פרשת ראה תשט"ו - עבד עברי

And when thou lettest him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go empty;

thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing-floor, and out of thy winepress; of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

To destroy idolatry and its auxiliaries: That we were commanded to destroy all houses of idolatry with all types of destruction - with breaking, with burning, with demolition, with cutting - every type with what is fitting for it; meaning to say with what would be most destructive and quick in its destruction. And the intent is that we not leave a trace of idolatry. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:2), "You shall surely destroy all of the places, etc." And it is also stated (Deuteronomy 12:3), "But rather, etc. their altars shall you tear down." And it states further (Deuteronomy 12:3), "And you shall tear down their altar." And the proof that it is a positive commandment is that which it said in Sanhedrin 90a, "What is the positive commandment about idolatry" - meaning to say, to destroy it? "Rav Chasda [answered], '"And you shall tear down, etc."'" And the language of Sifrei Devarim 60 is "From where [do we know] that if one cuts down a tree-god and it grows back even ten times that a person is obligated to cut it down? [Hence], we learn to say, 'you shall surely destroy, etc.'" And it is also said there, "'And you will destroy their name from that place' - in the Land of Israel, you are commanded to pursue after them, but you are not commanded to pursue after them outside of the Land." It is from the roots of the commandment to erase the name of idolatry and all of its remembrance from the world. And its laws are included in the simple understanding of the verse. And it is practiced by males and females in every place and at all times; as it is a commandment upon us to destroy the name of idolatry if the power is in our hands (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7:1). But we are not obligated to pursue after them, except in the Land of Israel at the time when our hands are domineering over its worshipers. And one who transgresses it and does not destroy it any time he has the ability in his hand, has violated this positive commandment. Not to destroy things upon which His name, may He be blessed, are called: That we should not destroy and erase the things upon which the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, are called, such as the Temple and holy books and His precious names, blessed be He. And about all this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:4), "Do not do this to the Lord, your God." After it was preceded by the commandment to destroy idolatry and to erase its name and to demolish all of its houses and altars, it prevented [it here] and stated, "Do not do this to the Lord, your God." And at the end of Tractate Makkot 22a, they, may their memory be blessed, said "One who burns consecrated wood is lashed, and its warning is from 'and you shall destroy their name from that place[...] Do not do this, etc.'" And so too did they say there that one who erases the name [of God] is lashed, and its warning is from the very same verse. The root of the commandment is revealed. As when people approach the holy with fear, with trembling and with perspiration - through that, they will bring into their hearts great fear and awe towards God, blessed be He. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shevuot 35a) that there are seven names in the prohibition of this negative commandment. And these are them: the name of yod, hay - vav, hay which the sages called the explicit name; and so [too] the name that is written alef, dalet, nun, yod and El, Eloha, Elohim, Shaddai and Tsevaot. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Shevuot 35a) that any letter that serves as a prefix before the name is permitted to erase, for example the lamed (to) from, "to God." But what serves as a suffix after the name - such as the khaf (your) of "your God" or the mem (your - plural) of "your God," and similar to them - are not erased, since the name [of God] consecrates them. And one who writes [only] El from the word Elohim [that he planned to write], or Yah from yod, hay - vav, hay cannot have it erased because these are names [of God] on their own. But one who writes shad from Shaddai or tsav from Tsevaot - behold, it can be erased. And the rest of the appellations that are used to praise God - for example, Merciful, Graceful, Great, Powerful, Awesome and similar to them - behold, they are like the rest of the holy writings (Biblical texts), which are permitted to erase for the sake of any thing. And [also] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 115a) that that which all holy writings (Biblical texts) and their commentaries are included in this prohibition, is from the words of the scribes (rabbinic) - that it is forbidden to destroy them or to burn them. And all of this that we have said is when it is written by a [proper] Israelite, but we burn - and it is a commandment to burn - everything that is written by an Israelite heretic, so as not to leave a name for (remembrance of) the heretics and all of their deeds, whereas we put away that which was written by a gentile (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foundations of the Torah 6:8). And [also] that which they said (Shevuot 35b) that all of the names with Avraham in the matter of the angels that came to him are holy, and those stated with Lot are profane, except for "Behold now Your servant has found favor in Your eyes" (Genesis 19:19); all the names stated with the mountain of Binyamin (Judges 19-21) are holy, but from all those stated with Micah (Judges 17-18), some are profane and some are holy - el is profane, Yah is holy, except for one El which is holy, and that is "all the days that the house of God was in Shiloh" (Judges 18:31); all that are stated with Navot (I Kings 21) are holy; every Shomo that is stated in the Song of Songs is holy - and it is like the rest of the appellations - except for "a thousand to you, Shlomo" (Song of Songs 8:12); and all kings stated in Daniel are profane except for one, "You are the King, the King of the kings" (Daniel 2:37) - and behold it is like the other appellations. [These] and the rest of its details are found in Tractate Shevuot. And this prohibition is forbidden in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and erases even one letter from the seven names that we mentioned is liable for lashes. But if he removed one letter from the letters that served as suffixes after them, he would [only] be lashed with lashes of rebellion. And so [too,] one who removes even one stone in a destructive way from the altar or from the chamber or from the rest of the [Temple] yard is liable for lashes. That one brings all of his vows on the first festival: That anyone who vows or promised any sacrifice to the altar or any thing to the [Temple] upkeep within the year, bring it on the festival that he encounters first after his vow, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:5-6), "and to there shall you go. And to there you are to bring your burnt-offerings and other sacrifices, etc. and your vows" - that is a vow, meaning to say, that he said, "Behold, a sacrifice is upon me," and he is always liable for its fulfillment until he sacrifices it - "and your promises" - that is a promise, such as that he said, "Behold, this is a burnt-offering," and if it is lost, he is not liable for its fulfillment. And they said in Sifrei Devarim 63, "'And to there shall you go. And to there shall you bring them' - to establish them as an obligation to bring them on the first festival." And such is the understanding of the verse: Immediately when you go there - which is is the first festival - you shall bring the sacrifice. It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because it is not fitting for a person to be lazy about that which he has vowed to do a commandment, as is well-known among people. As they are very careful [about this] in that which they have to do for the commandments of the kings of the earth; all the more so [should they be] with the commandment of the King, the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. And nonetheless, the Torah did not burden us to go up immediately, lest people will be prevented form [making] vows and promises. [Rather] it warned them to pay off their vows on the festival during which they have to go up there [in any case]. And with regards to transgressing, 'do not delay,' with them, it is not until three festivals - and as we will write with God's help in the Order of Ki Tetseh in the commandment of fulfilling what comes out of the lips (Sefer HaChinukh 574). From the laws of the commandment is, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in Sifrei Devarim 63 [that] "and to there shall you go. And to there shall you bring them" is only stated to fix them as an obligation, that they be brought on the first festival he encounters; and [that] there, they said [that] he does not transgress 'do not delay' until three festivals pass him by, but nonetheless once one holiday passes him and he does not bring it, he transgresses a positive commandment, and so did Rava say explicitly in the Gemara of Rosh Hashanah 6a. And the rest of its details - are elucidated there in Rosh Hashanah. And this commandment is practiced at the time of the [Temple], as we had permission then to do vows and promises and there was a place for us to sacrifice [them]. But they, may their memory be blessed, said (Avodah Zarah 13a) that at this time we do not consecrate (sacrifices), and like the matter that we wrote in the Order of Eem Bechukotai (Sefer HaChinukh 350). And even one who transgressed and consecrated [a sacrifice] does not have the ability in his hand today to bring it to the Temple, since the [Temple] is destroyed on account of our iniquities. Not to sacrifice a sacrifice outside of the [Temple] yard: Not to bring up anything of the sacrifices outside of the [Temple] yard, and this is called offering up outside. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:13), "Guard yourself, lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place" - the understanding of "offering up" is burning. And they said in Sifrei Devarim 70, "This tells me only of burnt-offerings. From where [do I derive the same for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say 'and there shall you do all that I command you' (Deuteronomy 12:14). But I still would say that burnt-offerings are [subject] to a positive commandment" - as Scripture states, "there shall you offer up [your burnt-offerings]," which implies only a burnt-offering - "and [also to] a negative commandment" - as Scripture states "Guard yourself, lest you offer up your burnt-offerings," which implies only a burnt-offering. "But other offerings are subject only to a positive commandment" - meaning to say, that one who sacrifices consecrated things outside would only transgress a positive commandment, as Scripture stated, "and there shall you do," and not outside; and a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment is a positive commandment. "[From where do I know that they are also subject to a negative commandment? Hence] we learn to say 'there shall you offer 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 say to you: Just as burnt-offerings [are characterized by being subject to] a positive commandment and a negative commandment - so [too,] all [offerings] that are [subject to] a positive commandment, behold they are [also subject to] a negative commandment." All of its content is like the negative commandment of slaughtering outside that I wrote in Achrei Mot (Sefer HaChinukh 186). The commandment to sacrifice all the sacrifices in the Choice House: That we were commanded to sacrifice all the sacrifices in the Temple and not outside of the Land. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:14), "But only in the place that the Lord will choose, etc. there you shall offer up your burnt offerings and there shall you do all that I command you." And so is it [found] in Sifrei Devarim 70, "This tells me only of burnt-offerings. From where [do I derive the same for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say 'and there shall you do all, etc.' But I still would say that burnt-offerings are [subject] to a positive commandment and a negative commandment" - the explanation of the positive commandment is that which we have mentioned and [of] the negative commandment is from that which is stated in this section "Guard yourself, lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place that you see," which mentions "your burnt-offerings" explicitly. "But other offerings are subject only to a positive commandment. [From where do I know that they are also subject to a negative commandment? Hence] we learn to say 'there shall you do, etc.,'" as it appears there, and as it is written above in this Order adjacently (Sefer HaChinukh 439). And the general principle of the matter is that even with other consecrated things, one who sacrifices them outside violates a positive commandment and a negative commandment and is liable excision for it. It is from the roots of the commandment that in there being a specific place in the world for sacrifices and it having constancy of [being the place] from where one seeks God, the place becomes sanctified, the will of God rests upon it and the emanation of His blessing always emanates upon it. And [so] the hearts of people will be afraid and softened to remember Him, and every man will repent from his evil way and from the violence that is in his palms when he sees it. And if all places were fitting for sacrificing, it would not be like this in all of them; and the thing is well-known. And this is said to the children until they grow in wisdom and understand the wondrous secrets in all the words of the Torah. In the adjacent (negative) commandment 339, it is written that we have written some of the laws of the commandment in the Order of Achrei. [Those] and the rest of its details are in the end of Tractate Zevachim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sacrificial Procedure 17). And this commandment is practiced by males and females in every place and at all times. I mean to say that one who transgresses this even at this time and sacrifices a sacrifice outside of the Choice House violates this positive commandment and violates the negative commandment that comes on this, as is written earlier in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 439). But my intent is not to say that there be an obligation to sacrifice a sacrifice in the Temple now, as it is destroyed. And this is something clear. To redeem consecrated things upon which a blemish developed: That we were commanded to redeem consecrated [animals] upon which a blemish developed and purchase another animal with their money for a sacrifice. And after the redemption, they go out to being non-sacred and the owners slaughter them and eat them like completely non-sacred [animals]. And about this is it stated, "But in all that your soul desires, you may slaughter and eat meat, etc. the impure and the pure may eat of it, like the gazelle and the deer." After the section mentioned the pure sacrifices and obligated us to sacrifice them "only in the place that the Lord will choose," it stated afterwards about the sacrifices themselves that if a blemish developed in them, that we redeem them and eat them 'in all that our souls desire'; meaning to say that we do with them any of our desires - like the gazelle and the deer, whose body is never holy. And so the traditional explanation came about it that this verse is only speaking about disqualified consecrated [animals] that they be redeemed. It is from the roots of the commandment that it was from the kindnesses of God to us to permit us to derive benefit from the sacrificial animals after they develop a blemish - and even though they were already separated to be consecrated and the power of the name of the Heavens rested upon them. God is righteous and does righteousness with His creatures and lightens the rod of His kingship and His loftiness from upon them, and [so] He is not exacting with them to say, "Do not touch the consecrated, since it was Mine even for a moment." And He magnified His kindness with us and obligated the thing with a positive commandment. As if He only left the matter as optional for us, it is possible that we would still be wary by way of piety from touching them. But since there is the fulfillment of a commandment in the thing, no concern remains in the matter. And for this reason, the verse elucidated with a lengthy elucidation, saying, "the impure and the pure may eat of it, like the gazelle and the deer" - meaning to say that no sanctity of the body ever rests on [these two animals], as to say, eat it without any concern at all. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Temurah 32a) that if the animal dies before it is redeemed, it is buried, like the law of unblemished consecrated [animals] that die; which is that they are buried, such that no man benefit from them. As redemption after death is impossible, since Scripture requires appraisal and evaluation - as I have written in the Order of Eem Bechukotai (Sefer HaChinukh 353). And if it gave birth before the redemption, we sacrifice the offspring which is unblemished. But if it became pregnant before it was redeemed and it gave birth after it was redeemed, the offspring is forbidden and not redeemed. So what does he do? Adjacent to the redemption of its mother, he invests its offspring with the title of the sacrifice with which its mother was consecrated; as it can not be sacrificed [directly] from the [status] of its mother, since that is a sacntity that has been waived because of its blemish. And when all disqualified sanctified [animals] are redeemed, it is permissible to slaughter them in the marketplace of the butchers and to sell them and to weigh them by the pound like other non-sacred foods - except for a first-born and a tithe, as they are not slaughtered there. And the reason of the thing is because with other consecrated [animals] their value returns to being consecrated, as we go back and purchase with them a different animal for a sacrifice. And therefore in order not to reduce their value, we sell them in any place. But with the first-born and the tithe that are eaten with their blemish and for which there is no need to buy a different animal with their value for a sacrifice, we do not slaughter and sell them in the market of butchers. And regarding the blemishes that disqualify a sacrifice, I have already spoken about them in the Order of Emor (Sefer HaChinukh 275). And [these] and rest of the details of the commandment are elucidated in Tracate Bekhhorot and in Temurah and in [some] places in Chllin, Arakhin and Meilah (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Things Forbidden on the Altar 1). And this commandment is practiced by males and females at the time of the [Temple]. But now at this time, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Avodah Zarah 13a) that we do not consecrate [animals]. And the same is true that we do not redeem. And the whole matter is like I have written in the Order of Eem Bechukotai (Sefer HaChinukh 320) - take it from there. And even though I have written there that the consecration of one who consecrates [an animal], even at this time, holds and that there is a need for a correction to the matter, as I have written there - nonetheless regarding redemption, we certainly have to write that it is not practiced at this time from any angle, and like the matter that I wrote there about the law of the evaluations of animals (Sefer HaChinukh 353). You can see the matter from there. To not eat from the second tithe of grain outside of Jerusalem: To not eat the second tithe of grain outside of Jerusalem. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates the tithes of your grain." And the verse that comes after it instructs about it that it is referring to the second tithe, as it is stated, "But rather you must eat it before the Lord, your God[...] you and your sons and your daughters, and your slave and your maid-servant." And were it the other tithes, they are for the poor or for the Levites. And I have written regarding what the second tithe is above in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 473). And I have written the reason for its being eaten in Jerusalem in the Order of Eem Bechukotai in the commandment of the animal tithe (Sefer HaChinukh 360). From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Makkot 19b) that we are not liable lashes for its eating unless we eat it without redemption after it sees the face of the [Temple]. And so [too,] did they say at the end of Makkot 19b, "From when are we liable for it? From when it sees the face of the [Temple]" (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 141). And I have already expanded about the laws of the fixing [of the obligation] of the tithe on fruits in the Order of Vayikach Korach (Sefer HaChinukh 395), and you can see it there if you would like. And the rest of the details of the commandment are elucidated in Tractate Maaser Sheni (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 3:5). And this prohibition is practiced by males and females at the time that the obligation of the second tithe is practiced. And in the Order of Shoftim, we will elucidate the time and the place that it is practiced (Sefer HaChinukh 507). And one who transgresses it and ate a kazayit of it outside of Jerusalem is liable for lashes. To not eat the second tithe of wine outside of Jerusalem: To not eat the second tithe of wine outside of Jerusalem, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your wine." The entire content of the commandment of the prohibition of the wine is like the content of the commandment of the grain. There is no need to be long of speech about it. To not eat the second tithe of oil outside of Jerusalem:To not eat the second tithe of yitshar (the understanding is oil) outside of Jerusalem, as it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your oil." And the whole content of oil is like the content of grain and wine. And the measurement of eating oil to make one liable for it is a kazayit, according to what I heard from my teacher, God protect him. And even though it is a drink, it is held to be eaten by all people. And [even] if we know a few Yishmaelites that drink it, their opinion is nullified by all the rest of the people. And do not think to say that this negative commandment of "You may not" is a general prohibition, as each and every matter is a negative commandment on its own. And so is it explained in Tractate Makkot (it should say Keritot 4b), "If he ate tithe of grain, wine and oil, he is liable for each and every one." And it challenges there, "And do we administer lashes for a general prohibition?" And it answers it, "The verse is superfluous. How is it? It is written (Deuteronomy 12:23), 'And you shall eat in front of the Lord, your God [...] the tithe of your grain, your wine and your oil.'" [This discussion continues in Makkot 18a:] "Let the [Torah] write, 'You may not eat them in your gates.' Why do I need the [Torah] to enumerate all of them here? [Hence] we understand from it [that it is] to designate for them a negative commandment for each and every one." And this verse of "And you shall eat" is at the end of this Order. And in Sifrei Devarim 106, it is expounded that, that which this verse mentions "and the first-born of your cattle and your flocks," even though it is for the priests, is coming to compare the tithe to the first-born, etc. To not eat an unblemished first-born [animal] outside of Jerusalem: That a priest not eat an unblemished first-born [animal] outside of Jerusalem; and so too that a foreigner [non-priest] not eat from a first-born in any place, as the commandment with it is that the priests - the servants of God - should eat it, from the reason that I wrote in the Order of Bo el Pharoah (Sefer HaChinukh 18). And about all of this is it written (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. and the first-born of your cattle and your flocks." And the language of Sifrei Devarim 72 (see [also] Makkot 17a) is "'And the first-born' - this is the first-born. And the verse only comes for a foreigner that ate the first-born, whether before the sprinkling of the bloods or whether after the sprinkling, [to teach] that he transgresses a negative commandment." And the intent is not that the verse does not teach anything except this matter (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 144), but rather it is saying that this is [also] included in this negative prohibition. And it comes out that included in it are two matters that we mentioned: prevention of the foreigner from eating an unblemished first-born in any place; and so too, prevention of the priest from eating it outside of Jerusalem. And both of the matters are predicated upon [it being] an unblemished first-born. And there in the Order of Bo el Pharaoh, I wrote at what time and in what place the commandment of the first-born is practiced and the disagreement among my teachers - God protect them - about the matter of the first-born at this time. And there is no need to write at length about the reason for its being eaten in Jerusalem, as it is part of the consecrated foods - and as it is written in the Mishnah Zevachim 5:8, "The first-born, the tithe and the Pesach sacrifice offering are low-level consecrated foods (kedoshim kalim), etc." - and I have already lavished my words in several places (Sefer HaChinukh 360) about the reason [for] the eating of consecrated foods in the holy place and their being eaten by the servants of God. From the laws of the commandment - who is the foreigner regarding the eating of the first-born, the blemishes that disqualify it, the time of its eating - it is all elucidated in Tractate Bekhorot. And a few of these laws are in other places in [the Order,] Kodashim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Firstlings 1). And a priest who transgresses it and eats a kazayit from an unblemished first-born outside of Jerusalem, and so [too,] an Israelite in any place, is liable for lashes. To not eat higher-level consecrated foods (kodshai kodashim) outside of the [Temple] yard: To not eat - and even priests - from the meat of the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering outside of the 'curtains.' And the masters of the tradition explained that this prohibition is included in "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your cattle and your flocks" (Deuteronomy 12:17). As so did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Makkot 17a), "The verse only comes with regard to one who eats a sin-offering or a guilt-offering[...] outside the curtains, [to teach that he is transgressing a negative commandment]." And so too, one who eats lower-level consecrated foods (kodashim kalim) outside of the wall [of Jerusalem] is included in this prohibition, like the Gemara comes to teach. As they said there that anyone who eats something outside the place of its eating is [considered], "You may not eat in your gates." And their intention, may their memory be blessed, in saying, "The verse only comes," is to say that this is also included. It is from the roots of the commandment to eat every sacrifice in its place so that its eaters will focus their hearts on the atonement for which they are eating. And it is like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 59b), "The priests eat, and the owners are atoned." And if they ate them in other places, their focus would be dissipated from the matter. This thing is well-known and clear. The laws of the commandment are in Zevachim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sacrificial Procedure 11). And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times. As even one who consecrated a sin-offering or a guilt-offering today and transgressed and ate a kazayit from them - even the priests - is liable for lashes from this negative commandment, besides the prohibition that [exists] in deriving benefit from the consecrated (see Kiddushin 57b). To not eat meat of a burnt-offering: To not eat anything of the meat of a burnt-offering, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your vows that you vow." And the understanding of the verse is as if it stated, "You may not eat any vows that you vow." And our Rabbis, the masters of the tradition, said (Makkot 17a), "'Your vows' - this is the burnt-offering [...] the verse only comes [to teach you] with regard to one who eats the meat of a burnt-offering [whether it is before the sprinkling of the bloods or] after the sprinkling [of the bloods, whether it is] inside the [courtyard or outside the courtyard], that he is [transgressing a negative commandment]. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 146) that this negative commandment is a warning for all that misappropriate sanctified foods. I have written in the Order of Vayikach Li Trumah (Sefer HaChinukh 95) that which I know from the angle of the simple understanding about the matter of sacrifices and the benefit that comes out for us in our burning animals in the Great House. And the warning about them that we not eat from them, but rather that all of it be burnt follows from the same reason - it is one connection [that connects them both]. And this warning is specified with the burnt-offering because its commandment is that it be [completely] consumed, but included in this warning is all that misappropriate consecrated foods, as I have written. And the laws of the commandment are in Tractate Meilah and in [various] places in the Order, Kodashim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sacrificial Procedure 11). And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females; as even one who consecrated his animal as a burnt-offering today is forbidden to eat anything from it. And one who transgresses it and eats from the meat of a burnt-offering - and so [too,] one who eats from the other consecrated foods as well - has misappropriated and is liable for lashes if volitional, when there are witnesses and a warning, as is well-know in every place. But if he was inadvertent, he must bring a misappropriation (meilah) sacrifice and give back what he misappropriated with the addition of a fifth, as is elucidated in Tractate Meilah. And in the ninth chapter of Sanhedrin 83a, they, may their memory be blessed, said, "One who is volitional about misappropriation: Rebbi says, '[The punishment is] death.' And the sages say, 'With a warning (a negative commandment).'" And there is also what to consider [to say] that this prohibition and all that is similar to it is only practiced at the time of the [Temple]. To not eat lower-level consecrated foods (kodashim kalim) before the sprinkling of the bloods: To not eat anything from the lower-level consecrated foods before the sprinkling of the bloods. And lower-level consecrated foods are like the thanksgiving offering and the peace-offerings and that which is similar to them, from those that are enumerated in the fifth chapter of Tractate Zevachim 48. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. and your promises" - the understanding of which is as if it stated, "You may not eat your promises." And the masters of the tradition, may their memory be blessed, said (Makkot 17a), "The verse only comes with regard to one who eats a thanksgiving offering or a peace-offering before the sprinkling of the bloods, [to teach] that he is [transgressing a negative commandment]." It is from the roots of this commandment [that it is] to place into our hearts that it is always fitting for us to to have benefit to our souls precede benefit to our bodies with everything in the world. Therefore it is not fitting that the body benefit from eating before the sprinkling of the bloods that comes for the atonement of the soul. The laws of this commandment are also elucidated in Meilah and in [various] places in the Order, Kodashim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sacrificial Procedure 11). And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females; as even one who consecrated his animal as lower-level consecrated foods today, and transgressed and ate a kazayit from it afterwards, is liable for lashes. That the priest not eat the first-fruits (bikkurim) before their placement in the [Temple] yard: That we were prevented (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 149) from eating the first fruits. And about this was it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat, etc. and the contribution of your hand." And the masters of the tradition explained it (Makkot 17a), "'The contribution (terumat) of your hand' - these are the first-fruits." And it is elucidated at the end of Tractate Makkot 17a, that we are only liable before they were placed in the [Temple] yard. But from when they were placed in the yard, a person is exempt [from punishment] for them. And the language of Sifrei Devarim 72:9 is "The verse only comes [...] with regard to one who eats the first-fruit but did not recite [the recital] over them, [to teach] that he is transgressing a negative commandment." And the understanding of, "because he did not recite over them," is because they were not placed in the yard; but if they were placed there, there is no liability for lashes, even if he did not recite over them. And so too (Makkot 17a; Sifrei Devarim 72:9) there is with them the condition that there is for the second tithe with regards to the liability for lashes, that we are not liable until they see the face of the [Temple] first, and afterwards he eats them before their placement in the yard. In this way is there a liability for lashes for the priest that eats from them. And an Israelite is liable for death by the hand of the Heavens any time he eats from them, even after he recited the famous recital over them. And [that recital] is explicit in the Order of Vehaya Ki Tavo. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1), "The priestly tithe (terumah) and the first-fruits are liable for [the addition of] a fifth when inadvertent, and death when volitional." And this is exactly like the law of the priestly tithe - because the verse called the first-fruits with the [same] name, terumah, they became obligated with the laws of the priestly tithe. And understand, my son, the difference that there is between an Israelite and a priest and remember it. As when a priest eats the first-fruits from when [the fruits] see the face of the [Temple] before they are placed in the yard, he is lashed; and its warning is from "You may not, etc." And do not wonder to say, how can the priest be liable for lashes for them, since he, himself, will eat them after they are placed in the yard. As behold, the same thing is done with the law of the second tithe, that an Israelite is liable for lashes when he eats it outside of Jerusalem, even though he, himself, eats it in the place that is fitting for it. And an Israelite that eats first-fruits is liable for death by the hand of the Heavens any time he eats them; and its warning is from "And any foreigner shall not eat the holy" (Leviticus 22:10), and as I wrote in the Order of Emor el Hakohanim in the commandment that no [non-priest] eat priestly tithe (Sefer HaChinukh 280). I have written what I have known about the thing from the roots of the matter of the bringing of the first-fruits to the Temple that the servants of God should eat them in the section of Kessef Talveh [in] the Order of Mishpatim (Sefer HaChinukh 91). And the reason for this commandment that the priests not eat them before they are placed in the yard and that Israelites should not eat from them in any manner is drawn from the same root that is written there. Anyone who has intelligence to know the difference between good and evil will find it elucidated and revealed; 'and much contemplation' when there is no need 'is a tiring of the flesh.' And the laws of the commandment are elucidated in Tractate Makkot. And this prohibition is practiced by males and females, but only at the time of the Temple (Mishneh Torah, Laws of First Fruits and other Gifts to Priests Outside the Sanctuary 2:5) - since the obligation to bring first-fruits is then. And the liability from Torah writ is specifically with the well-known fruits and the well-known places, as I have written in Kessef Talveh. And even though we said there that the obligation of the commandment of the bringing of first-fruits is only upon the males and not upon the females, a man and a woman are the same with the prohibition of eating them in every place. And [it is] like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 15a) more generally on the verse, "A man or woman, when they they do from all the sins of man" (Numbers 5:6), [that] "The verse made equal a woman to a man for all of the punishments of the Torah." And a priest that ate a kazayit from the first-fruits in the way that we said has violated a negative commandment and is liable for lashes. And so [too,] is an Israelite [violating a negative commandment if he] eats a kazayit from them in any way - meaning whether before they are placed in the yard or afterwards. To not forsake the Levite, from giving him his gifts: That we have been warned from forsaking the Levites and not to be negligent from filling their portion - meaning to say to not delay their tithes - and all the more so on festivals, as we are warned about them even more, in order to gladden them at the appointed time. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:19), "Be careful for yourself, lest you forsake the Levite, all of your days upon your land." It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because God, blessed be He, wanted the good of His people, Israel, that He chose as a people and wanted to give them merit and to make them a paragon in His world - a wise and understanding people - in order that all who see them would recognize them as the seed of the blessed of God, men of truth and men of repute. And in that this was His will, may He be blessed, blessed be He, He brought counsels from afar to cause ways for their occupation to be in wisdom and [that] they would be pouring over it always every day. And [so] He steered them and arranged proper and pleasant customs and dear and strong mores, in order that they 'learn to know God - from their small ones to their great ones' - and their seed would stand and their name would be preserved forever. And from the statutes that strengthened and supported the wisdom among them was for there to be one entire tribe among them without a portion and inheritance in the lands, and that it not go out to the field to plow and to seed and to dig wells [from which] to water. And all of this was to be a cause for it to spend its time, no matter what, to study the wisdoms and to understand the straight ways of God, and they would teach its judgments to their brothers in each and every country and in all of the cities. And therefore in that this tribe is selected - it and its seed - forever for the occupation of wisdom and understanding, and that all of Israel will [therefore] need to seek Torah from their mouths, agree with their opinions and follow their counsel in everything that they teach them; it was from His will that their brothers provide them all of their sustenance, lest their wisdom get swallowed up, due to the lack of their portion. And from this foundation, the double warning came to all of Israel in this verse with "Be careful" and "lest," that they not forsake and not be negligent at all in all of their matters. And it mentioned about them a warning of the land, as it stated, "all of your days upon your land"; to say, be very careful with them, as your inheritance is the land, but God - who is the One that makes its seeds grow - is its inheritance. [This] means to say, do not think to be proud in front of it because of your inheritance of the land, as it is the master. Or we can say that the mention of the land is to say that he needs you regardless, as you are the master of the inheritance and everyone needs it. As anyone who does not have land - even if he has many monies - requires mercy, since everything is from the land, and there is nothing as solid for a man, that his heart can rely upon it, like it. And the landowners are those that raise choice calves and stuffed geese, they have fattened chickens, doves of the cote, goats and sheep. And in the way that the workers of the land bring of all these things on the holidays to kings of the land and its ministers, so were the Children of Israel warned to do for the Levites. And several warnings were repeated about it in Scripture in several places where it states, "Do not forsake the Levite that is in your gates." And the intent of the matter of its stating, "that is in your gates," is not that he should go to the doors [of people to beg], God forbid. Rather, it is to say that he does not have the inheritance of lands like [the rest of] Israel. The laws of the commandment are elucidated in Scripture. And this commandment is practiced when Israel is on their land. And one who transgresses this and forsakes gladdening the Levite and delays his tithes on the festivals has violated this negative commandment. But there are no lashes for it, as there is no act [involved] with it. And anyone with understanding will be able to learn from this commandment to aid and do good to all who are constantly striving for the wisdom of the Torah. As they are the ones that support the true religion, strengthen faith, increase peace in the world, love the creatures, and are joyful with the ordering of the state. All who need grace, 'let him see his face with justice' (tsedek, playing on the word tsedekah, charity); as he has no free time to walk in the streets this way and that for his sustenance. Hence one who has mercy on them and seeks their benefit will receive mercy from the Heavens; and he will eat with them, portion for portion, in the world to come. The commandment of slaughter: That anyone who wants to eat ([domesticated] beast, [wild] animal or bird) meat first slaughter them as is fit, and that there not be [another way to] permit [it] besides slaughter. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:21), "you may slaughter from your your cattle or your flock [...], as I have commanded you, etc." And the language of Sifrei Devarim 75:7,16 is, "Just like consecrated [animals] are with slaughter, so too are the non-sacred [animals] with slaughter. [...] 'As I have commanded you' teaches us that Moshe, our teacher, was commanded as to the esophagus and the trachea and as to the [cutting of] the majority of one in a bird and the majority of two, in a beast." The understanding is not that it be such from the understanding of the verse, but rather that upon this commandment came the tradition that it was like this that he was commanded about all the matters of slaughter - as is known to us about the knife, the place of the slaughter [on the animal] on the esophagus and the windpipe and the rest of the matters. And even though the verse only mentions cattle and flocks, we have known that [wild] animals are included in [domesticated] beasts, since Scripture compares them, as it is written about [domesticated beasts] disqualified from [having been] consecrated (Deuteronomy 12:22), "But as you eat the gazelle and the deer, so shall you eat it" (Chullin 27b). And birds also require slaughter (Chullin 27b), since it is compared to a beast, as it is written (Leviticus 11:46), "This is the law of the beast and the bird." Yet the sages [further] made an exacting inference, and the tradition supports them, that since Scripture places the bird between the beast that requires slaughter and the fish which has no slaughter - as it is written, "This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters" - it is enough for you with one benchmark (siman, either the esophagus or the windpipe). And from where did they learn to say that there is no slaughter with fish? As it is written about them (Numbers 11:22), "if all of the fish of the sea were collected for them" - just with collection, whether they are collected alive or even dead. And so [too,] all species of locusts do not have slaughter (Keritot 21b), as the expression, collection, is written about them as well - as it is written (Isaiah 33:4), "the collection of the locusts." And also the verse (Leviticus 11:46) mentions them after the fish at the end of the Order of Bayom Hashmini, as it is stated, "This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters" - these are the fish - "and of any soul that swarms upon the earth" - these are the locusts. And also because they have scales on their bodies like fish. I have already written at the end of the Order of Tsav about the prohibition of blood (Sefer HaChinukh 148) and at the beginning of Achrei Mot [about] the commandment of covering the blood (Sefer HaChinukh 187) all that I have known about the matter of distancing that the Torah distanced us from the blood of all flesh. And I say from the angle of the simple understanding that the commandment of slaughter is also from the same reason. Since it is well-known that the body's blood comes out of the neck more than from other places of the body, hence we were commanded to slaughter from there before we eat it. As [in this way] all of its blood will come out from there, and we will 'not eat the soul with the flesh.' And we can also say as a reason for slaughter from the neck with a checked knife, [that it is] in order that we not cause too much pain to living beings. As the Torah [only] permitted man - due to his status - to derive nourishment from them for all of his needs, but not to cause them pain for no reason. And the Sages have already spoken much about the prohibition of pain to living beings in Bava Metzia 32a and in Shabbat 128b, [as to] whether it is a Torah prohibition. And it appears to come out that it is a Torah prohibition (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murderer and the Preservation of Life 13:13). From the laws of the commandment are that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 9a) that five things spoil the slaughter, if one of them happened during the slaughter. And these are them: pausing; pressing; submerging; sliding; and tearing. The content of pausing is, for example, that he began to slaughter the esophagus, and before he slaughtered its majority, he interrupted [the] slaughtering. If he paused with this interruption the measure of enough [time] for another slaughter, his slaughter is disqualified. The understanding of another slaughter is the [time needed to] slaughter the skin and the benchmarks of another beast like it, and like that of small beast (lamb) for a chicken. And there are those that are stringent, that the measure is only enough for the slaughter of the majority of the [two] benchmarks with a beast, and the majority of one benchmark with a bird. But if he slaughters with a bad (meaning dull) knife, even if he goes back and forth the whole day, his slaughter is fit - except if he brings it back and forth after he slaughtered the majority of only one benchmark in a beast; as if he brings a bad knife back and forth on the minority that remains of it like the measure of pausing, his slaughter is disqualified. The matter of pressing is one who presses the knife, like one who cuts a radish, at the time of the slaughter - meaning to say that he does not bring the knife back and forth - in this manner, the slaughter is disqualified (Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter 3:11) The matter of submerging that we have received in the tradition is that the knife must stay revealed at the time that we slaughter. And because of this, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 30b) that if one covers the knife under one benchmark and slaughtered the second, or even if he covered it under the skin and slaughtered the benchmarks, or even [if he did so] under the tangled wool or even under a cloth (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ritual Slaughter 3:9, 10) that is very stuck to the neck, the slaughter is disqualified. But it if is not very stuck, it is not disqualified by [a cloth]. The matter of sliding is that which we received that even though the slaughter is from the neck, there are well-known boundaries upon the neck within which the slaughter is fit, but not below [the lower] boundary and not above [the higher one]. And the boundary of the place of slaughter on the windpipe is from the slant of the Adam's apple and below (Chullin 19a) to the top of the small protrusions of the lungs - not until the bottom of the protrusions that are connected to the lungs, but rather their tops. And this measurement is the entire part of the neck that the beast stretches out at the time that it grazes naturally without duress. And on the esophagus (Chullin 44a), one leaves the grasp of a hand above. And below, the measurement is until the esophagus gets 'hairy' - meaning to say that many perforations are found there, in the likeness of the stomach. And some (see Rashi and Tosafot on Chullin 44a) say that the understanding of the grasp of a hand is enough for three fingers, and some say [it is] enough that one grabs it with two fingers from the two sides of the neck, and that is the measurement of the width of one finger. And that measurement is with a [domesticated] beast and a [wild] animal, but with a bird, everything is according to its largeness or smallness. And they said in the Gemara (Chullin 19a) that [in the case of] one who began the slaughter of the windpipe and slaughtered a third, and afterwards moved the knife from the place of slaughtering - meaning above the slant of the Adam's apple - and cut a third, and after that brought the knife back to the place of slaughtering and slaughtered a third, the slaughter is disqualified. As we always need in this law of sliding that the majority of the death of the beast be with slaughter and that at the time of the leaving of life from it - meaning the middle third - that then, the majority is with [proper] slaughter. Anything that is like that is fit; [but if was done] in another matter, it is disqualified. And this [particular] matter of sliding is only found with the windpipe and above adjacent to the slant of the Adam's apple. As below, adjacent to the protrusions of the lungs, its [disqualifying] piercing is with the smallest amount, and the law of sliding one third is not relevant to it at all. And so too, with the esophagus - whether above or whether below - its piercing is with the smallest amount, and the law of sliding one third is not relevant to it at all. Anyone who is not an expert in these four things that disqualify the slaughter is not permitted to slaughter (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ritual Slaughter 4:1). And if he did slaughter, it is forbidden to eat from his slaughter. And even if after he slaughtered, they asked him if he was careful about them and he said, "Yes, yes," there is no substance to his words - as since he did not know them at first, maybe he was negligent about them and it is not remembered [by him] at all. And besides these four things that we mentioned that every slaughterer needs to know, the sages obligated us to know a fifth thing - and even though it is not from the laws of slaughtering [per se] - since this matter always comes up at the time of slaughter, and the beast is made into a carcass with the thing. And if the slaughterer does not know it, he will be feeding carcasses to everyone. And therefore they also said about this [that] it is forbidden to eat from the slaughter of any butcher that does not know it. And this is the prohibition that is called tearing. And its matter is that the windpipe and the esophagus - both of them or even one of them - is torn from the place of their connection with the jawbone and the flesh upon it. And [it is] when they are torn from there completely, or even it they are not torn completely, but rather their majority dangles - [then,] behold it is forbidden. And that is when it is fully detached (Chullin 44a) - meaning to say [that] when we forbid it when its majority is dangling, it is to say that all of it is in this manner, that the dangling is from this [side] and that [side]. As [with] anything that is [detached] in this manner, even that [part of it] which is connected is not connected well, and so, they are considered completely torn. But if the benchmarks were dangling from one side - meaning to say it was detached and torn from the jawbone only in one place - even though the majority was torn - since the tear is only in one place, the minority is connected with a lasting connection [and] that minority saves [it] and it is fit; even though [the tear] is in the majority of the benchmark and there is only [a minority] remaining. And all the more so do we render it fit when the whole benchmark is connected to the flesh on the jawbone, even though the jaw is cut and completely taken out from the place of its connection in the head - the connection of the flesh with the benchmark saves [it]. And it comes out that tearing forbids when the benchmarks are torn in many places, this way and that, in the majority. But in any case, [if it is only] in one place, the prohibition of tearing does not [apply]. And this tearing that we said does not make a beast into a 'torn' (terminally ill) animal. Rather, so have we learned from the tradition, that torn benchmarks cannot be slaughtered - meaning to say that the commandment of slaughter would not be [fulfilled] with torn benchmarks. And hence one who slaughters torn benchmarks - behold, it is as if he did not slaughter, and as if the beast died on its own, such that it is a carcass. And even though they made a bird fit with [only] one benchmark - as we said - so long as one is torn before he slaughtered the other, the slaughter does not permit it and it is forbidden. So have we learned from the tradition. Every one of Israel must know the five laws that we mentioned - pausing; pressing; submerging; sliding; and tearing - to be an expert in them, before he slaughters. And it is forbidden to eat from the slaughter of anyone who is not an expert in them and slaughtered [regardless]. And even if we ask him afterwards and he says, "I am sure that I slaughtered properly," we do not listen to him at all. And one who wants to slaughter also needs to know the matter of checking the knife - that the Sages required him to check with the fingernail and with the flesh in a knife's three [relevant] directions (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ritual Slaughter 1:23). And if we feel a nick in it - even the smallest amount - the slaughter [done with such a knife] is forbidden. And it is permitted to slaughter with anything that cuts well that does not have a nick in it at all. And if the knife is found to be nicked after the slaughter, we say that it got nicked with the skin and that the benchmarks were slaughtered with a nicked knife. And we say this when bones were not cut with the same knife after the slaughter - meaning to say that the knife did not touch anything from which it is possible for it to be nicked. But if we know with certainty that something from which it is possible for it to be nicked touched the knife after the slaughter, we assume the nick is from that thing. And anytime we are in doubt if it touched something that [could] nick it or not, we assume it is from the skin. This is what appears [to come out] nicely from the disagreement between Rav Huna and Rav Chasda in this matter at the beginning of the first chapter of Chullin 10a. And [also] the law of that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 3b) that we assume anyone who is found proximate to [the involvement with] slaughter to be an expert. And even if he is in front of us, we do not have to test him, as we rely on the assumption. And there are some commentators that said that if they are in front of us, we do test them. And the rest of the details of the commandment are elucidated in Tractate Chullin in the first two chapters (see Tur Yoreh Deah 1-28). And this commandment is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females, as even females are warned not to eat from a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird without proper slaughter. And [women] have permission to slaughter - and their slaughter is fit for any person - if they know the laws of slaughter and are expert in them. And the Sages said (Chullin 2a) that even the slaughter of minors is fit, so long as an adult who is an expert in the laws of slaughter sees them slaughter properly. Yet the Sages warned us (Chullin 12a) not to give them to slaughter at the outset, since they commonly blunder, due to their limited intellect, and a loss will be found in the matter. And one who transgresses this and is not careful about eating the meat of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird that has one of the five disqualifications that we mentioned happen to them or that was slaughtered with a knife that was not checked has violated this positive commandment, besides having violated the negative commandment of "You shall not eat any carcass," [for which] he is lashed for eating a kazayit of them - as we shall write in this Order, with God's help (Sefer HaChinukh 572). And they, may their memory be blessed, also said in the second chapter of Chullin 32a, "Everything that is disqualified by its slaughter is a carcass"; meaning to say, any time that the beast is disqualified in the place [on its body] of slaughter - which are the benchmarks - such as if one of the five disqualifications that we mentioned happened to it, or if he slaughtered it with a knife that was not checked, behold, that is called a carcass. "And anything, the slaughter of which was proper and something else caused it to be disqualified, is called 'torn'"; meaning to say, if none of the disqualifications occurred regarding the slaughter, the checking of the knife or the benchmarks, but rather something else caused it to become disqualified - such as it becoming 'torn' with one of the eighteen well-known [ways of being] 'torn,' that I mentioned earlier (Sefer HaChinukh 73) - behold, that is called, 'torn,' which is to say that he gets lashes on account of a 'torn' animal. And even though there are lashes for both of them, the difference to us that comes of it is regarding the warning. And the matter of that which we learned, that everything that is disqualified by its slaughter is a carcass, is not that the main carcass that is mentioned in Scripture should be that which is made into a carcass by its slaughter. As it is certainly an animal that died on its own due to a sickness or with some matter [that causes it to die] that is called an undifferentiated carcass. Rather the author of the Mishnah is coming to teach that anything that is not slaughtered properly is considered like it died on its own. To not eat a limb from the living: That we were prevented that we not eat a limb from the living - meaning to say, a limb that we cut from an animal when it is still alive. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:23), "and you shall not eat the soul with the meat." And so they did they say, "'And you shall not eat the soul with the meat' - that is a limb from the living." And we say in Tractate Chullin 102b, "One who ate a limb from the living and meat from the living is lashed twice" - since there are two negative commandments about it: the one which we mentioned; and the second [is] "and flesh torn in the field shall you not eat" (Exodus 22:30), which is a negative commandment about the one that eats meat from the living, as I have written in the commandment not to eat a 'torn' animal (Sefer HaChinukh 73). And the warning for the limb from the living was repeated in another place in Parshat Noach, as it is stated (Genesis 9:4), "But meat with the soul, its blood, you shall not eat." It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] in order that we not train ourselves in the trait of cruelty, which is a most disgusting trait. And in truth, there is no greater cruelty in the world then the one who cuts a limb or meat from an animal while it is still alive in front of him and eats it. And I have already written many times [about] the great benefit that comes to us in our acquisition of the good traits and [when] we distance ourselves from the bad traits, as the good will cling to the good. And the good God wants to do good, and hence He commanded us to choose the good. And this is my approach to most of the commandments, according to the angle of their simple understanding. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 101b) that the prohibition of the limb from the living is [applicable to] a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal and a bird that are pure, but not to impure ones. And [also] that which they said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 5:3, 4) that the prohibition is one; whether it is a limb that has meat, tendons and bones - such as a hand or a foot - or a limb that has no bone - like the tongue, the testicles, the spleen, the kidneys, the heart and similar to them. However the limb that has no bone is forbidden because of a limb from the living, whether it is all cut off, or whether part of it is cut off. But a limb that has a bone is not liable on account of a limb from a living animal, until it is separated like its formation - meat, tendons and bones. But if he separated meat from the living, he is liable for a 'torn' animal, as we elucidated, and not on account of a limb from the living. One who eats a kazayit from a limb from the living is lashed for it. And even if he ate a complete limb, [only] if there is a kazayit in it is he liable. [But if there is] less than a kazayit, he is exempted. If he cut a kazayit from the limb according to its formation - meat, tendons and bones - and he ate it, he is lashed, even though there is only the smallest amount of meat upon it. However, if he divided the limb after he detached it and separated the meat from the tendons and from the bones, he is only lashed if there is a kazayit from the meat by itself - and the bones and the tendons do not join with it [to make up] a kazayit, since he has changed it from its formation. If he divided this limb and ate it a little at a time, if there is a kazayit in what he ate, he is liable; and, if not, he is exempted (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 5:4). If he took a kazayit from the limb according to its formation - meat, tendons and bones - and he ate it, he is liable, even though it divided in his mouth before he swallowed it, as that is the way of eating. If he detached the limb from the living and [the animal] became 'torn' in his taking it, and he ate it, he is liable on two [counts], because of a limb from the living and because of a 'torn' animal - as behold, both prohibitions come together (at the same time). And so [too,] one who detached forbidden fat (chelev) from the living and ate it, is liable for two. If he detached forbidden fat from a 'torn' animal, he is lashed [for] three [separate sins]. Flesh that is dangling [from] a beast and a limb dangling [from] it is forbidden if it cannot come back to life - even though it did not separate, but rather was [connected to the animal when it was] slaughtered. But we do not administer lashes for it. And if the beast died, we see it as if it fell while [it was] alive. Therefore, we administer lashes on account of a limb from the living. However if it could come back to life - behold, it is permitted, if the beast is slaughtered. If the limb from the living was dislocated or one crushed it or ground it - such as if one crushed the testicles or severed them - behold, it is not forbidden from Torah writ; as behold, it has a little life. And therefore it does not stench. But nonetheless it is forbidden to eat it due to the custom practiced by Israel from antiquity; as behold, it is similar to life from the living. If the flesh covers most of a broken bone and most of the circumference of the break, behold it is permissible. But if the bone came outside, behold it is forbidden; and when the beast or bird is slaughtered, he should cut off the limb and a bit from the place of the break and throw it out - and the rest is permitted. If the bone was broken, [even when] the flesh covers most of it - if that flesh was pulverized since it decayed, like the flesh that a physician would scrape off; the flesh that was on it was [full of] holes; the flesh was cracked, or it was scraped like a type of ring; the flesh on top was scraped to the point where only like a peel remained on the flesh; or the flesh was decayed below from all of the bone to the point that the flesh that covers the bone is not touching the bone - in all of these [cases], we instruct to forbid until the flesh is healed. And if he ate from any of these, we administer lashes of rebellion upon him. One who extends his hand into the innards of the beast, cuts off from the spleen, from the kidneys and similar to them, and left the pieces in its innards, and [then] slaughtered it afterwards - behold those pieces are forbidden on account of the limb from the living, even though it is within its innards. But if he cut off from the embryo in its innards and did not remove it and slaughtered it afterwards - behold the pieces of the embryo are permitted, since it did not go outside. And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and ate a limb from the living or a kazayit of it in the manner that we mentioned is liable for lashes. And this is one of the seven commandments that are upon all people of the world more generally. But there is nonetheless a difference in the details of the commandment between Israel and the rest of the nations. And it is all as I have written in the Order of Vayishma Yitro (Sefer HaChinukh 26). And it appears that the obligation for the rest of the nations with the limb from the living is whether with pure [animals] or whether with impure [animals]. And so did the elder instruct (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 9:13). To bring consecrated things to the Choice House (Temple): To bring all sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offering and peace-offerings that we have an obligation on ourselves to the Choice House and to sacrifice [them] there. And even though these beasts are outside of the Land, it is an obligation upon us to bring them to the selected place. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:26), "But your consecrated things that shall be for you and your vows shall you carry and come." And even though the commandment to sacrifice in the Choice House came to us, as I have written in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 440), nonetheless, this specific commandment comes to us about the sacrifices [from] outside of the Land. And so is it in Sifrei Devarim 77:1-2, "'But your consecrated things' [...] - it is only speaking of his consecrated things [from] outside of the land; 'shall you carry and come,' teaches that he is obligated to care for bringing them until he brings them to the Choice House." And they [also] said there that the obligation is with sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings. And it is possible for us to say that [the reason] a commandment was specified for the consecrated [animals from] outside of the Land, is to warn us about them, because the burden with them is greater than the consecrated [animals from within] the Land, since [the latter] are closer to the [Temple]. But Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvot Ase 85) there is only one commandment with all of the consecrated [animals], whether consecrated [animals from] the Land or whether those [from] outside of the Land; and that we should not make them two commandments. And even though it is true that is expounded in Sifrei to be about the consecrated [animals from] outside of the Land, this is not truly a proof to make them two commandments. And in the third chapter of Tractate Temurah 17b they expounded it in a different way. As there they said, "'But your consecrated things' - these are the exchanged animals; 'that shall be for you' - these are the offspring; 'and your vows' - that is a vow; 'shall you carry and come' - it is possible that they bring them to the Choice House and prevent water and food from them such that they die; [hence] we learn to say, 'And you shall effect your burnt-offering, the meat and the blood' (Deuteronomy 12:27) - in the way that you act with the burnt-offering, so should you act with the exchanged animal, and in the way that you act with the peace-offerings, so should you act with the offspring of the peace-offerings and the animals exchanged for them." The whole content of this commandment is like the content of the third commandment in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 440) and there is one root to both of them. [Hence] there is no need to be lengthy of speech about it. To not add to the commandments and their understanding: That we were prevented not to add to the written Torah, nor to the oral Torah. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:1), "do not add to it." And how is the addition? Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Rebels 2:9), "For example, one who instructs that chicken meat with milk is forbidden by Torah writ - that is adding upon the word of the received tradition. As so did we receive about the understanding of 'you shall not boil a goat, etc.' - that the meat of a [domesticated] beast and a [wild] animal are forbidden to cook in milk, but not chicken meat. And so [too,] if he instructed that meat from a [wild] animal is permitted with milk, he has transgressed on account of 'you shall not subtract.' As this is subtracting, since so did we receive [about the verse's understanding], that the meat of a [domesticated] beast and a [wild] animal are [both] included in the prohibition." To here [are his words]. But most of the commentators (Ravad on Mishneh Torah, Rebels 2:9) would say that 'do not add' is only relevant at all with a positive commandment. And the matter according to what I have heard myself from the mouth of my teacher - may God protect him - is, for example, one that lays two fit tefillin on his head or on his arm; and so [too,] one who makes five [sections] in his tefillin; and likewise, one who takes two fit lulavs in his hand and anything similar to it; and so [too,] one who sits in a sukkah (booth) after the holiday with the intention of fulfilling the commandment of sukkah, even though he know that its time has passed - as we only transgress on account of 'do not add' when one has intent to do the commandment - and so [too,] one who takes the lulav after the holiday and has intent to do the commandment while knowing that the holiday has passed. And so is it in the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah 28b in the chapter [entitled] Rauhu Beit Din, as they conclude there, "Rather Rava says, 'To fulfill [a commandment] does not require intent'" - meaning to say that commandments do not require intent - "'to transgress: during its time does not require intent, not in its time requires intent.'" But [in the case of] one who takes the lulav on the holiday, even a hundred times a day, with intention to fulfill [the commandment] each and every time, there is no [issue] of 'do not add'; and so [too,] one who blows the shofar on the day of Rosh Hashanah, and even many times; and so [too,] anything like this. And there is no need to say that there is no [issue of] 'do not add' here, if one takes a disqualified lulav; and so [too] if he grouped a disqualified specie with [a fit lulav], according to the [legal conclusion] - as it is established for us that there is no need for a grouping. This is the general principle of the matter of this prohibition that my teachers, God protect them, distilled from the words of the Gemara after much effort. And now, my son, you too, if you merit and 'eat from the effort of your palms,' 'you will be happy and it will be good for you.' It is from the roots of the commandment that the Master who commanded us about the Torah, Blessed be He, is completely perfect and all of His acts and commands are perfect and good. [Hence] adding to them is a deficit - and all the more so, subtracting. This is a clear thing. The laws of the commandment are in Tractate Sanhedrin 88b, and so too in Tractate Rosh Hashanah 28b, in the chapter [entitled] Rauhu Beit Din, and they also spoke about the matter in Eruvin 96a, in the chapter [entitled] Hamotseh Tefillin. And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and adds to the commandments - such as if he makes five [sections] in his tefillin, or lays two fit properly made tefillin on his head, and so [too,] one who takes two lulavs in his hand or anything similar to it, and so [too,] one who sits in a sukkah after the holiday or one who takes the lulav with the intention of fulfilling the commandment, even though he knows that its time has passed - has violated this negative commandment. And he is liable for lashes - [if there were] witnesses and a warning, as is known in every place. To not subtract from the commandments of the Torah: That we were prevented from subtracting a thing from that which the perfect Torah commanded us. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:1), "do not subtract from it." And how is this prohibition? For example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in the third chapter of Rosh Hashanah 28b that if blood that requires one sprinkling is mixed up with blood that requires four sprinklings, "Rabbi Eliezer says, 'It is to be sprinkled four times.' And Rabbi Yehoshua says, 'It is to be sprinkled once - since when you sprinkle four times, you transgress, "do not add," and you perform an act; whereas when you sprinkle once, even if you transgress "do not subtract," you do not perform an act.'" To here [is the excerpt from the Talmud]. We know from this that the negative commandment of 'do not subtract' is in this way and all that is similar to it. From the roots of the commandment is like the matter that we said in the commandment of 'do not add,' that preceded it. And the rest of all of its matters are like it [as well]. To not listen to one who prophecies in the name of idolatry: That we not listen [to] the prophecy of one who prophecies in the name of idolatry - meaning to say that we not ask him for, and investigate him with, a sign or wonder about his prophecy, as we do with one who prophecies in the name of God. Rather we prevent him from the thing, as is fitting with any criminal or guilty one. And if he persists in his evil, we apply the well-known punishment for which the Torah makes him liable, and that is to kill him with strangulation. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:4), "You shall not listen to the words of that prophet." It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because error is constantly found with people and their intellects are not strong [enough] to come to the complete truth about things. And [so] the Torah is concerned that maybe the one prophesying in the name of idolatry will seduce a man to his words as a result of the false claims, length of words and argument with the foreigner who speaks lies. And even if he is not seduced by him, maybe he will doubt in his heart to be attracted by some pull in his lies, even for an hour. And even though we know that there is no endurance to his words beyond an hour - since the truth instructs its [own] path and will testify about the words of that prophet that [it is] falsehood in his mouth - nonetheless, the Torah was concerned for us, lest we waste even one hour from all of our days with hesitation about this evil thought. And the laws of the commandment are in the eleventh chapter of Sanhedrin. And it is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and listens to the prophet that prophecies in the name of idolatry - for example, he speaks many words with him or asks for a sign or wonder from him - has violated this negative commandment. But there are no lashes for it, as there is no act [involved] with it. To not love the seducer: That we have likewise been prevented from bending our ear to the words of a seducer and that we not endear him in any manner. And the content of a seducer is one who seduces one Israelite to worship idolatry, such as one who praises the actions of idolatry to him; and he praises it in order that he will follow it and serve it and leave from under the wings of the Divine Providence. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:9), "You shall not long for him." From the roots of the commandment is like the matter that is written in the commandment that precedes it. And its colleague shall speak about all of its laws and practice. To not leave the hatred towards the seducer: That the hatred of the seducer be fixed in our hearts, meaning to say that we not lighten in the grudge of vengeance upon him for all of the evil that he thought to do. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:9), "and you shall not listen to him" - meaning to say, do not be amenable to him to remove the grudge of vengeance upon him from your heart. And so did they, may their memory be blessed, say in explanation of this verse (Sifrei Devarim 89:2), "Since it is stated (Exodus 23:5), 'unload shall you unload with him'" - and Onkelos translated, "unload shall you unload what is in your heart against him," - "it is possible that you should unload for this one, too; [hence] we learn to say, 'and you shall not listen to him.'" It is from the roots of the commandment like the matter of the two previous commandments - as it is all to distance every matter of idolatry, that we not stumble in it in any way. And its laws are in Sanhedrin, Chapter 7. And all the rest of its content is like them. To not save the seducer That the seduced is prevented from saving the seducer when he sees him in danger of death and perdition. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:9), "and your eye shall not be concerned for him." And so did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Sifrei Devarim 89:3), "Since it is stated (Leviticus 19:16), 'and you shall not stand upon the blood of your neighbor,' it is possible that you do not stand upon [the] blood of this one [too]; [hence] we learn to say, 'and your eye shall not be concerned for him.'" The root of this commandment is written in the previous [commandments] that come about the seducer. And all of its content is like them. Not to advocate innocence for a seducer: That the seduced is prevented not to claim something of merit for the seducer. And even if he knows a merit for him, he should not advocate it and not mention it about him. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:9), "you shall not have pity." And so did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Sifrei Devarim 89:4), "Do not advocate innocence for him." And its content is like the other [related commandments] that we mentioned adjacently. Not to refrain from advocating guilt for the seducer: That the seduced not be silent from advocating guilt for the seducer, but rather that he should advocate if for him. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:9), "and you shall not cover for him." And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sifrei Devarim 89:5), "If you know [claims of] guilt, you are not allowed to be quiet." All of its content is like its colleagues adjacent to it. And from all of these warnings (negative commandments) about the seducer, I can understand that it is permitted - and also a commandment upon us - to likewise hate evildoers in other sins, in our seeing that they have corrupted their deeds and made them hateful to the point that there is no hope for them; and that they will not listen to the voice of teachers but disparage their words, and will not bend their ear to those that teach them, but damage the 'direction of their faces.' Behold, these are the evildoers about which David stated (Psalms 139:21), "Do I not, Lord, hate Your enemies, and argue with those that come against You." To not seduce one of Israel to worship idolatry: To not seduce one of Israel to worship idolatry. And one who does so is called a seducer. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:12), "and they shall not continue to do like this evil in your midst." The root of this commandment is revealed to all. The laws of the commandment are, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 67a), [that] how is the matter of the seduction of the seducer? For example, one who says to his fellow, "Let us go and worship idolatry x," or "Let us go and sacrifice," or "Let us go and burn incense," or "Let us go and pour a libation," or "Let us go and bow down"; or if he said to his fellow in the singular form, "I will go and worship, I will go and sacrifice," or "I will burn incense, I will pour a libation, I will bow down" - whether it is in the singular form or whether it is in the plural form - behold, this is called a seducer. And even though no act was one, such that they did not worship idolatry - not the seducer and not the seduced - nonetheless, their sentence is like that of a seducer because of speech alone. And [also] that which they said (Sanhedrin 67a) [about] one who seduces two, they are his witnesses, and they bring him to court and we stone him upon their [testimony]. And [also] that which they said (Sanhedrin 80b) that a seducer does not require a warning because of the severity of the matter, as it is an evil thing - and so did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Ketuvot 33a) about plotting witnesses, that they not require a warning due to their great evil, and as we will write with God's help in the Order of Shoftim (Sefer HaChinukh 523). And [also] that which they said (Sanhedrin 67a) [about] one who seduces one, that the seduced is obligated to say to him, "I have fellows that want from this, say it to them also"; and that this is done so that two will testify against him and he will be sentenced by a court. And they, may their memory be blessed, said further that if he does not want to seduce two, it is a commandment to conceal witnesses for him. And the matter is that he hides witnesses in a place that they will see the seducer and he will not see them, and [then] he enters with him into things that he said to him in isolation. And [then] the seduced answers him, "How can we leave our God in the heavens and serve wood and stones?" And if the seducer recants or is quiet, he is exempted. But if he says to him, "So is it fitting to do and so is it proper for us," those witnesses bring him to court. And with no other death penalty besides this do we conceal witnesses for them. And this whole matter is to distance idolatry. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sifrei Devarim 89:8) that it is a commandment in the hand of the seduced himself to kill him after the court has sentenced him; and about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:10), "your hand shall be upon him first to put him to death." And this commandment to kill him is part of the commandment, and we should not consider it as a [separate] commandment on its own. [These] and its other details are in Tractate Sanhedrin. And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it - whether he is a commoner, a sage or a prophet - and seduces any man or woman from Israel in the way that we said is liable for stoning. The commandment of investigating the witnesses well: To make a formidable investigation of the testimony and to inquire about it well according to all of our ability, so as to known the root of a thing and its completely exact truth. And from the foundation of this matter, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Avot 1:1), "Be deliberate in judgment." And it is all so that we can reflect on the thing and know the truth about it; and that we not hurry in judgement, lest we kill the innocent and cause a loss of money, because the truth is concealed. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:15), "And you shall inquire and investigate and ask well, and behold, the thing is correct truth." And anyone who has eyes in his head will observe and see that the multitude of warnings and repetition of the matter in different words that the Torah repeated about this thing is is to properly warn us about the matter; as it is a great thing and a strong pillar upon which the blood of the souls of the creatures depends. And there is no [need] to write at length about the root of the commandment, as it is revealed to all. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 40a) that each witness would be investigated with seven investigations, and these are them: In which sabbatical cycle from the seven sabbatical cycles within the jubilee did the event occur that he is testifying about; in which year of the seven years of the sabbatical cycle; in which month of the year; on [which day] of the month; on which day of the six days of the week; at [which hour] of the day; and in what place. And even if he said, "He killed him today," or "yesterday," we ask him all of this. And besides these seven investigations that are the same for all testimony, included in the commandment of investigation is if he testified that [the accused] worshiped idolatry to ask him, "Which idolatry did he worship and with which [type] of worship?" And if he testified that he profaned the Shabbat, we say to him, "With which [type of] work did he profane it and how did he do the work?" And if he testified that he ate on Yom Kippur, we say to him, "What food did he eat, and how much did he eat?" And so [too, for] all that is similar to this. And besides all of this that we mentioned that are called investigations and inquiries - which are the essence of the testimony and with them the accused is made guilty or exempted - the court would engage in much checking of the witnesses in other matters that are not very essential to the testimony. And since they are not essential, they, may their memory be blessed, called them, checks. And they said about them (Mishnah Sanhedrin 5:2), "All who increase the checking are praiseworthy." And what is that which is called checks? For example, "What was the killed or the killer wearing?" And likewise, we ask him, "Was the earth on the land that he was killed white or red," and similar to these matters. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Sanhedrin 5:2) that with the investigations, if one witness was precise in his testimony and the second one said, "I do not know," their testimony is nullified; but with the checks, even if both of them said, "We do not know," their testimony [still] stands - and all the more so, if only one says, "I do not know." And about what are these words speaking? When they did not contradict one another. But if they contradicted one another even in the checks, their testimony is nullified. And both capital cases and financial cases are included in this commandment, as it is stated (Leviticus 24:22), "One judgement shall there be for you." But the Sages said that in order not to close the door in front of borrowers, that we not require inquiry and investigation of the witnesses of money [cases]. How is this? [If] the witnesses said, "This one lent that one a hundred in front of us in year x" - even though they were not precise about the month and the place in which he borrowed, and not which coin the hundred was [composed of, if] their testimony was the same about the value of the hundred, their testimony stands with that. And about what are these words speaking? About admission, loans, gifts, sales and that which is similar to them. But with cases of penalties, we require inquiry and investigation, and there is no need to say with lashes and exile [that they are required]. And likewise, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 32b) that if the judge sees that the case is forged, even with the cases of admissions and loans, he needs to do inquiry and investigation upon them. And if they contradicted one another in the investigations and inquiries, their testimony is nullified; but if they contradicted each other in the checks, their testimony stands. How is this? If the one said, "He borrowed in Nissan," and the other said, "No, rather [it was] in Iyar"; or the one said, "In Jerusalem," and the other said, "No, rather [it was] in Lod." And so [too,] the one said, "He borrowed a barrel of wine," and the other said, "No, rather [it was] a barrel of oil" - this is investigation and inquiry, and [so] their testimony is nullified. But if the one said, "He borrowed a black hundred," and the second said a white hundred - and the value of both of them is the same - or the one said, "They were in the upper floor when he lent to him" and the second said on the bottom floor - this is checks and their testimony stands. [These] and the rest of its details are in Tractate Sanhedrin (Chapters 4 and 5). And this commandment is practiced regarding money [cases] in every place and at all times by males, as it up to them to administer justice, and not to women. And regarding capital cases, lashes and penalties, it is practiced at the time that the Sanhedrin sits in its place, as I have written in the Order of Mishpatim (Sefer HaChinukh 47, 49). And one who transgresses this and does not investigate the witnesses as is fit has violated this positive commandment; and his punishment is very great, since it is a cause for the [punishing of] people and loss of money that is not according to the law. And [one who does this] is an evildoer and causes the many to sin, giving them the money of others to consume. But [about] one who judges a completely true judgement, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 10a) that his merit is great; and they compared him metaphorically, as if he becomes a partner of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the act of creation - meaning to say, the preservation of the world and its administration. The burning of an enticed city and to kill its people: To burn an enticed city and everything that is in it. And a city of Israel [whose inhabitants] have been enticed by wanton men to leave from under the wings of the Divine Presence, and go after the whims of their hearts to worship idolatry, is called an enticed city. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:17), "and you shall burn the city with fire, and all of its booty." The root of this commandment is well-known - that evil and sinful men like this that agreed [upon] a bad and disgusting agreement like this together are fit to have their name erased and their memory destroyed from the world, and that there should not be a place of their remembrance in the world at all. And there is no destruction more complete than burning. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 111b) that the city does not become an enticed city - meaning, to judge them with the law of an enticed city, the people of which are killed with the sword and their property is burned with the city - until its enticers are two, or more than two, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 13:14), "Wanton men came out, etc."; and that its enticers are from that tribe and from that city, as it is stated, "from among you, and entice you"; and until they entice its majority, and that the enticed be from one hundred up to the majority of the tribe. But if the majority of a tribe is enticed, they are not judged by the law of the enticed city, but rather as individuals who are stoned and their property is for their heirs, as it is stated, "the residents of the city" - and not a small village and not a large [metropolis], and less than a hundred is a small village, and the majority of a tribe is a large [metropolis]. And the law that a city of refuge and so [too,] Jerusalem cannot be made an enticed city, and so [too,] a city that is on the border cannot be made an enticed city; the law of how we make it into an enticed city, and the warning that we send to it through two Torah scholars; that which they said concerning its plaza; that which they said about the properties of the righteous within it who were not enticed with it; the law of consecrated things within it; the law of the fruit of palm trees within it; the law of the properties of the people of another city that are within it or the properties of the people of the enticed city in another place; and the rest of its details are [all] in Tractate Sanhedrin (Chapter 11). And this commandment is practiced by males - as justice is theirs - and at the time that Israel is on its land and that the Great Court of seventy-one [judges] is in its place, since we only judge an enticed city through the Great Court. And it is from the commandments that are incumbent upon the community, and [especially] on the Sanhedrin. And if they transgressed this - for example, they knew about one of the cities of Israel that was fitting to be made into an enticed city, and they did not effect the law of the enticed city upon it - they have violated this positive commandment, and their punishment is very great, lest its evil spread to other cities. To not rebuild an enticed city: To not ever rebuild an enticed city. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:17), "and it shall be an everlasting mound; you shall not build it again." The root of this commandment is like the matter that I wrote about in this Order about the burning of an enticed city (Sefer HaChinukh 464). From the laws of the commandment - that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 111b) about the understanding of "you shall not build," that we do not build it to make it a city, meaning houses like it was, but it is permitted to make it into gardens and orchards; and the rest of its details - are elucidated in the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin. And this prohibition is practiced by males and females at the time that the law of an enticed city is practiced - and that is at the time that Israel is on their land and the Sanhedrin is sitting in its place, as I have written above (Sefer HaChinukh 464). To not benefit from the property of an enticed city: That we have been prevented from benefiting and taking from the property of an enticed city. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 13:18), "And no thing from the anathema shall stick to your hand." And also included in this negative commandment is anything from idolatry, as I have written above in the Order of Vehaya Ekev in the last warning (negative commandment) in the Order (Sefer HaChinukh 429). And in it, I wrote about the roots of this commandment, and all of its content is the same. To not gash ourselves, like the worshipers of idolatry: To not gash our bodies, like the worshipers of idolatry. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:1), "you shall not gash yourselves." And this negative commandment is repeated with another word, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:28), "And a marking for a soul, you shall not put onto your flesh, etc." And in Tractate Yevamot 13b, they, may their memory be blessed said, "'You shall not gash yourselves' is required for itself, as [the Torah] said that that you shall not make a wound." And it is also said there that "You shall not gash yourselves" is for the dead. And in Tractate Makkot 21a, they, may their memory be blessed, said that marking and gashing are one thing. And there it is said that one who makes a mark for the dead is liable whether it is with the hand or with a tool; but for idolatry, with a tool, [one is] liable, with the hand, [one is] exempt. As such was their custom to gash themselves in front of the idolatry with a tool, and like the matter that is written (I Kings 18:28), "and they gashed themselves like their statute with swords and spears." And regardless, according to that which appears [to come out] from the words of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, (Makkot 22) the liability of the negative commandment is only about one who gashes himself for the dead or for idolatry. But for one who gashes himself without a reason or from anger about his house that has fallen or his ship that has sunk - even though it is something extremely disgusting and ugly and forbidden - there is no liability of the negative commandment for it. It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] in order that we not do amongst ourselves any matter at all that is similar to the worshipers of idolatry, and like the matter that I wrote in the negative commandment of encircling the head in the Order of Kedoshim Tehiyu (Sefer HaChinukh 251). And we have been prevented from gashing over the dead, as it is not proper for the chosen people - those of the wisdom of the precious Torah - to pain themselves about something from the creation of God, except for the matter through which He, blessed be He, commanded us to pain ourselves, and for the reason that I wrote in the Order of Emor el HaKohanim in the first commandment (Sefer HaChinukh 264). But that we should destroy our bodies and disfigure ourselves like fools is not good for us. And it is not the way of sages and men of understanding, but rather an act of the masses of lowly women that lack intellect, that have not understood anything from the creation of God and His wonders. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Ramban on Deuteronomy 14:1) [that] from here, there is a support for our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, in their forbidding mourning for the dead more than is enough (Moed Katan 27b). From the laws of the commandment - like that which they, may their memory, said (Makkot 20b) that one who makes a marking is liable one [distinct set of] lashes for each and every marking, and that is when they warned him on it about each and every one, and [that] one who makes one marking for five dead is liable for five [sets of] lashes; and the rest of its details - are at the end of Tractate Makkot. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 12:14) that they, may their memory be blessed, also expounded that included in this warning (negative commandment) is that there not be two courts in one city [whereby] one follows one custom and the other follows another custom, as this causes disagreement; and the expression, "do not gash yourselves" (titgodedu) is meaning to say, do not create many groupings (agudot, agudot), which means to say that they be differing with one another. [But] from my teacher, God protect him, I have learned that this prohibition is only with one group, some of which differs with [the rest] - and they are equal in wisdom. [In such a case,] it is forbidden for each of their factions to follow its [own] words, as this creates disagreement among them. Rather, they should give and take much among themselves about the thing until they all agree to one opinion. And if it is impossible like this, they should all follow the words of those that are stringent, if the disagreement is about something from Torah writ. But [this prohibition] was not said about two courts that disagree - and they are equal in wisdom. And they brought a proof from the story in Tractate Chullin (it should read Avodah Zarah 40a) - as they said there, "[They] took out the shofar of [Rav to make a proclamation] and forbade it, and [in the same town, they] took out the shofar of [Shmuel to make a proclamation] and permitted it." And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses this and makes a marking any place on his body for the dead or for the sake of idolatry is liable for lashes. To not make a bald spot for the dead: To not make bald the hair of the head [in mourning] for the dead, like those lacking intellect do. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:1), "and do not place a bald spot between your eyes for the dead." And this prohibition is repeated about the priests, as it is stated about them (Leviticus 21:5), "They shall not shave a bald spot upon their heads." And we learned from there to make liable [for] upon the head like between the eyes, as it comes in Tractate Makkot 20a. And from this verse [in Deuteronomy], they also learned that there is only liability for a bald spot when it is a bald spot specifically for the dead. And it comes out that with the two verses, there is completion of the commandment and its elucidation: That all - whether Israelite or whether priest - are liable for the whole head, like between the eyes. And you should not ask in this place and in any thing similar to it, why all of the elucidation of the verse is not in one place. For is your mind not put to rest about these matters in many places with my introduction that I wrote to you at the beginning of this book of Deuteronomy? It is written from the roots of the commandment in the previous commandment. From the laws of the commandment - that which they, may their memory be blessed, said that one who made one bald spot for five dead is lashed five [sets of lashes], and that one who makes five bald spots for one dead is [also] lashed five [sets] (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 12:15) when they warned him on it about each and every one; [that] one who makes a bald spot by hand or with a medication is liable, and even if he submerged his fingers in the medication and placed them in five places on his head at one time, since he made five bald spaces, he is lashed [five sets], even though he only got one warning, since [the bald spots] came at the same time; and the rest of the details of the commandment - are at the end of Tractate Makkot. And all of its content is exactly like the law of its fellow that precedes it. To not eat from consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified: That we not eat from consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified. And [about] this negative commandment with the consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified, they, may their memory be blessed, explained in Tractate Bekhorot 34a that it is specifically when we make the blemish in the consecrated [animals], and that they are disqualified by our hand, and afterwards we ate from them - [that] then is there a negative commandment in their eating; and so too, if the sacrifice gets disqualified in any way after its being sacrificed - in this too is there a negative commandment. And about all of this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:3), "You shall not eat any abomination." And so does it say in Sifrei Devarim 99, "'You shall not eat any abomination' - the verse is speaking about consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified." And there it says further, "Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, 'From where [do I know] for one who slits the ear of a first-born animal and eats from it, that he is transgressing a negative commandment? As it is stated, "You shall not eat any abomination."'" And they, may their memory be blessed said further that included in the category of this negative commandment is the warning not to eat notar (remainder) and pigul (that disqualified by thought) - and I have written their content in the Order of Tsav (Sefer HaChinukh 144) - and so [too,] all forbidden foods. And [it is] like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Chullin 114b), "'You shall not eat any abomination' - anything that I have made abominable to you, behold it is [included] in 'do not eat.'" And nonetheless, it is not called a general negative commandment, since its essence is only coming about the consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified, and the rest of the prohibitions are derived by its implications. [This is] meaning to say that from that which Scripture brought out this warning in a general expression - since it stated, "any abomination," and it did not explicitly state, "You shall not eat the consecrated [animals] that have been disqualified" - because of that, we consider it a specific negative commandment in its essence, that we can learn from its warning to other matters. And accept the truth form the one that says it. I have already written many times that it is from the roots of the commandments that the Torah [instructs] to prevent us from approaching the holy from touching its edge, [that] it is in order to give awe of these matters to our hearts and to make them precious in our eyes, in order that our spirit be aroused, our thoughts yearn, our hearts be afraid and that a proper spirit be renewed in us, when we come to request forgiveness for our iniquities. And from this, God, blessed be He, will listen to our prayers and save us from all our troubles and we will be good. And we will also explain the root of this one about this good. And the laws of the commandment are in Tractate Bekhorot. And this prohibition is practiced by males and females in every place and at all times. As even though they, may their memory be blessed, said (Avodah Zarah 13a) that at this time, we many not consecrate - as I have written at the beginning of the Order of Bechukotai (Sefer HaChinukh 350) - nonetheless, one who does consecrate his animal as a sacrifice, [has] holiness rest upon it; and [so] it has the law of consecrated things. And one who places a blemish on it and eats it transgresses this negative commandment and is liable for lashes because of this - when he eats a kazayit from it and there are witnesses and a warning. To check the signs of a bird: To check the signs of a bird [that distinguish them as being permissible to eat]. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:11), "You may eat from any pure bird." And so did they say in Sifrei Devarim 103 (see Maggid Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 2:4), "'You may eat from any pure bird' - that is a positive commandment." I have written all of the content of this commandment, its root, its laws and in which place it is practiced and at what time in the Order of Vayehi Bayom Hashimini (Sefer HaChinukh 153) concerning the examination of the signs of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal, fish, and locusts - as the law of all of them is the same. And over there, I also wrote that Ramban, may his memory be blessed, differs with Rambam, may his memory be blessed, in [the latter's] counting of the checking with beasts and other species to be a positive commandment. And he holds that the [verse] only comes to give a positive commandment and a negative commandment to the one that eats from the impure [species]. And there in that same Order, I wrote (Sefer HaChinukh 157) a little of what I heard from my teachers, God protect them, about the signs of birds - and take it from there. To not eat from the flying swarming creatures: To not eat from the flying swarming creatures, such as flies, bees, mosquitoes and others from these types. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:19), "And any flying swarming creature is impure for you; they shall not be eaten." And the language of Sifrei Devarim 103 is "'And any flying swarming creature, etc.' is a negative commandment." And you should know that because the Torah forbade the impure birds and mentioned them by name - since they are few, as I wrote at length in the Order of Bayom Hashmini in the commandment to not eat an impure bird (Sefer HaChinukh 157) - the rest of the birds (winged creatures) remained under the assumption of being permitted. [Hence] it was necessary for Scripture to forbid the flying swarming creatures, in order to inform us that it not included among the permissible - and even though the signs for the pure ones are in the tradition and well-known to us. Or we can say that being that the swarming flying creatures are a type unto its own, it was necessary to forbid them explicitly. And behold, in the Order of Bayom Hashmini, it states (Leviticus 11:13), "And these shall be disgusting for you from the birds," and here it states, "And any flying swarming creature" - a specific negative commandment is put upon them, as birds and flying swarming creatures are two completely different things. I have written what came up to my thought from the roots of the commandments that come from forbidden foods in the Order of Mishpatim about the prohibition of the 'torn' animal (Sefer HaMitzvot 73). And take it from there. The laws of the commandment are in Tractate Chullin (Chapter 3). And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and ate a kazayit from the flying swarming creatures or ate one whole swarming flying creature - even though there is no kazayit in it - since he ate all of it; or he ate a kazayit from it - even though [the creature] is big - is liable for lashes. And I have already written at length in elucidation of the prohibition of swarming creatures and the stringency of the prohibition of a complete creature (beriah) in the Order of Bayom Hashmini, as it its place is there. To not eat from the meat of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird that has died by itself: To not eat from the meat of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird that has died by itself. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:21), "You shall not eat any carcass; to the stranger that is in your gates may you give it and he shall eat it, or you may sell it to the foreigner." And I have already written above in this Order in the commandment of slaughter (Sefer HaChinukh 451) the principle that they, may their memory be blessed, said that anything that is disqualified in its slaughter is also called a carcass. And I also have written about the matter of its impurity in the Order of Bayom Hashmini on the commandment to not eat an impure fish (Sefer HaChinukh 161), and it is a [separate] commandment on its own. From the roots of the commandment is that which I wrote concerning the prohibition of the 'torn' animal (Sefer HaChinukh 73). From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Avodah Zarah 67b) that [only] a carcass that is fit for a (gentile) stranger [to eat] is called a carcass and carries liability for its eating; but a carcass that is not fit for a stranger - meaning to say, a putrid carcass - does not carry liability for its eating. And because of this, the verse was lengthy to say, "you may give it to the stranger" - to teach you this. As if it were not so, there is no need to teach us to who to give that which we have. And it should not be said that it is coming to permit its benefit, as it is already written in another place (Leviticus 7:24), "Fat of the carcass and fat of the 'torn' [animal] may be used for any work." And from here they, may their memory be blessed, learned (Avodah Zarah 65b) the law that exuding taste that spoils is permissible. As we know through this that the Torah only forbids and makes liable for the eating of things that are fitting for people to eat; not for something that disgust a person's soul, as that is considered just like any dirt. And this is the dispensation that is mentioned in the Gemara about forbidden vinegar that fell into split beans, since it spoils them. And from this principle, we have become accustomed to purge vessels in boiling water that have not been used for a day, even though there is not sixty parts in the water corresponding to [the mass] of the vessel - as the absorbed [prohibited matter] that comes out from [it] when it is has not been used in a day is spoiled. And since the absorbed [matter] went out from the vessel due to the power of the water the nature of which is to purge and take out all of what is absorbed in the vessel - even though the vessel sits afterward with the absorbed waters that the vessel expunged into the boiling waters that are less than sixty [parts to it] and goes back and absorbs from it - it is not prohibited through this, as the [absorbed matter] is like a putrid carcass, which the Torah permitted, as we have said. And maybe you will say, and how is it that we permit to eat even a putrid carcass from the outset. Is there [not a prohibition here of] "Do not be disgusting?" (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 17:29) The answer to this is that whenever it is something small like this and also that it is absorbed in the vessel and spoiled within it and its strength is weakened - in such a manner as this - there is certainly not [a violation of] "Do not be disgusting," and [so] it is permissible from the outset. And you should not at all ask and say [that] if so, how is it that the Torah permitted the vessels of Midian by purging - was not the absorbed [matter] not [yet] spoiled, according to that which was said in the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 67b), that the Torah had only forbidden [and required purging of] a vessel that had been used in the day; as I can say to you that they purged these vessels in much water, which had sixty [parts] corresponding to the [mass] of the vessels (see Tosafot on Chullin 108b, s.v. shenafal). And from this we can also learn that if one of any of the disgusting swarming creatures in the world fell into the pot - even though there is not sixty [parts] food in the pot corresponding to that swarming creature - that everything is permitted after we remove the body of the swarming creature from the pot. And we do not concern ourselves with that which it exuded at all, since it is from the disgusting things and spoils the taste of the [food]. As behold, this is similar to [the law of] a putrid carcass which is not forbidden, as we have said. And nonetheless, it is necessary that there be two parts of what is in the pot corresponding to the body of the swarming creature, so that it will be nullified by the majority. As if not, the food will be considered like the body of the swarming creature itself, and the Torah forbids its body, even though it is disgusting. [These] and the rest of these many matters are elucidated in Tractate Chullin with the books of the good commentators. And this little that I wrote to you, my son, is not like a small dot on the face of the earth, in comparison with the many laws that are said about this matter. And I have already informed you in several places that my intention is only to arouse your spirit about the matters and I am [just] showing you [items]. But if you merit and Torah become your craft, you will understand all of the things and you will rejoice in them. And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and eats a kazayit from a carcass is liable for lashes. The commandment of the second tithe: To remove the second tithe from the produce in four years of the sabbatical cycle, meaning to say, after we separate the first tithe that is given to the Levites, that we separate yet another tithe. And hence it is called the second tithe. And the law of this tithe is that it be eaten in Jerusalem. And about it is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:22), "You shall surely tithe the produce of your seed." And Scripture elucidates that if the place is far from us and we cannot carry it there except with great burden and much expense, that we can redeem it and bring up its value [to] Jerusalem and spend it there only for the needs of eating and drinking. And Scripture likewise elucidates that the one who redeems his tithe needs to add a fifth to the value - which is to say that if it was worth four dinar, that he eat instead of it [that which costs him] five dinar in Jerusalem. And about this is it stated (Leviticus 27:31), "And if a man surely redeems from his tithe, he shall add its fifth to it." And they, may their memory be blessed, made a precise inference (Kiddushin 24a): "'From his tithe - but not from the tithe of his fellow; 'a man from his tithe' - but not a woman." I have written from the roots of this commandment in the commandment of the animal tithe in the Order of Bechukotai (Sefer HaChinukh 360). And even though the matter is clear, its reason is in Scripture, which is "so that you may learn to revere the Lord, your God, all of the days" (Deuteronomy 13:24). From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said that we do not tithe the second tithe from one year for [another]. And so is it in Sifrei Devarim 105, "'Each year' - it teaches that we do not tithe from one year for its fellow. I only have [it] for the second tithe, about which the verse is speaking. From where [do I know] to include the rest of the tithes? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall surely tithe.'" And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Rosh Hashanah 2a) that the fifteenth day of Shevat is the new year for the tithe of trees; meaning to say that any tree that has reached the tithing season before the fifteenth of Shevat is tithed with the tithe of that year - that if it is a year of the second tithe, we separate the second tithe from it; and if it is a year of the poor tithe, we separate the poor tithe from it. And I have already written the tithing season for some of the trees, above in the Order of Vayikach Korach in the first commandment (Sefer HaChinukh 395). And it is written there that the central obligation from Torah writ is only upon grain, wine and olive oil, and everything else is rabbinic. And the rest of the many laws of the second tithe are all elucidated in the tractate that is built on this, and that is Tractate Maaser Sheni. And this commandment is only practiced anywhere at the time that Israel is dwelling on their land and Jerusalem is inhabited - may we merit that our eyes see its goodness. And with the help of God, I will write the places that the first tithe, the second tithe and the priestly tithe are practiced, in the Order of Shoftim in the commandment of the priestly tithe (Sefer HaChinukh 507). To separate the poor tithe: To remove the poor tithe in the third and sixth year of the sabbatical cycle. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:28), "At the end of three years, you shall remove all of the tithe of your produce, etc. and you shall leave it in your gates." And in that year, they would separate the poor tithe instead of the second tithe of other years, and not separate the second tithe at all. From the roots of the commandment of this matter is that which I wrote on the commandment of loaning to a poor person in the Order of Mishpatim (Sefer HaChinukh 66). From the laws of the commandment are that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 6:7, 10) that the owner of a field through which poor people passed must give everyone of them tithe enough to satiate him, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 26:12), "and they shall eat in your gates and be satiated." And how much is enough to satiate him? From wheat, he should [give] no less than half a kav; from barley, no less than a kav; spelt, no less than a kav and a half; fig-cakes no less than the weight of twenty-five sela; wine, no less than half a log; oil, [no less] than a quarter log; a quarter of a kav of rice; a litra weight of vegetables; three kav of carobs; ten nuts; five peaches; two pomegranates; and one etrog (citron). If he had a little [produce] and the poor are many, he places it in front of them and they divide it among themselves. And there is no right for the owners to benefit [by choosing who receives] the favor [for] the second tithe that is divided on the threshing floor. [If] a man and a woman come to take, we give to the woman first and afterwards to the man. [These] and the rest of its details are elucidated in Tractates Peah, Maaserot, Demai and in [various] places in [the Order,] Zeraim, and in Makhshirim and Yadayim. And with God's help, I will write in which place it is practiced and at what time, in the Order of Shoftim (Sefer HaChinukh 507). To not claim a debt that the seventh year passed: To not claim a debt during the sabbatical year, but rather it should be released, and he should not claim it [any] more. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:2), "he shall not press his neighbor and his brother, etc." As is my custom, I have have written from the roots of the commandment and all of its content above and adjacently in the positive commandment (Sefer HaChinukh 507) of this negative commandment in this Order. And one who transgresses it and claims his loan after the sabbatical year at the time of the [Temple] has violated this negative commandment. But there are no lashes for it, as there is no act [involved] with it. The commandment to press the foreigner: To press the foreigner that worships idolatry, to pay what he is obligated to us. And we should not have pity and not have mercy upon him, to prolong the loan. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:3), "You shall press the foreigner." And so did they say in Sifrei Devarim 113, "'You shall press the foreigner' - this is positive commandment." It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] so that we not teach our souls to have pity and to have mercy upon them, so that we are not pulled after their deeds and their counsel in anything. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote (in Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 6) that this is not a positive commandment at all; but rather the matter of the verse is to warn us [to have] pity towards the Israelite with a positive commandment and a negative commandment: And it stated, "Press the foreigner," but not "your brother." And [so] it is a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive - about which it is established for us that it is like a positive commandment. And the negative commandment is also elucidated by it, "and you shall not press your brother." And so is the matter exactly with the prohibition of interest, like we will write in the Order of Ki Tetseh (Sefer HaChinukh 573). The laws of the commandment are included in the elucidation of the Scripture, according to my opinion. And this commandment is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and prolongs the time for repayment from a foreigner from the angle of pity upon him alone - and not from the angle of fear of the borrower, or [fear to] lose the debt, or for any other benefit - has violated a positive commandment, according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed. But according to the opinion of Ramban, may his memory be blessed, one who presses an Israelite for his debt has violated this positive commandment, besides that he violated a negative commandment. But prolonging the debt of a foreigner 'does not raise or lower [a thing]'. That he release all of his loans in the seventh [year]: To abandon all of his debts on the sabbatical year. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:3), "and that which you have with your brother, release your hand." And the warning is repeated about this commandment, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 15:2), "And this is the matter of the sabbatical year, every owner of a debt shall release his hand." And they said in the Tosefta (brought in Gittin 36a), "The verse is speaking about two releases: one is the release of land and [the other] is release of monies." I have already written in Mishpatim on the commandment of the release of lands (Sefer HaChinukh 84) that which I have known about the root of the commandment; and the release of monies also draws from the same reason - to train our souls in the virtuous traits, the trait of generosity and a kind eye, and to fix great faith in our hearts towards God, blessed be He. And then our soul will be prepared to receive the good from the Master of all, which is included in blessing and mercy. And also coming from this is a strong fence and partition to distance oneself greatly from theft and from envy for everything that there is to our neighbor. As we will draw an a fortiori argument (kal vechomer) for ourselves by saying, "Even with my money that I lent out, the Torah said to release it in the hand of the borrower when the sabbatical year arrives; is it not all the more so that with not stealing and not having envy for that which is his, that it is fitting for me to distance myself to the [other] extreme?" From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Arakhin 28b) that the sabbatical year only releases at its end, when the sun sets on the eve of Rosh Hashanah (the new year) of the conclusion of the seventh [year], as it is stated (Deuteronomy 15:1), "At the end of seven years." And it releases even a loan in a deed that [is backed with a lien] on properties. But if he decided a [specific] field for him for the loan, it does not release it. So wrote Rambam, may his memory be blessed (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 9:6), but it is a wonder, since Rabbi Yochanan pushed off [this opinion] in the chapter [entitled] Hasholeach (Gittin 37a). A [revolving] account of a store and the wage of a wage worker is not released. But if they stood them as a loan, it is released. And the same is the law with penalties. The marriage contract (ketuvah) of one who divorces his wife before the sabbatical year is not released unless she damages [its full value] or stood it up against him as a loan. And one who makes a loan upon a pledge, it is not released - and that is when the debt corresponds to the pledge. So wrote Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 9:14). But in the chapter [entitled] Hazahav (Bava Metzia 48a), we say that [it is not released] even though it is only worth half of the debt. And these words are speaking about movable items, but a pledge of land [depends]: in a place that they remove one [from the land], the seventh [year] releases - and a first-born does not take a double-portion, since it is like a total debt; but in a place that they do not remove one [from it], the seventh [year] does not release it. And now that it is established for us that an undifferentiated pledge is for a year - as so was it concluded in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 68a) according to the opinion of some of the commentators - we judge all pledges like a place that they do no remove one, and [so] the seventh [year] does not release a pledge. And a first-born takes a double-portion of it; and the creditor of orphans may collect from it, as it is like their land. And one who gives over his deeds to the court and said to them, "You collect this debt for me" - [such debts] are not released. As it is stated, "and that which you have with your brother"; and this he already gave into the hand of the court. And from this reason, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Gittin 37a) that the seventh [year] does not release a debt that orphans have from others - as the [legal status] of Rabban Gamliel and his court is like the [legal status] of the father of the orphans. And after them [the same was true] of all courts in each and every generation. And [so] it is as if they gave over their deeds into the hand of the court. And also from the content of the commandment is that which they said (Makkot 3b) about one who lends to his friend for ten years, [such a loan] is not released. As when [the Torah] stated, "do not press," [it was] about a debt that is fitting to press - and this one has not yet reached its time to press. And [also] that which they said that one who stipulates about his debt from this fellow, [that it is] on condition that the seventh [year] not release it, behold it releases [nonetheless] - as he is like someone who makes a condition against what is written in the Torah. But if he said to him, "On condition that this obligation not be released, and even in the seventh year" - in this manner, the seventh [year] does not release it; since any condition upon money is upheld, as I have written in the Order of Behar Sinai on the commandment to not lend with interest to an Israelite (Sefer HaChinukh 339). And the rest of its details are in Tractate Sheviit (Chapter 10). And this commandment is practiced from Torah writ in the Land of Israel and in every place by males and females at the time that the Jubilee year is practiced. And I have already written at which time the Jubilee is practiced, above in the Order of Behar Sinai (Sefer HaChinukh 330). But at the time the Jubilee is not practiced, the release of lands and of monies is not practiced by Torah writ (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 9:2, 3). But rabbinically, the release of monies is practiced even at this time and even in everyplace, so that the law of the release of monies not be forgotten from Israel. And I have already written which is the sabbatical year according to the great commentators that know the ways of the Talmud, above at the end of the Order of Behar Sinai at the end of the first commandment (Sefer HaChinukh 330). And one who transgresses this and claimed a debt from his fellow that the seventh year passed at the time of the [Temple] has violated this positive commandment, besides having violated a negative commandment, as we will write in this Order, with God's help (Sefer HaChinukh 475). And at this time [such a one] has done a rabbinic prohibition. And if the court knows that the seventh [year] has passed it, they are not obligated to press [the debtor] at all, and even at this time. And even though the release of monies is only rabbinic today and it is established for us that a lien is from Torah writ (Kiddushin 13b); nonetheless the law is decided that the sages have the power to push off the word of the Torah in any matter of money, due to the [power] of the court to effectively make property ownerless (Gittin 36b). To not steel his heart against the poor: Not to withhold kindness and charity from our brother Israelites - and all the more so, from our relatives - in our knowing the weakness of their situation and that we have the ability to assist them. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:7), "you shall not steel your heart, and you shall not close your hand from your brother, the destitute one" - meaning to say, do not have the traits of stinginess and villainy rule over you, but rather prepare your heart in every way towards the trait of generosity and pity. And do not think that there will be a lack in your money because of the thing; "as because of [this] thing, God will bless you" (Deuteronomy 15:10). And His blessing for one small instant is better for you than several storehouses of gold and silver. I have written in Parshat Mishpatim from its roots and some of its laws and content, as per my custom. The commandment of charity (tsedekah): To do charity with the one who needs it, with happiness and out of the goodness of one's heart; meaning to say, that we give from our money to one who is lacking, and to strengthen the poor in all areas that he needs for his sustenance, with all of our ability. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:8), "you shall surely open your hand to him." And they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Bava Metzia 31a), "Even several times." And it is it also stated (Leviticus 25:35), "and you shall strengthen the stranger and the citizen to live with you." And it stated further (Leviticus 25:36), "and your brother should live with you." I have written what I have known from the roots of the commandment in Mishpatim on the commandment to lend to the poor at the time of his duress. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Batra 10b) that the essence of the commandment is to give charity to the hand of a treasurer who should distribute it to the one who needs it; so that the recipient from the hand of the giver not be embarrassed each time he sees him; and also that the giver not embarrass him about it ever. [Rather] this one does not know to whom he gave it, and that one does not know from whom he received it. And you, my son, do not think that the commandment of charity applies only for the poor who does not have bread and clothing, since also for the very wealthy can this commandment of charity apply. For example, a wealthy person who is in a place where they do not recognize him and he needs a loan. Or even a wealthy person in his own city and in the place where he is recognized sometimes needs - because of sickness or because of another circumstance - that which you have in your hand and he cannot find it elsewhere. This is also included in the laws of charity without a doubt. Since the Torah always chooses acts of kindness and commands us to fulfill the will of the creatures, the children of the Covenant, in the manner that we can. And the principle of the matter is that anyone that benefits his fellow, whether with money, or food or any other needs - even with good words, words of consolation (Bava Batra 9a) - is included in the commandment of charity and his reward is very much. And may my words enter your ears, as they are good, in the 'ear that examines words.' And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Ketuvot 67b) that we trick a poor person who does not want to take [charity] and we give it to him [as] a loan, and afterwards we do not ask it back from him. But we do not pay attention to a wealthy person who torments himself and who has a bad eye with his [own] money. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Ketuvot 67b), "'Enough for his lack' (Deuteronomy 15:8) - you are commanded to fill his lack, but you are not commanded to make him wealthy." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 9:3) that he never saw and never heard of a city that has ten [or more] from Israel that did not have a charity fund. And they, may their memory be blessed, said that even a poor person that sustains himself from charity is obligated to [give] charity if he finds someone [more needy] than he, who needs it. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 10:2) that no man ever came to poverty because of doing too much charity (tsedekah), as it is stated (Isaiah 32:17), "And the work of righteousness (tsedekah) shall be peace." And Israel is only redeemed in the merit of charity, as it is stated (Isaiah 1:27), "Zion will be redeemed with justice (tsedekah)." [These] and the rest of its details are in [several] scattered places in the Talmud, but most of them are in Tractate Ketuvot (Chapter 6) and in Bava Batra (Chapter 1). And it is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and does not do charity at a time that he is asked for it - or he sees that the thing is needed - and he has the ability in his hand to do it, has violated this positive commandment. To not refrain from lending before the sabbatical year: To not refrain from lending to those that need, due to fear of the sabbatical year, that it not remove the debt. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:9), "Guard yourself, lest there be a wanton thing in your heart saying, 'The sabbatical year is approaching.'" And the language of Sifrei Devarim 117 is "'Guard yourself' as a negative commandment; 'lest there be' as a negative commandment" - meaning to say that these two negative commandments come about this matter, one after the other to strengthen [it]. It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] to strengthen and to fix the trait of generosity in our hearts and to completely distance the trait of stinginess. And there is no more generous person in the world than one who lends out his money while knowing that the time is approaching to release his loan and to lose it for him - if maybe some accident will occur or some circumstance that he will not be able to claim his loan before the sabbatical year. And anyone who understands the ways of the Torah and grasps to understand even a little of the grace of its value knows with certainty that 'one who distributes his money to the ones that need it, will have more added; but the one who refrains from the straight [deeds], it will be for lacking.' As God, may He be blessed, judges a man according to his deeds, and endows him from His blessing according to his coming close to it. And the trait of stinginess is an iron partition between him and the blessing, whereas generosity is a part of the blessing. And [so] it comes out that the one that practices it is [already] in it. 'The wise man listens and adds insight.' The laws of the commandment are short [and] included in the simple understanding of the verse, according to my opinion. And the prohibition is practiced by males and females in any place and at all times. As even at this time, when the release of monies is not practiced from Torah writ, but only from rabbinic writ; nonetheless we are [still] warned to not refrain from lending to the one that needs it out of fear that the sabbatical year - that releases rabbinically at this time and from Torah writ at the time of the [Temple]. And one who transgresses it and refrains from lending to the one who needs it has violated a negative commandment. But there are no lashes for it, as there is no act [involved] with it. And maybe it will come to your thought, my son, to say, "And why should a person ever refrain from lending because of this; and why was a negative commandment written about this - is it not in our hand to make a condition with him, on condition that it not be released in the seventh [year] and in the way that we always do in our contracts?" Let this thing not confuse you, as the Torah warns us about things, even though it is possible [to circumvent them] with ordinances and conditions. To not send a Hebrew slave empty: That we not release a Hebrew slave with empty hands from our servitude when he goes out to freedom at the end of six years, but rather that we endow him from our wealth regardless. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:13), "When you send him free, do not send him empty." From the roots of this commandment, all of its content and the place of its elucidation are [all] written in the positive commandment of endowment in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 482). To endow him upon his leaving to freedom: To give from what we have to the Hebrew slave at the time that he leaves from under our hand to freedom, and we should not send him empty-handed. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:14), "You shall surely endow him; from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your vat that the Lord, your God, has blessed you, shall you give to him." It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] in order that we acquire for our souls virtuous, dear and beautiful traits; [such that] with a dear and virtuous soul, we will merit the good - and the good God wants to do good for His people. And it is our glory and our splendor that we should have mercy upon the one who served us, and that we give from what is ours as a rite of kindness - besides that which we have stipulated with him to give him his wage. And it is a rational thing - there is no need to be lengthy about it. From the laws of the commandment - that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 16b) that it is one whether the male slave leaves at the end of six years or at the Jubilee year or with the death of the master, and so [too] a female slave that leaves from one of all these or from signs [of physical maturity], behold we endow these, but with the subtracting of money [that allows him to leave mid-term], we do not endow them, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 15:13), "When you send him free," and this one he did not send, but rather the slave caused it with the giving of money that he should leave from under his hand; so [too,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Kiddushin 17a) about that which the verse mentioned flock, threshing floor and vat, that it is with things that have blessing on their own that a man is obligated to endow them, but not [with] monies and clothing; that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 17a) that we do not reduce [the endowment] below thirty sela; that he is obligated to endow him whether the homeowner was blessed on his account or not blessed; [that] the endowment of the slave is for himself, and that [the slave's] creditor does not collect from it; and the rest of its details - are [all] elucidated in the first chapter of Kiddushin. And this commandment is practiced by males and females at the time of the [Temple], as the law of a Hebrew slave is only practiced at the time that the Jubilee is practiced, as I have written in what preceded (Sefer HaChinukh 42). And nonetheless, even at this time, 'the wise man listens and adds insight' - such that if he employed someone from the children of Israel and he served him for a long time or even a short time, he should endow him with that which God blessed him when he leaves him. To not work with consecrated things: To not do work with consecrated beasts. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:19), "you shall not work with your first-born ox." And the rest of the holy things are learned from the first-born, as it appears in Bekhorot 25a. I have written in this Order on the prohibition of the disqualified consecrated things (Sefer HaChinukh 469) and in several places that from the roots of the commandment is to distance ourselves from getting close to the consecrated things and from touching them. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bekhorot 25a) that all consecrated things for the altar - whether higher-level consecrated things or lower-level consecrated things - are forbidden in shearing and work (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Trespass 1:1, 7); and it is forbidden for commoners (non-priests) to benefit from the consecrated things of God - whether from consecrated things offered on the altar, or whether of the [Temple] upkeep - and anyone who benefits from the value of a small coin has misappropriated. There is no misappropriation of those sacrifices that have become permissible to eat, such as meat of the sin-offering and guilt-offering after the sprinkling of their blood, or the two breads after the sprinkling of the blood of the two lambs. Even if a commoner ate from one of these and similar to them - since they are permissible for some people to benefit from, anyone who benefits from them has not misappropriated. And even if they became disqualified and forbidden to eat - since there was a time that they were permitted, one is not [any longer] liable for misappropriation for them. Anyone who misappropriates volitionally is lashed and pays the principal of what he damaged of the sacred. And its warning is from that which is stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your vows" - we learned from the tradition that this is a warning to the one that eats meat of the fire-offering - as we said above (Sefer HaChinukh 447), since all of it is for God, may He be blessed. And the law is the same for the rest of all the consecrated which is only for God - whether it is from the consecrated for the altar or the consecrated of the [Temple] upkeep: If he benefited of the value of a small coin, he is lashed. If he misappropriated inadvertently, he pays what he benefited and an addition of a fifth, and he brings a ram [purchased] with two sela and sacrifices it as a guilt-offering and it atones for him - and this is what is called the guilt-offering of misappropriations, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:15-16), "inadvertently from the consecrated things of the Lord, etc. he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, etc. And that which he sinned from the holy, he shall pay and add its fifth upon it." The payment of the principal with the addition of the fifth and the bringing of the sacrifice is a positive commandment (Sefer HaChinukh 127). The payment of the principal and the bringing of the guilt-offering impede the atonement, but not the fifth; as it is stated about the ram of the guilt offering (Leviticus 5:16), "and he shall be forgiven" - the ram and the guilt-offering impede, but the fifth does not impede [it]. If he brought his misappropriation [offering] before he brought his guilt [payment], he has not fulfilled [his obligation]. If he is in doubt if he misappropriated or did not misappropriate, he is exempted from the payments and from the sacrifice. And the fifth is like the beginning of the consecrated things; and [so] if he benefited from it, he adds a fifth to [the] fifth. And we have already elucidated several times (see Sefer HaChinukh 355) that the fifth is one of four [parts] of the principal, [such that] it and its fifth are five. And there are things that one is not liable for misappropriation from Torah writ, but it is forbidden to benefit from them rabbinically; and one who benefits from them only pays the principle, but does not add a fifth and does not bring a guilt-offering, as is elucidated in Tractate Meilah (Chapter 3). And all consecrated things for the altar - whether higher-level consecrated things or lower-level consecrated things - are forbidden in shearing and work, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 15:19), "you shall not work with your first-born ox and you shall not shear the first-born of your flock." And the law is the same for the rest of the consecrated things. And one who shears his ox or works with it is lashed from Torah writ. But plucking is not like shearing. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Trespass 1:7), "It appears to me that he is not lashed until he shears enough for the double width of a sit, - [so that] it not be more stringent than Shabbat." [If] it is a doubt whether it is consecrated things, such as a beast that was [only a possible] first-born, and similar to it - behold, they are forbidden in shearing and work, but one who shears or works with them is not lashed (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Trespass 1:8). A consecrated beast that contracted a blemish upon it and was redeemed is not permitted for shearing and work and [remains] with its prohibition until it is slaughtered, as we elucidated (Sefer HaChinukh 441). If it is slaughtered after its redemption, its eating is permitted. About what are these words speaking? When their consecration came before their blemish, or [only] a temporary blemish preceded their consecration. But if one consecrates one with a permanent blemish to the Temple, it is only rabbinically forbidden in shearing and work. And [so] if it is redeemed, it is like non-sacred in all matters; and it goes out to be non-sacred, to be shorn and worked - except for the first-born and the tithe. [In those latter cases,] the sanctity rests upon their bodies, and they do not ever go out to be non-sacred to shear and to work, even though they were ones with blemishes from the beginning. It is forbidden to have a first-born or a disqualified consecrated [animal] breed. And it is permissible a priori to pluck the hair from consecrated [animals] in order to show the blemish to an expert. But that hair that he plucked - or that shed from the beast, or from a first-born or from the tithe - behold, it is forbidden to benefit [from] it, even after they were slaughtered because of their blemish. [This is a] decree lest he will delay them, since they are not bringing atonement. But wool that shed from a sin-offering or a guilt-offering is permitted for benefit after being slaughtered because of their blemish; as since they are coming for atonement, he will not delay them. And if it was plucked from a fire-offering - behold, this is a doubt. And behold, all that detached from the consecrated [animals] after they contracted the blemish is permissible for benefit, since he did not pluck it with his hand; except for the first-born, as even that which detached from it after it contracted the blemish is forbidden in benefit. One who slaughters a first-born or the rest of the consecrated [animals] plucks from this [side] and that [side] to make a place for the knife, but he does not move [the hair] from its place. Those consecrated for the [Temple] upkeep are rabbinically forbidden even in shearing and work, but they are not forbidden from Torah writ. Hence one who shears them or works with them is not lashed [from Torah writ], but we lash him with lashes of rebellion. One who consecrates an embryo for the altar, its mother [becomes] rabbinically forbidden in work. They decreed about it, as its work enfeebles the embryo. But behold, it is permitted in shearing, as there is no loss with this to the offspring. If one consecrated one limb of a beast - whether for the [Temple] upkeep or whether for the altar - behold, this is a doubt if it is all forbidden in shearing and work or not. Hence we did not administer lashes for it. [These] and the rest of its details are in Tractate Bekhorot. And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. As even though they, may their memory be blessed, said (Avodah Zarah 13a) that we do not consecrate a beast for a sacrifice or for the [Temple] upkeep at this time - as we have written many times - nonetheless, the consecration of one who does consecrate [it], is effective. And one who transgresses this and works with a beast [that is] consecrated, in the way that we said, is liable for lashes. To not shear the wool of consecrated [animals]: That we not shear the wool form a beast of the consecrated. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:19), "and you shall not shear the first-born of your flock." And all of the other consecrated [animals] are learned from the first-born concerning this prohibition. And all of the content of the prohibition of shearing is like the prohibition of working - it is not fitting to write at any more length about it. Behold, I have written some of the laws of shearing above with the laws of work. To not eat chamets after midday: To not eat chamets after midday on the fourteenth day of Nissan. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 16:3), "You shall not eat chamets upon it." Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 199), "The word 'upon it,' refers back to the Pesach lamb, the obligation of which to slaughter was in the afternoon of the fourteenth day. And they said from the moment that the time of its sacrifice arrives, 'You shall not eat chamets upon it.' And in Pesachim 28b, they, may their memory be blessed, said, 'From where [do I know] that one who eats chamets from six hours and onward is [transgressing] a negative commandment? As it is stated "You shall not eat chamets upon it."' And there (Pesachim 4b) it is said, 'According to everyone, however, chamets is prohibited by Torah writ from six hours and onward.' So have we found the language of all the precise textual variants that were read by the elders of the Talmud. And there is it said about the reason for the prohibition of chamets within the sixth hour, 'The rabbis made an extra distancing, so as not to reach a Torah prohibition.' And one who transgresses and eats chamets after midday is lashed." To here [are his words]. It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because the matter of the prohibition of chamets on Pesach is an extremely weighty prohibition, from the angle that it is a great foundation in our religion; since the exodus from Egypt is a sign and wonder that necessitates [there having been] a creation of the world, which is a great pillar upon which the chambers of the Torah rest - as we have written several times. And therefore any commandment that is in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt is weighty for us and very beloved. Hence from the angle of the great weightiness that there is to it, the Torah warned us to begin it six hours before the set time for that miracle, which is the beginning of the (holiday) fifteenth day. And all of this is in order that we put the weightiness of the commandment and the greatness of its content into our hearts, in our seeing that the Torah makes a fence for us around it. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 11b) that we eat chamets all [the first] four hours of this day, and we suspend [it] all of the fifth - meaning to say that we do not eat [it], due to the decree because of a cloudy day, and we do not burn [it], but rather we [can] benefit from it, to feed it to any creature or to sell it to a person - and we burn it at the beginning of the sixth hour. And this is an ordinance of the Sages regarding the commandment, in order to distance a person from sin, so that he will not stumble to eat it at the beginning of the seventh hour - which is a Torah prohibition, as we have said. And [it is] also like they, may their memory be blessed expounded from another verse; as they said there in Pesachim 4b, "It is is written (Exodus 12:19), 'Seven days leaven, etc.,' yet it is [also] written (Exodus 12:15), 'but on the first day, etc.' Behold, how is this? [It is] to include the fourteenth day for destruction [of chamets]." And [so] the understanding of "first" (rishon) would be like [its usage], "Were you born rishon Adam" (Job 15:7), the understanding of which is before. And from that which the verse obligated to dispose of it on that day, we knew that part of that day would necessarily be permitted, as it is impossible to determine the exact first instant of a day and dispose of it then. And since it is like this: That part of the day is permitted, and Scripture did not elucidate which part of it is permissible, we divided it equally from true logic - as if you divide in [any] other way, there will be no foundation to the thing at all. And that is what they said over there, "[The word,] 'but (akh),' divides." And those that explained that akh is chats (divide) in [the letter susbtitution pattern called], "achs, betaa" did not understand the words of the Sages. [This] and the rest of the details of the commandment are in Tractate Pesachim in the first chapter. And it is practiced by males and females in all places and at all times, even at this time when we do not have the Pesach sacrifice. And one who transgresses it and eats a kazayit of chamets after midday is liable for lashes, according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed. [This is] because he holds (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 199) that the law is like Rabbi Yehudah, who said that one who eats chamets before Pesach - [by which] I mean on the fourteenth day of Nissan from midday and onward - violates the negative commandment that we mentioned. But Ramban, may his memory be blessed, disagrees with him (in his glosses to the Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzot Lo Taase 199). And according to his opinion, there is no negative commandment in this, since the law is like Rabbi Shimon, who disagrees with Rabbi Yehudah. [Rabbi Shimon] says, "Whether it is before its time or whether after its time, he does not violate anything." And he expounds the matter from that which it is written (Deuteronomy 16:3), "'You shall not eat chamets upon it, seven days shall you eat matsot upon it'; at the time that a man is in the positive commandment of 'eat matsot,' there is the prohibition of 'do not eat chamets,' and at the time that he is not in the commandment of eat matsa - which is whether before the time of Pesach or whether afterwards - he is not in the prohibition of 'do not eat chamets.'" And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the word, "upon it," refers back to the eating of the Pesach sacrifice, which is eaten in the evening. And so is it explicit in the Talmud Yerushalmi Pesachim 1:4 that according to the words of Rabbi Yehudah, the word, "upon it," refers back to its slaughter; and according to the words of Rabbi Shimon to its eating, as it was eaten in the evening. And that which appears in the Gemara, "According to everyone, however, chamets is prohibited," and so [too,] what they said, "The rabbis made an extra distancing, so as not to reach a Torah prohibition" - all of this is true, that there is a Torah prohibition to benefit from chamets after six hours. However, the prohibition that comes upon it is from the commandment to dispose [of chamets] from Torah writ from six hours onward, but certainly there is no negative commandment in it at all - like Rabbi Shimon, like whom we hold. And so is it explicit there in the Gemara, "[That] according to everyone, however, chamets is by Torah writ from six hours and onward, from where do we [know it]? Abbaye said, 'Two verses are written, etc.'" And the end of his words there are, "Behold, how is this? [It is] to include the fourteenth day for destruction [of chamets]." Behold, it is clear that there is no prohibition about it after midday - according to the [legal conclusion] - except for the Torah commandment of disposing [of it]. Behold, according to the opinion of [Ramban], may his memory be blessed, this negative commandment of "You shall not eat," is not included in the tally of the commandments. Extend your ear, my son, and listen to the words of the sages - 'these and those are the words of the living God.' And know that that there are seventy faces to Torah, and [that] they are all correct. To not leave over from the festive (chagigah) sacrifice to the third day: To not leave over anything from the festive sacrifice of the fourteenth day until the third day - and that is the sacrifice that comes with the Pesach [sacrifice] to increase the joy - but rather to eat it all within two days, which are are the fourteenth and fifteenth. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:4), "and none of the meat of what you slaughter on the evening of the first day shall be left to the morning." And the received (traditional) understanding came upon this (Pesachim 71a) that the verse is speaking about the festive [sacrifice] that comes with the Pesach, [to say] that the time of its eating is up to two days. And about this festive [sacrifice], Scripture stated (Deuteronomy 16:2), "And you shall slaughter the Pesach to the Lord, your God, flock and cattle" - meaning to say, that with the Pesach, he bring another sacrifice; meaning to increase the joy. From the roots of the commandment is the fixed foundation that we have about the commandment of the matter of the Pesach [sacrifice], which is a strong commandment and foundation in our Torah. And hence we were commanded to make the day of its slaughtering a day of joy; and there is no complete joy for people without the proliferation of meat. And this is [the reason for] that which we have been commanded not to leave over at all to the third day from all of the meat that is slaughtered in honor of the joy of the Pesach. But rather, all of it must be eaten on its day, to increase upon it the gladness and the satiation of joyous occasions. And that which is said here is besides the reason that is written about leaving over [sacrifices in general] in the Order of Tsav (Sefer HaChinukh 143), which 'gives a reason (or, taste) for the better,' in all of the prohibitions of that which is left over. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 70a) that a man has not fulfilled his obligation of the festive [sacrifice] of the festival - which is also a positive commandment - with the festive [sacrifice] of the fourteenth, as is written in Mishpatim on the commandment to celebrate the festivals (Sefer HaChinukh 88). But he does fulfill his obligation with it for the obligation of the joy of the festival - which is also a positive commandment [as well] - as we have written in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 488); as the content of the obligation of joy is only to increase meat in order to rejoice, and behold, there is meat [in this]. And from this reason, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chagigah 7b) that we have fulfilled the [commandment of the] peace-offerings of joy even with a [a sacrifice that is the fulfillment of a] vow or oath of peace-offerings, and even if we slaughtered them before the festival - so long as he eats from them during the festival. As one does not have to slaughter the peace-offering of joy at the time of the joy. And one also need not slaughter them for the sake of the peace-offerings of joy - as the essence of the commandment is only to increase the joy with meat, as we have said. And [this] and the rest of its details are elucidated in Tractate Chagigah and in [various] places of Tractate Pesachim. And this commandment is practiced at the time of the [Temple] by males and females; as even women are obligated in peace-offerings of joy - even though [they are] caused by time - just as they are obligated in resting on [the festival of which it is a part]. And one who transgresses it and leaves over anything from this festive sacrifice to the third day is obligated to burn it with fire, as is the law with that which is left over. And hence there is no liability for lashes for this positive commandment, since it is rectified by a positive commandment - from the principle known to us about this. To not sacrifice the Pesach sacrifice on the bamah (altar) of an individual: That we were prevented from sacrificing the Pesach lamb on the bamah of an individual, and even during the time that [a bamah was] permissible. And the matter of the bamah is that before the building of the Choice House, each and every individual from Israel who wanted to offer a sacrifice would build an edifice in any place he wanted and offer his sacrifices there to God, may He be blessed. And even at that time when it was permitted for them to do so, [that was] specifically with the other sacrifices. But we always only offer the Pesach sacrifice on the community altar, and that is the place where there was the tabernacle there. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 16:5), "You may not slaughter the Pesach in one of your gates." And likewise they, may their memory be blessed, said at the end of the first chapter of Megillah 9b, "There is no difference between a large (communal) bamah and a small (private) bamah besides Pesach sacrifices." It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] to fix the greatness of the matter of the Pesach [sacrifice] and the preciousness of the commandment in our souls, from the reason that I wrote many times about it. And in truth, there is more glory for the commandment when they would do it all together in a specific place, and not each and every individual in the area he desires. The laws of the commandment are in the first chapter of Megillah. And this prohibition is practiced at the time of the [Temple] - as then do we offer the Pesach sacrifice - by males and females, as [females] are also obligated in the Pesach sacrifice, and as I wrote on the commandment of the Pesach in the Order of Bo, on [Commandment] 5. And it is possible to say that even at this time, one who transgress and consecrates a lamb as a Pesach and offers it on a private bamah has violated this negative commandment and is liable for lashes. The commandment to rejoice on the festivals: To rejoice on the festivals, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:14), "And you shall rejoice on your holiday." And the first matter that is hinted in joy is that we offer peace-offerings regardless at the Choice House. And [this] is like the matter that is written (Deuteronomy 27:7), "And you shall offer peace-offerings" and it continues, "and you shall rejoice on your holiday." And [concerning] the offering of peace-offerings, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chagigah 6b), "Women are obligated in joy" - meaning that even they are obligated to bring peace-offerings of joy. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Chagigah 8a), "Rejoice in all types of rejoicing." And included in this is the eating of meat and the drinking of wine, to wear new clothes, the distribution of fruit and types of sweets to the youths and the women and to play musical instruments in the Temple alone - and that is the joy of the drawing house (simchat beit hashoeva) that is mentioned in the Gemara (Sukkah 50a). All that we mentioned is included in "And you shall rejoice on your holiday." And they, may their memory be blessed, said in Tractate Pesachim 109a, "A man is obligated to gladden his children and the members of his household on a festival." And it is said there, "It was taught, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says, 'At the time when the Temple is standing, joy is only with meat, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27:7), "And you shall offer peace-offerings, etc." Now [...] joy is only with wine, as it is stated (Psalms 104:15), "And wine gladdens the heart of man."'" And they said further, "With what should one make them rejoice? Men with what is fit for them, with wine. And women with what is fit for them, with nice clothes." And the Torah also warned us to include the poor and the strangers (converts) and the weak in the joy, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:14), "you, the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow." It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because man is designed in [such] a way that his nature requires rejoicing occasionally, [just] like it requires nourishment regardless, and rest and sleep. And God wanted to give us - 'His people and the flock of His grazing' - merit and [so] commanded us to make the rejoicing for His sake, so that we could merit in all of our deeds in front of Him. And behold, He fixed for us times during the year for holidays, to remember upon them the miracles and the goodnesses that He granted us. And He commanded us then at those times to support the physical with something of joy that it needs. And it comes out as a big remedy for us that the satiation of joyous occasions be for His sake and to remember Him; as this thought will be a fence, that we do not go further out than is enough from the straight path. And the one who has reflection without a desire to argue will find reason in my words. And I have written a few of the laws of the commandment above. And the rest of its details are in Tractate Chagigah and in [various] places scattered in the Gemara. And this commandment is practiced regarding the joy - but not regarding the sacrifice - in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and does not rejoice himself, the members of his household and the poor according to his ability, for the sake of the commandment of the festival, has nullified this positive commandment. And in the way that we mentioned did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Avot 2:17), "All of your actions should be for the sake of Heaven." To appear on the festivals in the Choice House: That we were commanded to have all males appear in Jerusalem at the Choice House three set times a year - and they are Pesach, Shavout and Sukkot. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 16:16), "Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord, your God." And the content of the commandment is that every man go up to the Temple and appear there with any male child that he has who is able to walk by himself on his [own] feet. And from this obligation of appearing is also that he sacrifice a fire-offering there. And this sacrifice is called the fire-offering of being seen (olat reiah). And there is no measure for this sacrifice - even a dove or a fledgling exempts [one]. And I have already written in Mishpatim on the commandment to celebrate on the festivals (Sefer HaChinukh 88), that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chagigah 10b) [that] three commandments was Israel commanded on the holiday: celebration, being seen and joy. And they would bring a sacrifice for each one of these three commandments and they are called the festive sacrifice, the peace-offerings of joy and the fire-offering of being seen. It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] in order that all of Israel see and place upon their hearts, through the act of the sacrifice which awakens the hearts, that all of them - from the small to the great - are God's portion and His inheritance, a holy and chosen people, those that guard His testimonies, the treasure from all the peoples under all of the skies [that] keep His statutes and observe His religion. Hence they come three times a year to the House of God. And it is like their saying metaphorically, "Behold, we are like slaves to God, entering and coming under the shade of His roof, relying upon His strength forever and ever in the love for Him and in the fear of Him; and no foreigner shall come among us, as we alone are the children of His house." And with this act, our minds are aroused and we place His fear into our hearts and we fix His love into our thoughts, and we merit to receive His kindness and His blessing. And the obligation comes to us only upon the males, since they are the essence of the household, and the infants and wives are attached to them; and when there is control over [the males] as slaves, the control is [also] established over all that is under their hand. And from this foundation was the commandment at the appointed time of the sabbatical year during the holiday of Sukkot made unique, to gather there the men, women, infants and strangers. As that year liberates all and removes the subjugation from all the living - from all flesh - to return everything back under the hand of the Master, the Lord of Hosts. And then during that year the control over those under them is not effective, as there is no domination in the Land at that time. And there is another reason with us for the commandment of gathering (hakhel) - we shall write it in its place in the Order of Atem Netsavim (Sefer HaChinukh 612) with God's help. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Festival Offering 1:8), that the fire-offering of being seen and the peace-offerings of joy do not push off [the restrictions of] Shabbat or impurity, but they do push off the holiday, even though we do not [otherwise] sacrifice vows and oaths on the holiday. And I have also written some of its laws in the Order of Mishpatim on the commandment of celebration (Sefer HaChinukh 88). And there I wrote by whom it is practiced and by whom it is not practiced and all of its content, as is the custom of the book. To not go up for the festival without a sacrifice: To not go up to the Choice House on the festival without a sacrifice that we will offer there - and that is the sacrifice that we explained above in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 489), that is called the fire-offering of being seen. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 16:16), "and they shall not appear empty with the face of the Lord." The understanding of "face (pnei)" is like "in front of (lifnei)." And there I wrote from the roots of the commandment and all of its content. And this warning (negative commandment) is not practiced by females, [just] like the positive commandment that comes upon this is not practiced by females.

The baraita adds that there are additional differences between these two slaves: One who sells himself may not be pierced with an awl, whereas one who is sold by the court may be pierced with an awl. One who sells himself is not granted a severance gift by his master when he is emancipated, whereas one who is sold by the court is granted a severance gift. With regard to one who sells himself, his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant as a wife to produce slave children, whereas with regard to one sold by the court, his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant.

then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear and into the door, and he shall be thy bondman for ever. And also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise.

ורצע אדניו את אזנו במרצע AND HIS LORD SHALL BORE HIS EAR THROUGH WITH THE AWL — “His ear” means his right ear. Or perhaps this is not so, but Scripture means his left ear? Scripture however uses the term אזן here and it uses אזן in another passage, thereby suggesting an analogy based upon verbal similarity; viz., here it is said “and his lord shall bore his ear (אזנו) through”, and of the leper it is said, (Leviticus 14:25) “and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear (אזנו הימית) of him that is to be cleansed”. — How is it in that latter passage? It is the right ear! So here, too, it is the right ear. — What is the reason that the ear had to be pierced rather than any other limb of the servant’s body? Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai said: That ear which heard on Mount Sinai, (Exodus 20:13) “Thou shalt not steal” and yet its owner went and stole and was therefore sold as a slave — let it be pierced! Or, in the case of him who sold himself from destitution, having committed no theft, the reason is: That ear which heard on Mount Sinai what I said, (Leviticus 25:55) “For unto Me the children Israel are servants” and yet its owner went and procured for himself another master — let it be pierced! (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:6:3; Kiddushin 22b). Rabbi Simeon interpreted this verse like a jewel (i. e. giving it an ethical signification): In what respect are door and doorpost different from all other objects in the house that they should be singled out for this purpose? God, in effect, said: door and doorpost that were eye-witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and the two doorposts, freeing Israel from slavery, and when I said, (Leviticus 25:55) “For unto Me the children of Israel are servants” — servants to Me but not servants of servants (of human beings), and yet this man went and procured another master for himself — let him be pieced in their presence (i. e. let them be eye-witnesses now when this man voluntarily prolongs his state of slavery)! (Kiddushin 22b.)

It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou lettest him go free from thee; for to the double of the hire of a hireling hath he served thee six years; and the LORD thy God will bless thee in all that thou doest.