And [regarding] the image itself, even on a weekday it is prohibited to look at it, because it it is stated, 'Do not turn to the idols.' What is the [derivation from this verse]? Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Do not make a god from your minds.'\" And the prohibition about this very content - meaning about the prohibition of the thought of idolatry - has already been repeated. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be seduced\" (Deuteronomy 11:16). [This] means to say [that] if you have your heart delve into it, it will bring you to veer from the [true] path, and to become involved in its [actual] worship. And He also said about this exact content, \"And lest you lift your eyes to the sky\" (Deuteronomy 4:19). For He did not come to forbid a person from seeing them with his eyes, but rather forbade the matter in which one relates to their worship with the interest of the heart. And likewise, His saying, \"lest you inquire about their gods,\" is forbidding the inquiry about the nature of their worship, even though one does not worship them. For this all leads to erring about them. And you should know that one who transgresses this is liable for lashes. And this has already been made clear at the end of the first chapter of Eruvin (Eruvin 17b), regarding that which they said, [that] we give lashes for [going outside of] the mixing of perimeters (eruvei techumin). And they gave as a proof, His saying, \"let no (al) man go out of his place\" (Exodus 16:29); and someone asked and said, \"But how can they give lashes for a prohibition, with the word, al, when the commandment did not come with the word, lo? And they answered him rhetorically, \"And do we not give lashes for anything that comes with the word, al? But if so, we would also not give lashes for, 'Do not turn to the idols!'\" Behold this indicates that we give lashes for this negative commandment. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 2.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from making a pillar to which we attach ourselves and honor, even if it positioned to serve God upon it. And this is because it appears like idolatry, since this is what they would do - build a pillar and place an idol on it. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not set up a pillar for yourself\" (Deuteronomy 16:22). And one who transgressed this negative commandment is liable for lashes. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from making a stone that is designed to bowing upon, even if this was for [bowing to] God, may He be blessed. And this too is because it resembles idolatry, since they would thus make a craftily decorated rock in front of the image, and bow down upon it to that image. And He said, \"you shall not install a figured stone in your land to bow upon it\" (Leviticus 26:1); and one who transgressed this negative commandment is lashed. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 9:5) is, \"'Not install in your land' - in your land, you do not bow upon the stones, but you do bow upon the stones in the Temple.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the Gemara, Megillah. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6.)" + ], + [ + "That is that we have been prevented from planting trees in the Temple or next to the altar, by way of decoration and beauty for the sake of God's service, may He be exalted - because the idol worshippers would do this. For they would plant beautiful trees that were appealing to the eyes in the houses of their worship. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Do not plant an Asherah for yourself, any tree near the altar of the Lord, your God\" (Deuteronomy 16:21). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for lashes. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Tamid - and there, it says that planting is forbidden in the [entire] Temple. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from swearing by an idol. And we may not even have its worshippers swear by it - as they explained with their saying, \"You shall not have an idolater swear by his deity.\" And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and make no mention of the name of other gods\" (Exodus 23:13) - do not make an idolater swear by his deity. And in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 63b) [it says], \"'Make no mention' - that a man should not say to his fellow, 'Wait for me next to idol x.'\" And one who transgressed this negative commandment - meaning that he swears by one of the creations, that are thought of as gods by those in error, in the manner of exaltation - is liable for lashes. And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 63a), it said that even with that which we have been prohibited to hug an idol, to kiss it, to sweep in front of it and similar actions of honor and love - one is not lashed for any of them, except for the one who vows by its name and the one who affirms by its name. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 4.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from preaching for an idol, and [for one] to call people to serve it and to make them enthused about it - and even if the preacher does not do any of the actions [of idolatry] besides preaching about it. And if he was preaching for it to the people, he is called, a instigator (mediach). And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Ruffians appeared [... and instigated]\" (Deuteronomy 13:14). But if he preached to an individual, he is called, an inciter (mesit). And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"If your brother, your mother’s son, incites you\" (Deuteronomy 13:7). However in this commandment, we are only speaking about the instigator. And the prohibition that appears about this is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"shall not be heard in your mouth\" (Exodus 23:13). [And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 63b), they said, \"'Shall not be heard in your mouth' -] that is the prohibition for the inciter. The inciter? It is written explicitly about him, 'And all of Israel will hear and see, and they will not continue to do' (Deuteronomy 13:12)! Rather it is a prohibition for the instigator.\" And likewise did they say in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 23:13), \"'Shall not be heard in your mouth' - that is the prohibition for the instigator.\" And one who transgressed this negative commandment is liable for stoning. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the tenth [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 4.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from inciting. And that is that one preach to an individual Jew to worship an idol. And this is called an inciter (mesit), as was previously explained. And the language of the prohibition of this is, \"and they will not continue to do like this evil thing\" (Deuteronomy 13:12). And one who transgressed this negative commandment is liable for stoning, as appears in the verse, \"But rather surely kill him\" (Deuteronomy 13:10). And the person that the inciter is trying to incite is the appropriate [one] to kill him - as He, may He be exalted, explains, \"let your hand be the first against him.\" And the language of the Sifrei is, \"This commandment is with the hand of the incited.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited an incited one from loving the inciter and from listening to his words. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Do not esteem him\" (Deuteronomy 13:9). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 89:1) is, \"It is implied from its being stated, 'you shall love your neighbor like yourself' (Leviticus 19:18) [that] perhaps you should love this one. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Do not esteem him.'\" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "That an incited one refrain from lightening the grudge against the inciter. Rather, he is obligated to begrudge the inciter no matter what. And so long as he does not begrudge him, he transgresses a negative commandment - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and do not listen to him\" (Deuteronomy 13:9). And it appears in the explanation (Sifrei Devarim 89:2), \"It is implied from its being stated, 'you must surely unload with him' (Leviticus 19:18) [that] perhaps you should unload [with] this one. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and do not listen to him.'\" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited an incited one from saving the inciter when he sees him in a matter of death or distress. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and you shall show him no pity\" (Deuteronomy 13:9). And it appears in the explanation (Sifrei Devarim 89:3), \"It is implied from its being stated, 'you shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor' (Leviticus 19:16) [that] perhaps you should not stand by the blood of this one. [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall show him no pity.'\" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited an incited one from arguing the merit of the inciter. Even if he [knows of] a merit for him, it is not permitted for him to mention it and argue [it]. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"nor have compassion on him\" (Deuteronomy 13:9). And it appears in the explanation (Sifrei Devarim 89:4), \"[It means,] do not argue in his merit.\" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited an incited one from being silent about something incriminating that he knows about the inciter that will bring about the punishment upon him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and you may not shield him\" (Deuteronomy 13:9). And it appears in the explanation (Sifrei Devarim 89:4), \"'And you may not shield him' - if you know something incriminating about him, you are not allowed to remain silent.\" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from benefiting from the ornaments with which an idol is decorated. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"you shall not covet the silver and gold on them\" (Deuteronomy 7:25). And in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2:9), it explains that the covering of that which has been worshipped is forbidden; and they attached it to His, may He be blessed, saying, \"you shall not covet.\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for lashes. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Avodah Zarah. (See Parashat Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 8.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from rebuilding a condemned city. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"a heap forever; it shall not be built again\" (Deuteronomy 13:17). And anyone who builds something in it - meaning that he turns it back into a city, as it had been - is liable for lashes. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the tenth [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 4.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us - that we not benefit from, or at all hold on to, wealth from a condemned city. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand\" (Deuteronomy 13:18). And anyone who has taken anything from it is liable for lashes. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the tenth [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 4.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from attaching something from an idol to our wealth. Rather, we must distance ourselves from it, from its houses and from everything that is associated with it. And that is His saying, \"You must not bring an abomination into your house\" (Deuteronomy 7:26). And one who benefits from something of it is liable for lashes. And they already explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 22a) that one who cooks with the wood of an Asherah is lashed twice - one, on account of \"You must not bring an abomination into your house\"; and one on account of, \"And let nothing stick to your hand.\" And know this. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the third [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 4.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from prophesying in its name. And that is that one say, \"God commanded us to worship it,\" or that it, itself commanded to worship it and set up a reward and warned about a punishment - as the prophets of Baal and the prophets of Asherah thought. And no specific clear prohibition appears in Scripture for this - meaning not to prophesy in its name. However Scripture does explain the punishment and the law of the death penalty for one who prophesies in its name. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die\" (Deuteronomy 18:20). And this death penalty is with strangulation, according to what was made a principle with us - any undifferentiated death penalty stated in the Torah is nothing other than strangulation. And you already know the principle that I explained in Principle 14 of the principles that preceded this essay: And that is their saying, \"It does not punish unless it prohibits.\" And [this commandment's] prohibition is His statement, \"and make no mention of the name of other gods\" (Exodus 23:13). And it is not impossible for one negative commandment to prohibit several things - and its status will not be that of a general negative commandment, when each and every punishment is explained [by itself]. And behold I will bring you examples of this in their place. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the eleventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from prophesying falsely. And that is that one prophesied in the name of God, but he says that which, God, may He be exalted, did not say to him; [or that God] said [it] to someone besides him, but he teaches it and says that God said the thing to him, whereas He did not say the thing to him. And the language of the prohibition about this is His saying, \"But the prophet, who shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him,\" (Deuteronomy 18:20). And the law of one who transgresses this negative commandment is also strangulation. And when they listed those strangled, they said (Sanhedrin 89a), \"and the false prophet.\" And there, they said, \"There are three the death of which is by the hands of [the court]: 'Who shall presume to speak a word in my name' - that is one who prophesies what he did not hear; 'which I have not commanded him' - behold I commanded his fellow - that is one who prophesies that which was not said to him; 'or that shall speak in the name of other gods' - that is one who prophecies in the name of an idol. And about all of them does it say, 'and that prophet shall be killed.' And any undifferentiated death penalty stated in the Torah is nothing other than strangulation.\" And the regulations of a false prophet have already been explained in the fourteenth [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from listening to one who prophesies in the name of an idol. [This] means that we do not investigate him and we do not ask him and say to him, \"What is your sign, and what is your wonder [confirming] your statement\" - as we would do with one prophesying in the name of God. Rather, when we hear him prophesy, we warn him about it with what is fitting for any sinner and blameworthy one. And if he holds on to his words, we administer upon him the punishment for which he is liable by Torah law; and we do not observe that wonder that he gives and we do not listen to [any] argument from him. And the prohibition of this is His saying, \"Do not listen to the words of that prophet\" (Deuteronomy 13:4). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the eleventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us - that we not be afraid of the false prophet, nor be negligent about killing him, because he prophesied in the name of God. Rather we should not be afraid about any iniquity in this - but only when his falsehood has been confirmed to us. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"do not fear him\" (Deuteronomy 18:22). Do not prevent yourself from arguing his guilt. So is it explained in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 178:3). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the beginning of our introduction of our composition of the Commentary on the Mishnah. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from following in the ways of the idolaters, and from behaving according to their practices - and even with their clothing and with their gatherings in their assemblies. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not follow the practices of the nation(s)\" (Leviticus 20:23). And in the explanation (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8:8), it appears - \"I only said those that were established for them from their forefathers.\" And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:8) is, \"'And in their statutes you shall not walk' (Leviticus 18:3) - in their customs, those things that are established for them, such as theatres and circuses.\" And these were types of assemblies in which they would gather for worship of the images. \"Rabbi Meir says, 'These are the ways of the Amorites, which the Sages enumerated.' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'that you not round [your face], and not cultivate locks, and not wear the hair komi.'\" And one who does one of these things is liable for lashes. And the prohibition of this content was repeated in another place. And that is His saying, \"Take heed unto yourselves, lest you are drawn in after them\" (Deuteronomy 12:30). Lest you resemble them and do their deeds and it becomes a stumbling block; that you should not say, \"Since they are going out with telusin, I will also go out with telusin\" - and that is a type of weapon of the Persians. And you already know the language of the prophet (Zephaniah 1:8), \"and all such as are clothed in foreign garments.\" And this is all to distance ourselves from them and to revile all of their practices, and even their clothes. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in the sixth [chapter] of Shabbat. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from divination - meaning to say, that one moves the faculty of imagination with a type of stimulus, like all of those with abilities to say what will happen before it does. Indeed, it comes true for them - since their imaginative faculty is strong, their words mostly come true. And hence they will rely upon their [predictions], and they will have an advantage with this, like [any] advantage of the personal skill of some people over others in any abilities of the spirit. And it is impossible for any of the people with these imaginative faculties without [first] doing some deed or action with which to stimulate his faculty and to bring his [imaginative] activity into effect. And among them is one who strikes the ground with a stick that is in his hand - repetitive strikes - and yells unusually, ignores his thoughts and stares at the earth a long time until he is visited by effects of a seizure, and tells over what will happen in the future. And I have already seen this a few times in the far West. [Also] among them is one who spreads out sand and shapes forms in it; and this is very famous in the West. And among them [as well] is one who throws smalls stones onto a strip of leather and studies them and afterwards speaks out words. And this is well-known and famous in every place that I have gone. And [also] among them is one who throws a long leather belt to the floor, observes it and reveals hidden things. And the intention in [all of] this is to stimulate the imaginative faculty with it; not that the action does something on its own or indicates the [specific] matter. And the masses err in this. For since some of the reports are correct, they think that these actions are what indicate what will be - [such] that this error comes to them to the point that they think that some of these actions are the cause of what will be, like some of the astrologers think. For astrology involves the same relationship - meaning that [the movement of the stars] are a type of stimulus of the imaginative faculty and arouse it. And hence no two men will be the same in their revealing that which is hidden, even if they are the same in their knowledge of the discipline. And anyone who does any of these acts and other ones that follow in this way is called a diviner; and He said, \"Let no one be found among you who is a diviner\" (Deuteronomy 18:10). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 171:6) is, \"Which is a diviner? It is one who holds his stick and says whether I should go or whether I should not go.\" And this was a famous type of stimulus at that time - the prophet said (Hosea 4:12) \"My people consults its stick; its rod tells it (what to do).\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment and does one of these [things] - meaning one who divines and speaks to people from an action that moves him - is liable for lashes; [but] not the one that asks the diviner. However asking the diviner is very vile. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from doing actions chosen by astrology. And that is that one say, \"This day is good for deed x and proper for its doing\"; or \"This day is foreboding regarding doing deed y, and we should distance ourselves from doing it.\" And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Let no one be found among you who [...] is an augur\" (Deuteronomy 18:10). And this prohibition has already been repeated: He said, \"you shall not practice augury (Leviticus 19:26).\" And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 6:2) is, \"'You shall not practice augury (teonenenu)' - these are those who assign a time (onah).\" For the expression is rooted in [the term], onah - meaning to say, \"Let no one be found among you who [...] is an augur\" - who says, \"Time x is good, and time y is bad.\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for lashes - meaning the one who proclaims these times, not the one who asks about them. However the asking is also forbidden, in addition to it being something that lacks truth. And one who calculates his action to [be at] a certain time with the intention that it be successful or that the action benefit him is to be lashed [as well], because he did an action. And included in this prohibition is also the forbidding of the acts of magicians. And the language of the Sages (Sanhedrin 65b) is, \"An augur - these are those who fool the eyes.\" And this is a large category of machination connected to sleight of hand to the point that it appears to people that one is doing things, though there is no truth to them, such as we always see: They take a rope and place it into the corner of their garments and take it out as a snake; one throws a ring into the air and then takes it out from the mouth of one of those standing before him; and actions similar to this from the magic acts famous among the masses. Each one of these acts is forbidden; and one who does this is called one who fools the eyes. And it is a type of magic, so he is lashed. Moreover, he deceives people; and the damage that comes out of this is great. For showing the actualization of things that are impossible as [if they were] possible - when with fools, women and children - is very bad. It damages their intellect and brings them to believe that the impossible can actually be. And understand this. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from soothsaying, such as the statement of the empty ones - \"I have already returned from the path, I will not finish all that I need\"; \"Today is Sunday, I will not benefit anything from having seen thing x.\" And this style is very big among the masses who are of weak intellect. And anyone that does an action based on soothsaying is lashed, like His saying, \"Let no one be found among you who [...] is an augur or a soothsayer\" (Deuteronomy 18:10). And this prohibition has already been repeated, when He said, \"you shall not practice [...] soothsaying\" (Leviticus 19:26). And they said (Sanhedrin 66a), \"'You shall not practice [...] soothsaying' - such as those that soothsay with a weasel, with birds and with [stars].\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Shabbat. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from witchcraft entirely. And that is His saying, \"Let no one be found among you who [...] is a sorcerer\" (Deuteronomy 18:10). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for stoning when volitional; and a fixed sin-offering when inadvertent. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Chapter 7 of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from being a charmer - and that is saying things that they think will be effective for this. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Let no one be found among you ... Or a charmer\" (Deuteronomy 18:10-11). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 172:1) is, \"'Or a charmer' - whether he charms [snakes or] scorpions.\" Meaning that he says things to them, and they do not [sting] him - according to his thinking - or he says [them] over the place of the sting, so that the pain subside. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Shabbat. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from inquiring of someone with an ov. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Let no one be found among you ... or one who asks an ov\" (Deuteronomy 18:10-11). And one who transgresses this negative commandment - meaning he inquires of an ov - is not liable for death, but it is forbidden. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from inquiring of a yidaoni. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Let no one be found among you ... [or one who asks an ov] or a yidaoni\" (Deuteronomy 18:10-11). And the language of the [Sifrei] (Sifrei Devarim 172:2-3) is, \"Ov is a necromancer that speaks from his armpits; yidaoni is one that speaks from his mouth.\" Behold these are [liable for] stoning, but one who inquires of them is [only liable for having violated a] prohibition. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from inquiring of the dead - as is thought by those that are truly dead, even though they eat and feel - and think that one who does such and dresses like this will have a dead person come to him during [his] sleep and tell him what he asks. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Let no one be found among you, etc. or one who inquires of the dead\" (Deuteronomy 18:10-11). And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 65b), [it says,] \"'One who inquires of the dead' - this is one who starves himself and lodges in a graveyard so that a spirit of impurity should settle upon him.\" And anyone who violates this negative commandment is liable for lashes. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from being drawn to the practices of the idolaters, such that women wear mens' clothes and adorn themselves with their ornaments. And that is His saying, \"The garment of a man shall not be on a woman\" (Deuteronomy 22:5). And any woman who adorns herself with a man's ornament - that is well-known in that city that it is an ornament specific to men - is lashed. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from men adorning themselves with women's ornaments. And that is His saying, \"nor may a man wear a woman’s garment\" (Deuteronomy 22:5). And any man who adorns himself like this or wears what is well-known in that city to be an ornament specific to women - is lashed. And you should know that this procedure - meaning that the women adorn themselves with men's ornaments and the men adorn themselves with women's ornaments - is done to arouse the drive for promiscuity, as is explained in the books written about this. And it is often placed in the stipulations for the making of some talismans and said, \"If a man is occupied with it, he should wear women's garments and adorn himself with gold and pearls and that which is similar to them; but if it was a woman, she should wear armor and arm herself with swords.\" And this is very famous among those of this opinion. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from inscribing colors - such as blue, violet and others - on our bodies, as is done by the idol worshippers. [This] is well known among the people of Egypt until today. And this prohibition is His saying, \"and do not put tattoo marks\" (Leviticus 19:28). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for lashes. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Makkot. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 12.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from wearing a garment woven of wool and linen, like that which would be worn by the idolatrous priests at that time. And that is His saying, \"You shall not wear shatnez\" (Deuteronomy 13:18). And this [practice] is famous today among the idolatrous priests in Egypt. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for lashes. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Kilayim, Shabbat, Sotah and Makkot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from removing the hair of the temples. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not round off the corners of your head\" (Leviticus 19:27). And this prohibition is so that we will not resemble the idol worshippers, since the idolatrous priests would do this - as they would only shave the hair of their temples. So they had to clarify in Tractate Yevamot (Yevamot 5a) and say, \"Rounding the whole head is called rounding\" - so that it not be said that the point of the resemblance is the shaving of the temples and the leaving of the rest of their hair, like the idolatrous priests do; whereas when one shaves it all, there is no resemblance to them. Behold it is informing us that it is not permissible to shave the temples in any case - not by themselves and not with the [rest of the] head. And he is liable for lashes for each one of them; so he is liable for two [sets of] lashes if he shaved his whole head. But it is appropriate that we not count this [as] two commandments, even though he is liable for two [sets]. For there are not two expressions belonging to one negative commandment. As if He had said, \"You shall not round off the corner of the head on the right nor the corner of the head on the left,\" and we would have found them liable for two [sets], it would have then been possible to say that they be counted as two commandments. However in that it is one expression and the same content, behold it is truly one commandment. And even though it appears in the explanation that this negative commandment includes different, distinct parts of the body and that one is liable for each part separately, this does not require that they be multiple commandments. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Makkot. However women are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 12.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from shaving the beard - and that is [specifically] five parts [of it]: The upper jaw on the right side; the lower jaw on the right side; the upper jaw on the left side; the lower jaw on the left side; and the [chin]. And the prohibition about them comes with this expression - \"nor shall you destroy the side of your beard\" (Leviticus 19:27); and that is because it is all called, beard. And He did not say, \"nor shall you destroy your beard,\" but \"nor shall you destroy the corner\" - meaning to say not to shave even one corner of the entire beard. And it appears in the explanation that it is five corners, as we allotted them. And he is liable for five [sets of] lashes, even if he shaved them at one time. And the language of the Mishnah (Makkot 20a), \"For the beard, there are [five], two from here, two from there and one from below. Rabbi Eliezer says, 'If he removed all of them together, he is liable to receive only one.'\" And it said (Makkot 21a), \"Hence, Rabbi Eliezer holds it is one negative commandment.\" Behold, this is a clear proof that the first teacher [in the Mishnah] holds they are five negative commandments; and that is the law. And this was also an adornment - as is famous today, it being an adornment of the priests who shave their beards. But it is obligatory that we [nevertheless] not list [it as] five [separate] commandments, since their prohibition is with one expression, as we explained in the previous commandment. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Makkot. However women are not obligated in this. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 12.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from making a laceration for the dead in our flesh, like the idol worshippers do. And this is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall not gash yourselves (titgodedu)\" (Deuteronomy 14:1). And the prohibition about this was already repeated with His saying, \"You shall not make any lacerations in your flesh for the dead\" (Leviticus 19:28). And it has already been explained in the Gemara, Yevamot (Yevamot 13b), that the essence of the verse, \"you shall not gash yourselves,\" is, you shall not make a wound. And there it also says, \"'You shall not gash yourselves,' is required for itself, as [the Torah] is saying, 'Do not make a wound for a corpse.\" And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 21a), they said, \"A laceration and a gash are the same.\" And there it is explained [that] one who makes a gash for a corpse is liable whether it was [done] with the hand or with a tool; but for idolatry, one is liable with a tool, but by hand, one is exempt - as appears explicitly in prophecy, \"and they gashed themselves according to their practice with knives\" (I Kings 18:28). And they have already said (Yevamot 13b) that included in this is the prohibition of disunity in the religious practices of a city and division [into] groups. And they said, \"'You shall not titgodedu' - you shall not make agudot, agudot (many groups).\" But the essence of the verse is as we explained - do not make a wound for a corpse - whereas this is like a homily (drash). And likewise that which they said in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 110a) - \"One who maintains a disagreement transgresses a negative commandment, as it is stated, 'and not be like Korach and his congregation' (Number 17:5)\" - is also from a homiletic angle. However the essence of [that] verse is [simply] to deter [from this]. And according to what the Sages explained, it is surely a negation, not a prohibition. For they explained that the content of this statement is that God, may He be exalted, is saying that one who will disagree and challenge the priesthood at some future time will not be punished with that which Korach was punished. Indeed he will be [punished], \"Like the Lord spoke through Moshe to him\" - meaning, tzaraat - as that which He said to Moshe, \"Place your hand in your bosom,\" (Exodus 4:6) and as is made clear with King Uzziah (II Chronicles 26). And I will [now] return to the [primary] intention of the commandment and say that the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Makkot and that one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 12.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from dwelling in the Land of Egypt forever, so that we not learn from their practices and not follow their disgraceful ways. And that is His saying, \"You must not return that way again\" (Deuteronomy 17:16). And this prohibition was already repeated three times: They said in the Gemara (Yerushalmi Sukkah 4:1), \"In three places did the Holy One, blessed be He, warn Israel not to return to Egypt; and at three times did they return and get punished from them.\" Indeed one of the three places is that which we mentioned. The second is, \"by a route which I told you, you should not see again\" (Deuteronomy 28:68). And the third is, \"for Egypt which you have seen this day - you will never again see them\" (Exodus 14:13). Even though it appears from the words that it is narrative, the tradition comes [to teach that] it is a prohibition. And it has already been explained in the Gemara, Sukkah (Sukkah 51b), that Alexandria is from the cities in which it is forbidden to dwell. And [from the Sea of] Alexandria, the measurement of the perimeter of Egypt is four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs - and that is the total of the Land of Egypt in which it is forbidden to dwell. But it is permissible to travel [there] for business, or to pass through it to a different land. And in explanation, they said in the Yerushalmi (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10:8 at the end), \"You may not return for living, but you may return for business and to conquer the land.\" (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us that we not wander after our hearts to the point that we believe doctrines that are the opposite of the doctrines that the Torah obligates us. Rather we must restrain our thoughts and place a boundary against them to stand thereby - and that is the Torah's commandments and its prohibitions. And that is His saying, \"and you shall not wander after your hearts and after your eyes\" (Numbers 15:39). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 115:1) is, \"'After your hearts' - that is heresy, as the matter that is stated (Ecclesiastes 7:26), 'And I find more bitter than death the woman (understand to mean heresy), etc.' 'And after your eyes' - that is promiscuity, as the matter that is stated (Judges 14:3) 'Take her for me, for she is just in my eyes.'\" [This is] meaning to say, being drawn after physical desires and mental involvement with them. (See Parashat Shelach; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from making a covenant with the heretics - meaning, with the seven nations (of Canaan) - and to allow them to be secure. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and you shall not make a covenant with them\" (Deuteronomy 7:2). And we have already explained in Positive Commandment 187 that war with the seven nations, and everything that comes with them, is appropriate to list [as a commandment]; and that it is not in the way of the commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations. (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from keeping someone from the seven nations alive - so that people not isolate themselves with him and he incite them to idolatry. And that is His saying, \"you shall not let a soul remain alive\" (Deuteronomy 20:16). And their killing is a positive commandment, as we explained in [Positive] Commandment 187. And one who transgresses it and does not kill one of them, when it was possible for him to kill him, has transgressed a negative commandment. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from at all pitying idolaters and from lauding anything particular to them. And that is His saying, \"do not show them mercy (techonem)\" (Deuteronomy 7:2). And the tradition comes [to teach]: Do not show them favor; to the point that it is forbidden for us to say, \"This one has a nice form,\" when an idolator has a nice form - as is explained in our Gemara (Avodah Zarah 20a). And in the Gemara Yerushalmi (Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 1:9), it said, \"You shall not show them favor, [involves] a negative commandment.\" (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from settling idol worshippers in our land, so that we not learn their heresy, with His saying, \"They shall not dwell in your land lest they cause [you] to sin, etc.\" (Exodus 23:33). And if an idolator wants to remain in our land, it is only allowed when he accepts upon himself not to worship idols. However idol worshippers may not dwell with us [in the Land of Israel], nor may we sell them a holding nor may we rent them a house. And in the explanation (Avodah Zarah 20a), they told us, \"Do not give them an encampment in the land.\" (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from marrying heretics. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And you shall not marry them\" (Deuteronomy 7:3). And he explained what marriage is - \"do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.\" And in the explanation (Avodah Zarah 36b), they said, \"The Torah forbade [it when it is] by way of marriage.\" And there are distinctions about the punishment of one who transgresses this negative commandment. And that is that when the one who has sexual relations with an Aramean has sexual relations in public - anyone who kills him while he is clinging to the sin has carried out the punishment, as Pinchas did to Zimri (Numbers 25:6-8). And they said (Sanhedrin 81a), \"One who has sexual relations with an Aramean, zealots may attack him\" - but with the conditions that we mentioned. And that is that he has relations with her in public, and [that the punishment is meted out] at the time of the act - like the story that happened (with Pinchas and Zimri). But if he did not do this in public or he [already] separated and the zealots did not attack him, he is liable for excision. However this excision is not made clear in the Torah: They said, \"[When] zealots did not attack him, what is [the law]?\" And it is explained that it is excision (cutting off), from His saying, \"for Judah has profaned what is holy to the Lord - what He loves - and espoused daughters of alien gods. The Lord will cut off from the man that does this all living offspring\" (Malachi 2:11-12). [This] implies that it is with excision. However when it becomes confirmed about a man - with witnesses and a warning - that he had sexual relations with an Aramean, he is lashed, by Torah law. And know this. (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 12.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from marrying Ammonites and Moabites - exclusively the males - even after they have entered the [Jewish] religion. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not come into the congregation of the Lord\" (Deuteronomy 23:4). And one who transgresses this negative commandment - meaning when an Ammonite or Moabite convert has sexual relations with an Israelite in marriage - they are both lashed, by Torah law. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Yevamot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Sexual Intercourse 12.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from distancing the descendants of Esav after they have entered the [Jewish] religion - meaning to say, we are forbidden from avoiding marriage with them. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not abhor an Edomite [... in] the third generation\" (Deuteronomy 23:8-9). (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Sexual Intercourse 12.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us - not to distance the Egyptians and to abhor marriage to them, after they have entered the [Jewish] religion. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall not abhor an Egyptian [... in] the third generation\" (Deuteronomy 23:8-9). And the regulations of this commandment and the commandment about the Edomite have already been explained in the eighth [chapter] of Yevamot and at the end of Kiddushin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Sexual Intercourse 12.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from ever making peace with Ammon and Moab. And that is since God, may He be exalted, already commanded us that when we come to wage war with a city, we ask for peace before the war and request from them that they make peace with us. And if [in response,] they give the city over into our hands, it is forbidden for us to wage war against them and to kill them - as we explained in Commandment 190 of the Positive Commandments. [However, this is] except for Ammon and Moab, as we do not follow this practice with them. Rather God, may He exalted, has prohibited us from calling out to them for peace and to seek peace with them. And this is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity\" (Deuteronomy 23:7). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 255:1) is, \"It is implied from its being stated, 'When you near a city to do battle against it, [you shall call out to it for peace,' that] maybe the same should be done here. [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all the days of your life forever.\" (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6.)" + ], + [ + "That when we go to besiege a city, He prohibited us from destroying trees in order to distress its people and sadden their hearts. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you must not destroy its trees\" (Deuteronomy 20:19). And likewise does any waste come under this prohibition - such as one who burns up a garment for nothing or breaks a vessel. He also transgresses on account of, \"you must not destroy,\" and is lashed. And [they] said (Makkot 22a), \"And its prohibition is from here - 'for from it shall you eat, but it shall you not cut down.'\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in [Chapter 2 of] Bava Batra. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from being afraid of the enemies during the time of war, and that we not run away from them. Rather, it is an obligation upon us to be resilient and to stand firm and be strong against the other people. And anyone who retreats and runs away has already transgressed this negative commandment. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shalt not be terrified by them\" (Deuteronomy 7:21). And this prohibition was repeated when He said, \"Do not fear them\" (Deuteronomy 3:22). And this command was repeated frequently - not to run away and not to retreat during the time of war - since it is possible to confirm the true faith with this matter. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the eighth [chapter] of Sotah. (See Parashat Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 7.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from forgetting that which the descendants of Amalek did to us - that they were the first to hurt us. And we have already explained in Commandment 189 of the Positive Commandments, [that we are] to remember what Amalek did to us and to keep fresh our hatred for them. And likewise are we prohibited from flinging this out of our hearts and forgetting it. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"you shall not forget\" (Deuteronomy 25:19). And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 296:1), it says, \"'Remember' - with the mouth. 'Do not forget' - with the heart.\" [This is] to mean, do not fling away your hatred and do not remove it from your spirit. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from cursing the great God, may He be greatly exalted from that which the secterians say. And this is the matter that has been called, 'blessing' God, may He be exalted. The punishment for one who transgresses this negative commandment is indeed explicit in the Torah - that he is stoned. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death and all the congregation shall certainly stone him\" (Leviticus 24:15). However [regarding] the prohibition - behold that no verse came that is specific to this content by itself. Rather it came with a prohibition that includes this content and that besides it. And that is His saying, \"Do not curse powers (elohim)\" (Exodus 22:27). And in the explanation (Sanhedrin 56a), they said, \"For the ineffable name, with death; and for appellations, with a prohibition.\" And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 22:27), [it says,] \"'Do not curse powers' - is to give a [prohibition] for 'blessing' God.\" And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in the sixth [chapter of] Sanhedrin. And you should know that this type of prohibition that includes two or three things need not be from the general negative commandments. For Scripture explained the punishment of each matter [separately] - so we know perforce that each matter was forbidden, such that [each] is a negative commandment. And since it is a principle in the Torah that it only punishes [for something] if it has prohibited [it], we will necessarily search for the prohibition. And sometimes it will be derived from an analogy and sometimes it will be included in something else, as we explained in Principle 14. It will however not be a general negative commandment unless no aspect of that which is prohibited by it is found in any place - and that is as we explained in Principle 9. However when we have prior knowledge that we are prohibited from that thing - such as His saying, \"One who does this will have that done to them\" - we will not be particular about the prohibition being explicit, or in one of these two ways; [or] it being specific or general. And know this. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from violating an oath on an utterance. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"You shall not swear falsely by My name\" (Leviticus 19:12). And an oath on an utterance is when we swear about things that are possible for us to do or for us not to do, without any restriction of the Torah - and we swear about one of these things, that we will do it or we will not do it. And behold it is an obligation for us to fulfill what we swore, and we are prohibited [from] violating the oath. And that is His saying, \"You shall not swear falsely by My name.\" And in the Gemara, Shevuot (Shevuot 21a), they said, \"Which is a false oath? He swore to alter [what already happened].\" And they fixed this and said, \"I would say, 'He swore and altered'\" - meaning to say, that he swore about something and did the opposite of what he swore about. And there - in the third chapter of Shevuot and also in Temurah (Temurah 3b) - they explained that a false oath is the violation of an oath on an utterance. And that is their saying, \"What are the circumstances of the false oath\" - meaning to say, how could there be a false oath without an act? For this was the intention of the preceding statement there. \"If we say, 'I will not eat,' and he ate; there he performed an act. And if it was where he said, 'I will eat,' and he did not eat; is he lashed? But wasn’t it stated about it, etc.\" (The above quote confirms that the Talmud understands a false oath to be an oath on an utterance.) And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed if it was volitional; and is liable for a variable sacrifice if he was inadvertent, as we explained in Commandment 72 of the Positive Commandments. And this is what they said in the Gemara in Shevuot (Shevuot 21a), \"This is the oath on an utterance for which one is liable for lashes, when volitional; and a variable sacrifice when inadvertent.\" And the regulations of this commandment are explained there. But know that their saying about this commandment that the one who is volitional about it is liable for lashes - this statement of theirs has nothing to indicate that there is a sin that makes one liable for lashes even though it was not volitional. Rather when you hear it indicating to say about any sin, that [one who does it] is liable for lashes - whether in that which preceded or that which will [still] come - know that one will not be liable for this unless he was volitional, with witnesses and a warning, as is explained about the stipulations of witnesses and the warning in Tractate Sanhedrin. However one who was inadvertent or under duress is not liable under any circumstances - not for lashes, not for excision and, all the more so, not for a death penalty of the court. And this is required in all of the commandments - and know this. Nevertheless, we will explain it in a few commandments and say, \"And if he was volitional, he is liable for lashes or death,\" in that he is liable [in that case] for a sacrifice when inadvertent. For not every sin is liable for a sacrifice when inadvertent. However everything that is liable for lashes (or excision) or a death penalty of the court is only liable for it with witnesses and a warning. And it is well-known that the warning is to distinguish between one inadvertent and one who is volitional. And know this principle, so that you do not [need to] request its repetition. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Oaths 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us - that we not make a vain oath. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain\" (Exodus 20:7). And that is that one swears about something - the existence of which is axiomatic - that it is different than what it actually is, or about the existence of something impossible or [if] he swears to negate the matter of a commandment. And likewise if he swears about [the truth of] something known, that no one denies or disagrees about at all - for example, he swears by God that anything that is slaughtered, dies - this one has also taken the Lord's name in vain. (Yerushalmi Shevuot 3) And the language of the Mishnah (Shevuot 29a) is, \"Which is a vain oath? One who swears to change that which is known.\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed if he was volitional, and exempted if he was inadvertent - like the other ones guilty of [violation of] a negative commandment, as we explained. And there, they said in Shevuot (Shevuot 29a), \"This is the vain oath on an utterance for which one is liable for lashes, when volitional; and exempted when inadvertent.\" And the regulations of this commandment are explained there. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Oaths 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from desecrating [God's] name. And that is the opposite of the sanctification of [God's] name, the explanation of which preceded in the ninth of the Positive Commandments. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"And you shall not desecrate My holy name\" (Leviticus 22:32). And this sin is divided into three parts - two that are general (for all) and one which is specific. Indeed the first of the general ones is anyone who it was demanded of him that he transgress one of the commandments at the time of a religious persecution (shemad) - and the persecutor had in mind to make him sin - whether one of the light commandment or [one] of the weighty commandments; or one who it was demanded of him that he transgress with regards to idolatry, sexual immorality or murder, even if it was not at the time of a religious persecution. Behold [such a one] is obligated to release himself and be killed, and not to transgress - as we explained in the ninth of the Positive Commandments. But if he transgressed and was not killed, he has already desecrated [God's] name and violated this negative commandment. And if the transgressor was in a public place - meaning [in front of] ten Israelites - he has already desecrated [God's] name in public. And he has violated the negative commandment of, \"And you shall not desecrate My holy name,\" and his sin is very great. However he is not lashed, as he was under duress. For a court may only administer the punishment of lashes or a death penalty when volitional - willingly, with witnesses and a warning. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4:5) about the one who gives of his offspring to Molekh - \"And I will set My face against that man\" (Leviticus 20:3): They said, \"'That [man],' and not one under duress, and not one inadvertent and not one mistaken.\" Behold it has already been made clear to you that one who worships an idol under duress is not liable for excision nor - all the more so - a death penalty of the court. But he has transgressed [the prohibition of] desecration of [God's] name. And the second part that is also general is when a man does a sin for which he has no desire and no benefit, but rather intends [to show] rebellion or the removal of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven with his action. Behold this one also desecrates [God's name] and is lashed. And hence He said, \"[You shall not swear falsely by My name,] and desecrate the name of your God\" (Leviticus 19:12). For this one intends to anger [God] with this matter, and he has no physical benefit with it. And the specific part is when a man known for his virtue and goodness does a certain action that appears like a transgression in the eyes of the masses; such that it is not appropriate for someone esteemed to do this type of action, even though the action is permissible. And that is their saying (Yoma 86a), \"What are the circumstances of the desecration of [God’s]name? [Rav said,] 'For example, [someone like] me, if I take meat from a butcher and do not give him money immediately.' [...] Rabbi Yochanan said, 'For example, [someone like] me, if I would walk four cubits without Torah and without tefillin.'\" And this command was already repeated, when He said, \"and do not desecrate the name of the Lord.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Pesachim, in Sukkah and in Yoma. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us - not to test [His] assurances and threats of which His prophets have assured us, in the way of a doubt that we doubt them, once we have ascertained the truth of the prophet that is saying them. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shalt not test the Lord, your God\" (Deuteronomy 6:16). (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah at the end.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from smashing and destroying houses of divine service; and from destroying books of prophecy, such that we not erase the glorious names [of God] and that which is similar to them. And the language of the prohibition about this content is His saying, \"This you shall not do to the Lord, your God\" (Deuteronomy 12:4) - after He had precede the command to destroy the idols, to blot out their name and to destroy all their houses and altars. The prohibition [then] appears - \"This you shall not do to the Lord.\" And anyone who transgresses this thing - such as one who destroys something of the [Temple] chamber or the altar or something similar to this, or who erases one of the names of God - is lashed. [And in the Gemara (Makkot 22a), it is explained,] \"And its prohibition is from here - 'and you shall destroy their name, etc. This you shall not do to the Lord your God'\" (Deuteronomy 12:3-4). And the regulations of this law have already been explained in the fourth [chapter] of Shevuot. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 7.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from leaving one hung on a tree overnight; so that the 'blessing' of God not spread as a result of this, due to one's reflection when he sees it - since we only hang a blasphemer and an idol worshipper. [For about the latter too] does it [state] - \"he blasphemes the Lord\" (Deuteronomy 18:5). And the prohibition of this negative commandment is, \"You must not let his corpse remain overnight on the tree\" (Deuteronomy 21:23). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 221:7) is, \"'You must not let his corpse remain overnight' - that is a negative commandment.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the sixth [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 15.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from being lethargic in guarding the Temple and constantly walking around it the whole night. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary\" (Numbers 18:5). And it has already been explained in Commandment 22 of the Positive Commandments that guarding the Temple and walking around it is a positive commandment; and we are now likewise explaining that its negation is a negative commandment. And the language of the Mekhilta is, \"'And they shall keep the charge of the Tent of Meeting' (Deuteronomy 18:4) - I only have a positive commandment. From where [do we know] that it is [also] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary.'\" And the regulations of this law have already been explained at the beginning of Tamid and Middot. (See Parashat Korach; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 8.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the high priest from entering the Temple at any time, due to the glory of the Temple and its greatness, and [that] he should be afraid and scared of the Divine Presence. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"that he not come at any time to the sanctuary\" (Leviticus 16:2). And there are varying laws in this negative commandment. And that is because the high priest is prohibited from entering the inner sanctum (beit kodesh hakodashim) - even on Yom Kippur - besides during the time of the service [there]. And likewise is every priest also prohibited from entering the sanctuary besides during the time of the service there. So the explanation of the content of the prohibition is that any priest only enter the place that it is possible (permissible) for him to enter during the time of the service - whether it is the high priest inside [the inner sanctum] or the common priest outside. And one who transgressed this negative commandment and entered not during the time of the service - if he entered the inner sanctum, he is liable for death; and if entered the sanctuary, he is liable for lashes. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1:8-10) is, \"'That he not come at any time' - that is Yom Kippur. 'To the sanctuary' - to include the other days of the year. [...] 'Within the curtain' [...] that is the sanctuary. I might think [that for all, the punishment is] death. [Hence] we learn to say, 'before the cover, etc. [that he not die]' How is this? 'Before the cover,' is by death; but the rest of the Temple is with a prohibition.\" And in the Gemara in Menachot (Menachot 27b), they said explicitly [that] in the sanctuary, [the punishment] is with forty [lashes]. (See Parashat Achrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 2.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited a priest with a blemish to enter the Temple - meaning to say the altar, between the [entrance] hall and the altar and the sanctuary. And that is His saying, \"But he shall not enter behind the curtain [...]\" (Leviticus 21:23). And it has already been explained at the end of Tahorot (Kelim 1) that entrance into, between the hall and the altar - along with all of the sanctuary - is forbidden to [priests] with blemishes or with unkempt hair. And it has also already been explained in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3:10) that these two negative statements, which are, \"he shall not enter behind the curtain and not approach the altar,\" do not suffice - one without the other - and that both of them together complete the same matter: And that is the demarcation of the place that is forbidden for them to enter. And any one of them who enters from the altar and onwards, not to serve, is lashed. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 6.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited a priest with a permanent blemish to serve [in the Temple]. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"Anyone of your offspring, through [all] their generations who will have a blemish, shall not approach to offer\" (Leviticus 21:17) - meaning to say, he shall not approach for service. And any time one with a blemish serves, he is lashed. And so too is it in the Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3:11): \"A [priest] with a blemish is not with death, but with a prohibition.\" (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 6.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited a priest with a temporary blemish - such as scurvy or a scab or that which is similar to them - to serve [in the Temple] so long as he has the blemish. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"For any man who has a blemish shall not approach\" (Leviticus 21:18). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Section 7:3) is, \"'Anyone of your offspring, through [all] their generations who will have a blemish' (Leviticus 21:17) - I only [know about] a permanent blemish. From where [do we know the same for] a temporary blemish? [Hence] we learn to say, 'For any man who has a blemish shall not approach.'\" And the regulations of permanent and temporary blessings have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Bekhorot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 6.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the Levites from occupying themselves with any of the service that was designated for the priests; and also the priests from occupying themselves with any of the service that was designated for the Levites. And that is because there is a designated service in the Temple for each one of these families. And the prohibition to both of them comes together, not to have one of them serve with the service of the other. Rather each group [is to do] what it was commanded, as He said, \"each man to his service\" (Numbers 4:19). And the negative commandment that appears about them is His saying to the Levites, \"but they shall not [approach] the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar\" (Numbers 18:3). But afterwards, He went back and spoke to the priests and said, \"that neither they, nor you, shall die\" - meaning to say that you, like them, are prohibited. Since just like I prohibited them from doing your service - and that is [working with] the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar - so too are you prohibited from doing their service. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 116:1) is, \"'They shall not [approach] the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar' - that is the prohibition. From where [do we know] the punishment? 'And they shall not die.' I only [know about] the Levites, that they are punished and prohibited for [appropriating] the service of the priests. From where [do we learn the same for] priests [appropriating] the service of the Levites? [Hence] we learn to say, 'nor you.' And it once happened that Rabbi Yehoshua [b. Chananiah] sought to assist R. Yochanan [b. Godgada], when he (R. Yehoshua) said to him, 'Get back, for you are forfeiting your life! For I am of the gatekeepers and you are of the singers.'\" Behold it has been made clear that a Levite who did service in the Temple besides his [own] service is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And likewise should the priests not occupy themselves with the service of the Levites. However if they transgressed, they are not [punished] by death, but rather by lashes. And in the Mikhilta: \"'The vessels of the sanctuary' - perhaps [even] if they touched them, they would be liable. [Hence] we learn to say, ['but'] - they are [only] liable for service, they are not liable for touching. I only [know] about Levites on account of [the service of] priests. From where [do we know] priests on account of [the service of] Levites? [Hence] we learn to say, 'nor you.'\" And there they said, [\"Levites on account of priests is with death. But priests on account of Levites is only with a negative commandment.\"] (See Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 3:9; Parashat Bamidbar, Korach; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from entering the Temple or giving instruction about one of the laws of the Torah while we are drunk. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Do not drink wine or strong drink, etc.\" (Leviticus 10:9). And adjacent to it (Leviticus 10:11) is, \"And that you may teach the Children of Israel, etc.\" And the language of the Talmud (Nazir 38a) is, \"One who drank a quarter measure, he should not instruct.\" And there is variation in the punishment for [transgressing] this negative commandment: As it is not [permitted for one] to enter between the hall and the altar and into all of the sanctuary. But if one transgressed and entered, [he is liable for lashes. However if he served while drunk,] he is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And if he drank from the other intoxicating drinks besides wine, and served, he is only liable for lashes and not for death. And anyone who gives instruction while drunk transgresses a negative commandment - whether he is a priest or an Israelite, whether he is drunk from wine or from other drinks. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1:2) is, \"'Do not drink wine' - I only [know about] wine. From where [do we know about] other intoxicating drinks? [Hence] we learn to say, 'or strong drink.' If so, why does it state, 'Do not drink wine?' For wine, [the punishment is] with death; for other beverages, with lashes.\" And there, it is said, \"From where [do we know] that he is only liable [if he is drunk] at the time of the service? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die.'\" And there, they [also] said, \"Perhaps Israelites would be liable for death for instruction (when drunk). [Hence] we learn to say, 'you or your sons [...] that you may not die' - but Israelites are not with death.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the second [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited an outsider (zar) from serving in the Temple - meaning to say, any man that is not of the offspring of Aharon. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"but an outsider shall not approach\" (Numbers 18:4). And Scripture explains that one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and an outsider that approaches shall be killed\" (Numbers 18:7). And the language of the Sifei (Sifrei Bamidbar 116:2) is, \"We have heard of the punishment for service. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'but an outsider should not approach.'\" And the prohibition and punishment of this matter have already been repeated; and that is His saying, \"And the children of Israel shall no more approach the Tent of Meeting, to bear sin, to die\" (Numbers 18:22). And the [types of] service for which an outsider is liable for death have already been explained in the Gemara, Yoma (Yoma 24b). And these are them: Sprinkling [the blood]; burning incense; the water libations; and the wine libations. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained there and in the second chapter of Zevachim. (See Parashat Korach; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 9.)" + ], + [ + "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.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited a priest that has immersed on that day (tevul yom) from serving [in the Temple] - even though he has has purified himself - until [that evening]. And that is His saying about the priests, \"and not desecrate the name of their God\" (Leviticus 21:18). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. Yet a clear verse did not appear about it, but it has rather been passed down. [...] And in Chapter 9 of Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83b), they said in the explanation, \"'They shall be sacred to their God and they shall not desecrate the name of their God' (Leviticus 21:6). If [this verse] is not written with regard to the matter of an impure priest who performed the service, [as that has already been explained,] then apply it to the matter of a priest who immersed that day who served. And it learns it out from [a verbal analogy of the word,] desecration [in both places].\" And they listed him among the group of those liable for death. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 4.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited any impure person from entering the Sanctuary (the Tabernacle) - and everything that is similar to it for [all] the generations: All of the courtyard and from the Gate of Nikanor onwards, which is the courtyard of the Israelites. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"so that they shall not render their camp impure\" (Numbers 5:3). And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 14b), they said, \"One who entered the Temple [while] impure - a punishment is written and a prohibition is written: The punishment - 'he has rendered impure the Tabernacle of the Lord, and that soul shall be excised' (Numbers 19:13). The prohibition - 'so that they shall not render their camp impure.'\" And in the Mekhilta: \"'Command the Children of Israel to send away from the camp' - is with a positive commandment. But from where [do we know] it is [also] with a negative commandment? You can say, 'so that they shall not render their camp impure.'\" And the prohibition about this content has already been repeated with different language; and that His, may He be exalted, saying about a woman who has given birth, \"and she shall not come into the sanctuary\" (Leviticus 12:4). And in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Section 1:1), they said, \"Because it is stated (Leviticus 15:31), 'And you shall separate the Children of Israel,' I would understand - whether [one enters] from its front or from its back and he is impure, he is liable. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and she shall not come into the sanctuary.'\"And there it is explained that the law of a woman who has given birth and the law of other impure people is the same with regards to this. And they [also] said in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12:13-14), about His saying \"But if he does not wash and does not bathe his body\" (Leviticus 17:16), \"How is this? For [failure in] the bathing of his body, the punishment is excision, but for [failure in] the washing of his clothes, it is with forty [lashes]. And from where [do we know] that it is speaking here of his rendering the sanctuary and its consecrated objects impure? It prohibited and punished, etc.\" Behold it has been made clear that one who transgresses this negative commandment - if he was intentional, he is punished with excision; and if he was inadvertent, he must bring a variable offering, as we explained in Commandment 72 of the Positive Commandments. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the beginning of Shevuot and in Horayot. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited any impure person from entering the camp of the Levites - and that which is similar to it for [all] the generations: The Temple Mount, as they explained at the beginning of Tractate Kelim (Kelim 1:8). And the prohibition of impure people entering the Temple Mount is explained there. And the verse that comes about this is His saying, \"A man that has been rendered unclean by a nocturnal emission [...] shall not enter within the camp\" (Deuteronomy 23:11). And in the Gemara, Pesachim (Pesachim 68a): \"'And he must leave the camp' - this is the camp of the Divine Presence,\" as we explained in Commandment 31 of the Positive Commandments. \"'And he shall not enter the camp' - that is the Levite camp. Ravina strongly objects, 'Say that both this and that are the camp of the Divine Presence, to transgress with it, a positive commandment and a negative commandment!' If so, let the verse write, '[And he must leave the camp,] and he shall not enter within'\" - meaning, that it would want to say, \"And he shall not enter within it.\" \"Why do I need [the repetition of the word,] 'the camp?' To give him a different camp\" - and that is the camp of the Levites - that he may also not enter into it. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 255:5) is, \"'He shall not enter within the camp - that is a negative commandment.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the third [chapter] of Middot. (See Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from building an altar of stones that have been touched by iron. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"do not build them hewn; for if you lift your sword upon it, you profane it\" (Exodus 20:22). And if one did build an altar from them, it is disqualified and he may not sacrifice upon it. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the third [chapter] of Middot. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from ascending the altar by steps - so that one not take a large step, but rather walk with the heel next to the toe. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And do not ascend by steps\" (Exodus 20:23). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 20:23) is, \"What do we learn to say [from], 'that your nakedness may not be exposed upon it?' That when one ascends the altar, he should not take a large step, but rather walk with the heel next to the toe.\" And the form of the ramp and the nature of its building have already been explained in the third [chapter] of Middot. And anyone who takes a large step on the altar, to the point that his nakedness is exposed, is lashed. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from extinguishing the fire on top of the altar. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, not to go out\" (Leviticus 6:6). And in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 10:7): \"One who extinguishes [it] transgresses a negative commandment.\" And anyone who transgresses this negative commandment and extinguishes even one coal from the coals of the altar is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the tenth [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from offering any sacrifices on top of the golden altar in the sanctuary. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not offer alien incense upon it\" (Exodus 30:9). And anyone who offers or pours something besides that which is commanded upon it is lashed. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 2.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from making oil like the anointing oil. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"neither shall you make any other like it, after the composition of it\" (Exodus 30:32). And one who transgresses this negative commandment - if he was volitional, he is liable for excision; and if he was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 1 of Keritot. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from anointing [anyone] besides the high priests and kings with the anointing oil that Moshe made. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"It must not be poured on the flesh of any man\" (Exodus 30:32). And it is explained that one who is anointed with it - if he was volitional, he is liable for excision; and if inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the beginning of Keritot. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from making a vapor with the configuration of the [Temple] incense - meaning that it be from those spices and proportionate to its measurements - and have the intention to vaporize it. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"according to the composition of it, you shall not make it for yourselves\" (Exodus 30:37). And it is explained that anyone who transgresses and makes its likeness, to smell it, is liable for excision - His saying, \"Whoever makes any like it, to smell of it, shall be excised\" (Exodus 30:38) - if he was volitional; and if he was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from removing the poles of the ark from the rings. And that is His saying, \"The poles shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it.\" (Exodus 25:15). And at the end of Makkot (Makkot 22a) when they mentioned those liable for lashes, they said, \"But behold, there is [also] the one who removes the poles of the ark!\" [This] means to say that he is lashed. And its prohibition is from here - \"they shall not be taken from it.\" Behold it is been made clear to you that it is a negative commandment and that we give lashes for it. (See Parashat Vayakhel; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from removing the breastplate from the ephod (a type of apron worn by the high priest), but rather that the breastplate be attached to it. And at the end of Makkot (Makkot 22a) when they mentioned those liable for lashes, they said, \"But behold, there is [also] the one who loosens the breastplate!\" Behold it has already been made clear that one who loosens [it] is lashed. (See Parashat Vayakhel; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from tearing the edge of the robe of the high priest, but it should rather be woven to its border. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"it shall be like the opening of a coat of mail, that it not tear\" (Exodus 28:32). And one who cuts it with scissors, or that which is similar to them, is lashed. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - that we not sacrifice any of the sacrifices outside. [This] means to say, outside of the [Temple] courtyard. And this is called, bringing up outside. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Take care lest you bring up your burnt-offerings\" (Deuteronomy 12:13). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 70:5-6) is, \"I only [know about] burnt-offerings. From where [do we know about] the other consecrated animals? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and there shall you do' (Deuteronomy 12:14). Perhaps [other offerings] are subject only to a positive commandment. [Hence] we learn to say, 'there shall you bring up [your burnt-offerings].' Burnt-offerings were included [in all of the offerings]. Why were they singled out? To serve as [the basis for] a comparison, and to tell you, 'Just as burnt-offerings, which are characterized by being subject to a positive commandment, are subject to a negative commandment; so too, all offerings that are characterized by being subject to a positive commandment are surely subject to a negative commandment.'\" And I will explain the content to you. And that is that the language of a prohibition appears with a burnt-offering - and that is His saying, \"lest you bring up.\" And in another verse, the explanation appears with a command to offer the burnt-offering inside - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and there shall you bring up\" - and that is the positive commandment that one offer the burnt-offering there, \"in the place that the Lord will choose.\" However the [only] command that comes [for] the other consecrated animals is that they offer them inside - and that is His saying, \"and there shall you do\" - to teach that you should not do [it] outside. But the principle with us is that a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. And that is their saying, \"I would still say [that] other consecrated animals would only be with a positive commandment.\" [This] means to say that the one who sacrifices other consecrated animals would only [transgress] a positive commandment - that is that one who sacrifices other consecrated animals outside would only transgress a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment. And hence He said, \"and there shall you bring up your burnt-offerings\" - so as to extend the comparison, and that the [other] sacrifices be like the burnt-offering: So just like one who offers a burnt-offering [outside] is with a negative commandment, so too [with] the other sacrifices. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for excision when volitional; and a fixed sin-offering when inadvertent. And the language of excision is [found] in Parashat Acharei Mot about someone who brings up an offering outside - it is written, \"who brings up a burnt-offering or a sacrifice: And does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting [...], he will be excised\" (Leviticus 17:8-9). And in the [Sifra]: \"'That man will be excised from his people' - we have understood the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Take care lest you bring up your burnt-offerings.'\" And the language of the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), is, \"The punishment is written, and the prohibition is written: The punishment, 'he will be excised'; the prohibition, 'Take care lest you bring up.'\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the thirteenth [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from slaughtering any of the sacrifices outside. And this is called, slaughtering outside. And at the beginning of Keritot (Mishnah Keritot 1:1), when they listed all those that are liable for excision (karet), they counted one who slaughters outside and one who offers [the sacrifices] outside as two. Indeed, if one slaughters outside, he is liable for excision - even if he does not bring [it] up - from the time he slaughtered it. That is the language of the Torah; and that is His saying, \"who slaughters an ox or sheep or goat in the camp, or slaughters outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, etc.\" (Leviticus 17:3-4). Nevertheless, the prohibition about this - meaning to say, slaughtering outside - is not explicit, but is rather learned from the precept that He does not punish unless He prohibited, which we situated as a principle in our introduction with which we introduced [all] of these commandments. And the language of the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), is, \"[One who brings up and slaughters outside is liable for two.] Granted, for bringing up, the punishment is written, and the prohibition is written: The punishment, 'he will be excised' (Leviticus 17:9); the prohibition, 'Take care lest you bring up' (Deuteronomy 12:13). [This is] in accordance with Rabbi Avin, who says, 'Wherever it is stated in the Torah, Observe; Lest; or Do not, it is nothing except a prohibition.' But [for] slaughtering, why is one liable? Granted the punishment is, 'he shall be excised from among his people.' [But] from where [do we know] its prohibition?\" And after [many] words, the [conclusive] statement came out with this language (Zevachim 107a): \"He said, 'there you shall bring up your burnt offerings and there you shall do' (Deuteronomy 12:14). It compares doing to bringing up - just like [with] bringing up, He punished and prohibited; so too, [with] doing, He punished and prohibited.\" With their saying, \"there you shall bring up [...] and there you shall do,\" it is an indication that His saying, \"there you shall bring up your burnt offerings\" - and that is the offering, meaning its incineration on the fire - [can be compared to] His saying, \"there you shall do like everything I command you,\" which includes this offering, [as well as] the slaughtering. For He also commanded the slaughtering. And know that one who slaughters outside inadvertently is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And it is necessary that you know that one who slaughters consecrated animals at this time outside the location of the courtyard is liable for excision. And in the explanation, they said (Zevachim 107b), \"One who brings up [a sacrifice] outside: Rabbi Yochanan says, 'He is liable.'\" And that is the law, for it is fitting to offer [even today]. And the true principle with us is [that] we may sacrifice, even though there is no Temple. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the thirteenth [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Acharei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from consecrating animals with blemishes on the altar. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"You shall not offer anything that has a blemish\" (Leviticus 22:20). And they said (Sifra, Emor, Section 7:4), \"Behold, he transgresses on account of, do not consecrate.\" (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sacrificing animals with blemishes. And that is His saying, \"these shall you not offer to the Lord\" (Leviticus 22:22). (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 1.)" + ], + [ + "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 offering animals with temporary blemishes. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"You shall not sacrifice to the Lord, your God, an ox or a sheep that has any blemish, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 17:1). And it is explained in the Sifrei that the verse is speaking about temporary blemishes. And such a one is also lashed when he transgresses and offers it. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from offering the sacrifices of gentiles when they are animals with blemishes; and we should not say, \"Since he is a gentile, we will offer an animal with a blemish for his sake.\" And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And from the hand of a gentile, you may not offer\" (Leviticus 22:25). And one who transgressed and offered [it] is lashed. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from putting a blemish into consecrated animals. And that is called, placing a blemish into consecrated animals. And any one who places a blemish into consecrated animals is lashed - and this is on condition that it is at the time that the Temple exists - that it be fit as a sacrifice. And the prohibition that appears about this is, \"no blemish shall be on it\" (Leviticus 22:21). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Section 7:9) is, \"'No blemish shall be on it' - do not put a blemish in it.\" (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from offering leaven or honey. And that is His saying, \"for you shall burn no leaven, nor any honey\" (Leviticus 2:11). And the prohibition about this content has already been repeated with different language - He said (in the same verse), \"No meal offering that you offer to the Lord shall be made with leaven, etc.\" And we already explained in Principle 9 (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 9:5) that one who offers leaven and honey is lashed one [set of lashes] - and is not lashed two - on account of its being a general negative commandment, as we explained there. As it has already been confirmed for us that we give one [set of] lashes for a general negative commandment. And the illustration of this is that one who burns [an offering] made with leaven is lashed one [set of lashes]; and likewise one who offers honey is lashed one; and likewise one who offers leaven and honey together is lashed one. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from offering a sacrifice without salt. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and you shall not omit salt, the covenant of your God\" (Leviticus 2:13). As once He forbade the omission of salt, you arrive at it not being permissible to bring up that which is unsalted, which has no taste. And one who offers unsalted meat which has no taste - meaning [as] a sacrifice or a meal-offering - is liable for lashes. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the Gemara, Pesachim. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from offering a harlot's fee or the sale revenue for a dog. And that is His saying, \"Do not bring a harlot’s fee or the sale revenue for a dog to the house of the Lord\" (Deuteronomy 23:19). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the sixth [chapter] of Temurah. And one who offers anything of them - given that a sacrifice from them is disqualified - is lashed, like the law of someone who offers an animal with a blemish. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 4.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from slaughtering an animal and its child on one day. This applies both to sanctified and non-sanctified animals. And that is His saying, \"you shall not slaughter it and its young in one day\" (Leviticus 22:28). And one who transgressed and slaughtered [them] is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the fifth [chapter] of Chullin. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter 12.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from placing olive oil in the meal-offering of a sinner. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"he shall not place oil on it\" (Leviticus 5:11). And if one placed [it], he is lashed. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 12.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from offering frankincense in the offering of a sinner. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"neither shall he put any frankincense upon it\" (Leviticus 5:11). And one who placed [it] is lashed. And the language of the Mishnah (Menachot 59b) is, \"He is liable for the oil on its own, and for the frankincense on its own\" - since they are two [distinct] negative commandments, without a doubt. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the fifth [chapter] of Menachot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 12.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from mixing the meal-offering of a sotah (suspected adulteress) [with oil]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and he shall not pour oil upon it\" (Numbers 5:15). And if one offered it with oil, he is lashed. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Woman Suspected of Infidelity 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from putting frankincense into the meal-offering of a sotah (suspected adulteress). And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and no frankincense shall be placed on it\" (Numbers 5:15). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 8:1) is, \"[It] tells that if one placed [it], he transgresses a negative commandment. Just as he transgresses for its oil, so too does he transgress for its frankincense.\" Hence one who transgressed this negative commandment is lashed. And in the Mekhilta: \"'And he shall not pour oil upon it, and no frankincense shall be placed on it' - [it] tells that they are two prohibitions.\" (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Woman Suspected of Infidelity 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from substituting consecrated animals. And that is His saying, \"One may not exchange nor substitute for it\" (Leviticus 27:10). And the prohibition already appeared specifically about the [animal] tithe. And the reason is that which they mentioned in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 9:4): And that is their saying, \"The tithe was in the category [of all consecrated animals]. Why, then, was it singled out? To make a comparison to it: Just as the tithe is consecrated animals that go on the altar and its substitution is not permitted; so too, is the substitution of all consecrated animals that go on the altar not permitted.\" And that is His saying, \"nor substitute for it,\" and His saying, \"One may not exchange\" - however that is only with consecrated animals that go on the altar. And one who substitutes [it] is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Temurah. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Substitution 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from changing consecrated animals from one sacrifice to another - such as if they were peace-offerings, we may not go back to make them a sin-offering. For this - and what is similar to it - is [forbidden] by a negative commandment. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"no man shall consecrate it\" (Leviticus 27:26). And the tradition appears (Arakhin 29a): \"'No man shall consecrate it' - [to be a different] consecrated item on the altar.\" And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 5:3), is, \"I only [know about] the firstborn. From where [do we know] about all the consecrated animals, that we do not change them from one holiness to [another] holiness? [Hence] we learn to say, 'among the animals, no man shall consecrate it.'\" It hints to His saying, \"that which is born first is the Lord's among the animals, no man shall consecrate it\" - as if He said, \"Anything that will be the Lord's among the animals, do not consecrate it with a different holiness. Rather leave it according to its [character].\" And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in the fifth [chapter] of Temurah. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Substitution 4.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from redeeming a pure firstborn animal. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"But the firstborn of cattle, etc. may not be redeemed\" (Numbers 18:17). But it is permitted to sell it, as it is explained in Bekhorot (Bekhorot 37b). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 5:3), is, \"With the firstborn, it is stated, 'it may not be redeemed' - but it may be sold.\" (See Parashat Korach; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 1.) " + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from selling the animal tithe in any fashion that it might be. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying about the animal tithe, \"it shall not be redeemed\" (Leviticus 27:33). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 13:4), is, \"About the animal tithe, it is stated, 'It shall not be redeemed' - it is not to be sold alive nor slaughtered; nor flawless nor with a blemish.\" And the regulations of this commandment - along with the commandment that preceded it - have already been explained in Tractate Bekhorot, in Masser Sheni and in Temurah at [the] beginning. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 7.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from selling a field which its owners have dedicated - and even to the functionary who is appointed over consecrated property. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"any dedication [...] shall not be sold\" (Leviticus 27:28). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 12:4) is, \"'Shall not be sold' - to the functionary.\" And this dedication is [speaking about] unspecified dedications. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 6.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from redeeming unspecified dedications of land. And that is His saying, \"it shall not be sold and it shall not be redeemed\" (Leviticus 27:28). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 12:4) is, \"'And it shall not be redeemed' - by the owner. What shall he do with it? 'To the priest shall be his holding' (Leviticus 27:21). Or this is perhaps [the law] even if he stipulated, 'to the Lord.' [Hence] we learn to say, 'it.'\" And the laws of this commandment - meaning, the fields dedicated to the priests - have already been explained in Tractate Arakhin. And there (Arakhin 28b), it is said, \"Dedications to the priests do not have redemption, but must be given to the priests, like the priestly tithe (terumah).\" (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 6.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from severing the head of the fowl sin-offering at the time of nipping (melikah). And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and he shall nip its head [...], and not sever it\" (Leviticus 5:8). And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Tractate Zevachim. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from doing work with consecrated animals. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you must not work with your firstborn ox\" (Deuteronomy 15:19). And we learned the other consecrated animals from the firstborn - that they are all forbidden for work. And it has already been explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 21b), that one who works with consecrated animals is lashed. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Trespass 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from shearing the wool of consecrated animals. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock \" (Deuteronomy 15:19). And we learned the other consecrated animals from the firstborn, that they are all forbidden to shear. And the laws of this commandment and the commandment of working with firstborns have been explained in Bekhorot. And one who shears anything from consecrated animals is lashed. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Trespass 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from slaughtering the Pesach-offering over chametz (leavened grain products). And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice over chametz\" (Exodus 23:18). And the prohibition about this was already repeated with this exact language, \"do not slaughter, [etc.]\" (Exodus 34:25). And its content is that at the time of the slaughtering of the Pesach-offering - and that is in the afternoon (of the 14th of Nissan) - one should not have chametz in his possession, nor in the possession of the one who sprinkles [the blood], the one who slaughters [the sacrifice], the one who burns [it] or any of the members of the [eating] group. And anyone of them who has chametz with them at that time is lashed. And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:18:1): \"'You shall not slaughter over chametz' - you shall not slaughter the Pesach-offering and still have chametz in existence.\" And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the fifth [chapter] of Pesachim. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from leaving over the innards of the Pesach-sacrifice that were not sacrificed, until they became disqualified by laying overnight. And that is His saying, \"you shall not leave the fat of My festival offering until morning\" (Exodus 23:18). And the law is the same for the innards of other sacrifices. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:18:2) is, \"'You shall not leave the fat of My festival offering' - Scripture comes to teach about the fats, that they are disqualified by remaining on the floor overnight.\" And the prohibition about this content was already repeated with different language - His saying, \"and the sacrifice of the holiday of Pesach shall not be left lying until morning\" (Exodus 34:25). (See Parashat Ki Tissa, Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from leaving over any of the meat of the Pesach-sacrifice until the morrow, meaning the day of the [15th] (of Nissan). And that is His saying, \"You shall not leave over from it\" (Exodus 12:10). And we have already explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 91) that this negative commandment is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment - as it is stated, \"and what is left of it, you shall burn with fire.\" And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 12:10), they said, \"'And what is left of it' - Scripture comes to give a positive commandment on the negative commandment,\" to say that we do not give lashes for it. (See Parashat Bo, Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from leaving over any of the meat of the festival-offering that he sacrifices on the 14th (of Nissan) to the third day, but rather to eat it within two days. And that is His saying, \"and none of the meat of what you slaughter on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight\" (Deuteronomy 16:4) - as it is explained in the sixth [chapter] of Pesachim (Pesachim 71). And the received explanation (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12:7) comes [to teach], \"'And none of the meat shall remain' - Scripture is speaking about the festival-offering that comes together with the Pesach-offering, that it is eaten for two days. I might [think], for one day. [But] when it says, 'until the morning,' it is to give a second morning.\" And about it did He say, \"And you shall slaughter the Pesach-offering to the Lord\" (Deuteronomy 16:2). And that which remains of it from the 14th to the third day shall be burnt - since it is [prohibited] by, do not leave over. [But it is rectified by a positive commandment,] so we do not give lashes for it. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning the festival offering specific to the fourteenth day [of Nissan] alone - have already been explained in [various places] in Chagigah and Pesachim. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from leaving over any of the meat of the Second Pesach-offering until the morning. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"They shall not leave any of it over until morning.\" And this is also rectified by a positive commandment, like the first [Pesach-offering]. (See Parashat Behalotecha; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 10.)" + ], + [ + "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.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from breaking one of the bones of the Pesach-offering. And that is his saying, \"neither shall you break a bone of it\" (Exodus 12:46). And one who breaks one of its bones is lashed. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from breaking one of the bones of the Second Pesach-offering. And that is his saying, \"neither shall you break a bone of it\" (Numbers 9:12). And one who breaks [one of them] is liable for lashes. And in the Gemara, Pesachim (Pesachim 85a), they said, regarding the Second-Pesach-offering, \"When it says, 'neither shall you break a bone of it,' for which there is no need to say to learn [it] - as it is already surely stated, 'according to all the statute of the Passover-offering' - you must say that it is to [indicate that it applies to both] a bone in which there is marrow and a bone in which there is no marrow.\" And the regulations of breaking the bone have already been explained in the seventh chapter of Pesachim. (See Parashat Beha'alotecha; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from removing any of the meat of the Pesach-offering outside of the place of the eating group. And that is His saying, \"you shall not remove any of the meat from the house to the outside\" (Exodus 12:46). And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:46:2): \"'Outside' - outside from [the place of] its eating.\" And it is not permissible to eat what one removed - as it is on the level of a 'torn' animal (tereifah). And even though one who removes it from one group to another is [violating] a negative commandment, he is not liable until he places it down.\" And [in the Gemara, Pesachim 85b),] it is said, \"One who removes it from one group to another is not liable until he places it down, like the removal (hotzaah) that is written about Shabbat.\" But when he places it down, he is liable for lashes. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the sixth [chapter] of Pesachim. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from baking the remainders of the meal-offerings leavened (chametz). And that is His saying, \"It shall not be baked leavened; I have given it to them for their portion\" (Leviticus 6:10): [It is] as if He would be saying that their portion - which is the remainders of the meal-offerings - not be baked leavened. And one who bakes it leavened is liable for lashes - as it appears in the language of the Mishnah (Menachot 55a) - they said, \"And we are liable for its baking.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the fifth [chapter] of Menachot. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 12.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating the Pesach-offering boiled or uncooked, but rather only roasted with fire. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You must not eat it uncooked or boiled in water\" (Exodus 12:9). And I have already explained, in Principle 9 (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 9:5) of this essay, that one who transgressed this negative commandment is lashed. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 8.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from feeding the Pesach-offering to a resident alien (ger toshav). And that is His saying, \"A sojourner or hired worker may not eat from it\" (Exodus 12:45). (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 8.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from feeding the Pesach-offering to one uncircumsized. And that is His saying, \"but one uncircumcised may not eat from it\" (Exodus 12:48). (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 9.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from feeding the Pesach-offering to an Israelite who has defected. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"no foreigner may eat from it\" (Exodus 12:43). The translator (Targum Onkelos Exodus 12:43) [translated this as], \"no Israelite that defected.\" And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 12:43) is, \"'No foreigner' - that is an Israelite who is an apostate to idolatry.\" (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from having anyone impure eat sacrificial foods. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying about a woman who has given birth, \"No consecrated item shall she touch\" (Leviticus 12:4). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 1:8) is, \"Just as one who enters the sanctuary when impure is punished with excision; so too, one who eats consecrated items when impure is punished with excision.\" And He instructs this in His saying \"she shall not touch,\" about a person that eats consecrated items while impure volitionally, as it is explained in Makkot. And that is their saying there (Makkot 14b), \"And an impure person who ate consecrated items [is lashed]. Granted, a punishment [exists], as it is written, 'And the soul that eats from the flesh of a peace-offering [... that soul shall be excised]' (Leviticus 7:20). But from where do we have a prohibition? It comes from, 'No consecrated item shall she touch.'\" And there, they said, \"This is a prohibition for one who eats. Do you say one who eats [consecrated items while impure]; or perhaps one who touches [them]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'No consecrated item shall she touch, and to the Temple she may not come.' The verse compares consecrated items to the Temple. Just as the Temple involves the taking of a life; so too, do consecrated items involve the taking of a life. And if it is with regards to touching, is there the taking of a life (could such a punishment exist)? Rather, it is with regards to eating.\" And the [Torah] derived it with the expression of touching, to say that touching is like eating. And from this verse it is made clear to you that one who eats sacrificial foods when impure is liable for excision if he was volitional; and he must offer a variable sacrifice, if it was inadvertent - as we mentioned in Commandment 72 of the Positive Commandments. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in [Chapter] 13 of Zevachim. (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from eating consecrated meat that has become impure. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Meat that touches anything impure [shall not be eaten]\" (Leviticus 7:19). And one who transgressed and ate [it] is lashed. And in the second [chapter] of the Gemara Pesachim (Pesachim 24b), they said, \"Impurity of the body [involves] excision; impurity of the meat [only involves] a negative commandment.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in [Chapter] 13 of Zevachim. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 19.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from eating notar - and that is what is left over from the meat of consecrated items after the time assigned for their eating. But the prohibition about this is not explicit in the Torah. [However the punishment is explicit.] And that is His, may He be exalted, saying in Parashat Kedoshim about the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, \"what is left over by the third day must be consumed with fire. If it should be eaten on the third day, etc. that person shall be excised\" (Leviticus 19:6-8). Behold it is explicit that it is [punished] with excision if it was volitional. And if it was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. So the punishment is written. However the prohibition is His statement about the inauguration-offerings - \"it shall not be eaten because it is holy\" (Exodus 29:33). And this reference, \"it,\" is also including everything that was disqualified, such as notar - that it is not permissible to eat [it]. And one who transgressed and ate [it] is lashed. And in Meilah (Meilah 17b), they said about the language of the Mishnah, \"Piggul (a sacrifice disqualified by its intention) and notar do not join together, on account of their being two separate categories\" - they said, \"That was only learned with regards to the ritual impurity of the hands, which is rabbinic. But with regards to the matter of eating, they do join together. As it is taught, 'Rabbi Eliezer says, \"'It shall not be eaten because it is holy' - [this teaches that regarding] any consecrated food that has been disqualified, the verse comes to apply a negative commandment about its eating.\"'\" And piggul and notar are among the disqualifications of consecrated foods. So therefore each one of them was forbidden from being eaten by His saying, \"It shall not be eaten because it is holy.\" And it has already been explained that the punishment for notar is excision. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from eating piggul. And piggul is a sacrifice that was spoiled by the intention at the time of its slaughter or the time of its being offered - [in that] the man who was occupied with its being offered thought that he would eat it after its time. And it is explained completely in the second [chapter] of Zevachim (Zevachim 27). Indeed, the prohibition about eating piggul is from, \"it shall not be eaten because it is holy\" (Exodus 29:34) - as we explained with the previous commandment. However we have learned the punishment from His saying about piggul in [Parashat Tzav], \"And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of [his] peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day, [etc.]\" (Leviticus 7:18). And the tradition about this verse appeared [and taught] that it was speaking about a sacrifice that was spoiled by intention at the time of its offering; and that is called piggul. And in His saying, \"be eaten,\" He indeed meant that he intended to eat it on the third day. They said (Zevachim 29a), \"Open your ear to hear that the verse is speaking about one who intends to eat from his sacrifice on the third day\" - that it is disqualified with that intention. And one who eats from it after that intention is liable for excision, due to His saying, \"and the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.\" [As] He had said about notar, \"So everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity\" (Leviticus 19:8). And in the Gemara, Keritot (Keritot 5a), they said, \"A verbal analogy should never be regarded lightly in your eyes, as piggul is one of the essential laws of the Torah, and Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy. [... It is learned from notar, by way of the common use of the word, iniquity.] It is written there, 'So everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity,' and it is written here, 'and the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.' Just as there, it is excision; here too, it is excision.\" And also one who eats piggul inadvertently must bring a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of piggul and notar have already been explained in many places in the Order of Kodashim. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18.)" + ], + [ + "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 a tenant of a priest, or his hired servant from eating the priestly tithe. And that is His saying, \"a tenant of a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the consecrated food\" (Leviticus 22:10). And if he ate [it], his law is like the law of other outsiders. (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.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited an impure priest from eating the priestly tithe. And that is His saying, \"Whichever man of the seed of Aharon that is stricken with tzaraat\" (Leviticus 22:4). And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 14b): \"From where [do we know] of a prohibition of the priestly tithe? From, 'Whichever man, etc.' What is something that is equal among the seed of Aharon? I would say, 'This is the priestly tithe'\" - that is to say, that all of the seed will eat it, males and females. And the prohibition about this content has also already been repeated by His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And they shall keep My charge\" (Leviticus 22:4). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83a), they listed those liable for death - and among them was one who ate pure priestly tithe when he was impure. And they brought a proof from His saying, \"And they shall keep My charge.\" (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10.)" + ], + [ + "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.) " + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from eating a meal-offering of a priest. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"For every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten\" (Leviticus 6:16). And this prohibition was repeated with the griddle-cakes of the high priest, which is also a meal-offering. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 5:4) is, \"'It shall be wholly burnt' - anything that involves [being] wholly burnt, involves a negative commandment for its eating.\" (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 14.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the priests from eating the meat of sin-offerings processed inside [the Sanctuary]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Every sin-offering whose blood is to be brought to the [...] Sanctuary, etc.\" (Leviticus 6:23). And one who eats of them is lashed. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 8:7) is, \"'It may not be eaten; it must be burned with fire' - anything that involves burning, involves a negative commandment for its eating. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 11.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from eating disqualified consecrated foods that are not permissible to eat - and that is when we make a blemish intentionally, as is explained in Bekhorot (Bekhorot 35a); or that a sacrifice was disqualified after its slaughtering in one of the ways that spoil it, that prevent its eating. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not eat any abomination\" (Deuteronomy 14:3). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 99:2) is, \"'You shall not eat any abomination' - the verse is speaking about offerings which have become disqualified.\" And there (Sifrei Devarim 99:1), they said, \"Rabbi Eliezer says, ' From where [do we know] about one who slit the ear of a a first-born animal and ate of it, that he transgresses a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, \"You shall not eat any abomination.\"'\" And one who eats of them is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Bekhorot. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from eating the second tithe from grain, outside of Jerusalem. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You may not eat in your cities the tithe of your grain\" (Deuteronomy 12:17). And one who eats second tithe without redemption is lashed, but on condition of that which is explained in Makkot (Makkot 19b). And that is that one eats it outside after it saw the presence of the Temple; meaning it arrived within the [city] wall of Jerusalem. And that is their saying there, \"From when are we liable? From when it sees the presence of the Temple.\" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 2.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from consuming the second tithe from wine, outside of Jerusalem. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You may not eat in your cities the tithe of your grain and your wine\" (Deuteronomy 12:17). And one who eats it without redemption is liable for lashes - but [only] with the previous condition regarding the [second] tithe of grain. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithe 2.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from consuming the second tithe from oil, outside of Jerusalem. And one who eats it is lashed - but [only] with the previous condition. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You may not eat, etc. of your oil\" (Deuteronomy 12:17). But perhaps you will dismiss counting the [second] tithe of grain, the second tithe of wine and the second tithe of oil as three commandments: Know that when one would eat all three together, he would be lashed for each and every one; since the negative statement in this verse is not a general negative commandment, such that we do not give lashes for it. In fact, [the statement] is to differentiate [the three as separate from each other]. And in the explanation, they said in the Gemara, Keritot (Keritot 4b), \"One who ate the [second] tithes of grain, wine and oil is lashed for each and every one. And do we give lashes for a general negative commandment? [It is different here, as] the verse is written with superfluity. After all, it is written (Deuteronomy 14:23), 'And you shall eat before the Lord, your God, [...] the tithe of your grain, etc.' Why do I need it to repeat and write each of them? [It is understood from it] to differentiate.\" And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 18a), they said, \"After all, it is written (Deuteronomy 12:6-7), '[your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the donation of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.] And there you shall eat before the Lord your God.' Let the [Torah] write simply, 'You may not eat them.' Why do I need it to repeat and specify each of them? [It is understood from it] that it comes to designate a negative commandment for each and every one.\" Behold it has already been explained that everything that has been prohibited in this verse - each and every matter is a separate negative commandment. And I will [now] return to finish the other negative commandments included in this verse. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithe 2.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from eating a firstborn animal outside of Jerusalem when it is flawless. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You may not, etc. and the firstborn of your cattle and your sheep.\" And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 72:11) is, \"'The firstborn' (Deuteronomy 12:17) - that is the firstborn animal. [...] The verse is only coming [to teach] us about an outsider (a non-priest) who eats the first-born - whether before the sprinkling of the blood or whether after the sprinkling of the blood - he is transgressing a negative commandment.\" Behold it has been explained to you that this negative statement contains two matters: The prohibition about an outsider eating a flawless [firstborn animal]; and the prohibition about a priest eating it outside of Jerusalem. And the law of [these] two topics is dependent upon [it being] a flawless firstborn animal. And one who transgresses this prohibition is lashed, \" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from eating the sin-offering and the guilt-offering outside of the [Temple] courtyard. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying in this verse (Deuteronomy 12:17), \"of your cattle and your sheep\" - as if He were saying, \"You may not eat [them] in your cities.\" And the explanation (Sifrei Devarim 73:1) appeared [about it]: \"'Your cattle and your sheep' - the verse only came [to teach about] one who eats sin-offerings and guilt-offerings outside the curtains [of the tabernacle/Temple], that he transgresses a negative commandment.\" And this one is lashed. And likewise is one who eats lighter consecrated foods (kodashim kalim) outside the curtains also lashed. As it is written in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 17a) that the eating of anything outside of the place of its [authorized] eating is referred to by, \"You may not [eat].\" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 11.)" + ], + [ + "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 us from eating lighter consecrated food (kodashim kalim) before the sprinkling of their blood. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You may not, etc. and your donations\" (Deuteronomy 12:17) - as if He said, \"You may not eat your donations.\" And the tradition (Sifrei Devarim 72:10) appeared [about it]: \"The verse only came to teach us that if one eats a thanksgiving-offering or peace-offerings before the sprinkling of the blood, he transgresses a negative commandment.\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 11.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us - that an outsider not eat higher consecrated food (kodeshei hakodashim). And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"but an outsider may not eat from there, for they are holy\" (Exodus 29:33). But he is not liable for lashes until he eats [it] in the courtyard after the sprinkling of the blood. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; 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 second tithe when impure - even in Jerusalem - until it has been redeemed. For the principle with us is that we redeem second tithe that has become impure - even in Jerusalem - as is explained in Makkot (Makkot 19b). And its prohibition is, \"I have not cleared out any of it while impure\" (Deuteronomy 26:14). And the tradition appeared about it (Makkot 19b): \"Whether I am impure and it is pure; or I am pure and it is impure.\" And in the third chapter of Makkot, it is also explained that it is forbidden to clear out tithes and firstfruits while impure; and one who eats them while impure is lashed. But [here] it is on condition that he eats this tithe when impure in Jerusalem without redemption. And then he is lashed, as we mentioned. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Makkot. (See Parashat Ki Tavo; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from eating second tithe when grieving - even in Jerusalem - until it has been redeemed. And that is His saying, \"I did not eat of it when grieving\" (Deuteronomy 26:14). And the language of the Mishnah in Bikkurim (Bikkurim 2:2) is, \"That the [second] tithe and firstfruits require being brought to [the appointed] place; they require confession; and they are forbidden to one grieving.\" And likewise anyone grieving is forbidden with regards to all consecrated foods due to this verse, as well as due to it being written in the Torah, \"and such things have befallen me\" (Leviticus 10:19). And the regulations of this commandment - meaning to say, grieving - have already been explained in the eighth [chapter] of Pesachim and the second [chapter] of Zevachim. And one who eats second tithe or tithes while grieving is lashed. (See Parashat Ki Tavo; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from spending the [redemption] money of second tithe except for food and drink. And that is His saying, \"nor did I make use of it for the dead\" (Deuteronomy 26:14). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 303:17) is, \"I did not take of it for a casket and shrouds.\" And any time he used it for something [else], he should [purchase food and] eat it corresponding to [the amount he used] - as it is explained in its place (Maaser Sheni 3:10). However He mentioned, \"the dead,\" to strengthen [it] - as if He said, \"And even though [burial] is a commandment, he may only spend second tithe monies on food alone\"; as He said, \"And give the money, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 14:26). For if he spent it on something besides food, it is as if he spent it for the dead, who have no purpose for it. (See Parashat Ki Tavo; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 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.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited having some laws of [produce] precede others, but they should rather be executed in their order. And the explanation by way of illustration is with wheat: When it is winnowed, it is tevel. First the priestly tithe is separated from it - and that is one part in fifty. And afterwards, one should separate the first tithe from the remainder. And afterwards, he should separate the second tithe from the remainder [of that]. And he should give the great priestly tithe to the priest, the first tithe to the Levite; and the owners should eat the second tithe in Jerusalem. And it is appropriate that he do it according to this order. And the prohibition about bringing forward what is appropriate to delay or to delay what is appropriate to bring forward is from His saying, \"You shall not delay the first of your ripe fruits and of your liquor\" (Exodus 22:29) - as if He said, \"Do not delay that which is appropriate to bring forward from your ripe fruits and liquor.\" And in the Mishnah of Terumah (Terumot 3:6): \"He who brings forward the priestly tithe before firstfruits, or the first tithe before the priestly tithe, or the second tithe before the first tithe: Even though he transgresses a negative commandment - as it is stated, 'You shall not delay the first of your ripe fruits and of your liquor' - what is done is done.\" And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:28:1) \"'Your ripe fruits' - these are the firstfruits, which are taken from the ripe fruits. 'And of your liquor' - that is the priestly tithe. 'Do not delay' - you shall not bring forward the second tithe before the first-tithe, the first [tithe] before the priestly tithe, or the priestly tithe before the firstfruits, [etc. From here they said, 'If one brings forward the priestly tithe before the firstfruits or the first tithe before the priestly tithe] or the second tithe before the first [tithe] - even though he transgresses a negative commandment, what is done is done.'\" And it has already been explained in the first chapter of Temurah (Temurah 4a) that one who brings [a category] forward is not lashed. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from delaying vows, voluntary offerings and other sacrifices which are obligatory for one. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"When you make a vow to the Lord [...], do not delay, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 23:22). And the tradition appeared (Rosh Hashanah 4b), that one has not transgressed this negative commandment until three consecutive holidays have passed him by. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 14.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from going up on pilgrimage without there being a sacrifice with us, such that we sacrifice it there. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and none shall appear before Me empty-handed\" (Exodus 23:15). And in any event, there should be a burnt-offering and peace-offerings. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Hagigah. However, women are not obligated in this commandment. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from violating that which we have obligated ourselves with speech, even it is without an oath. And this is vows - such as when a person says, \"When I will be such\" - or \"When I do such - the fruits of the world will be forbidden to me\"; or \"the fruits of this province\"; or a particular food, such as if he forbids wine to himself or fish or anything else. And likewise if he said, \"The pleasure of my wife is forbidden to me\"; and anything that is similar to these vows - the laws of which are explained in Nedarim - he is certainly obligated to uphold that vow. And the prohibition about violating this thing, in the explanation [of the related commandment,] is His saying, \"he may not profane his word\" (Numbers 30:3). And the explanation comes (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:4): \"He shall not make his word profane\" - meaning, if he obligated himself something, he should fulfill it. And in the Gemara, Shevuot (Shevuot 20b), they said, \"[Those that say something is], 'Like an offering (konamot),' will transgress a negative commandment with them, on account of, 'he may not profane.'\" And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:4), they said, \"'He may not profane' - is telling that he transgresses on account of, do not profane, and on account of, do not delay.\" Meaning, when he vowed a sacrifice and he did not offer it and three consecutive holidays passed him by, he is liable on account of, do not delay, and on account of, do not profane. And likewise with anything similar to a sacrifice, such as when he makes a vow tow the Temple maintenance [fund] or charity or to a synagogue and that which is similar to it. And if he transgressed, and did what he forbade to himself, he is lashed. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited a priest from taking (marrying) a zonah (a woman who had sexual relations with someone forbidden for any Israelite to marry). And that is His saying, \"They shall not take a woman that is a zonah or desecrated\" (Leviticus 21:7). And each time he has sexual relations with her, he is lashed. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17-19.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited a priest - that he not take (marry) a desecrated woman. And that is His saying, \"They shall not take a woman that is desecrated\" (Leviticus 21:7). And each time he has sexual relations with her, he is lashed. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17-19.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited a priest - that he not take (marry) a divorcee. And that is His saying, \"and they shall not take a woman divorced from her husband\" (Leviticus 21:7). And each time he has sexual relations with her, he is lashed. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17-19.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited a high priest from taking (marrying) a widow. And that is His saying, \"A widow, a divorcee, etc.\" (Leviticus 21:14). Moreover, He repeated the prohibition of the high priest with a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah on account of the content that is written in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77a). And that is when it happens that the same woman is a divorcee, a widow, a desecrated woman and a zonah, and a high priest has sexual relations with her - he is lashed four [sets of] lashes; and if he is an ordinary priest, three. And there they said, \"'A widow, a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah' - when they are in order - he is liable for each and every one.\" And they explained that that is with one woman; and the matter of their saying, \"in order,\" is that they [happened to] her in the order of the verse - that she first be a widow, and afterwards a divorcee, and after that a desecrated woman and afterwards a zonah. However we required this on account of her being one woman and it being one intercourse, since we wanted to obligate him with four [sets of] lashes. And the principle with us is that one prohibition cannot take effect on top of [another] prohibition, unless it is a [more] comprehensive prohibition, an additive prohibition or a prohibition that came together [with it], as we explained in [various] places in Keritot in our commentary (on the Mishnah). So when they are in this order, each one of them will be an a additive prohibition, as is explained there. But if there are several women - such as if he had sexual relations with a widow, with another woman who is desecrated, with another woman who is a divorcee and with another woman who is a zonah - there is no doubt that he would be lashed for each and every one. But it is possible that you will ask and say, \"Since it is a principle with us that we do not give lashes for a general negative commandment, in what way can we give lashes for each and every one?\" Know that it is for this matter that the prohibition of a divorcee, a zonah and a desecrated woman were repeated for a high priest - so that it would teach us that his law about them is the same as that of an ordinary priest: Lashes for each and every one. Indeed, the ordinary priest is liable for lashes for each and every one on account of one of them being separated as a [separate] negative commandment, such that they were all differentiated. And that is His saying, \"and they shall not take a woman divorced from her husband\" (Leviticus 21:7) - that since the divorcee was separated as a negative commandment, he is lashed for the divorcee on its own. And this is the content of their saying in the Gemara, Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77b), \"Just like a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah are differentiated for an ordinary priest, so too are are they differentiated for a high priest.\" And there, it is [also] explained that when the women are different entities (four distinct women), he is lashed for each and every one - whether they are in order or whether they are not in order. Behold it has already been made clear to you that the prohibition about each one of them is a separate commandment, and therefore he is lashed for each one. And there, it is explained that an ordinary priest is not liable for lashes until he marries and has sexual relations. And they said (Kiddushin 78a), \"If he has sexual relations, he is lashed; if he does not have sexual relations, he is not lashed. [The verse] is saying what is the reason. What is the reason of, 'he shall not take?' That 'he shall not desecrate' (Leviticus 21:15).\" And the regulations of this commandment - meaning to say, these four commandments - have already been fully explained in Yevamot and Kiddushin. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17-19.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited a high priest - that he not have sexual relations with a widow, even without marriage. And that is His saying, \"And he shall not desecrate his seed among his people\" (Leviticus 21:15). And its explanation is that an ordinary priest is forbidden to marry [various categories of women], as He said, \"they shall not take\" (Leviticus 21:7)\" - and that is a prohibition of marriage. However he is not lashed until he has sexual relations, as we explained previously. Nevertheless, if he has sexual relations without marriage - even though it is forbidden, he is prohibited about her and he disqualifies her from the priesthood - he is not lashed on account of this, because the prohibition is not explicit here. But behold [in the case of] the high priest, two negative commandments are explicit: One is, \"he shall not take\" - which is the prohibition about marriage. And the second is, \"And he shall not desecrate his seed\" - and that is the prohibition about sexual relations even without marriage. And in the Gemara, Kiddushin (Kiddushin 78a), they said about a high priest with a widow, that if he has sexual relations and he did not marry, he is lashed: \"What is the reason? The [Torah] said, 'And he shall not desecrate.' And behold, he desecrated.\" Indeed, this is limited to a widow because the negative commandment is specific to the high priest, whereas she is fit [to marry an ordinary priest] - but with this intercourse, he disqualifies her to the priesthood. However the law of a divorcee, a zonah and a desecrated woman is like the law of an ordinary priest - meaning to say, that each and every one [of these] is disqualified to the priesthood from the beginning. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17-19.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the priests from entering the Temple with overgrown hair, like that of mourners who do not cut their hair. And that is His saying, \"you shall not let your head be wild (tifraau)\" (Leviticus 10:6). And Yechezkel explained and said (Ezekiel 44:20), \"and they shall not send forth locks (fera).\" And likewise did He say with the metzora, (Leviticus 13:45), \"and his head shall be wild.\" And we say in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 25:1), \"He grows locks.\"And the language of the Sifra (Sifra Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2:40) is likewise, \"'You shall not let your head be wild' - do not grow hair.\" And this prohibition was already repeated with a high priest, when He said, \"and he shall not let his head be wild\" (Leviticus 21:10). However it was repeated so that you not think that His saying to Elazar and Itamar, \"you shall not let wild,\" was only for the sake of the dead - but if one did it not in the way of mourning, it is permitted. And hence it comes with the high priest, to [teach] that it is on account of the [Temple] service. And one who transgresses this negative commandment - meaning he serves [in the Temple] with unkempt hair - is [punished] with death. And among those things [listed in Sanhedrin 83a as things punished] by death is unkempt hair. [This is] on account of what He said, \"so that you do not die.\" However if one enters the Temple with unkempt hair but does not serve, behold that it is [only] a prohibition, and not [punished] with death. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the priests from entering the Temple and having torn garments. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and do not rend your garments\" (Leviticus 10:6). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2:41) is \"'Do not rend' - do not tear.\" And this prohibition was already repeated when He said about a high priest, \"or rend his garments\" (Leviticus 21:10). And know that even when not during the [Temple] service, a high priest is forbidden to tear his clothes for his dead [relatives] that died upon him. And it is because of this supplement that this negative commandment was repeated. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Emor, Section 2:3) is, \"'He shall not let his head be wild or rend his garments' - for his dead, as others let wild and rent for their dead. How so? The high priest rends from the bottom (of his garment), and ordinary priests, from the top.\" And also anyone who serves [in the Temple] and his garments are torn is liable for death, since the law of those with unkempt hair and those with torn clothes is the same. However if he [just] went in to the Temple in this manner, it is [only] a negative commandment (and not punished with death). And only in the case of a high priest is he always forbidden to let [his hair] be wild or to rent his clothes - even if he does not enter the Temple. And that is the difference between him and an ordinary priest. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the priests from leaving the Temple at the time of the [Temple] service. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And from the door of the Tent of Meeting, etc.\" (Leviticus 10:7). And this prohibition was already repeated when He said about a high priest, \"And out of the sanctuary shall he not go\" (Leviticus 21:12). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2:42-43) is \"'And from the door of the Tent of Meeting he shall not go out' - I might think [even] not during the service. [Hence] we learn to say, 'shall he not go out and he will not desecrate.' I would [hence] say, [only] at the time of the service. 'For the anointing oil of the Lord [is upon you]' - I only know [about] Aharon and his sons, that if they went out at the time of the service, they would be liable for death. From where [do we know] about the priests in all the generations? [Hence] we learn to say, 'for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you.'\" And know that there is a supplement with the high priest, that he may not accompany his dead [relatives]. And this is the simple understanding of Scripture, from His saying, \"And out of the sanctuary shall he not go.\" And it has already been explained in the second [chapter] of Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 18a) that if [a relative] of his died upon him, he may not follow the [procession of the] bier. And they brought a proof from His saying, \"And out of the sanctuary shall he not go [and he shall not desecrate].\" And we learn from this that it is permissible for him to serve [in the Temple] on the day that his [relative] dies. And so did they explain, \"And out of the sanctuary shall he not go\": \"Behold another, if he did not go out [but served], he desecrated\" - meaning to say, an ordinary priest. For the service is not permitted for him when he is grieving. Rather he is prohibited from this - meaning to say that he may not serve [while] grieving. And this principle has already been explained to you in Horayot (Horayot 12b). And that is that an ordinary priest that is grieving may not serve, but a high priest may serve when he is grieving. And behold that it has been made clear to you that His saying, \"and he shall not desecrate,\" is a negation - not a prohibition - to say that his service is not desecrated, even thought he is grieving. But the simple meaning is [that] when He said, \"and He shall not desecrate\" - it is a reason for the previous prohibition, which is [that] he shall not go out, so that he shall not desecrate. And according to these things - as has been explained - this negative statement is inappropriate to count separately [as a negative commandment], as has been explained to the one who understands the original principles of this essay. And it has already been explained that these three negative commandments - which are, \"and he shall not let his head be wild, or rend his garments [...] And out of the sanctuary shall he not go\" - have already been repeated with a high priest, to explain their content. [This is] like the prohibition about the divorcee, the zonah and the desecrated woman is repeated to explain some content about these three things that were prohibited to them. For these three negative commandments [to the high priest] are exactly that which was forbidden to them when He said, \"you shall not let your head be wild and do not rend your garments [...] And from the door of the Tent of Meeting he shall not go out.\" And that was what our teacher, Moshe - peace be upon him - said to Elazar and Itamar: That in your excitement about this great distress, the content that is forbidden to you has not become permitted; rather you are [still] in your holiness of being forbidden about unkempt hair, tearing garments and leaving the Temple during the service. And [here] the prohibition was repeated with the high priest, such that we understood that this prohibition [for which one is] liable for death is only during the service. As you see that they brought a proof to explain the matter of His saying, \"And from the door of the Tent of Meeting, etc.\" - from His saying, \"And out of the sanctuary shall he not go.\" And even though there is a supplement in each of these negative commandments that were repeated with the high priests - as we explained - there is no expansion of the count of the commandments with this, for the one who understands our introduction. For the essence of the verse is that he should not do any of this during the service. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 2.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited an ordinary priest from becoming impure for the dead, other then for his relatives that are enumerated in Scripture. And that is His saying, \"Let him not make himself impure with the dead among his people\" (Leviticus 21:1). And one who transgresses this and becomes impure for one besides the six commanded [relatives] is liable for lashes. And women are not obligated in this commandment - the tradition (Sifra, Emor, Section 1:1) comes [to teach]: \"'The sons of Aharon,' and not the daughters of Aharon.\" (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Mourning 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited a high priest from entering under a roof together with a dead body, even for his relatives. And that is His saying, \"And adjacent to any dead body he shall not enter\" (Leviticus 21:11). And anytime he renders himself impure - even for his father or for his mother - he is lashed. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Mourning 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited a high priest from becoming impure from any dead body in any form of impurity - whether by touching or by carrying. And that is His saying, \"he shall not defile himself for his father or for his mother\" (Leviticus 21:11). And it is possible that you would think that this content is exactly the same as the previous content, and that His saying, \"for his father, or for his mother,\" is [only] a further explanation. [However] the matter is not so, but rather they are two negative commandments - \"he shall not enter,\" and \"he shall not defile.\" And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Emor, Section 2:4) is, \"He is liable for, 'he shall not enter'; and he is liable for, 'he shall not defile.'\" And ordinary priests are likewise liable, via a verbal analogy with a high priest. For they said, \"Just like a high priest, who is forbidden regarding the impurity of the dead, is liable for two negative commandments - for \"he shall not enter,\" and for \"he shall not defile\" - so too, is an ordinary priest, for whom it is forbidden to become impure from the dead, liable for \"he shall no enter.\" But we did not list it [as a separate commandment] for the reason that we [discussed] earlier in the second principle (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 2). However we did list these two commandments (this and the previous one), in that they are two topics: \"He shall not enter,\" and \"he shall not defile\" - and the content of, \"he shall not enter,\" is other than the content of, \"he shall not defile\" - as explained by those that received the tradition and said that he is liable for [both], \"he shall not enter,\" and for, \"he shall not defile.\" (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Mourning 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the entire tribe of Levi from taking a portion in the Land [of Israel]. And that is His saying, \"The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part or inheritance with [...] their brothers; the Lord is their inheritance\" (Deuteronomy 18:1-2). (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 13.)" + ], + [ + "It is the prohibition that the entire tribe of Levi was also prohibited from taking a portion in the booty, when [the Jews] conquered the Land [of Israel]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part or inheritance\" (Deuteronomy 18:1). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 163:2-3) is, \"'No part' - in the booty. 'Or inheritance' - in the land.\" Yet you are able to challenge me and ask, \"Why did you list these matters as two commandments, for they are a prohibition about taking a portion in the spoil and the territory of the land, and both of them are within one negative statement?\" You, the questioner, should know that this negative statement has already been divided by His saying, \"The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part\" - and that is the prohibition about the taking of the booty of the city. Whereas the second is, \"And they shall have no inheritance\" (Deuteronomy 18:2) - and that is the prohibition about the taking of a portion in the land. And the prohibition of these very two matters has already been repeated to the priests - and that is His saying to Aharon, \"You will have no inheritance in their land,\" at the time of division of the land; \"and you will not have a share among them,\" in the booty. And maybe you would think that these two laws of the priests are two [additional] commandments, such that it is fitting to count them. [However] know that when the prohibition comes to the whole tribe of Levi, the priests have surely already been included. Rather it was repeated with the priests to strengthen [it]. And likewise [with] anything similar to this of general categories and specific items - it is indeed repeated to strengthen [it] or to round out the law when it would not have been complete from [only] one prohibition. However if we were to count His saying to Aharon, \"You will have no inheritance in their land,\" as an addition to that which He said, \"The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no\" - you would surely be obligated according to this very comparison to count the divorcee, the desecrated woman and the zonah to the high priest as three negative commandments besides the three negative commandments that came from the general category of priests, whether a high [priest] or an ordinary [one]. And if one would say that those are also appropriate to be counted - behold we would say to him that perforce the high priest with a divorcee would be liable twice: Once on account of [being] a priest, and a divorcee is forbidden to him; and secondly on account of [being] a high priest, since she is also forbidden to him with a different negative statement. Yet it has already been explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77a) that he is only liable once. Behold it has been confirmed that a prohibition that is within a general category is the only one to be counted; and that a prohibition which appears about that very content for the individual item - it is in fact only to teach one of the regulations or to round out the law, as I explained in Commandment 165 of these (positive) commandments. And from this very category is the prohibition in which He prohibited the priests, \"They shall not make baldness on their heads [...]\" (Leviticus 21:5). And all of Israel as a general category had already been prohibited with these three negative commandments already when He said, \"You shall not round off the corners of your head\" (Leviticus 19:27); \"you shall not gash yourselves\" (Deuteronomy 14:1); and \"lacerations for the dead\" (Leviticus 19:28). So it was actually repeated for the priests just to round out the law - as it is explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 20a), when they explained the regulations of these three commandments. But were they negative commandments specifically for the priests and were not to round out the law - but rather commandments themselves - the priest would have been liable two [sets of] lashes for each such act, due to his being an Israelite, and due to his being a priest (respectively). But the matter is not like this. Rather there is one [set of] lashes, like [for] other Israelites, as is explained in its place. And understand this. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 13.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from making a bald spot on the head for the dead, as is done by the fools. And that is His saying, \"nor make any baldness\" (Deuteronomy 14:1). And this prohibition was repeated for the priest with His saying, \"They shall not make baldness, etc.\" (Leviticus 21:5) - to round out this law: As from His saying, \"between the eyes,\" we could have said that it would only be forbidden when one makes himself bald on his head near his forehead. And so He explained and said (in the other verse), \"on their heads\" - to make liable [for anywhere] on the head, like [he is for] between the eyes. Yet also if He [had only] said, \"They shall not make baldness on their heads,\" we would have [then] said whether for the dead or not for the dead. So He already explained [in Deuteronomy], \"for the dead.\" Thus anyone who makes a bald spot the size of a barley seed specifically for the dead is lashed. Whether he is an Israelite or a priest, he is lashed one [set of] lashes for each and every bald spot. And likewise that which He repeated with the priests - \"neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, etc.\" - certainly came to round out the law of the commandment, as is explained in Makkot (Makkot 21a). (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 12.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating impure (domesticated) beasts and impure (wild) animals. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Nevertheless these you shall not eat of those which chew the cud, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 14:7). However an explicit negative commandment does not appear about the other impure animals, but it is rather from His saying, \"And every beast that parts the hoof, forming thereby two entirely cloven hoofs, and chews the cud among the beasts, that may you eat\" (Deuteronomy 14:7). Behold He made known that anything that does not have these signs together is forbidden to eat. However it is a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment, which is explained to be a positive commandment. [As] the principle with us is that a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment, and we do not give lashes for it. However the other impure beasts and animals are forbidden to us, and we are liable lashes for eating them, from an a fortiori argument (kal vachomer). As we say that we give lashes for the swine and the camel that have one sign of purity; all the more so should we give lashes for other impure beasts and animals that have no sign at all! And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3:1-2) about this is their saying, \"'That may you eat' - it may be eaten, and not an impure beast. I only know of a positive commandment. From where [do we know that he also transgresses] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'that you shall not eat.' This tells me only of [those explicitly mentioned] alone. From where [do we know] the other impure beasts? It follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if a negative commandment against eating attaches to these which have [some] signs of purity; how much more so does it attach to those which do not have any signs of purity at all! It is found, then, that the camel, the hare, the coney and the swine [are prohibited] by Scripture, and the other impure beasts, by an a fortiori argument. Their positive commandment is written; their negative commandment is [derived] a fortiori.\" But this a fortiori argument is only a revelation of the matter, as we mentioned in Negative Commandment 336, regarding, \"his daughter\" - according to what we we will explain in its place. And therefore anyone who eats a kazayit of the meat of an impure beast or impure animal - from whatever type it may be - is lashed by Torah law. And know this. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating impure fish. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying about those species of fish, \"They shall be repulsive to you, you shall not eat of their meat\" (Leviticus 11:11). And one who eats a kazayit of them is lashed. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating impure birds. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying about those species, \"These you shall consider repulsive from among the birds; they may not be eaten, etc.\" (Leviticus 11:13). And one who eats a kazayit of their meat is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment - along with the two before it - have already been explained in the third [chapter] of Chullin. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating winged swarming things. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying in Mishneh Torah (Deuteronomy), \"All winged swarming things, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 14:19). And the language of the Sifrei is, \"'All winged swarming things' - that is a negative commandment.\" And one who eats of them is lashed. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating things that swarm upon the earth, such as worms, beatles and that which is similar to them. And that is what is called, things that swarm of the land. And that is His saying, \"All the things that swarm upon the earth, etc.\" (Leviticus 11:41). And one who eats [them] is lashed. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating things that swarm which come to exist from rot, even though they are not a specific type and do not come into existence from a male and a female. And that is His saying, \"you shall not make yourselves impure through any swarming thing that creeps, etc.\" (Leviticus 11:44). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12:4) is, \"'You shall not make yourselves impure through any swarming thing that creeps upon the earth' - even if it is not fruitful and does not multiply. And that is the difference between His saying, \"that creeps upon the earth,\" and \"that swarms upon the earth.\" As that which swarms refers to that which has the power to give birth to a similar [being]; whereas that which creeps refers to that which comes into existence form rot. And one who eats from them is lashed. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating worms that are born in fruit and seeds from the time they go out and exit to the surface of those seeds or those fruits. And even if we found them afterwards within the seed or within the fruit, it is not permitted to eat them; and one who eats them is lashed. And that is His saying, \"among all things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat them\" (Leviticus 11:42). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12:3) is, \"To include those that separated to the [outside] world and returned [to the fruit's interior].\" (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating any swarming thing that it might be without specification - whether a swarming thing of the water or a swarming thing of the earth. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive with anything that swarms\" (Leviticus 11:43). We give lashes for this negative commandment on its own; and it is similar to a general negative commandment. Hence one who ate any of a swarming things of the earth is lashed two [sets of lashes] - once on account of, \"All the things that swarm upon the earth are repulsive, they may not be eaten\" (Leviticus 11:41); and once on account of, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive.\" And one who eats a flying swarming thing is lashed two [sets of lashes] - once on account of, \"All winged swarming things are impure for you, they may not be eaten\" (Deuteronomy 14:19); and once on account of, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive.\" And if he ate an animal that flies and walks on the ground, such that it is a flying swarming thing and a swarming thing on the earth, he is liable four [sets of] lashes. And if along with this, it would also be a swarming thing of the water, he would be liable for six [sets of] lashes - the fifth of them on account of [being] an impure fish, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:11), \"you shall not eat of their meat\"; and the sixth on account of, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive,\" since it also includes a swarming creature of the water. And we do not have another verse with us to forbid a swarming thing of the water besides, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive with anything that swarms.\" And about these swarming things, they said in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 16b), \"One who ate a putita is lashed four [sets of lashes]; an ant, is lashed five; a wasp, is lashed six.\" And this is the explanation that was explained by anyone that I have heard speak or whose words I have seen explain this statement of, \"One who ate a putita.\" But it is an incorrect explanation - it cannot be followed or sustained without upturning the true principles that are a signpost in the language of the Talmud. And that is that when you look into what we have said before, behold you will find that they have made one liable three [sets] of lashes from one negative commandment - and that is, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive.\" And it has already been explained that one is not lashed two [sets of] lashes for one negative commandment under any circumstances, as is explained in Chullin (Chullin 102b). And we ourselves have already discussed this in Principle 9 and we have explained it [several] times. And behold I will bring examples for you in that which is [to come in the] future. ", + "But the true statement that you will not wonder about and will not push off is that one who eats a creature that is a flying swarming thing and a swarming thing [of the earth] is only lashed two [sets of] lashes - one on account of [the swarming things of the earth; and one on account of flying swarming things. And if it is also a swarming thing of the sea, he is lashed three - one on account of] the swarming things of the earth; one on account of the flying swarming things, the negative commandment of which is also explicit; and one on account of, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive.\" For it forbids every swarming thing, so that swarming things of the water are also included in, \"anything that swarms\" - by His saying, \"with anything that swarms.\" And if he ate a swarming thing of the earth only, he would be lashed one - on account of, \"All the things that swarm, etc.\" And likewise [for] a flying swarming creature, [he would be liable for] only one - on account of the flying swarming things. And likewise only one for swarming creatures of the water - on account of, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive.\" And this negative statement including the swarming things of the earth, does not make it that he is lashed twice for a swarming thing of the earth. For [even] if there were a thousand negative statements appearing for us about swarming things of the earth that were all explicit, he would only be lashed for one. For they are all repeated about the exact same content. And even if He said, \"A swarming thing of the earth shall not be eaten\"; \"You shall not eat a swarming thing of the earth\"; \"They shall not eat a swarming thing of the earth,\" a thousand times, it would only make him liable for one [set of] lashes. Could you see those that established this corrupted principle holding that one who wears shatnez (forbidden mixtures) be lashed twice because two negative statements appeared about it? I have never seen them hold this. Rather if another person were to say it, they would disparage him. Yet they do not disparage themselves about their saying that [one who eats] a flying swarming thing or a swarming thing of the earth is lashed twice - once on account of the negative statement that is explicit about it, and once on account of, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive.\" And this [part] of the matter's explanation would not [even] be lost on a foolish child. But I will [now] return to the matter I started to explain and say that when it happens that a creature is born in a certain seed or a certain fruit and goes out to the exteriority - and even though it has not touched the surface of the ground: Behold if one eats it, he is liable for one [set of] lashes, since a specific negative commandment appeared about it - as we explained in the previous commandment. But if it moved to the ground and walked on it: If one eats it, he is liable once on account of, \"things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat them\" (Leviticus 11:42); and once on account of, \"are repulsive, they may not be eaten.\" And if it happened with this that it is not fruitful and does not multiply, he would be liable three [sets of] lashes for it - the two previously mentioned, and the third [on account of,] \"you shall not make yourselves impure through any swarming thing that creeps\" (Leviticus 11:44). And if in addition to these, it flies, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes on account of, \"winged swarming things are impure for you; they may not be eaten\" (Deuteronomy 14:19). And if along with this, it would swim in the water even as it flies - as is constantly seen with many species - he would be liable a fifth [set of] lashes on account of a swarming thing of the water that is included in that negative commandment, which is, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive.\" And if along with this, this creature that comes to exist on its own from food is also a bird, he would also be liable a sixth [set of] lashes on account of, \"These you shall consider repulsive from among the birds; they may not be eaten\" (Leviticus 11:13). And do not dismiss that there be a species of birds that come to exist from rot, as people often see birds larger than a small nut coming to exist from rot. And do not dismiss that there be a species that is itself an impure bird and a flying swarming thing. For this is not unlikely, since it would surely have characteristics of a bird, and actions and characteristics of a flying swarming thing. Do you not see that all the earlier commentaries counted among those [with] six [sets of] lashes, an impure fish [that is also] a swarming thing of the water? And that is also true - do not dismiss it. For it is likely that it be a fish and a swarming thing of the water; or likewise a bird and a swarming thing of the water; or likewise a bird and a flying swarming thing. And that is the putita - which is a bird, a flying swarming thing, a swarming thing of the earth and a swarming thing of the water. And therefore we are liable four [sets of] lashes for it. And one is lashed five for an ant, [as] the ant that is mentioned is a flying ant that comes to exist from rotten fruits and which is not fruitful and does not multiply. One is liable one on account of a swarming thing that separates from food; one on account of a swarming thing of the earth; one on account of that which crawls on the ground; one on account of a flying swarming thing; and one on account of a swarming thing of the water. And a wasp that also comes to exist from rot is - in addition to these - a bird [as well as a] flying swarming thing. And it is only among fools that it be impossible that the ant or wasp or other types of birds and swarming things come to exist from rotten food. For they have no knowledge of natural science, but rather think that it is impossible in all of the species, that one come to exist from another except through a male and a female - since this is what they see. And I have already explained to you the content that you must examine and determine [to know that] a person is liable, for eating a certain creature, so many [sets of] lashes; and [another one] is only liable for [a lesser amount]. And it is made clear to you from these verses that we do not look for a [requisite] size from one who eats an entire creature, and we do not say whether there was [a requisite amount of] a kazayit. Rather, [even] if he ate a small mosquito, he is lashed three [sets of] lashes on account of a swarming thing of the earth; on account of a swarming thing that crawls; and on account of a flying swarming thing. And behold they also said (Makkot 16b), \"One who delays his orifices transgresses on account of do not be repulsive. And one who drinks water from the horn of a bloodletter\" - and that is a tool for drawing out - \"transgresses on account of, 'do not make yourselves be repulsive.'\" And this is an analogy to eating things that are disgusting and drinking disgraceful things which a man pushes away, such that one is forbidden about them. But he is not liable for lashes because of them; for the simple meaning of the verse is only about swarming things. Be we do strike him with lashes of rebellion. Behold it has already become clear to you, from all that we had precede, that we have indeed only taken the prohibition of the swarming thing of the water from this verse - which is, \"You shall not make yourselves repulsive - for no specific prohibition appeared about it besides this. And understand this. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating a dead [animal]. And that is His saying, \"Do not eat any carcass\" (Deuteronomy 14:21). And one who eats a kazayit of it is lashed. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 4.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating a torn [animal]. And that is His saying, \"and you must not eat meat that was torn in the field\" (Exodus 22:30). However the simple understanding of the verse is as it is mentioned in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:30:2). And that is their saying, \"The verse was speaking according to what is common - it is the place where most animals are found, such that they become torn [there].\" However an explanation of this verse also came from the tradition (Chullin 68a), and it is like this: \"Meat in the field is torn,\" and hence you may not eat it. This means to say that once any meat goes out of its boundaries, it becomes torn - like the most consecrated of the consecrated meat when it goes outside of the [Temple] courtyard; or the lighter consecrated meat when it goes outside of the wall [of Jerusalem]; or meat from the Passover sacrifice when it goes outside of the eating group; or when an [animal] embryo extends its arm outside [of its mother], as is explained in the fourth [chapter] of Chullin. All of these types of meat are designated as, \"and you must not eat meat that was torn in the field.\" And one who eats a kazayit from them is lashed by Torah law. And likewise is meat from a living animal designated as, torn; and one who eats it is lashed. And in the Gemara, Chullin (Chullin 102b), they said, \"'Meat that was torn in the field' - that is meat from a living animal. And the prohibition about this and the commandments preceding this were already repeated (in Ezekiel) regarding the priests alone. For the Torah commanded them to eat the fowl sin-offering, and that is with nipping (melikah). But nipping with ordinary meat is not slaughter, without a doubt, but rather [renders it] a carcass. And it might have crossed our minds that, for them, eating from nipping is also permitted with ordinary meat - and the same would be the law for all invalid slaughter. And hence He explained that they remain within the category of Israelites and with the prohibition of eating carcasses and torn animals. This is what the Sages mentioned, along with another law which they testified to from this verse - [but] we do not intend to mention it in this essay of ours. However eating a beast or animal that develops one of the [conditions that render] it torn (terminally injured or ill), received by tradition, is forbidden - even if it was slaughtered appropriately. And one who slaughters it with a fit slaughter and eats of its meat is lashed by rabbinic law. And the [conditions that render] it torn have already been explained in the Gemara, Chullin (Chullin 42-58). And the regulations of this commandment and the ones before it have been explained at the end of Makkot. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 4.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating a limb from a living animal. And that is that one cuts a limb from it while it is alive and eats a kazayit of that limb in its natural (complete) form, even if there was only the smallest amount of meat to it. And one who eats it is lashed. And the prohibition about it is His saying, \"and you must not eat the life with the meat\" (Deuteronomy 12:23). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 76:5) is, \"'The life with the meat' - that is a limb from a living animal.\" And likewise is it explained in the Gemara, Chullin (Chullin 102b). And there it is said, \"[If] one ate a limb from a living animal and meat from a living animal, he is liable twice.\" And the explanation of this is that they are two [different] prohibitions. One prohibition is \"you must not eat the life,\" - which is the prohibition of the limb; and the second prohibition is \"and you must not eat meat that was torn in the field,\" which is also the prohibition of meat from a living animal, as we explained (in the previous commandment). And the prohibition about this content was already repeated with different language when He said to Noah about a limb from a living animal, \"Yet flesh with its lifeblood, you shall not eat\" (Genesis 9:4). (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited [us] from eating the sciatic nerve. And that is His saying, \"Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve\" (Genesis 32:33). And one who ate all of it - even if it was very small - or ate a kazayit of it is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 7 of Chullin. (See Parashat Vayishlach; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 6.)" + ], + [ + "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.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating the forbidden fat (chelev) of a pure beast. And that is His saying, \"All chelev of an ox or a sheep or a goat you shall not eat\" (Leviticus 7:23). And the prohibition about it has already been repeated; and in its explanation (Leviticus 7:25), He decreed that it is [punished] with excision if one was volitional. But if he was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Chullin. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 6.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from cooking meat with milk. And that is His saying, \"you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk\" (Exodus 23:19). And one who cooks it is lashed, even though he did not eat [it] - as is explained in [several] places in the Talmud. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited [us] from eating meat with milk. And that is His also saying, \"you shall not cook, etc.,\" a second time (Exodus 34:26) - meaning to say, the prohibition of eating [it]. And in Chullin (Chullin 114a), they said, \"Milk and meat - one is lashed for its cooking, and lashed for its eating.\" And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 21b), they said, \"One who cooks a sciatic nerve in milk on a holiday and eats it is lashed five [sets of] lashes: On account of eating a [sciatic] nerve; on account of cooking on a holiday; on account of cooking meat and milk; on account of eating meat cooked with milk; and on account of kindling [a fire].\" And there (Makkot 22a), they said, \"Remove kindling, and insert [the use of] consecrated wood - the prohibition of which is from here: 'And their tree-gods you shall burn in fire […] you shall not do so to the Lord, your God' (Deuteronomy 12:3–4).\" And in the Gemara, Chullin (Chullin 114a), they said, \"The [Torah] expressed eating with a term of cooking, so that like if he cooked, he is lashed; he is also lashed for eating.\" And in the second [chapter] of Pesachim (Pesachim 21b), they said, \"Because of this did [the Torah] not write about eating meat with milk explicitly - to say that we give lashes for it even when [consumed] not according to the way of its enjoyment.\" And remember this. And here it is appropriate for me to note an important principle that I have not yet mentioned. And that is His saying, \"you shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk\" three times; and the Teachers have said that each one of the negative statements is for [specific] content: And they said (Chullin 115b), \"One is for eating, one is for cooking and one is for benefit.\" But the questioner will ask and say, \"For what reason did you count the prohibition of its eating and its cooking as two commandments, yet you do not count the prohibition of its benefit as a separate commandment?\" The questioner should know that it is inappropriate to count its benefit as a separate commandment, since it and its eating are the same matter. And His saying about something that is forbidden to eat is indeed one of several examples of benefit. But the intention is that he not benefit from it, not by eating and not by anything else. And that is their saying (Pesachim 21b), \"Wherever it is stated, 'You shall not eat'; 'It shall not be eaten' - both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit are implied; until the verse specifies that one may benefit, in the manner that it specified with regard to a carcass.\" As Scripture explained the use of that, and that is His saying, \"you may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it\" (Deuteronomy 14:21). And according to this principle, it is inappropriate to count the prohibition of eating and benefit as two commandments. And if we had counted them [as] two commandments with meat with milk, it would have likewise been appropriate with chametz, with orlah (fruit of trees during their first three years) and with forbidden mixtures of the vineyard - that each one of them be two commandments - if the prohibition of benefit is its own commandment. But since these were not counted, but rather only the negative commandment of eating, alone, was counted - and the prohibition of benefit was included in this prohibition - the same should occur regarding meat with milk. And only one question remains about this. And that is that one could say, \"Since the prohibition of benefit ensues from the prohibition of eating, for what purpose did Scripture need a negative statement about meat and milk, to forbid its benefit, as we explained?\" Behold the answer to this is that it is needed regarding this because it is not written, \"Do not eat from this\" - from which eating and benefit would have been forbidden. Hence a negative statement to forbid benefit was required. And we have already mentioned the reason for which the eating of meat with milk was not mentioned: For anything about which it mentions eating is only liable when his throat derives enjoyment from it. However, if he open his mouth and swallows what is forbidden, or it is [so] hot as to burn his throat, he is exempt - except for meat with milk, about which one is liable for its eating even if he did not derive enjoyment from it, as we mentioned. And likewise [is the case with] forbidden mixtures of the vineyard, as we will explain after this (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 193). And understand all of these principles and remember them. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Chullin. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating meat from an ox that is to be stoned. And even if it was slaughtered before it was stoned - from the time its judgement was completed - it is forbidden [to] eat it, even though it was slaughtered with a proper slaughter. And that is His saying, \"its meat shall not be eaten\" (Exodus 21:28). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:28:3) is, \"[If] the ox were taken out to be stoned, and its owners intervened and slaughtered it, its meat is forbidden to eat.\" Hence it is stated, \"it shall not be eaten.\" And one who eats a kazayit of it is lashed. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating bread made from the new grain before the completion of the sixteenth day of Nissan. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Bread, parched grain or tender grain you shall not eat\" (Leviticus 23:14). And one who eats a kazayit of it is lashed. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 7.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating parched grain made from the new grain before the end of the sixteenth day of Nissan. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"parched grain [...] you shall not eat\" (Leviticus 23:14). And one who eats a kazayit of it is lashed. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 7.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating tender grain from the new [produce] before the end of the sixteenth day of Nissan. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"tender grain you shall not eat\" (Leviticus 23:14). And they already preceded us with their saying (Keritot 5a), \"One who ate bread, parched grain and tender grain is liable [separately] for each and every one.\" And the regulations of the new grain have already been explained in Chapter 6 of Menachot and in [various] places in Sheviit, Maasrot and Challah. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating orlah (fruit of trees during their first three years). And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"it shall be closed off to you, it shall not be eaten\" (Leviticus 19:23). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Orlah. And the prohibition of orlah outside of the Land [of Israel] is a law of Moshe from Sinai; however the language of the Torah is only [about] the Land of Israel. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating forbidden mixtures specifically of the vineyard. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"lest the expansion become separated (tikdash)\" (Deuteronomy 22:9). And the tradition (Chullin 115b) appeared - \"'Lest tikdash,' lest tukad esh\" (it be burnt by fire),\" meaning to say, that it not be permissible to benefit from it. And you have already seen the principle - Wherever it is stated, Lest; or Do not, it is nothing other than a negative commandment (Zevachim 106a). And in the second chapter of Pesachim (Pesachim 24b), when they said, \"We do not give lashes for any of the prohibitions of the Torah unless it is in the way of their enjoyment\" - meaning to say - that anything the eating of which is forbidden is liable for its eating when he enjoys it - they said afterwards, \"Everyone concedes about forbidden mixtures of the field, that we give lashes even when it is not in the way of its enjoyment. What is the reason? Since, eating, is not written about them; but rather, 'lest tikdash,' lest tukad esh.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Kilayim. And one is only liable for it by Torah law in the Land of Israel. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from drinking wine of (an idolatrous) libation. But this does not appear explicitly explained in Scripture. However He does say about idolatry, \"Those that did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings\" (Deuteronomy 32:38) - [hence] just like the sacrifice is forbidden, so [too] is wine forbidden. And you know that it is forbidden to benefit [from it] and that we give lashes for it, as it is made known in the Talmud. And the proof of wine of a libation being forbidden, that its prohibition is from Torah law and that it is counted among the negative commandments, is their saying in Avodah Zarah (Avodah Zarah 73b), \"Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both say, 'Anything forbidden by the Torah [that falls into a mixture] - whether of its own type or another type - [is forbidden where there is enough of the forbidden item] to impart flavor; except untithed produce and wine of a libation, which [render it forbidden] with any amount when with its type; but [only where] it imparts flavor when with another type.'\" And this is an explicit proof that the wine of a libation is from the prohibitions of the Torah. And also in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 131:2), when it illustrated the description of the Israelites spreading out at Shittim to be involved in licentiousness with the daughters of Moav, they said, \"He would enter and the pitcher near her was full of Ammonite wine - the wine of idolaters having not yet been forbidden to Israelites. She said, 'Would you like to drink, etc.?'\" Behold from their saying, \"the wine of idolaters having not yet been forbidden to Israelites,\" there is a proof that after this [in the Torah], without a doubt, it was forbidden. However their saying (Shabbat 17b) that among the eighteen things that they decreed, among them was wine; as well as their saying (Avodah Zarah 34a), \"It is different, wine of a libation is rabbinic\" - the intention was [about] the unspecified wine of gentiles, and not the wine of a libation itself. But the wine of a libation itself is surely forbidden by the Torah. And you already know their saying (Avodah Zarah 30b), \"There are three wines, etc.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the last chapters of Avodah Zarah. (See Parashat Haazinu; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from being gluttonous and drunk with food and drink in the days of youth and under the conditions of the law of the stubborn and rebellious [son]. And that is His saying, \"'You shall not eat with the blood\" (Leviticus 19:26). And the explanation of this is that a stubborn and rebellious son is included in [those things] that are liable for a death penalty of the court; and the language of the Torah about it (Deuteronomy 21:21) is that it is [punished] with stoning. And it has already been explained at the introduction of this essay (Sefer HaMitzvot Shoreshim 14) that anything for which one is liable for excision or a death penalty of the court is a negative commandment, except for the Pesach-sacrifice and circumcision - as we explained. If so, since the gluttonous and drunk son under the specified conditions is sentenced to stoning, we know that the act is perforce prohibited to him - since the punishment was explicit. Hence we must search for the prohibition, since Scripture did not punish [for something] unless it prohibited [it]. And the language of the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 63a), is, \"From where [do we know] the prohibition of a stubborn and rebellious son? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not eat with the blood'\" - meaning to say, do not eat an eating that brings about the spilling of blood; and that is the eating of a stubborn and rebellious son, as he is liable for death because of it. And when he eats this bad eating in those not good ways, he has already transgressed the negative commandment - even though this is a general negative commandment, as we explained in the ninth principle (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 9). For this is not difficult: Since the punishment is explicit, we do not concern ourselves with whether the prohibition is bona fide or whether it is from a general negative commandment. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 7.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating on the fast of Yom Kippur. But the Torah is not explicit about the prohibition of this act. Rather it mentions the punishment and makes one who eats liable for excision, such that we know he is prohibited from eating. And that is His saying, \"For any person who will not be afflicted, etc.\" (Leviticus 23:29). And at the beginning of Keritot (Keritot 2a) when they listed those who are liable for excision, they listed among them, one who eats on Yom Kippur. And they explained there, that everything for which we are liable excision is a negative commandment - except for the Pesach-sacrifice and circumcision. Behold it has been confirmed that eating on Yom Kippur is a negative commandment. And therefore we are liable for excision for its volitional [transgression]; and a fixed sin-offering for its inadvertent [transgression] - as they explained at the beginning of Keritot, and as it is explained in Tractate Horayot (Commentary on the Mishnah on Keritot 2:3-4) - that this law is only mandated for a negative commandment, because of His saying about those that are liable for a fixed sin-offering, \"one of the commandments of the Lord [concerning things] which should not be done.\" (Leviticus 4:13). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 14:4,9) is, \"'For any person who will not be afflicted' - this is the punishment for the [non-] affliction. But we have not heard the prohibition about the [non-] affliction [on the day of Yom Kippur] itself! It is when it states the punishment for work. For let it not be stated, since it may be derived a fortiori, viz.: If [non-] affliction, [the ban against which] does not obtain on holidays and Shabbat, is [on Yom Kippur] punishable; then work [the ban against which] does obtain on holidays and Shabbat, how much more so should it be punishable! Why, then, is the punishment for work stated? To derive from it the prohibition against [non-] affliction: Just as the punishment for labor follows a prohibition, so [too] does the punishment for [non-] affliction follow a prohibition.\" Behold what we have said is explained. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Yoma. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on the Tenth of Tishrei 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating chametz (leavened grain products) on Pesach. And that is His saying, \"no chametz shall be eaten\" (Exodus 13:3). And He explained that it is [punishable] by excision and said, \"for whoever eats chametz shall be excised\" (Exodus 12:15)\" - if one was volitional. And he is liable a fixed sin-offering if he was inadvertent. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Pesachim. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating things that have an admixture of chametz (leavened grain products) [on Pesach] - even though they are not bread - such as (brine,) cereal and ale and that which is similar to them. And that is His saying, \"You shall eat nothing leavened\" (Exodus 12:20). [And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 12:20) is, \"'You shall eat nothing leavened,'] to include Babylonian cereal, Median beer and Edomite vinegar. Perhaps we would be liable excision for them? [Hence] we learn to say, '\"for whoever eats chametz shall be excised' (Exodus 12:15). What is specific to chametz is that it is fully chmetz - excluding these that are not fully chametz. So why did they appear? To transgress a negative commandment with them.\" And it has already been explained in Pesachim (Pesachim 43a) that the matter of their eating being liable for lashes is only if there is a kazayit of chametz in [the time] needed to eat a peras. But if the admixture of chametz was less than this amount, we are not liable lashes for their eating. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from eating chametz after midday of the fourteenth day of Nissan. And that is His saying, \"Do not eat chametz on it\" (Deuteronomy 16:3). And the referent, \"on it,\" refers back to the Pesach lamb that we are obligated to slaughter in the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nissan. And He [meant that] from when the time of its slaughter arrives, \"Do not eat chametz on it.\" And the Gemara, Pesachim (Pesachim 28b): \"From where is it derived that one who eats chametz [on the fourteenth] from the sixth hour and onward transgresses a negative commandment? As it is stated, 'Do not eat chametz on it.'\" And there, it is said (Pesachim 4b), \"Everyone however [holds] that [the prohibition of eating] chametz from the sixth hour and onward is from Torah law.\" And so did we find [it] in all of exact versions [of the Talmud] that are read in front of the elders of the Talmud. And there (Pesachim 2b), they said about the prohibition of eating chametz in the sixth [hour itself], \"The rabbis made an extra distancing, so that one does not reach a Torah level prohibition.\" And one who transgresses and eats chametz after midday is lashed. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained at the beginning of Pesachim. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - that chametz not be seen within all of our boundaries for seven days (starting on the 15th of Nissan). And that is His saying, \"no chametz may be seen with you, and no leaven may be seen in all your boundaries\" (Exodus 13:7). And these are not two negative commandments, but they are rather about the same content. And in the explanation (Beitzah 7b), they said, \"The verse opened with chametz and ended with leaven to tell you that chametz and leaven is the same thing\" - meaning there is no difference between chametz and leaven. And one who transgressed and left chametz in his property is only liable for lashes if he took chametz on Pesach and acquired it, since he did an action. And the language of the Tosefta (Tosefta Makkot 4:5) is, \"One who leaves over chametz on Pesach, and one who allows a forbidden mixture of the vineyard, is not lashed.\" (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - that chametz not be found in our possession, even if we do not see it and even if it was deposited [elsewhere]. And that is His saying, \"No leaven shall be found in your houses for seven days\" (Exodus 12:19). And we give lashes also for this, on condition that there be an action - as we mentioned, according to the principles that they set down in Tractate Shevuot (Shevuot 21a). And in the explanation, they said in many places, \"One transgresses because of, 'it may not not be seen,' and 'it may not be found.' And the regulations of these two commandments have been explained at the beginning of Tractate Pesachim (Pesachim 5b). And there, the matters that He prohibited by saying, \"No leaven shall be found in your houses for seven days,\" have been explained. And there, it is explained that every negative commandment can infer from one, besides itself, that which was indicated about [the other commandment]; and that one who holds onto chametz on Pesach transgresses two negative commandments - do not have seen; and, do not have found. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the nazirite from drinking wine or [other drinks] the mixture of which [includes] grapes. And that is His saying, \"neither shall he drink anything in which grapes have been steeped\" (Numbers 6:3). And he already accentuated the prohibition about this, such that it is not permissible to drink even wine vinegar or vinegar of strong drink (in which wine is mixed). And that is His saying, \"he shall not drink vinegar of wine nor vinegar of strong drink.\" But this negative statement is not a separate negative commandment. For if He had said, \"He shall not drink wine and he shall not drink vinegar,\" they would have been two commandments. However He said, \"he shall not drink vinegar of wine\" - a distancing from wine. And it is explained in the Gemara, Nazir (Nazir 36), that His saying, \"have been steeped,\" is to forbid the taste [of the grapes] like the substance. And the proof about their being one commandment is that if he drinks wine and vinegar, he is not lashed twice, as will be explained after this (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 206). And whenever a nazirite drinks a reviit of wine or vinegar, he is lashed. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the nazirite from eating grapes; and if he ate a kazayit of grapes, he is lashed. And that is His saying, \"nor shall he eat grapes fresh or dried\" (Numbers 6:3). (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the nazirite from eating raisins. And that is His saying, \"nor shall he eat them dried\" (Numbers 6:3). And if he ate of them, he is lashed. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the nazirite from eating grape seeds. And that is His saying, \"from seeds, etc.\" (Numbers 6:4). And if he ate a kazayit of them, he is lashed. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the nazirite from eating grape skins. And that is His saying, \"to the skins, etc.\" (Numbers 6:4). And if he ate a kazayit of them, he is lashed. And the proof about each one of these five types - meaning to say, wine, grapes, raisins, seeds and peels - being a separate commandment is that one is lashed [a separate set] of lashes for each one of them. And the language of the Mishnah (Nazir 34b) is, \"And he is obligated for wine on its own, and for grapes on its own, and for grape seeds on its own, and for grape skins on its own.\" And in the explanation, they said in the Gemara, Nazir (Nazir 38b), \"[If] he ate fresh grapes, raisins, grape seeds and grape skins, and squeezed a cluster of grapes and drank [the juice], he is lashed five [times].\" But when they counted, so as to uphold the words of the teacher - such that [it turns out that] he taught and left [something] out, so that one would be obligated more than five [sets of] lashes - they said, \"But behold, he left over the negative commandment of, 'he shall not desecrate [his word]' (Numbers 30:3)!\" But they did not say, \"But behold, he left over vinegar! For he is not liable twice for wine and vinegar. As vinegar is actually forbidden because the source of its prohibition (wine) did not recede with its decay. And what is appropriate for you to know is that all of these prohibitions of the nazirite combine for a kazayit, and that he is lashed for a kazayit from all of them [combined]. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the nazirite from becoming impure with a corpse. And that is His saying, \"He shall not make himself impure for his father, or for his mother\" (Numbers 6:7). And if he became impure - whether with an impurity for which he must shave or whether [with one] for which he must not shave - he is lashed. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the nazirite from entering into the tent of a corpse. And that is His saying, \"by a dead body he shall not come\" (Numbers 6:6). And in the explanation, they said in the Gemara (Nazir 42b), \"Scripture spoke with a categorical verse - 'He shall not become impure' (Numbers 6:7). [Hence] when it states, 'he shall not come,' it is to prohibit him about the impurity and about the entering.\" And there, they said that when he enters the tent after he becomes impure, he is only lashed once; and that he is only liable for two [sets] if the impurity and the entering were together - for example, if he entered into a house with a sick person and he sat there until that person died. As it comes out that he became impure and he entered the tent [that has a corpse] at the same time. But if he enters the tent of a corpse, the impurity preceded the entrance - as it is explained there, according to the principles that are demonstrated in Ohalot. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the nazirite from shaving. And that is His saying, \"no razor shall pass over his head\" (Numbers 6:5). And one who shaves the head of a nazirite is also lashed, just like the one who is shaved; and he is lashed from the time he shaves one hair. And the regulations of these commandments of the nazirite have already all been explained in Tractate Nazir. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited - not to harvest all of what is planted. Rather one must leave some at the end of the field for the poor. And that is His saying, \"you shall not completely cut the corner of your field\" (Leviticus 23:22). And this negative commandment is rectified by a positive commandment: That is that, if he transgressed and cut all of what is planted, he may give the amount of the corner from what is harvested - and that is His saying, \"you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger\" - as we explained in the Positive Commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 120). And [the commandment of] the corner is practiced with trees just like it it is practiced with fields; but this commandment is only practiced in the Land of Israel from [the law of] the Torah. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the tractate that is connected to this (Peah). (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited - not to glean the sheaves that fall in the field at the time of the harvest. Rather one must leave them for the poor. And that is His saying, \"you shall not gather the gleaning of your harvest\" (Leviticus 23:22). And this too is rectified by a positive commandment, like we explained about the corner. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Peah. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from harvesting the ollalot (incomplete clusters) of the vineyard at the time of the harvest. And that is His saying, \"You shall not pick your vineyard bare\" (Leviticus 19:10). Rather one must leave them for the poor. But this law is not with other trees (see the Ramban in his Introduction to the Positive Commandments - Hasagot HaRamban on Sefer HaMitzvot, On the counting of Mitzvot), even ones similar to the vineyard. For [their] prohibition is with His saying, \"When you beat your olive tree, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 24:20) - and that is that you do not take what is forgotten of the olives. Know [then] that other trees are [only] forbidden concerning [what is] forgotten. And this too is rectified by a positive commandment; and the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Peah. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited - not to gather the single grapes that fall in the vineyard at the time of the harvest. Rather one must leave them for the poor. And that is His saying, \"neither shall you gather the single grapes of your vineyard, etc.\" (Leviticus 19:10). And this too is rectified by a positive commandment; and the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Peah. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from taking the forgotten sheaves. And that is His saying, \"and you forget a sheaf in the field, you may not return to take it\" (Deuteronomy 24:19). And [the commandment of leaving what is forgotten] is practiced both with produce and with [fruit] trees; and is rectified by a positive commandment. For if one transgressed and took it, he is obligated to return it to the poor. And that is His saying, \"it shall be for the stranger, the orphan and the widow.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Peah. And know that the principle with us is that any negative commandment that has a positive commandment [attached to it] - if he fulfills the positive commandment in it, he is not lashed; but if he does not fulfill it, he is lashed. An example of this is that if he harvested the corner, he is not liable for lashes immediately when he harvested. Rather he must return the sheaves. And likewise if he threshed them, ground the wheat and kneaded the dough, he must give what was fit for him for [his obligation of] the corner, from the dough. But if it happened that the wheat got totally lost or it was burnt, he is lashed - as he did not fulfill the positive commandment in it. And all the more so if he negated [the positive commandment] actively - as when he ate all of the wheat. But do not think that that which they said, in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 16a) - \"For us, we only have this and one other one,\" and it is explained that this other one is the corner - requires that this law is in fact only exclusively regarding the corner. Rather the matter of the \"other one,\" is meaning to say, the corner and everything, the law of which is like the law of the corner - the single grapes, what was forgotten, the gleanings and the ollalot. Each one of them is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment and has the possibility within it - that is possible with the corner - of 'he fulfilled it or he did not fulfill it,' and 'he nullified it or did not nullify it.' For the verse from which we learned that there is a positive commandment with the corner is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger\" (Leviticus 19:9-10); and that appears about the corner, the gleanings, [the single grapes,] and the ollalot. He said [there], \"you shall not completely cut the corner of your field, [you shall not gather] the gleaning of your harvest. You shall not pick your vineyard bare; neither shall you gather the single grapes of your vineyard.\" And He likewise said about the forgotten sheave, \"you may not return to take it.\" And once we have found the language in the Gemara, that the corner is a negative commandment rectified by a positive commandment and they brought a proof about the positive commandment in it from His saying, \"you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger, etc.\" - it is a proof that these five commandments are [all] negative commandments that are rectified by a positive commandment. So - as we mentioned - as long as he fulfills the positive commandment in it, he is not lashed; but if the fulfillment of the positive commandment is no longer possible, he is lashed. However so long as it is possible to fulfill it - even though he has not fulfilled it - he is not yet lashed. Rather we only command him to fulfill it, until we know that he has already transgressed the negative commandment and there is no possible way for him to fulfill the positive commandment in it. Then he is lashed. And heed this content and understand it. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from planting forbidden mixtures. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall not sow your field with mingled seed\" (Leviticus 19:19). And the planting of these forbidden mixtures is only forbidden in the Land of Israel; and one who plants them there is is liable for lashes by Torah law. But it is permissible outside of the Land of Israel. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Kilayim. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Diverse Species 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from planting grain - as well as other vegetables - in a vineyard. And this type of forbidden mixture is called forbidden mixtures of the vineyard. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Do not plant your vineyard with mingled seed\" (Deuteronomy 22:9). And the language of the [Sifrei] (Sifrei Devarim 230:1) is, \"'Do not plant your vineyard' - why do I need it? And is it not already stated (Leviticus 19:19), 'you shall not sow your field?'\" And this would without a doubt include a vineyard and seeds. [In answer,] they said, \"It teaches that one who has a forbidden mixture in a vineyard transgresses two negative commandments.\" And know that a forbidden mixture of the vineyard is only forbidden by Torah law in the Land [of Israel] - [and] on condition that he sows wheat, barley and grape seeds with a single hand motion. However one is lashed for the [forbidden] grafting of trees everywhere. And its prohibition comes under His saying, \"you shall not sow your field with mingled seed.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Kilayim. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Diverse Species 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from breeding forbidden mixtures of animals. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"do not cross-breed your animals with different species\" (Leviticus 19:19). And each time he breeds [them], he is lashed - on condition that he breeds them with his hand - the male organ into the female, like a brush into a tube. And in the explanation, they said (Bava Metzia 91a), \"With adulterers and forbidden mixtures - from when he inserts [it] like a brush into a tube; and then he is lashed.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Kilayim. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Diverse Species 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from doing work with a forbidden mixture of animals together. And that is His saying, \"You may not plow with an ox and with a donkey together\" (Deuteronomy 22:10). And each time he does work, such as plowing or threshing with them - or he leads both of them together - he is lashed. [This is] from His saying, \"together\" - meaning to say, not to bind the two of them together for any [type of] work. However, according to the Torah, he is only liable with two species, one of which is is an impure animal and one of which is pure - such as an ox and a donkey. And once he plowed with them - or pulled them - together, he is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Kilayim. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Diverse Species 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from preventing an animal from eating from the thing upon which it is doing its work - such that if it is threshing a threshing field or carrying straw on its back from one place to another, he may not prevent it from eating from it. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing\" (Deuteronomy 25:4). And it is explained that it is the same [if it is] an ox or any other animal - it is [included] in the negative commandment of 'muzzling.' It is only that Scripture is speaking according to what is common. And plowing and other work is the same - one should not not prevent it from eating that which it is working with at the time of the work. And anyone who prevents it is lashed - even if he 'muzzles' it with his voice. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Bava Metzia. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Diverse Species 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from working the land in the seventh year. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you shall not sow your field\" (Leviticus 25:4). And anyone who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sheviit. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from doing work on trees in the seventh year. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and you shall not prune your vineyard\" (Leviticus 25:4). And anyone who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Behar, Section 1:6) is, \"Sowing and pruning were in the general category (of forbidden labor). So why were they singled out? To compare to them, viz.: Just as sowing and pruning are distinct in being labors for field and trees, [so too, are all such labors forbidden on the seventh year]. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sheviit. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited harvesting that which the land grew on its own in the seventh year in the [same] way that we harvest [it] every year. And the explanation of this is that we have been prohibited from working the land and from doing work on trees in the sabbatical year, as we have already mentioned. But according to the Torah, we are allowed to eat what was planted on the sixth year - and that is called the aftergrowth - in the seventh year. But it is only permissible to harvest it with a modification. And its content is well-known - and that is that His saying, \"The aftergrowth of your harvest, etc.\" (Leviticus 25:5), does not mean not to harvest it at all. For He already said, \"And the resting of the land shall be for you to eat\" (Leviticus 25:5). However it means that you not harvest it in the way you harvest it every year, but rather harvest it like we harvest something ownerless - meaning to say, without readiness and without preparation, as we will explain. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited picking the fruit which grew on the trees in the seventh year in the [same] way that we gather their fruits every year. Rather we do it with a modification to show that it is ownerless. And that is His saying, \"and the grapes of your untended vines, you shall not gather\" (Leviticus 25:5). And the explanation appeared (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1:3): \"'You shall not gather' - in the [usual] way of the gatherers. From here, they said (Mishnah Sheviit 8:6), 'Figs of the seventh year are not to be cut in a muktzeh, but they may be cut in an open place. Grapes may not be trodden in the wine-press, but they may be trodden in a kneading-trough. Olives may not be prepared in an olive-press or in a small olive-press, but one may crush them.'\" And the regulations of this commandment and the one before it have already been explained in Sheviit. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 4.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited working the land in the Jubilee year. And that is His saying, \"you shall not sow\" (Leviticus 25:11) - like He said, about the sabbatical year, \"you shall not sow your field\" (Leviticus 25:4). And just like the sabbatical year is forbidden whether regarding working the land, or whether regarding work on the trees; so [too] is the Jubilee. And that is why He said, \"you (plural) shall not sow,\" about the category that includes land and trees. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from harvesting the aftergrowth in the Jubilee year. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"neither shall you reap the aftergrowth\" (Leviticus 25:11) - just as it is forbidden in the seventh year. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 10.)\n" + ], + [ + "He prohibited harvesting fruit of the trees in the Jubilee year in the way that we collect [them] in other years. And that is His saying, \"and you shall not gather your untended vines\" (Leviticus 25:11) - like we explained about the seventh year. And also in the Sifra (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3:2), \"'You shall not reap [...], you shall not gather.' Just as they are said for the seventh [year], so are they said for the Jubilee\" - meaning to say that the law of these two negative commandments is the same. However the regulations of the commandments of the sabbatical year and the Jubilee are only practiced in the Land of Israel. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited - not to sell our land in the Land of Israel [as a] permanent sale. And that is His saying, \"The land shall not be sold in perpetuity\" (Leviticus 25:23). And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Arakhin. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 11.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from changing the open places of the Levites. And that is His saying, \"And the field of the open place of their cities, etc.\" (Leviticus 25:34). And you know the language of the Torah - that cities and open places be given to the Levites; meaning to say, a thousand ells [as an] open place, and two thousand ells going out from there for fields and vineyards - as it has been explained in Sotah (Sotah 27b). And the prohibition comes to the Levites not to change these distinctions - that they not make the city, an open place; the open place, a city; the field, an open place; or the open place, a field. And that is His saying, \"shall not be sold\" - and the tradition comes [to explain that this indicates] that its nature not be changed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Eruvin. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 13.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from abandoning and ignoring the Levites, regarding the giving of their due and gladdening them on the festival. And His saying, \"Guard yourself, lest you forsake the Levite\" (Deuteronomy 12:19), is a negative commandment. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - not to claim debts on the sabbatical year, but rather to release them all. For it is stated (Deuteronomy 15:2), \"every creditor that lends anything to his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour.\" And we are only liable for this - according to the Torah - in the Land of Israel at the time when the sabbatical of the land is [operative]; meaning, the Jubilee. But rabbinically, one is liable for it in every place and at every time; so it is not permissible to exact debts that have gone over the seventh year. Rather one must release [them]. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sheviit. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the refraining from lending to some of us because of the sabbatical year, so that [such a] debt not be released. And that is His saying, \"Guard yourself, lest there be a thing, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 15:9). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 117:1-2) is, \"'Guard yourself,' is with a negative commandment; 'lest,' is with a negative commandment\" - meaning to say that these two negative statements about the same content [come] one after the [other] to strengthen [it]. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from refraining to give charity and comfort to our poor brothers, about whose poverty we are aware and whom we have the ability to support. And that is His saying, \"do not harden your heart\" (Deuteronomy 15:7). And this is a prohibition about acquiring the trait of stinginess and cruelty. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 9.) " + ], + [ + "He prohibited the sending away of a Hebrew (Jewish) slave empty-handed when he goes out to freedom at the end of six years. Rather we must have him requited with something from our wealth, under all circumstances. And that is His saying, \"And when you send him free from you, do not send him empty-handed\" (Deuteronomy 15:13). And the regulations of requiting have already been explained in Chapter 1 of Kiddushin. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 3.) " + ], + [ + "He prohibited that the lender seek out the borrower, when he knows that he is not able to pay. And that is His saying, \"do not be to him as a creditor\" (Exodus 22:24). And in the Gemara, Metzia (Bava Metzia 75b): \"From where [do we know] about one who is owed one hundred dinars by his fellow and knows that [the latter] does not have [the funds] - that it is forbidden for him to pass in front of him? As it is stated, 'Do not be to him as a creditor' (Exodus 22:24).\" And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:24:4): \"'Do not be to him as a creditor' - do not appear to him at all times.\" And know that this prohibition also includes one who seeks out a debt of interest. And so did they say (Mishnah Bava Metzia 5:11) - that one who lends with interest transgresses, \"do not be to him as a creditor,\" as I will explain in what follows this. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 4.) " + ], + [ + "He prohibited lending with interest. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Your money you shall not give him on interest, and on increase you shall not give your food\" (Leviticus 25:37). However these two negative statements are the same content and came to strengthen [it]; and are in order that one who lends with interest transgress two negative statements - not that they are two matters. For interest is increase, and increase is interest. And in the Gemara, Metzia (Bava Metzia 60b), they said, \"You will not find interest without increase; increase without interest. And the verse only separated them to [make one] transgress two negative statements.\" And there, they said, \"From Torah law, interest and increase is one thing.\" And there, they [also] said, \"Now that it is written, 'Your money you shall not give him on interest, and on increase you shall not give your food' (interposing both interest and increase between money and food), read it like this: 'Your money you shall not give him on interest and increase; and on interest and increase you shall not give your food.'\" Behold anyone who lends money or fruits with interest has already transgressed two negative statements - along with the other negative statements that also come about [such] a lender - to strengthen [it]. For behold this prohibition was already repeated with a different language with His saying, \"Do not take interest and increase from him\" (Leviticus 25:36). And it is explained in the Gemara, Metzia (Bava Metzia 61a), that this prohibition is also upon the borrower. But these are all extra negative statements, as we explained in Principle 9 (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 9:2) - that they are all repeated about the same content, and that is that He is prohibiting the lender from lending with interest. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the fifth [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 4.) " + ], + [ + "He prohibited the borrower - that he should not borrow with interest. And the analogy could have been that [only] the lender transgresses, as he is the sinner; whereas the borrower does not transgress, as the does not want his own robbery - such that it would be similar to fraud, that only the one committing fraud would transgress, not the one who is defrauded. Hence the prohibition came also to [specify] borrowing with interest. And that is His saying, \"You shall not charge interest to your brother\" (Deuteronomy 23:20). And its explanation came: You shall not have interest taken. And in the explanation, they said in the Gemara, Metzia (Bava Metzia 75b), \"The borrower transgresses on account of, 'You shall not charge interest; and on account of 'and you shall not put a stumbling block in front of the blind' (Leviticus 19:14)\" - as we will explain, when we mention this commandment (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 299). (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 4.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited being involved with a loan with interest between a borrow and a lender - not to be a guarantor for one of them, not to be a witness for them and not to write a contract about what they agreed upon about the interest. And that is His saying, \"you shall not lay upon him interest\" (Exodus 22:24). And the language of the Gemara, Metzia (Bava Metzia 75b), is \"The guarantor and the witnesses only transgress on account of, 'you shall not lay.'\" And there, it is explained that the scribe, the witnesses and the guarantor also transgress. And there, it is also explained that this negative statement, which is 'you shall not lay' - even with its coming about the middlemen, meaning those [tangentially] involved in that matter - also includes the lender. And therefore the lender transgresses six negative statements: The first is, \"do not be to him as a creditor\" (Exodus 22:24); the second is, \"Your money you shall not give him on interest\" (Leviticus 25:37); the third is, \"and on increase you shall not give your food\" (Leviticus 25:37); the fourth is, \"Do not take from him\" (Leviticus 25:36); the fifth is, \"you shall not lay upon him\"; and the sixth is, \"and you shall not put a stumbling block in front of the blind\" (Leviticus 19:14). And there, they said, \"These transgress a negative commandment: The lender; the borrower; the guarantor; and the witnesses. And the Sages say, 'Even the scribe.' They transgress, 'you shall not give him'; 'Do not take'; 'do not be to him as a creditor'; 'you shall not lay'; and 'you shall not put in front of the blind.'\" And in the Gemara: \"Abbaye says, 'The lender transgresses them all; the borrower transgresses, \"You shall not charge interest\" (Deuteronomy 23:3) and \"and you shall not put a stumbling block in front of the blind\"; the guarantor and the witnesses only [transgress] on account of \"you shall not lay.\"'\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment: If the interest was fixed, we take it away from him and return it to the one from whom it was taken. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 4.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - not to oppress the employee and not to delay his wage with us. And that is His saying, \"there shall not abide with you the wages of a worker\" (Leviticus 19:13). And that is that if he was a day-worker, he collects the whole night, from His saying, \"until morning.\" And if he was a night-worker - behold the time of his payment is the whole night and the whole day, and the sun may not set before one pays him. And that is His saying, \"You must pay him his wage on the same day, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 24:15). And the language of the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 110b) is, \"A day-worker is to collect [his wage] during any of the night, and a night-worker is to collect during any of the day.\" And these are not two commandments. Rather it is one commandment, but two negative statements have appeared about it in order to fill out the law of the commandment. And that is that with these two negative statements, we know when is the time of payment. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the ninth [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Hiring 11.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from taking collateral from borrowers into our hands except by the order of the judge and through his messenger; and that we not come, ourselves, into the debtor's house and take [something] as collateral. And that is His saying, \"you must not enter his house to seize his pledge\" (Deuteronomy 24:10). And the language of the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 113a) is, \"One who lends money to another may take collateral only by means of the court. And he may not enter his house to take his collateral, as it is stated, 'You shall stand outside' (Deuteronomy 24:11).\" And it is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment. And that is His saying, \"You must surely return the pledge to him\" (Deuteronomy 24:13). And so is it explained at the end of Tractate Makkot (Makkot 16a). And know that if he does not return it and does not fulfill the positive commandment in it, he is liable for lashes and pays the money of the collateral - as it is explained at the end of Makkot. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the ninth [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from keeping the collateral item from its owners during the time that he needs it. Rather we must return it to him - a day-item during the day and a night-item during the night - as it appears in the language of the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 113a), \"One must return the pillow at night, and the plow during the day.\" And the prohibition about it is, \"you shall not sleep with his pledge\" (Deuteronomy 24:12). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 277:2) is, \"You shall not lay down with his pledge in your possession.\" Rather you must return to him what he cannot stand being without on account of his poverty. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 9 of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited taking collateral from a widow - whether poor or rich - as it is stated (Deuteronomy 24:17), \"you shall not take a widow’s garment in pawn.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the ninth [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from taking in pawn, vessels with which people prepare their food, such as tools for grinding, kneading and cooking and tools for the slaughter of animals and other ones besides this that are grouped by the name, 'something with which food of sustenance (okhel nefesh) is made' - as it is stated, \"for it is a soul that he takes in pledge\" (Deuteronomy 24:6). And it remains for us here to explain their saying (Bava Metzia 115a), \"And he is liable on account of two vessels, as it is stated, 'One shall not take as a pledge, a lower millstone nor an upper millstone.'\" For this may make us think that they are two commandments - and all the more so, with their saying (Bava Metzia 116a), \"And he is liable for the lower millstone on its own.\" And the content of this statement is that anyone who takes, as collateral, a vessel with which we make food of sustenance, transgresses a negative commandment, as it is explained; and one who takes several vessels - each one of which is used for food of sustenance - as collateral, is liable for each and every vessel. For example, if he takes as collateral, a tool for grinding, a tool for kneading and a tool for the making of bread. And this is something that does not need explanation; as it is like one who takes the garment of Reuven's widow as a pledge, and [likewise] the garment of Shimon's widow [and likewise the garment of Levi's widow] - that he transgresses for each and every garment. However the question is about one who takes as a pledge, two vessels with which, both together, he makes food of sustenance: Do we say that since the [specific preparation of] food is in fact only finished by both of them, the two of them are surely one vessel, and he should [only] be liable on account of one vessel; or since they are two vessels, he should be liable for each one on its own? And they explained to us that he is liable with them on account of two vessels - even though the work is done by bringing the two of them together, like a lower millstone and an upper millstone, as the grinding will not be done by one [of them] alone. And the language of the Mishnah is, \"'One shall not take as a pledge, a lower millstone nor an upper millstone': Not only these did they say [is prohibited], but anything with which we make food of sustenance, as it is stated, 'for it is a soul that he takes in pledge'\" - that he is liable for them on account of two tools, not that they are two [separate] commandments. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 272:1) about this matter is - they said, \"Just as a lower millstone and an upper millstone are distinct in being tools performing one task, for which one is liable for this one on its own and that one on its own; so [too for] all two tools performing one task is one liable for this one on its own and that one on its own.\" And the explanation of the statement is that even though they are used to do the same task, he is liable for this one on its own [and for that one on its own]. If one transgressed - took it as collateral and grabbed it from him - they remove it from his hand and return it to its owners. But if [it was lost] or burnt before he returned it, he is lashed; and likewise with the garment of a widow. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the ninth [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited - to not steal (kidnap) an Israelite person. And that is His saying in the Ten Commandments, \"you shall not steal\" (Exodus 20:13). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:13:3) is, \"'You shall not steal,' is the prohibition against stealing a soul.\" And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 86a) they said, \"From where [do we know] the prohibition against stealing souls? Rabbi Yoshiya says, 'From, \"you shall not steal.\"' Rabbi Yochanan says, 'From, \"They shall not be sold as slaves\" (Leviticus 25:42).' And they do not disagree. One enumerates the prohibition against selling, etc.\" As they do not execute the punishment upon him until he steals (kidnaps) and sells. But once he transgressed these two negative commandments, he is liable for strangulation - as He, may He be exalted, said, \"And one who steals a soul and sells him, etc.\" (Exodus 21:16). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in [Chapter] 1 of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Theft 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - that we not steal money. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not steal\" (Leviticus 19:11). And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:13:3): \"'You shall not steal,' is the prohibition against stealing money.\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable to pay that which is mentioned by Scripture - whether it is double-payment, four times or five times or just to return the principal. And in the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2:1-2): \"Because it is stated about stealing, 'He shall pay double' (Exodus 22:6), we know the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not steal.' [Even if only] to taunt [the owner]\" - its explanation being, to annoy the owners and to hurt them; and to return it afterwards. \"'You shall not steal' - even in order to pay four times or five times.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of [Bava] Kamma. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Theft 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - that we not steal that to we which we do not have entitlement, by force and duress. And that is His saying, \"and you shall not rob\" (Leviticus 19:13). And so have the masters of the tradition explained (Bava Kamma 79b) - \"you shall not rob,\" is like the content of, \"and he robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian\" (II Samuel 23:21). And it is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment; and that is His saying, \"he shall return the stolen property\" (Leviticus 5:23). But even if he nullified the positive commandment, he is not lashed, since it is a negative commandment that is given to repayment - such that if he burned the stolen property or threw it to the sea, he can give [back] what it was worth. However, if he denied it and swore falsely, he adds a fifth and sacrifices a guilt-offering, as is explained in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 71); and likewise is it explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 16a). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of [Bava] Kamma. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Theft 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - that we not steal the boundary of the land. And that is that we change the boundary and the border that is between us and others, such that it would be possible for a lier to say that the land that is someone else's is his. And that is His saying, [\"Do not move back the boundary of your neighbor\" (Deuteronomy 19:14). And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 188:1-2), they said,] \"Is it not already stated (Leviticus 19:13), 'you shall not rob?' What do we learn to say [with], 'Do not move back?' It teaches that one who removes his fellow's boundary transgresses two negative commandments. Perhaps [the same holds true] also outside of the Land [of Israel]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'in your inheritance that you shall inherit in the land' - to teach that in the Land, one transgresses two negative commandments; but outside the Land, he only transgresses on account of one.\" Behold it has been made clear that this commandment is specific to the Land of Israel. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Theft 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - regarding that which is found with us that we owe, not to withhold it and not give it. And that is His saying, \"You shall not exploit\" (Leviticus 19:13). And that is that theft is taking something that is with someone else by ruses and in secret; and we have been prohibited this action with His saying, \"You shall not steal\" (Leviticus 19:11), as we explained. And robbery is the taking of something that is with another by force, duress and fighting, like the robbers in the cities do; and we were prohibited this action by His saying, \"and you shall not rob.\" Whereas exploitation is that someone else has something of value - meaning money that is coming to him - that one is holding and not giving to him; either by force or not by force, but [always] through deception. And He prohibited this action also, with His saying, \"You shall not exploit.\" And in the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2:9): \"'You shall not exploit' - monetary exploitation. And which is that? One who retains the wage of a wage-worker\" - and all that is similar to it. However the example is that of a wage-worker, because it is a full obligation upon you - even though he did not give you money from himself and money did not come to you from him; nevertheless since he came to you with a well-known obligatory arrangement, [you are] obligated. And this prohibition about this matter has already been repeated, and He took the example of this matter itself and said, \"Do not exploit the worker, who is poor and destitute\" (Deuteronomy 24:14). His intention with this is, do not exploit a worker, since he is poor and destitute - as He said about him, \"neither shall the sun set upon it, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 24:15). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 278:1) is, \"'Do not exploit the laborer, who is poor and destitute' - is it not already stated, 'you shall not rob?' It [hence] teaches that anyone who retains the wage of a wage-worker transgresses, 'You shall not exploit,' 'you shall not rob,' 'there shall not abide,' and on account of, 'You must pay him his wage on the same day' (Deuteronomy 24:15).\" And there (Sifrei Devarim 278:2), they said in explanation of, \"poor and destitute\": \"'Poor and destitute' - I hasten to exact payment for one who is poor and destitute.\" And the one who transgresses exploitation has the same law as a robber. [This is from] His saying, \"and denies to his kinsman, a deposit or a pledge or robbery or exploitation from his countryman\" (Leviticus 5:21). (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 1)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - that we not deny obligations that we are indebted and deposits held by us. And that is His saying, \"you shall not deny\" (Leviticus 19:11); and it is explained that the verse is speaking about money. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2:3) is \"Since it is stated, 'and denies it and swears falsely' (Leviticus 5:22), we have heard the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not deny.'\" And you already know that one who denies a deposit [being held by him] is disqualified from testimony - even though he did not swear - since he transgressed the negative commandment, \"you shall not deny.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Shevuot. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Oaths 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from swearing [falsely] about the denial of money that is incumbent upon us [to pay]. And that is His saying, \"and do not lie to your kinsman\" (Leviticus 19:11). The example about this is that when he denies the deposit, he transgresses, \"you shall not deny\"; and when he swears falsely about his denial, he transgresses, \"do not lie.\" And in the Sifra: \"'And do not lie ' - what do we learn to say [from it]? Since it states, 'and swears falsely about it' (Leviticus 5:22), we have learned the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and do not lie.'\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the fifth [chapter] of Shevuot. And there (Shevuot 20b), it is explained that one who swore falsely about the denial of money, transgresses two negative commandments - on account of, \"You shall not swear falsely by My name\" (Leviticus 19:12); and on account of, \"do not lie.\" (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Oaths 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited some of us from wronging others of us in trade and in buying and selling. And that is His saying, \"When you surely sell, etc., you shall not wrong your brother\" (Leviticus 25:14). And in the Sifra (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 4:1), they said, 'The verse is speaking about financial wrong.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the fourth [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sales 11.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited some of us from wronging others of us with words. And that is that we say statements to [someone] that anger him or bewilder him, such that he cannot stand up to them, due to his being shamed. Such as [if] you remind him of the actions of his youth, and he has repented from them - but you say to him, \"Who brought you from out of thing x to this proper condition?\" And it is about this that it is stated, \"you shall not wrong\" (Leviticus 25:17) - that is wronging of words. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 4:1-2) is, \"'And you shall not wrong, one person his kinsman' - this is wronging of words. If he were a penitent, he should not be told, 'Remember what your former deeds were like, etc.' He should not say, 'how much is this object,' [when he knows he will not purchase it].\" And they said (Bava Metzia 58b), \"Wronging of words is greater (worse) than financial wrong. For with financial wrong, it is stated, 'you shall not wrong'; whereas with wronging of words, He said, 'and you will fear your God.'\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in [Chapter] 1 of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sales 11.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from wronging the convert with words. And that is His stating, \"You shall not wrong a convert\" (Exodus 22:20). And the prohibition was repeated with His saying, \"you shall not wrong him\" (Leviticus 19:33). And in the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8:2): \"You shall not say to him, 'Yesterday you worshipped idolatry, and now you have entered under the wings of the Divine Presence.'\" (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Sales 14.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from wronging the convert and causing him damage in buying and selling. And that is His saying, \"and you shall not oppress him\" (Exodus 22:20). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:20:1) is,\"'You shall not oppress him,' is with money.\" And it has already been explained in the Gemara, Metzia (Bava Metzia 59b), that one who wrongs the convert transgresses on account of, \"you shall not wrong your brother\" (Leviticus 25:14), and on account of, \"You shall not wrong a convert\"; and one who oppresses him, transgresses on account of, \"and you shall not oppress him,\" in addition to the prohibition in which he is included with all of Israel - meaning to say, financial wrong. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Sales 14.) " + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from returning, a slave who ran away from outside of the Land to the Land of Israel, to his master. And even though his master is an Israelite - since he ran away from outside of the Land - he is not returned to him. Rather, he should free him and write his value against him as a debt [to his master]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not turn over a slave to his master\" (Deuteronomy 23:16). And it is explained in Gittin (Gittin 45a) that the verse is speaking about a slave that is running away from outside of the Land to the Land of Israel, such that the law about him is that [the Israelite who found him] should write a deed of obligation for his value against him, and write him a bill of emancipation. But under no circumstances should he be made to go back to being a slave, [so as to allow] him to reside in the place of purity chosen for the glorious assembly. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained there. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 8.)" + ], + [ + "That He also prohibited us from wronging a slave that runs away to us. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"With you shall he dwell among you [...], where it is good for him; you shall not wrong him\" (Deuteronomy 23:17). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 259:7) is, \"'You shall not wrong him' - that is wronging of words.\" For just as as He, may He be exalted, prohibited wronging the convert [with] a negative commandment, due to his weakness and disgrace; so did He also add a third negative commandment about the wronging of a slave - for he is weaker and more lowly than the convert - such that you not say, \"This slave will not be shamed by wronging of words.\" And it is clear that this slave that Scripture is speaking about and the convert, the wronging of which the law prohibited, are in fact those that took [observance of] the Torah upon themselves. And these are the righteous converts (gerei tsedek). (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 8.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from afflicting the orphan and the widow - as it is stated (Exodus 22:21), \"You shall not afflict any widow or orphan.\" And this prohibition includes, not to afflict them with words or with deeds. Rather, one should speak goodly and soft words with them, do business with them and allow them to live well and happily. And one should intend to be expansive in all of this, such that one who falls short in any part of this transgresses this [commandment]. And the punishment for this negative commandment has already been explained. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and I shall kill you\" (Exodus 22:21). (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 6.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from working the Hebrew (Jewish) slave with work that involves great affliction and lowliness, like the work of a Canaanite (gentile) slave. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"you may not work him like a slave\" (Leviticus 25:39). And in the Sifra (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 7:2): \"He shall not carry a linta after you, and he shall not carry your things after you to the bath-house.\" And a linta is a small mat that he sits upon when he is tired, such that the slave takes it and walks upon it behind his master. And likewise is one prohibited from doing anything that is similar to this servitude to a Hebrew slave. Rather he commands him about that which he would command a worker or a craftsman, to do a particular job that he agreed with him about. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Like a worker or resident laborer shall he be with you\" (Leviticus 25:40). (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us - that we not sell a Hebrew (Jewish) slave exactly in the way that the Canaanite (gentile) slaves are sold. And that is that they would stand them up in a place where they would sell slaves, proclaim them and have buyers bid for them. One may not do this under any circumstances. Rather [one should sell them] privately and in a pleasant way. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Behar, Section 6:1) is, \"'They shall not be sold as slaves are sold' - that they not be stood up in public and sold on the auction block.\" And this prohibition, without a doubt, includes a prohibition for one who steals (kidnaps) a Jewish soul - that he would sell him. For he would sell him by force, as he would do with a Canaanite slave; so he would transgress His, may He be blessed, saying, \"they shall not be sold as slaves are sold\" (Leviticus 25:42). And this was already mentioned earlier (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 243); and Scripture (Exodus 21:16) already explained that he be killed. And the regulations of this commandment, along with the one before it, have already been explained in the Gemara, Kiddushin, Chapter 1. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from working a Hebrew (Jewish) slave with something that we do not need. And that is called oppressive work (avodat perech). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"You shall not rule over him oppressively\" (Leviticus 25:43). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Behar, Section 6:2) is, \"'You shall not rule over him oppressively' - that [he] should not tell him, 'Heat up this cup [of water] for me,' but he does not need it,\" and all that is similar to this. However they brought an example from the easiest of jobs and the simplest of them - that in spite of that, it is not permissible except when it is needed. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from allowing an idolater that dwells in our land to work a Hebrew (Jewish) slave that sold himself, with oppressive work. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"he shall not rule over him oppressively before your eyes\" (Leviticus 25:53). And we should not say, \"Since this Hebrew slave transgressed against himself and sold himself to the idolater, let us leave him - and whatever happens, will happen; and whatever he will do to him, he will do.\" Rather we order this idolater about this, and prevent him from working him with oppressive work. (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us - that we not sell a Hebrew (Jewish) maidservant to someone besides ourselves. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Chapter 1 of Kiddushin. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Slaves 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited afflicting a Hebrew (Jewish) maidservant if one acquires her and marries her. [This] means to say, that we not reduce her food, her clothing or her time, by way of affliction and hurt. And that is His saying, \"he shall not diminish her she'er (food), her clothing and her time\" (Exodus 21:10). And this prohibition includes anyone who marries an Israelite woman - that he should not afflict her with any of these things, by way of hurt and distress. And that is His saying about a Hebrew maidservant - about whom He prohibited preventing her from her food, her clothing and her time - \"according to the ordinance of the daughters shall he do to her\" (Exodus 21:10). Behold, He informed us that the ordinance of the daughters is that he not prevent food, clothing and time from them. And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:9:2), \"Now what do we learn from 'the ordinance of the daughters?' It comes to teach [about a maidservant], but it ends up learning [about daughters in general].\" And there (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:10:2), they said, \"'Her she'er' is food; 'her clothing,' is as it is understood; and 'her time,' is the way of the world (conjugal rights).\" (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Marriage 14.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us - that we not sell a [captive] woman of beautiful form (yefat toar), after one had sexual intercourse with her once, after the capture of the city. And if he sells her, he is lashed, as is explained in its place. And that is His saying, \"And it shall be that if you do not desire her, etc., but to sell; you may not sell her for money\" (Deuteronomy 21:14). (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from exploiting a captive woman (yefat toar) after one has sexual intercourse with her. [This] means to say that he does not work her and leave her to be like one of the other maidservants that serve as slaves. And that is His saying, \"you shall not exploit her, since you have afflicted her\" (Deuteronomy 21:14). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 214:5) is, \"'You shall not exploit her' - you shall not use her.\" Behold it has been made clear to you that these two negative commandments are prohibiting two separate matters. And that is that He prohibits from selling her to someone besides him; and also from leaving her with him in the manner of slavery. Rather he should do, like that which He, may He be exalted, commanded - \"you shalt let her go where she will.\" And so did they explain in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 85b) about one who kidnaps a soul, from His saying, \"and he exploited him and sold him\" (Deuteronomy 24:7). They said, \"It is from when he brings him into his domain and uses him.\" And the laws of the captive woman have been explained in the first [chapter] of Kiddushin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from putting our thoughts to fabricating machinations in order to acquire that which is in the possession of our other brothers (fellow Jews). And that is His saying, \"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house\" (Exodus 20:14). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:14:3) is, \"'You shall not covet' - perhaps even if one covets with speech? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not covet the silver and gold' (Deuteronomy 7:25). Just as there, [he is not liable] until he performs an act, so [too], here [he is not liable] until he performs an act.\" Behold it has been made clear to you that this negative commandment prohibits us from tricks that [enable] us to take our brother's property, that we have been coveting, for ourselves - even when we buy it and give him money. Whoever does any of this is surely transgressing, \"You shall not covet.\" (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from putting our thoughts to coveting that which is our brothers' (fellow Jews), and to desire it. For this is the entranceway to fabricating machinations in order to acquire it. And the language of the prohibition about this content is His saying, \"you shall not desire your neighbor’s house\" (Deuteronomy 5:18). And these two negative commandments are not about the same content. Rather the first negative commandment - and that is, \"You shall not covet\" - is prohibiting the acquisition of what is someone else's; whereas the second negative commandment prohibits even only to desire it in our hearts. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:14:2) is, \"Here (Exodus 20:14) it states 'You shall not covet,' and later, it says, 'You shall not desire' - to make liable for desiring in itself, and for coveting in itself.\" And there, they said, \"From where [do we know] that if one desires; in the end, he will covet? As it is stated, 'Do not desire [...] and you will not covet.' From where [do we know] that if he does covet; in the end, he will use force and steal? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and they will covet fields and steal [them]' (Micah 2:2).\" And the explanation of this is that if he saw something nice with someone else: If his thought about it overwhelms him and he desires it, he has transgressed, \"You shall not desire.\" But if he becomes occupied with the love of that thing, to the point that he makes efforts to bring it to himself - and he does not cease from begging him and pressuring him to sell it to him or to trade it to him for something better than it - behold he has already also transgressed, \"you shall not covet.\" Once he acquired the thing that belonged to his fellow, who did not want to sell it - but he pressured him and tricked him, until he acquired it and it became his - he has already transgressed two negative commandments, \"You shall not desire,\" and, \"You shall not covet.\" However if that man prevented himself from selling or exchanging [it] - on account of his own love for that thing - [the man who desires it] will surely take it by duress and force, as a result of the intensity of his soul's longing for that thing. He will [then] transgress the prohibition of, \"you shall not rob.\" Behold, that is the difference between, \"You shall not desire,\" and, \"You shall not covet.\" (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the worker from eating from something that he is working on, during the time of his work (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Hiring 12:3 and Hagahot Maimoniyot there), when it is attached to the ground. And that is His saying, \"but do not lift a sickle over your fellow’s standing grainstalks\" (Deuteronomy 23:26). They said, \"'But a sickle,' is to include anyone with a sickle, at the time of the sickling.\" Meaning, at the time of the harvest, do not harvest for yourself. And it is already known that this verse is speaking about a worker. So when it says, \"When you enter,\" it means to say with it, \"When you, the worker, entered\" - like the Targum (Onkelos Deuteronomy 23:26) said, \"when you are hired.\" And likewise in Metzia (Bava Metzia 87a), they said, \"These eat according to the Torah - one involved with the attached [produce] at the time of the work's end.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained there. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Hiring 12.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the worker from taking more than he can eat from something that he is working on. And that is His saying, \"you may eat grapes as you desire, to your satisfaction, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 23:25). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. And there,what is permitted for him to eat and what he does not have permission to eat is explained - such that if he eats it, he transgresses, \"but you may not place it in your vessel.\" (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Hiring 12.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from ignoring a lost object. Rather we must take it and return it to is owners. And that is His saying, \"you may not remain indifferent\" (Deuteronomy 22:1). And we have already explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 204) about their saying in the Mekhilta (Sifrei Devarim 222:2) regarding the matter of a lost object, \"We have found to learn that one transgresses a positive and a negative commandment.\" And the language of the Gemara (Bava Metzia 30a) is, \"Returning a lost object is a positive commandment and a negative commandment.\" And in Mishneh Torah (Deuteronomy), He repeated the prohibition about this content, and the negative commandment appears in it. And that is His saying, \"You may not observe your brother’s ox or his sheep straying.\" And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 222:2): \"'You may not observe' - that is a negative commandment. And earlier, He says, 'If you encounter, you must surely return' (Exodus 23:4) - that is a positive commandment.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the second [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 11.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from forsaking someone forlorn with a load stuck on the road. Rather we must help him, and unload it from him, until it is set for him to carry it; or raise up his load together with him - whether on his back or on his animal - as it is explained in Mishneh Torah (Deuteronomy). And that is His saying, \"and would forbear to unload it\" (Exodus 23:5). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:5:1) is, \"'And would forbear to unload it; you shall surely unload it with him' - we have found to learn that he transgresses a positive and a negative commandment.\" And a separate negative commandment also appears about this content. And that is His saying, \"Do not observe your brother’s donkey\" (Deuteronomy 22:4). And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 225:1): \"'Do not observe' - that is a negative commandment. And earlier, it says, 'When you see' - that is a positive commandment.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the second [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 13.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the doing of inequity in the measurement of land and of weights. And that is His saying, \"You shall not commit injustice in judgement; in measure, etc.\" (Leviticus 19:35). And the explanation of the verse according to that which appears in the tradition about it is, \"You shall not commit injustice in the judgement of the measure.\" And they said in explanation of the content of this negative commandment (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8:5), \"'You shall not commit injustice in judgment' - if this is to a judge, it is already written, (viz. Leviticus 19:15). If so, why is it stated, 'in judgment?' It is to teach that a measurer is called a judge.\" And there (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8:6), they said, \"'Of the measure' - that is the measure of the land\" - meaning to say, the measuring out and its division that one does upon it should be according to that which is required by the rules of mathematics that are exacting in measure, and knowledge of the true geometry for [use upon] them; and that he should not use imagined reckonings for this - as is done by most of the people - for they lack truth. \"In weight,\" includes weights and scales. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Theft 6.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from having weights and measures that are deficient, with us in our homes - even though one does not buy and sell with them. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You are not to have for yourself in your pouch varying weight-stones, large and small\" (Deuteronomy 25:13); and likewise, \"varying ephah measurements\" (Deuteronomy 25:14). And the language of the Gemara, Batra (Bava Batra 89b), is, \"It is prohibited for a person to keep in his house a measure that is deficient or inflated, even if [he only uses it as] a chamber pot for urine.\" And you should not think that His saying, \"You are not to have for yourself [...] \"varying ephah measurements\"; and \"You are not to have for yourself [...] varying weight-stones\" - [signifies] that they are two [distinct] negative commandments. Indeed, it is coming to round out the laws of the commandment, so that the types of measures are explained - and they are weight and measurement. It is as if He would say, \"You should not have two measures with you - not for measuring, and not for weighing,\" as we explained in the Positive Commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 208). And His saying, \"You are not to have for yourself [...] varying weight-stones\"; and \"You are not to have for yourself [...] varying ephah measurements\" - is like His saying, \"You shall not charge interest to your brother; interest of money, interest of food, interest of anything upon which interest can be charged\" (Deuteronomy 23:20) - which is one negative commandment that includes many types, all of which have the very same content. And it is not from the repetition of language that there is an expansion of commandments, as we discussed earlier in Principle 9. And something like this negative commandment already came before us; and that is His saying, \"\"no chametz may be seen [...], and no leaven may be seen\" (Exodus 13:7). (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Theft 7.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from doing inequity in judgement. That is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not commit injustice in judgement\" (Leviticus 19:15). And the content of this negative commandment is that one not go against the rules that the Torah established to make [someone] liable for something or to make him exempt from it. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 20.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge from taking a bribe from the disputants, even to judge truthfully. That is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not take a bribe\" (Exodus 23:8). And the prohibition about this content has already been repeated. And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 144:10): \"'You shall not take a bribe' - even to exculpate the innocent and to inculpate the guilty.\" And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in [various] places in Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 23.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge from honoring one of the disputants during the case. And even if [the disputant] is great, honored and of stature, he should not show him favor in the case when he comes in front of him with his [fellow] disputant; and he should not inquire about his affairs and doings. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"and you shall not favor the face of the great one\" (Leviticus 19:15). And in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:3): \"Do not say, 'He is a wealthy man, the son of great ones. How can I shame him?' Hence it is stated, 'and you shall not favor the face of the great one.'\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in [various] places in Sanhedrin and Shevuot. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 23.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge from being afraid of a man who is destructive, injurious and speaks haughtily; such that [the judge] should not incline the verdict towards him. Rather he is obligated to decide the verdict [truthfully] and not pay attention to what will happen to him in terms of injury from this man. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"do not fear any man\" (Deuteronomy 1:17). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 17:5) is, \"'Do not fear' - lest you say, 'I am afraid of that man, lest he kill me, or lest he burn my stacks or lest he cut down my plants.' [Hence] we learn to say, 'do not fear any man.'\" (See Parashat Devarim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 23.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge from having compassion on the poor person in a case. Rather he should make the rich and poor the same, and force him to repay what he is obligated to repay. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Do not favor the poor in his dispute\" (Exodus 23:3). And the prohibition of this content was repeated with a different language; and that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"you shall not raise the face of the indigent one\" (Leviticus 19:15). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:3) is \"'You shall not raise the face of the indigent one' - that you not say, 'He is a poor man; and since I and this rich man are obligated to sustain him, I shall vindicate him in judgment, so that he can support himself honorably.' [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not raise the face of the indigent one.'\" (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 2.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge, when he knows that [a disputant] is an evildoer and sinful, to incline his judgement [against him]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Do not incline the judgment for your needy in his dispute\" (Exodus 23:6). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:6:1) is, \"[When] an evildoer and a righteous man stand in front of you, do not say, 'Since he is an evildoer, I will incline his judgment [against him]. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Do not incline the judgment for your needy in his dispute' - one who is needy regarding commandments.\" Meaning, even though he is needy regarding commandments, do not incline his judgement [against him]. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 2.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge - that he not have mercy upon someone who killed his fellow, or destroyed one of his limbs. [This is] meaning to say - concerning the penalties - he should not say, \"This one is poor, and he cut off [the other's] leg or blinded his eye unintentionally. I will have mercy upon him and give charity towards him with the punishment.\" And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"Let your eye not pity him, and remove the innocent blood from Israel, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 19:13). (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge from slanting the judgement of converts and orphans. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"You shall not slant the judgment of a stranger and an orphan\" (Deuteronomy 24:17). And behold it has already been explained that one who slants the judgment of an Israelite transgresses a negative commandment; and that is His saying, \"You shall not commit injustice in judgement\" (Leviticus 19:15). So if he slanted the judgment of a convert, he transgresses two negative commandments. And if he was a convert and an orphan, he transgresses three negative statements. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 20.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge - not to listen to one of the disputants when it is not in front of his [adversary]. And that is His saying, \"You must not carry a false rumor\" (Exodus 23:1). For usually the words of a diputant that are not in front of his [fellow] dipuatant are false. And He warned the judge from listening to those words, so that the image [created] by these words - that have no uprightness and have no truth to them - do not enter his soul. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:1:1) is, \"'You must not carry a false rumor' - that is a prohibition to a judge not to hear the words of one disputant until the other is with him; and it is a prohibition to the disputant not to state his case to the judge until his fellow [dipuatant] arrives.\" And to prohibit this very same content, He said, \"Keep far from a false matter\" (Exodus 23:7) - as it is explained in the fourth [chapter] of Shevuot (Shevuot 31a). And they said that also included in this negative commandment is the prohibition against one who speaks evil speech, one who accepts it and one who testifies with false testimony, as it is explained in Makkot (Makkot 23a). (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 21.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the judge - to not veer according to the majority when the advantage is only one man. And the explanation of this is that when there is a disagreement between the judges about a sinner; and some say he is liable for the death penalty and others of them say he is exempt, and the ones who incriminate him count one more man than the ones acquitting - it is surely not permissible to kill that sinner. So God prohibited the judge to kill him until there are two more that incriminate than acquit. And that is His saying, \"Do not incline after many for evil\" (Exodus 23:2). [This] means to say, you should not be pulled by every majority in the case of a death penalty. And that [it is dealing with such a case is indicated by] its specifying, \"for evil.\" And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:2:1) is, \"[If] eleven acquit and twelve incriminate, I may understand that he is liable. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Do not incline after many for evil.'\" And there (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 23:2), they said, \"Incline for good with the voice of one; but for evil with the voice of two.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the fourth [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the judge from inclining towards the opinion of another judge, by way of relying upon him in incriminating the guilty or acquitting the innocent - without the matter being understood by him, according to his own analysis and intellect, based on the principles of the Torah. And that is His saying, \"and do not answer in the dispute, to incline\" (Exodus 23:2). This means, do not seek to incline in a dispute - and that is that you incline with the majority or with the great [scholars], and that you remain silent about what your opinion is in this case. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 23:2) is, \"'Do not answer' - that you not say at the time of the count (vote), 'It is sufficient for me to be like Mr. x.' Rather say what is in front of you. Perhaps financial cases [are like this] as well? [Hence] we learn to say, 'after many to incline.'\" And also from this negative commandment is the prohibition on the one who was arguing for acquittal - that he not go back and argue for incrimination - from His saying, \"do not answer in the dispute.\" And likewise that we reconvene for acquittal, but not for incrimination; and likewise [that] we do not begin [a case] with the great [judge]. Indeed, all of these things were learned out from His saying, \"and do not answer in the dispute,\" as it is explained in Chapter 4 of Sanhedrin. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained there. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the Great Court and the head of the yeshiva - not to appoint as a judge, a man who is not learned in the discipline of Torah, on account of other virtues that he has, to appoint him because of them. He is surely prohibited from this. Rather the Torah does not glance in its appointment at anything besides a man's dexterity in the discipline of Torah, his knowing its commands and its prohibitions and his behavior and steadfastness in good deeds that are fitting for this [position]. And it prohibited him from appointing an appointee because of other virtues; and that is His saying, \"You must not show any partiality\" (Deuteronomy 1:17). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 17:1) is, \"'You must not show' - this is [addressed to] one who is appointed to seat judges.\" [This] means to say that this prohibition is indeed for the man that appoints the judges over Israel - that he is prohibited - that he not appoint them on account of what we said above. \"Lest you will say, 'That man is handsome, I will seat him as judge; that man is powerful,' or 'knows all the languages, I will seat him as a judge' - such that he exonerates the guilty and incriminates the innocent. [This is] not because he is evil, but because he is not an expert. Hence He said, 'You must not show.'\" (See Parashat Devarim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 13.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited giving false testimony. And that is His saying, \"You shall not testify against your neighbor false testimony\" (Exodus 20:13). And this has been repeated with a different language; and that is His saying, \"vain testimony\" (Deuteronomy 5:17). And the Torah has already decreed about this negative commandment, \"You shall do to him as he schemed\" (Deuteronomy 19:19). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:13:3) is \"'You shall not testify against your neighbor' - that is the prohibition for scheming witnesses.\" And there is also lashes for [violation of] this negative commandment, as is explained at the beginning of Makkot (Makkot 2b). (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Testimony 17.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the judge - that he not accept testimony of a sinner and not do anything based on his testimony. And that is His saying, \"Do not place your hand with an evildoer to be a violent witness\" (Exodus 23:1). And the explanation appeared (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:1:2) - \"Do not make a violent one a witness; to exclude thugs and robbers from being witnesses - as it is stated, 'If a violent witness rise up' (Deuteronomy 19:16).\" And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Chapter 3 of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Testimony 10.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge from accepting the testimony of some relatives for others. And that is His saying, \"Fathers shall not be put to death for children\" (Deuteronomy 24:16). And the received explanation appeared in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 280:1), that fathers should not be put to death from the testimony of children, nor children from testimony of fathers. And the same is the law with monetary cases. However He mentioned capital cases by way of amplification: That we not say that since this is the loss of life, we should not suspect the relative about it, but rather use his testimony - for his testimony is for the loss of his relative's life, so this is not the place to suspect him. And that is why He took the example of the first of the relatives and the greatest love. And that is the love of a father for a child, and of a child for a father. And behold one will [then] say, since we do not accept the testimony of a father for the child, even to make him liable for the death penalty - is it not all the more so that other relatives will not be accepted? And this is a Scriptural decree (gezerat hakatuv) - it has no explanation in any way. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Chapter 3 of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Testimony 10.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge to declare punishments, or to make one liable for money, with the testimony of one witness - even if he was most fit. And that is His saying, \"One witness may not arise against a man about any sin\" (Deuteronomy 19:15). And they said (Shevuot 40a), \"He may not arise 'about any sin,' but he may arise [to obligate someone in taking] an oath.\" And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Chapter 9 of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Testimony 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge - not to kill someone clean and innocent. And that is His saying, \"You shall not murder\" (Exodus 20:15). (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge to declare punishments by way of strong conjectures, and even when it is almost certain. For example, that one man is running after his enemy to kill him; and in order to escape from him, he enters a house; but then the pursuer runs behind him. And others enter after him and find the pursued in death throes, while his enemy that was pursuing him is standing over him, the knife dripping blood in the hand - the [court] may not kill him, from the angle of executing the punishment, since witnesses are not testifying that they saw the killing. And the prohibition about killing this one comes in the Torah; and that is His saying, \"do not kill an innocent righteous man\" (Exodus 23:7). And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:7:2), they said, \"If they saw him pursuing another to kill him, and they warned him and said to him, 'He is an Israelite, he is a Son of the Covenant; and if you kill him, you shall be killed.' But they averted their eyes, and found [the one pursued] in the death throes, the knife dripping blood in the hand of the murderer - I might understand that he is liable [for the death penalty. Hence] we learn to say, 'do not kill an innocent righteous man.'\" And do not dismiss this and wonder about this law. For among possible things, there are things that are very likely, things very unlikely and things in between; so that there is a wide spectrum of what is possible. And if the Torah had permitted declaring capital punishments in very probable cases - when it is very close to actuality, like the case of our example - we would declare the punishment in that which is a little removed from this, and [eventually] also in that which is far removed. Until they would declare the punishments and kill people with a weak conjecture, according to the imagination of the judge and his thought. Therefore He, may He be exalted, closed this opening and said that he not declare the punishment until witnesses testify that they know with certainty that this one did the act - without a doubt and without any guesswork at all. And when we do not declare punishments based on strong appearances, the end result is surely that we will acquit the sinner. But if we declare punishments based on appearances and conjecture, we would surely sometimes kill someone innocent. And likewise when two witnesses testify to two sins, each of which has a death penalty. For example, one of the two saw him transgressing one [sin] alone, and the other saw him transgressing the other - behold, this one is not killed. And the example about this is such as if one testifies that he did work on Shabbat and warned him; and the other testified that he worshipped idolatry and warned him - this one is not stoned. They, may their memory be blessed, said, \"[If] one testified against him, 'He worshipped the sun,' and another testified against him, 'He worshipped the moon,' I might understand that they combine [to constitute the necessary two witnesses. Hence] we learn to say, 'do not kill an innocent righteous man.'\" (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 20.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the witness from speaking about the case about which he testified. And even if he is a sage and knowledgeable, he may not be a witness, [as well as] a judge and a claimant. Rather he must testify about what he saw and be silent; and the judges will do with his testimony what seems fit to them. And the prohibition comes to not speak anything beyond the testimony - but this is only about capital cases. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die\" (Numbers 35:30). And the prohibition about this was repeated with His saying, \"at the mouth of one witness, he shall not be put to death\" (Deuteronomy 17:6) - meaning to say, he shall not be put to death from the claim of the witness. And in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 33b), they said, \"'But one witness shall not testify against any person' - whether to exonerate or to incriminate.\" And they explained [that] the reason for this is because it is as if he is predisposed towards his testimony. But it is only in capital cases that it is forbidden [for a witness] to argue - whether for acquittal or for incrimination. (See Parashat Masei; Mishneh Torah, Testimony 5.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us from killing those liable for the death penalty - when we see that they have already done a sin for which one is liable for death - before their coming to the court. Rather we must perforce bring him to the court and testify about him in front of them like witnesses. So we will be the witnesses for the court; and they will judge him for what he is liable. And the prohibition that appears about this matter is His saying, \"so that the murderer will not die until he stands before the congregation in judgment\" (Numbers 35:12). And the language of the Mekhilta is, \"Perhaps they kill him from when he has killed or from when he has been adulterous? [Hence] we learn to say, 'until he stands before the congregation.'\" And even if it is the Great Court that saw him kill and they are all witnesses, they take their testimony to another court and the other [court] judges him. And in the Mekhilta: \"Behold, a congregation that saw one kill a person - perhaps they kill him? [Hence] we learn to say, 'until he stands before the congregation'\" - until he stands before the court. (See Parashat Masei; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited us - that we not have compassion upon a pursuer. And the explanation of this is that that which we mentioned in the commandment before this about saving the sinner, such that the witnesses not kill him before the court judges him - that is however when he sinned and did the act for which one is liable for the death penalty and completed it. However at the time that he is making efforts and seeking to do it, he is then called a pursuer - and it is an obligation upon us to prevent him from doing what his heart desires and to stop him, in order to prevent him from the sin. But if the does not want to listen to us, we fight against him: If we can prevent it by destroying one of his limbs - such as if we cut off his hand or his foot or blind his eye - behold that is preferable. But if it is impossible to prevent it without [killing him] - he must surely be killed, so that he does not do that evil act. So the prohibition comes [that we] not have compassion upon him and prevent ourselves from killing him. And that is His saying, \"You shall sever her hand; you are not to have compassion\" (Deuteronomy 25:12). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 293:1) is, \"It teaches that you are obligated to rescue him with her hand. And from where [do we know] that if they are not able to rescue him with her hand, they rescue him with her soul (i.e., by killing her)? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you are not to have compassion.'\" And there, they said, \"Just like his genitals are specific in that they involve a danger to life - and it is with, 'You shall sever her hand'; so [too] is everything that involves a danger to life with, 'You shall sever.'\" And that which we said, that the pursuer is to be killed, is not regarding anyone making efforts to do a transgression. However it is the same whether it is one who is pursuing his fellow to kill him - even if he is a minor - or one who is pursuing one of the forbidden sexual prohibitions to have sexual relations. And [the latter] is on condition that he is nine [years] old and a day; and it is clear that a male is among the sexual prohibitions [for a man]. And His saying, \"the betrothed maiden cried out, but there was none to save her\" (Deuteronomy 22:27), [tells us] - behold, if there was someone to save her, he must save her with everything he can. And He equated one pursuing her with one pursuing his fellow to kill him, with His saying, \"for, just as if a man rises up against his neighbor and murders him, so is this matter\" (Deuteronomy 22:26). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Sanhedrin. (See Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited punishing someone forced, for the sin that he did - since he was forced into the act. And that is His saying, \"But to the maiden, you will not do a thing\" (Deuteronomy 22:26). [And in Sanhedrin (Nedarim 27a), they said, \"The Merciful One exempted one forced, as it is stated, 'But to the maiden, you will not do a thing.'\"] (See Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the taking of ransom from an unintentional killer, so as to exempt him from exile. Rather he must be exiled under any circumstances. And that is His saying, \"And you shall not take ransom for him who fled to the city of his refuge\" (Numbers 35:32). And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Makkot. (See Parashat Masei; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the taking of ransom from an intentional murderer. Rather he must be killed under any circumstances. And that is His saying, \"And you shall not take ransom for the soul of a murderer who is liable for death\" (Numbers 35:31). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Makkot. (See Parashat Masei; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from being negligent about saving the life of someone when we see him in mortal danger, or [in a case of] loss, and we have the ability to save him - such as if he was drowning in the river and we know how to swim and are able to save him; or if a robber is trying to kill him and we are able to foil his plan or repel his injury. And the prohibition comes with His saying, \"you shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor\" (Leviticus 19:16). And they already said that one who represses [his] testimony is also included in this prohibition. For he sees the money of his fellow destroyed and he is able to return it to him by saying the truth. And also already appearing about this is, \"if he does not tell, he shall bear his iniquity\" (Leviticus 5:1). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:8) is, \"From where [do we know] that if you know testimony for someone, you are not permitted to remain silent? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor.' And from where [do we know] that if you see someone drowning in the river, or animals or robbers coming against him, you are obligated to rescue him? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor.'\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from leaving obstacles and stumbling blocks in our land and in our homes, so that people not die from them. And that is His saying, \"and do not place blood in your house\" (Deuteronomy 22:8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 229:6) is, \"'You shall make a railing for your roof' - that is a positive commandment. 'And do not place blood in your house' - that is a negative commandment.\" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 1 of Shekalim and in the Order of Nezikin. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 11.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited some of us from making others stumble. And that is if a person asks you for advice about something, you fool him. And this prohibition comes to prevent deceiving him and making him stumble. Rather you should set him straight about a matter that you think is [actually] good and straight. And this is [the meaning] of its stating, \"you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind\" (Leviticus 19:14). And the language of [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2:14) is, \"To the one who is blind about a certain matter and who [hence] takes advice from you, do not give advice that is not proper.\" And this negative commandment also includes one who helps another [do] a sin or enables it. For he brought that person to iniquity and made him stumble with his assistance; such that the blindness came back to seduce [the sinner], and he helped him complete his sin or arranged to enable the sin. And from such angles, [the Sages] said about the lender and borrower with interest that both of them transgress, \"you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,\" together. For each one of them assisted his fellow and set up the other to complete his sin. And there are very many things of this sort about which they said that through them, one transgresses, \"you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.\" But the simple meaning of the verse is as we said at first. (See Parshat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murderer and the Preservation of Life 12.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the judge from striking the sinner with great lethal strikes. And the explanation of this is that the limit on all those who are liable for lashes is surely that he is lashed forty minus one, as it appears in the tradition; such that he not strike a person until he assesses the man that will be struck, according to his strength, his years, his condition and the form of his body. If he can withstand the entire striking of the punishment, he is struck [accordingly]. But if not, he is struck according to the measure of what he can withstand - [though] not less than three lashes, [based on] His saying, \"according to his wickedness in number\" (Deuteronomy 25:2). And the prohibition comes about adding - even one lash beyond the judge's assessment of what he can withstand - to his striking. And that is His saying, \"according to his wickedness in number. Forty is he to strike him, he may not add\" (Deuteronomy 25:2-3). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 286:10) is, \"If he does add, he transgresses a negative commandment. I only know of his adding to the forty. From where [do we know the same for his going beyond] each and every assessment that the court assessed? Hence we learn to say, 'he may not add, lest he add.'\" And from this prohibition is [derived] the prohibition to strike any Israelite - if we are prohibited from striking the sinner, all the more so do we not strike any [other] person. And He already prohibited us from hinting as if one will strike, even if he does not strike. They said (Sanhedrin 58b), \"Anyone who raises his hand against his fellow is called, an evildoer - as it is stated (Exodus 2:13), 'and he said to the evildoer, \"Why would you strike your fellow.\"'\" (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 16.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from being a talebearer. And that is His saying, \"Do not be a talebearer (rakhil) among your people\" (Leviticus 19:16). They said (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:5), \"You shall not be soft (rakh) with words to one and hard to the other. Another explanation: You shall not be like a merchant (rokhel), who bandies words and moves on.\" And included in this negative commandment is the prohibition of putting out a bad name. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 7.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited that some of us hate others of us. And that is His saying, \"You shall not hate your brother in your heart\" (Leviticus 19:17). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:8) is, \"I only spoke of hatred in the heart.\" However when one shows [another] hatred and informs him that he hates him, he does not transgress this negative commandment, but rather, \"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge\" (Leviticus 19:18); and he [also] transgresses a positive commandment - and that is, \"and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.\" But hatred in the heart is a stronger sin than all. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 7.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited - that some of us not embarrass others of us; and that is what is called, whitening the face of one's fellow. And the prohibition that comes about this is His saying, \"you shall surely reprove your kinsman, etc.\" (Leviticus 19:17). And in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:8): \"From where [do we know] that if he reproved him four or five times [and he did not take heed], he should keep on doing so? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall surely reprove your kinsman.' Perhaps [he must do so] even if his face changes color (in shame). [Hence] we learn to say, 'but do not bear sin because of him.'\" However the simple understanding is that He prohibited - that you not think of him as a sinner and remember it. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 7.)" + ], + [ + "That is that He prohibited - that some of us not take revenge upon some of us. And that is that a deed was done, and you do not stop seeking him out until you repay him according to his evil deed; such that you bring upon him, [just] like what he brought upon you. And He prohibited this with His saying, \"You shall not take revenge\" (Leviticus 19:18). And in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:10): \"To where does the strength of revenge extend? [If] one said to another, 'Lend me your sickle,' but he did not lend [it to] him. And the next day, the other said to him, 'Lend me your spade'; and he said to him, 'I will not lend it to you, just as you did not lend me your sickle.' Hence it is stated, 'You shall not take revenge.\" And according to this example is the paradigm for all other matters. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 7.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - that we not bear a grudge, even if we do not pay him back. And that is that we remind him of the sin that this sinner did. And He prohibited this with His saying, \"you shall not bear a grudge\" (Leviticus 19:18). And in the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:11): \"To where does the strength of grudge-bearing extend? [If] one said to another, 'Lend me your spade,' but he did not lend [it to] him. And the next day, the other said to him, 'Lend me your sickle,' and he said to him, 'Here it is; I am not like you, who did not lend me your spade.' Hence it is stated, 'You shall not take bear a grudge.'\"(See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 7.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - that we not take the nest at the time of the snare - the mother and the young. And that is His saying, \"you shall not take the mother bird upon the young\" (Deuteronomy 22:6). And this negative commandment is rectified by a positive commandment; and that is, \"You must surely send away the mother, and you may take the young for yourself\" (Deuteronomy 22:7). And anytime it is [no longer] possible to send [it] away and to fulfill the positive commandment in it - such as when the mother died before he sent it away - he is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Chullin. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter 13.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited shaving off the scab [of tsaraat]. And that is His saying, \"but he shall not shave the scab\" (Leviticus 13:33). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9:7) is, \"From where [do we know] that one who tears away signs of impurity transgresses a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'but he shall not shave the scab.'\" (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from cutting off signs of impurity or burning them until their appearance changes. And that is His saying, \"Take heed of the plague of tsaraat\" (Deuteronomy 24:8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 274:1) is, \"'Take heed' - is with a negative commandment.\" And the language of the Mishnah (Mishnah Negaim 7:4) is, \"One who plucks out signs of impurity or burns healthy flesh transgresses a negative commandment.\" And he is lashed, as we have explained (Commentary on the Mishnah, Negaim). (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from working and planting in the harsh gully in which the calf was beheaded. And that is His saying, \"which shall not be worked and which shall not be planted\" (Deuteronomy 21:4). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. And in Makkot (Makkot 22a), when they mentioned those liable for lashes, they said, \"But behold, there is [also] planting a harsh gully; and its prohibition is from here - 'which shall not be worked and which shall not be planted!'\" Behold it has already been made clear to you that it is [only] one negative commandment, and that it is [punished] with lashes. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Sotah. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 10.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from keeping a sorcerer alive. And that is His saying, \"You shall not keep a sorceress alive\" (Exodus 22:17). And if we pardon him, we transgress a negative commandment - we do not only negate a positive commandment - and it is as if we pardoned one of those liable for one of the death penalties of the court. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 14.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited a groom from leaving his home in order to be involved with one of the burdens for an entire year - not to go out to war, and not for anything besides it. Rather we remove every burden and onus that he is obligated, to leave them the entire year. And that is His saying, \"neither shall he be charged with any matter; he shall be free for his home\" (Deuteronomy 24:5). And the Gemara, Sotah (Sotah 44a): \"'He shall not go out with the army'; it is possible that with the army he does not go out, but he does fix weapons and supplies water and food. [Hence] we learn to say, 'neither shall he be charged [with any matter.' Perhaps it is that I include even one who has built a house and has not dedicated it, one who has planted a vineyard and has not redeemed it [and] one who has betrothed a woman and has not taken her? (Hence) we learn to say, 'he be charged'] - you do not charge him, but you do charge others. But since it is derived from, 'neither shall he be charged,' why do I need, 'He shall not go out with the army?' So that he will transgress two negative statements.\" However we have already explained in Principle 9 that not everything for which we would be liable for two negative statements are [counted separately as] two commandments. And know that the groom himself is prohibited from going out of his house for trade the entire year (In Radbaz Part I:238, he wrote that this is a copier's mistake). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Sotah. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6-7.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from dissenting against those who are the masters of the tradition and against their derivations from the commandments through the [methods] of Torah. And that is His saying, \"you shall not turn aside from the thing that they tell you, right or left\" (Deuteronomy 17:11). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 154:4) is, \"'You shall not turn aside' - that is a negative commandment.\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment is a rebellious elder; and is liable for strangulation - and that is according to the received conditions explained at the end of Sanhedrin.(See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 11.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from adding to the Torah, both to what is written and to what is received. And that is His saying, \"do not add to it\" (Deuteronomy 13:1). And in the explanation, they said in many places, \"and he transgresses on account of, do not add\"; \"you have transgressed, do not add.\" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from subtracting from the Torah, neither from what is written nor from what is received. And that is His saying, \"and do not subtract from it\" (Deuteronomy 13:1). And in many places, they said, \"and he transgresses on account of, do not subtract\"; \"you have transgressed, do not subtract.\" (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 2.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from cursing a judge. And that is His saying, \"You shall not curse the powers\" (Exodus 22:27). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 26.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from cursing a nassi (elevated one). And that is His saying, \"and do not maledict a nassi among your people\" (Exodus 22:27). And this title - meaning to say, nassi - was placed by Scripture upon a king who has power. It said [about a king], \"If a nassi sins.\" But the sages placed it on the head of the academy of seventy elders. And in all of the Talmud and the Mishnah, they said, \"the nessiim and the heads of the court.\" And in their language (Sanhedrin 19b), \"'[In the case of] a nassi who forwent his honor, his honor is forgiven (it is effective); [of] a king who forwent his honor, his honor is not forgiven (it is not effective).\" And know that this negative commandment includes [the rabbinic] nassi, along with the king. For the content of this negative commandment is that it prohibits cursing anyone who has the power to command and is at the highest level - whether it is governmental or pertaining to Torah. And [the latter] is the head of the academy; and that is what is understood from the law of this commandment. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 26.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from cursing any Israelite person. And that is His saying, \"You shall not curse a deaf person\" (Leviticus 19:14). And understand the content of this, 'deaf person,' from me: And that is that when the spirit is moved to take revenge upon the injurer according to the nature of the imagined injury - behold it will not veer from its activity until the injurer is repaid according to the injury recorded by the imagination. And when his repayment is complete, the activity then departs from the imagination. So sometimes he will repay him only with a curse and disparagement, and his mind will be calmed by the measure of injury caused by those statements and by the disparagement. But sometimes the matter will be harsher, and the activity will not be stilled until he destroys [the offender's] property. Then his mind is calmed by the measure of pain caused to [the other] by the loss of his property. However sometimes the matter is [even] harsher, such that he will not be calmed until he takes revenge on [the other's] body with different injuries and the destruction of [his] limbs. And sometimes the matter will be harsher [still] and the [mental] activity will not cease until he takes the life of the injurer and his portion of existence; and that is the extreme. But sometimes the activity of the soul will be gentler than to seek the punishment of the injurer - due to the smallness of the crime - to the point that the activity will end with [just] yelling, anger and cursing [of the other], even though that other person does not hear [it] and is not present. And this is well-known about the actions of temperamental and angry people - that their minds are calmed from light offenses with this measure, even though the offender does not know of their anger and does not hear their disparagement. And perhaps we would have in our mind that the point of what is forbidden to us is the curse of an Israelite when he hears it, such that distress and pain come to him; but since a deaf person does not hear [it] and it does not hurt him, the curse would not be a sin. Hence Scripture is informing us that it is forbidden, and we are prohibited from [doing] it. For the Torah was not only concerned exclusively with the state of the one cursed, but also with that of the one cursing - in that it forbade him to move his soul towards vengeance, and that he not become accustomed to getting angry. And the masters of the tradition accordingly brought a proof about the cursing of any Israelite from His saying, \"You shall not curse a deaf person\": And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2:13) is, \"I only know of a deaf person. From where [do we know] to include all people? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not curse a nassi (elevated person) among your people' (Exodus 22:27). If so, why is it stated, 'a deaf person?' Just as a deaf person is distinctive in being alive [so too is it the case for anyone alive] - to exclude a dead man, who is not alive.\" And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:17:3): \"'You shall not curse a deaf person' - the most abject of people.\" And everything that we have said is on condition that it be with [God's] name. And one is also lashed when he curses himself. Behold it has already been explained that one who curses his fellow with [God's] name is transgressing a negative commandment - and that is, \"You shall not curse a deaf person.\" And one who curses a judge is transgressing two negative commandments, and is lashed twice. But one who curses a nassi is lashed three times. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:27:2) is, \"When he says, 'You shall not curse a nassi among your people,' both a nassi and a judge are implied. So what do we learn to say [from], 'You shall not curse the powers (judges)' (Exodus 22:27)? To make liable for this on its own and for that on its own. From here, they said, 'One may speak one thing and be liable on account of four things. On account of, \"You shall not curse a deaf person,\" on account of the father, on account of a judge and on account of \"a nassi among your people,\" in any event.'\" Behold, what we mentioned has become clear. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in the fourth [chapter] of Shevuot. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 26.) " + ], + [ + "He prohibited - not to curse father and mother. Indeed, the language of the Torah is clear about its punishment, when He says, \"And if one curses his father or his mother, he shall surely die\" (Exodus 21:17); and he is among those that are stoned. And even if he [only] cursed one of them with [God's] name after [the parent's] death, he is stoned. However the prohibition is not explicit in Scripture. For it does not say, \"You shall not curse your father.\" But it already preceded that a prohibition came about cursing every Israelite; and that includes a father and anyone besides him. And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:17:3), they said, \"'And if one curses his father or his mother, he shall surely die' - we have heard the punishment; from where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not curse the powers' (Exodus 22:27). If your father is a judge, behold he is included in the powers. And if he is a nassi, behold he is included in, 'and do not maledict a nassi among your people.' And if he is a boor, behold he is included in, 'You shall not curse a deaf person' (Leviticus 19:14). [If he is not a judge, not a nassi and not a deaf person,] behold, you can argue by induction (binyan av) from the three of them, according to the common element among them: That they are, 'among your people,' and you are prohibited [from] cursing them.\" And it is written in the Sifra (Sifra Kedoshim, Chapter 10:7), \"'If any man curses his father or his mother, he shall surely die' (Leviticus 20:9) - we have heard the punishment; from where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not curse the powers'\" - exactly like the language of the Mekhilta. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited hitting father and mother. And also about this is there no explicit prohibition, but He mentioned the punishment and said, \"And if one strikes his father or his mother, he shall surely die\" (Exodus 21:15). And we learned the prohibition about the one who strikes his father, in the way that we learned it about the one who curses his father. And that is since it has already been explained in Commandment 300 (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 300) that we are prohibited about hitting anyone, his father is included. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:15:4) is, \"'And if one strikes his father or his mother, etc.' - we have heard the punishment; from where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Forty is he to strike him, he may not add' (Deuteronomy 25:3). Behold these matters are a fortiori, viz.: If one who is commanded to strike one is exhorted not to strike him; his father or mother, who he is commanded not to strike, is it not the law that he is commanded not to strike him?\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment - meaning to say, he strikes his father or mother volitionally and draws blood from them - is liable for strangulation. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 5.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited doing work on the Shabbat. And that is His saying, \"you shall not do any work\" (Exodus 20:10). And Scripture explains that one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for excision - if the judge does not know about it. But if witnesses testify about it, he is liable for stoning - if it was volitional; and he is liable for a fixed sin-offering if it was inadvertent. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Shabbat. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Shabbat 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited - not walking outside of the city's perimeter on Shabbat. And that is his saying, \"let no one leave his place on the seventh day\" (Exodus 16:29). And the tradition comes about it - that the limit of walking is that it is forbidden beyond two thousand ells outside of the city, even [only] one ell. But it is permissible to walk two thousand ells in every direction. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:29:1) is \"'Let no one leave his place' - that is the two thousand ells. And in Tractate Eruvin (Eruvin 17b), they said, \"We give lashes for the prohibition of perimeters, from the Torah.\" And the regulations of this commandment have been explained there. (See Parashat Beshalach; Mishneh Torah, Shabbat 26.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited enacting the punishments against the sinners and enforcing the law against them on the Shabbat day. And that is his saying, \"You shall not kindle fire, etc. on the Shabbat day\" (Exodus 35:3). He meant with this, not to burn one liable for [the death penalty of] burning - and the law is the same for the other death penalties. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 35:3:2) is, \"'You shall not kindle fire' - burning was in the general category [of all the forbidden labors], and it left that category [for specific mention] to teach, viz.: Just as burning is specific in that it is one of the death penalties of the court, and it does not override the Shabbat; so [too], all of the death penalties of the court do not override the Shabbat.\" And behold, they said (Shabbat 70a), \"Kindling left [the category of prohibited types of work ] to be a [simple] negative commandment (as opposed to being like the other types of work, which are more grievous).\" But this is not the law. Rather, it left to differentiate [the various types of work]. And that is that one be liable for each and every type of work separately, as is explained in its place. And in the Gemara of the people of the West (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:6): \"'In all of your dwelling places' - Rabbi Ilai says in the name of Rabbi Yannai, 'From here, [we derive] for courts, that they should not judge on Shabbat.'\" (See Parashat Veyakhel; Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 24.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited doing work on the the first day of Pesach. And that is His saying, \"no work shall be done\" (Exodus 12:16). (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited doing work on the the seventh day of Pesach. And that is His saying, \"you shall not do any work of labor\" (Leviticus 23:8). (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited doing work on the day of Atzeret (Shavuot). And that is His saying, \"you shall not do any work of labor\" (Leviticus 23:21). (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited doing work on the day of Rosh Hashanah. And that is His saying, \"you shall not do any work of labor\" (Leviticus 23:25). (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited doing work on the first day of the Holiday (Sukkot). And that is His saying, \"you shall not do any work of labor\" (Leviticus 23:35). (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited doing work on the eighth day of the Holiday (Sukkot). And that is His saying, \"you shall not do any work of labor\" (Leviticus 23:36). And know that anyone who does work - whatever it may be - on one of these six days is lashed; unless it is from what is required for [the preparation of] food of sustenance (okhel nefesh). As it appears in Scripture about one of them, \"For that which will be eaten by every person (yeakhel lekhol nefesh), that alone may be done for you\" (Exodus 12:16). And the same is the law for the other holidays. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Beitzah. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited doing work on Yom Kippur. And that is His saying, \"you shall not do any work\" (Leviticus 23:28). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is [punished] with excision, as is explained in Scripture. But if it was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Tractate Beitzah, Megillah and other ones besides them. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Rest on a Holiday 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the mother. And that is His saying, \"and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover\" (Leviticus 18:7). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is [punished] with excision. And when witnesses testify against him, he is stoned if it was volitional. But if it was unintentional, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering. (From here until [Negative] Commandment 352, you will find all of the sexual prohibitions which are in Parashat Acharei Mot, see there; also see Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 1-4.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited sexual intercourse with the father's wife. And that is His saying, \"The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover\" (Leviticus 18:8). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is [punished] with excision. And when witnesses testify against him, he is stoned if it was volitional. But if it was inadvertent, he must bring a fixed sin-offering. Behold it has been made clear to you that one who has sexual intercourse with his mother is [also] liable on account of [her being] his father's wife - whether during or after the lifetime of his father, as it is explained in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 54a)." + ], + [ + "He prohibited sexual intercourse with the sister. And that is His saying, \"The nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter [...] - you shall not uncover their nakedness\" (Leviticus 18:9). And one who transgresses this negative commandment volitionally is liable for excision. But if it was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited sexual intercourse with the daughter of his father's wife, when she is is sister. And that is His saying, \"The nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife who is born to your father; she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness\" (Leviticus 18:11). And this negative commandment comes to place the daughter of the father's wife as a separate negative commandment, such that one who has sexual intercourse with his sister from his father - from his father's spouse - is liable for two: On account of [her being] his sister; and on account of [her being] the daughter of his father's wife - as we explained. And this is their language about this: They said in the second chapter of Yevamot (Yevamot 22b), \"The Sages taught, 'He who has sexual intercourse with his sister, who is the daughter of his father’s wife, is liable on account of two [sins]: On account of [her being] his sister; and on account of [her being] the daughter of his father’s wife.' Rabbi Yose ben Yehuda says, 'He is liable only on account of [her being] his sister alone.' What is the reason of the Rabbis? Since it is written (Leviticus 18:9), 'The nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter,' why do I need, 'The nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife who is born to your father?' Understand from this, [that it is] to make him liable on account of [her being] his sister and on account of [her being] the daughter of his father’s wife.\" And one who transgresses this negative commandment as well - meaning, the sister from the father and the mother - is [punished] with excision, only when it was volitional; But if it was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the daughter of the son. And that is His saying, \"The nakedness of your son's daughter [...] you shall not uncover\" (Leviticus 18:10)." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the daughter of the daughter. And that is His saying, \"The nakedness of [...] your daughter's daughter; you shall not uncover their nakedness, etc.\" (Leviticus 18:10)." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the daughter herself. But this was not explicitly made clear in the Torah; and, \"the nakedness of your daughter you shall not uncover,\" did not appear in Scripture. However since it mentioned the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter, you can take it as a proof to clarify the matter and reveal it: Since He forbade the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter - all the more so, the daughter [herself]! And in the Gemara of Yevamot (Yevamot 3a), they said, \"[With regard to] his daughter, the main aspect of this prohibition is derived by homiletical interpretation. As Rava said, 'Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me, \"[This prohibition is derived by means of a verbal analogy of the words,] theirs (hena), and they (hena); and lewdness (zimah) and lewdness (zimah).\"'\" [This] means to say that He said about the daughter of your son and daughter of your daughter, \"for theirs (hena) is your own nakedness\" (Leviticus 18:10). And He [also] said about the prohibition of a woman and her daughter and the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter, \"they (hena) are kin; it is lewdness\" (Leviticus 18:17). Just like with the prohibition of a woman and her daughter, her [actual] daughter is forbidden; so [too] with the prohibition of a daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter, is his [actual] daughter also forbidden. And He said about the punishment of \"a man who took a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned in fire, he and them\" (Leviticus 20:14). [So] likewise is a woman and the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter [punished] with burning, because, \"lewdness,\" appeared [also] about them - so we learn it from the verbal analogy [created by the common use of the word,] zimah. And regarding this punishment, the same is the law for his daughter and the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter. As we learn it about them from the verbal analogy [created by the common use of the word,] hena. For hena is written about the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter, just like it appears with a woman and her daughter. And the language of the Gemara, Keritot (Keritot 5a), is, \"A verbal analogy should never be regarded lightly in your eyes, as [the prohibition of] one’s daughter is one of the essential laws of the Torah, and Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy. It came from [the common use of] hena, and [the common use of] zimah.\" And understand their saying, \"Scripture taught it only,\" and not saying, \"and they (the Rabbis) taught it only\" - for all of these things are a tradition from the prophet (Moshe), peace be upon him. It is an explanation that was received, as we explained at the beginning of our great composition, the Commentary of the Mishnah. However Scripture [itself] refrained from mentioning it, since it was possible to have it learned from a verbal analogy. And that is the content of their saying, \"Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy.\" And it is sufficient that they said, \"one of the essential laws of the Torah.\" Behold it is explained from all that precedes that one who transgresses the negative commandment of his daughter and the daughter of his daughter and the daughter of his son is [punished] with burning. But if the testimony was not ratified, it is with excision if it was volitional. And if he was inadvertent regarding one of them, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a woman and her daughter. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover\" (Leviticus 18:17). And one who transgresses this negative commandment volitionally - and that is when one of them is his wife and he has sexual intercourse with the other - is liable for burning. But if the testimony was not ratified, it is with excision if it was volitional. And if he was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a woman and her son's daughter. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"the daughter of her son\" (Leviticus 18:17). And this is also [punished] by burning if it was volitional. But if he was inadvertent, he must bring a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a woman and her daughter's daughter. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"the daughter of her daughter\" (Leviticus 18:17). And this is [punished] by excision and burning if he was volitional. But if he was inadvertent, he must bring a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a sister of the father. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"The nakedness of your father's sister you shall not uncover\" (Leviticus 18:12). And one who transgresses this negative commandment volitionally is [punished] by excision. But [if] inadvertent, he must bring a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a sister of the mother. And that is His saying, \"The nakedness of your mother's sister you shall not uncover\" (Leviticus 18:13). And one who transgresses this negative commandment volitionally is [punished] by excision. But [if] inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the wife of the father's brother. And that is His saying, \"You shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt\" (Leviticus 18:14). And one who transgresses this negative commandment volitionally is [punished] by excision. But [if] inadvertent, he must bring a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the wife of the son. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not uncover\" (Leviticus 18:15). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is [punished] by stoning. But if the testimony was not ratified or it was not known, it is with excision if it was volitional. However if he was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering. " + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the wife of the brother. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"The nakedness of your brother's wife you shall not uncover\" (Leviticus 18:16). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is [punished] by excision if it was volitional. But [if] inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the sister of his wife during the lifetime of his wife. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, \"You shall not take a woman and her sister\" (Leviticus 18:18). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is [punished] by excision if it was volitional. But [if] inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a menstruant during the period of her impurity - meaning to say, all of the seven days. And that is His saying, \"To a woman, while in her menstrual impurity, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness\" (Leviticus 18:19). [That is] so long as she has not immersed [in a mikveh] after the seven [days]. And one who transgresses this negative commandment volitionally is liable for excision. But [if] inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a married woman. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And to the wife of your kinsman do not give your lying for seed to become unclean to her\" (Leviticus 18:20). And there are distinctions about the punishment for one that transgresses this negative commandment: And that is that [in a case of] a married woman that was [just] a betrothed maiden, both of them are liable for stoning, as Scripture explained. But if she was fully married: If she was an Israelite and fully married, they are both liable for strangulation. However if she was the daughter of a priest and fully married, her law is [the punishment of] burning, and he - meaning the one who had intercourse [with her] - is [punished] with strangulation. And that is when the testimony is ratified. But if he was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering. And the prohibition about this was already repeated with His saying, \"you shall not commit adultery\" (Exodus 20:13) - meaning to say with this, not to have sexual intercourse with a married woman. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:13:2) is, \"'You shall not commit adultery' - why is it stated? Since it states, 'The adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death' (Leviticus 20:10), we understand the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not commit adultery.' It is the same for the man and for the woman.\" And this is not like, \"And to the wife of your kinsman\" - for that is a prohibition that does not include an adulterer and an adulteress, but is a prohibition for the adulterer alone. And likewise with the other sexual prohibitions. It was impossible that they not derive [the prohibition] also for the woman, from His saying, \"you (plural) shall not approach to uncover [their] nakedness\" (Leviticus 18:6): \"Behold there are two (it is plural)! To prohibit a man with a woman and a woman with a man\" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:1). And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 51b), they said, \"All [adulterers] were included in, 'The adulterer and the adulteress.' Scripture singled out the daughter of a priest for burning, and the betrothed maiden for stoning.\" And the explanation of this matter has already been discussed in the introduction to this essay." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual relations with animals - their males and their females. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"And with every beast do not give your lying\" (Leviticus 18:23). And one who transgresses this negative commandment volitionally is liable for stoning; and if he is not stoned, he is surely [punished] with excision. But if he was inadvertent, he must bring a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from having women engage in sexual relations with animals. And that is His saying, \"And a woman shall not stand before a beast to mate with it\" (Leviticus 18:23). And this is a separate commandment as well; and is not included in the commandment that precedes it. For it is not with the prohibition of males to have sexual intercourse with animals, that it is forbidden for a woman to have an animal have sexual intercourse with her - were it not for the specific prohibition about it. And at the beginning of Keritot (Keritot 2a), they said, \"There are 36 [sins punished] with excision in the Torah,\" and tallied them. And among them, they tallied a man having sexual intercourse with an animal, and an animal having sexual intercourse with a woman (separately) - even though it was grouping content together as negative commandments (and yet it does not group these two). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for stoning; and if the testimony is not ratified, she is surely [punished] with excision if she was volitional. But if she was inadvertent, she must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a male. And that is His saying, \"Any you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman\" (Leviticus 18:22). And the prohibition about this exact content has already been repeated with His saying, \"and there shall not be a male prostitute from the Children of Israel\" (Deuteronomy 23:18). And that is the correct approach - that this negative commandment is repeated to strengthen it; and not that it is a prohibition about the one who receives intercourse. Rather, we learn from His saying, \"You shall not lie,\" [both] about the one who lies and the one who is lain with. And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 54b), it is explained that it is Rabbi Yishmael that positions, \"and there shall not be a male prostitute,\" as a prohibition for the one being lain with. Hence one who has sexual intercourse with a male and has a male have sexual intercourse with him in one forgetful spell, is liable for two [sin-offerings] according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. But Rabbi Akiva says, \"It is not necessary. Behold, He says, 'And you shall not lie (tishkav) with a male.' Read into it, 'You shall not be lain with (tishakhev).'\" Hence one who has sexual intercourse with a male and has a male have sexual intercourse with him in one forgetful spell is only liable for one [sin-offering]. And they said about the reason for this, \"You shall not lie and you shall not be lain with are the same.\" However, \"and there shall not be a male prostitute,\" appears - according to my opinion - to strengthen [it]; like He said, \"you shall not commit adultery\" (Exodus 20:13), which is the prohibition of a married woman, as we explained, yet afterwards He said, \"And to the wife of your kinsman do not give your lying for seed\" (Leviticus 18:19). And there are many examples like this, as we explained in the Ninth Principle. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for stoning; and if he is not stoned, he is surely [punished] with excision if he was volitional. But if he was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the father. And that is His saying, \"The nakedness of your father [...] you shall not uncover\" (Leviticus 18:7). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is also liable for stoning; such that one who has sexual intercourse with his father is liable for two [sins] - on account of laying with a male, and on account of revealing the nakedness of his father. And in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 54a), it is explained that His saying, \"The nakedness of your father [...] you shall not uncover,\" literally [means] your father. And they asked there, \"That is derived from, 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman' (Leviticus 18:22)!\" And they answered, \"[It is] to render him liable for two [sin-offerings]. And it is in accordance with Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav. As he said, 'A gentile who has sexual intercourse with his father is liable for two.'\" And there, they explained and said, \"It stands to reason that the statement of Rav Yehudah is with regard to a Jew, when inadvertent, and concerning a sacrifice. And that which he said, 'gentile' - [it is because] he chose the language of euphemism.\" [Hence] anyone who is inadvertent with his father is liable for two sin-offerings, as if he was inadvertent with two [separate] sexual prohibitions; whereas one who is inadvertent with a random male is only liable for one sin-offering." + ], + [ + "He prohibited - to not have sexual intercourse with the father's brother. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, \"The nakedness of your father's brother you shall not uncover\" (Leviticus 18:14) - such that one who is inadvertent with his father's brother is liable for two sins-offerings, as we explained with his father. And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 54a), they said [that] everyone agrees that one who has sexual intercourse with his father's brother is liable for two [sin-offerings], as it is written, \"The nakedness of your father's brother you shall not uncover.\" And know that my saying [earlier concerning several commandments], \"the testimony has been ratified\" - is that there be two or more proper witnesses there that warn him, that [the testimony] be in a proper court of twenty-three [judges], that they give their testimony about them and that this be in a time when capital punishment is practiced. And it is clear about all of these sexual prohibitions that have been mentioned above, that excision appeared about them explicitly in the Torah. And that is His saying - after listing them - \"For anyone who will do any of these abominations, their souls shall be cut off, those who do these things\" (Leviticus 18:29). And likewise, anything about which we mentioned that they are liable for death penalties of the court, is also written in the Torah. However the different death penalties - that we said about some of them, stoning; some of them, strangulation; and some of them, burning - some of them are a tradition and some of them are written in the Torah. And the laws of these sexual prohibitions have been explained in Tractate Sanhedrin and in Keritot. And it has already been explained in Keritot (Keritot 24b) that every sin for which one is liable for its volitional [transgression], excision; and for its inadvertent [transgression], a fixed sin-offering - one is liable for its uncertain [transgression], an uncertain guilt-offering. And the content of a fixed sin offering is that it only be from the beasts. And when you observe all of the negative commandments, one by one, and examine the punishment that is mentioned for each and every commandment, you will find that with every iniquity for which we are liable excision when volitional and a sin-offering when inadvertent - that that sin-offering is fixed, except for two sins. In each one of those, we are liable for excision when volitional, but a sin-offering which is not fixed - but rather variable - when inadvertent. And these two iniquities are the impurity of the Temple and the impurity of its consecrated items. What I mean when I say - \"impurity of the Temple,\" is an impure person who entered the [Temple] courtyard; and \"impurity of its consecrated items,\" is an impure person who ate a consecrated food. And it has also been made clear to you that every negative commandment for which we are liable excision when volitional, we are liable for a sin offering when inadvertent, except for one iniquity. And that is the one who blasphemes; as [although] his [punishment] is excision when volitional, it is not a sin-offering when inadvertent. And likewise has it been made clear to you that anyone who is liable for a death penalty of the court - whatever death penalty it may be - behold, that man is also [punished] with excision, when the court did not kill him or it it did not know about it - except for ten [cases in which] one is liable for a death penalty of the court, but they do not have excision [placed] upon them. And they are the inciter, the subverter, the false prophet, one who prophesies in the name of idolatry, a rebellious elder, a stubborn and rebellious son, one who steals (kidnaps) a Jewish soul, a murderer, one who hits his father and mother and one who curses his father and mother. And when the testimony for each one of these is ratified, he is killed. But if he is not killed - such that the court could not kill him or it was not known to it - behold [even though he has] made himself susceptible to a death penalty, he is not up for excision. And hold on to these principles and remember them. " + ], + [ + "He prohibited approaching one of these forbidden sexual relations - even without intercourse - such as [with] hugging and kissing, and similar such licentious acts. And that is His saying about its prohibition, \"Each and every man - to any of his close kin - you shall not approach to uncover nakedness\" (Leviticus 18:6) - as if to say, do not make any approach that leads to uncovering nakedness (sexual intercourse). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:15) is, \"'You shall not approach to uncover nakedness' - I only know of nakedness. From where [do we know] not to approach? [Hence] we learn to say, 'To a woman, while in her menstrual impurity, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness' (Leviticus 18:19). I only know about a menstruant, that she is [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal. From where [do we know] about all of the sexual prohibitions, that they are [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not approach to uncover.'\" And there (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:21), they said, \"'Their souls shall be cut off, those who do' (Leviticus 18:29) - what do we learn to say [from this]? Because it is stated, 'You shall not approach,' perhaps they would be liable for excision for approaching. [Hence] we learn to say, 'who do' - and not who approach.\" And the prohibition about these illusions was already repeated with His saying, \"that you shall not do any of the abominable customs\" (Leviticus 18:30). However His saying, \"After the practice of the Land of Egypt in which you have lived, you shall not do; and the practice of the Land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do,\" is not only prohibiting the abominable customs - but indeed also prohibiting the actual abominations that He explained after this. And that which He brings two general negative statements about all of the prohibited sexual relations - is because when He prohibited not doing like the practice of the Land of Egypt and the practice of the Land of Canaan, this includes the lewdness, [but it also includes] the work of the land, the shepherding of animals and the settlement of the land as well. So He came back to explain that the actions that He prohibited [originally] were such and such sexual prohibitions that one should not uncover - and it is as He explained at the end of the [section], when He said, \"For all of these abominations were done by the people of the land\" (Leviticus 18:27). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8:8) is, \"Perhaps they should not build houses or plant vineyards like them. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in their statutes (chukoteichem) you shall not walk' - only those statutes (chukim) which were instituted (chakukim) for them and for their forefathers.\" And there, they said, \"What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman; and a woman would wed two men.\" Behold it has been made clear that these two negative commandments - being, \"After the practice of the Land of Egypt [...] and the practice of the Land of Canaan [...] you shall not do\" - are general commandments, being the prohibition of all of the sexual prohibitions (hence they not counted in the tally of the commandments). And afterwards, He repeated the prohibition of each sexual prohibition individually. And we ourselves have explained the regulations of these commandments in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin in our great composition (Commentary on the Mishnah), and we explained that we are lashed for it. And it is from that which is fit for you to know that [in the case of] any woman for whom we would be liable excision, the [child] born from that intercourse is called a mamzer. And it is God, may He be exalted, who called him a mamzer (Deuteronomy 23:3). Whether that intercourse is volitional or whether it was inadvertent, the embryo is a mamzer - except specifically for the menstruant. One born from her is not a mamzer; however it is called the child of a menstruant. And this has already been explained in the fourth [chapter] of Yevamot. (See Parashat Achrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited - that a mamzer (one born from certain forbidden unions - see the end of the previous commandment) not have sexual intercourse with an Israelite. And that is His saying, \"A mamzer shall not come into the congregation of the Lord\" (Deuteronomy 23:3). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed; and the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the eighth [chapter] of Yevamot and at the end of Kiddushin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited - not to have sexual intercourse with a woman without a contract (ketubah) and marriage (kiddushin). And that is His saying, \"There shall be no harlot from the daughters of Israel\" (Deuteronomy 23:18). And the prohibition of this content was already repeated with a different language; and that is His saying, \"Do not profane your daughter to make her a harlot\" (Leviticus 19:29). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7:2) is, \"'Do not profane your daughter to make her a harlot' - that is one who gives over his single daughter, not for the sake of marriage; and, similarly, her giving herself over, not for the sake of marriage.\" And listen to me [as to] why this negative commandment was repeated with this language, and what content was added with it: And that is that He already preceded that one that has sexual intercourse with a virgin - whether it was seduction or whether it was rape - is not liable for any of the punishments, but rather for a monetary fine and to [have to] marry her, as is explained in Scripture. So it would enter our thoughts that since there is only a monetary fine, its law is like any monetary matter. So just like a person has the right to give his money to his fellow as he wants, and exempt him from [returning] anything that he has with him; it would likewise be permissible for him to take his maiden daughter and give her to a man for him to have sexual intercourse, and then exempt him from it - meaning to say, the fifty [measures of] silver which go to the father - given that this is one of his rights; or to also give her to him, on condition that he receive such and such dinars from him. That is why He prohibited this and said, \"Do not profane your daughter to make her a harlot.\" For that which I judged to only punish him with money is in fact [only] when it happens that a man seduces her or rapes her. But that the matter be with the mutual consent of both of them and permissible, there is no way [for such a] thing! And the proof for this explanation is His saying [in the continuation of the verse], \"lest the land fall into harlotry, and the land be filled with lewdness.\" For seduction and rape only occur a little, but if the matter were to be by choice and permissible, it would grow and spread in the land. And this explanation is very fine and praiseworthy regarding this verse; and it is fitting regarding all that the Sages mentioned and all that is in accordance with Torah laws. And we give lashes for this negative commandment of a single woman; and the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in various places in Yevamot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Marriage.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited a man from bringing back his divorcee after she married someone else. And that is His saying, \"Her first husband who divorced her may not remarry her to be his wife after her having been defiled\" (Deuteronomy 24:4). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed; and the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in [various] places in Yevamot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Divorce 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited other men from having sexual intercourse with a levirate wife when she is tied to the bond of her levirate husband. And that is His saying, \"the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside\" (Deuteronomy 25:5). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed; and the regulations of this commandment have been explained in Yevamot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Divorce 9.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited a rapist from divorcing the women he raped. And that is His saying, \"he shall not be able to send her away all of his days\" (Deuteronomy 22:29). And this negative commandment was already preceded by a positive commandment; and that is His saying, \"and to him shall she be as a wife.\" And they accordingly explained in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 15a), that this negative commandment was preceded by a positive commandment. And there, they said, \"A rapist that divorces the woman he raped - but she died before he brought her back, or married someone besides him - is lashed.\" For he did not fulfill the positive commandment in it, according to the principle with us - 'he nullified it or did not nullify it.' And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the third and fourth [chapters] of Makkot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Virgin Maiden 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited one who puts out a bad name [upon his wife] from divorcing [her]. And that is His saying, \"he shall not be able to send her away all of his days\" (Deuteronomy 22:19). And this negative commandment was also preceded by a positive commandment; and that is His saying, \"and to him shall she be as a wife.\" And the law for him with divorce, concerning lashes, is the same as the law for the rapist, as has been explained at the end of Makkot and in the third and fourth [chapters] of Ketuvot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Virgin Maiden 3.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited one whose sexual organs have been destroyed - such that it is impossible for him to father children - to have sexual intercourse with an Israelite. And that is His saying, \"No one whose testes are crushed may enter, etc.\" (Deuteronomy 23:2). And each time he has sexual intercourse [with his wife] after marriage, he is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in the eighth [chapter] of Yevamot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 7.)" + ], + [ + "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.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited us - that we not appoint as a king upon ourselves, a man who is not of the seed of Israel, even if he be a righteous convert. And that is His saying, \"you may not place over yourself a foreigner who is not among your brothers\" (Deuteronomy 17:15). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 157:9) is, \"'You may not place over yourself a foreigner' - that is a negative commandment.\" And likewise with the rest of the appointments: It is not permissible that we appoint any of the appointments over us - whether it is a Torah position or a governmental position - a man that is from the congregation of converts, until his mother be an Israelite. About His saying, \"Surely appoint over yourselves a king [...], a king from among your brothers shall you appoint over yourselves,\" they said (Kiddushin 76b), \"Any appointments that you appoint shall only be from among your brothers.\" Of course, concerning the monarchy specifically, you have already known from the books of prophecy that David - and, likewise, his seed after him - have already acquired it: For all generations, there is no king for one who believes in the Torah of Moshe - the master of all prophets - besides one from the seed of Shlomo, exclusively. And anyone who is not from that glorious seed is called, an outsider, regarding the monarchy - just like anyone who is from any other seed besides the seed of Aharon is called, an outsider, regarding the [Temple] service. And this is clear - there is no doubt about it. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in [various] places in Yevamot, Sotah and Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 1.)" + ], + [ + "He prohibited the king from having many horses. And that is His saying, \"he may not have many horses\" (Deuteronomy 17:16). And the measure of this is that he should not have a horse to run in front of him. He should not have even one horse with him, besides the animal upon which he rides, and the horses that he places in the stables, in order that they be ready for war - that the riders will mount. But for himself, he should only have one single animal. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the second [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the king from having many wives. And that is His saying, \"he may not have many wives\" (Deuteronomy 17:17). And the limit on this is that he not surpass eighteen wives with a contract (ketubah) and marriage (kiddushin). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the second [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 3.)" + ], + [ + "That He prohibited the king from having much money specifically for himself. And that is His saying, \"and he may not have silver and gold for himself in great abundance\" (Deuteronomy 17:17). And the measure of this is that its amount only be according to that which is required for his chariot and his designated servants. But it is permitted that he amass money for the benefit of all of Israel. And God, may He be exalted, has already explained the reason for these three commandments - meaning to say, \"he may not have many horses,\" \"he may not have many wives\" and \"he may not have silver and gold for himself in abundance\" - in Scripture. But because their reason and cause was known, a veering away from the law occurred. [This is] that which is already famous in the story of King Shlomo, peace be upon him - in spite of the great level of his knowledge and wisdom, and his being a \"friend of God (YedidYah)\" (II Samuel 12:25). They, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 21b) that there is a hint and message with this to people: That if they knew the reasons for all of the commandments, there would be a veering away. [For] if this one, who was so complete in wisdom and of such great stature, could already imagine and think that this [forbidden] act is not necessarily a cause for that sin; what will be when all of the masses with their weak minds will talk about them and say, \"This would not be prohibited or this not commanded except for this. I will be careful about the thing for which this commandment was commanded, and I will not pay attention to it [since it was only meant as a fence]!\" But then the law will be destroyed. And hence God, may He be exalted, hid their reasons. But there is none of [the commandments] that does not have a reason, a benefit and a cause. However most of these reasons needed to be hidden; for the intellect of the masses will not grasp and understand them. But they are all like the prophet testified - \"The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes\" (Psalms 19:9). And I shall ask assistance from God to fulfill that which we are commanded about, and to stay away from that which we are prohibited. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 3.)" + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Sefaria Edition 2021, Translated by Rabbi Francis Nataf", + "Nataf translation" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ספר המצוות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Sifrei Mitzvot", + "Sefer HaMitzvot" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ספר המצוות", + "enTitle": "Sefer HaMitzvot", + "key": "Sefer HaMitzvot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמות", + "enTitle": "Introductions", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמת המתרגם", + "enTitle": "Translator's Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "הקדמת הרמב\"ם", + "enTitle": "The Rambam's Introduction" + } + ] + }, + { + "heTitle": "שורשים", + "enTitle": "Shorashim" + }, + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה למניין המצוות", + "enTitle": "Introduction to the counting of the Mitzvot" + }, + { + "heTitle": "מצוות עשה", + "enTitle": "Positive Commandments" + }, + { + "heTitle": "סיום מצוות עשה", + "enTitle": "Conclusion for Positive Commandments" + }, + { + "heTitle": "מצוות לא תעשה", + "enTitle": "Negative Commandments" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file