Rabbi Alal 4/23/20

(1) To not eat the swarming creature of the ground: To not eat the swarming creature of the ground, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:41), "And any swarming creature that swarms on the ground is an abomination; it shall not be eaten."

(2) I have already written above (Sefer HaChinukh 159) that which I know about the roots of this commandment, with all that comes about the prohibition of foods. There is no need to review it with each [commandment].

(3) From the laws of the commandment is, for example, the distinction that they, may their memory be blessed, made between the eight swarming creatures that are mentioned in the Torah and the other swarming things such as snakes, scorpions, the beetle, the centipede and those similar to them - such that they said that the measure for the liability for eating the eight swarming creatures stated in the Torah is like the measure of their impurity, which is like a lentil; and the measure for the others is a kazayit. And all of the measurements are a law of Moshe from Sinai (Eruvin 4a). And the rest of its details are elucidated in Tractate Chullin (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 84).

(4) And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and eats a kazayit of insects that are on the ground volitionally is lashed - and if he ate from the eight swarming creatures, even like [the size of] a lentil, he is lashed - and inadvertently, he is exempted.

(1) To not eat species of minute swarming creatures born in seeds and fruits: To not eat species of minute swarming creatures born in seeds and fruits, from the time they go out and swarm on the ground (Chullin 67a) - and the law is the same the whole time that they are produced in the fruit when it is still connected to the ground, even though they did not go out and swarm on the ground; as it is called "swarms on the ground," since it it is produced in the fruit while [in its being] connected - as it is stated (Leviticus 11:42), "for any of the swarming creature that swarms on the ground; you shall not eat them." But if they went out on the ground - even though they returned afterwards into the fruit - it is also called, "swarms on the ground," since it went out. And so is it in Sifra, Shmini, Chapter 12:2, "'(And you shall not render impure) [You shall not abominate) your souls from any of the swarming creatures that swarms' - to [include] those that separated to the ground and returned." [This is] meaning to say, even though they are now in their holes, since they went out to the ground, they became forbidden, and are called, "swarms on the ground."

(2) In this explanation that I wrote here that the liability for minute swarming creatures is from the time that they go out on the ground and not before this, I am ignoring that which Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote about it - and even though I set out to hold on to his path. As he wrote in his book of commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 179) that this negative commandment is from when they went out into the air or walked on the surface of the fruit. And we should wonder much about him with this, as we found explicitly in Chullin 67b, that this matter remains [unresolved] there - as it appears there, "Rav Yosef asks, 'If it separated to the air of the world, what is [the law]; on top of a date, what is [the law]?'" And even the rabbi himself wrote in his great essay (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 2:14, 16) that this matter is a doubt and [so] we do not administer lashes for it. And therefore, I put aside his explanation here, and I wrote [the commandment] by way of the truth. And here too did I find afterwards that Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (on the Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Root 9) wondered greatly about him on this mistake.

(3) I have written above (Sefer HaChinukh 159) about the roots of the commandment.

(4) Its laws are [for example,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 67b), "'That swarms on the ground' - to exclude mites that are in lentils, worms (that are in aklusinim) [that are in klisin]" - which is a type of legume - "and worms in dates and cakes of figs." And the law is the same for all insects that are produced in the fruits internally after they are detached, and [the insects] did not separate from within them - that they are not [prohibited] by this negative commandment of that which swarms on the ground. And they are permissible from [the letter] of the law, except that there is a little disgust to the soul of the one that is eating them. And if there is a doubt if the insects were produced in the fruit before they were detached or afterwards, he should check for them properly. And if they are very minute to the point that he cannot check, he should wait twelve months. And afterwards, they are permissible to eat, from the outset, without checking. [This is] due to the principle known to our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed (Chullin 58a) that all insects of fruits do not exist twelve months. The explanation of, "do not exist," is to say that once twelve months have passed over it, it is like total dirt. And because of this, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 58b), "Those dates in the jug are permitted after the time of twelve months." And if the insects of the fruits separated into the air but they did not touch the ground, as when they went out from the fruit and fell into the mouth of the eater; and so [too,] if they separated and crawled on top of the fruit, whether we consider on the fruit to be on the ground; and so [too,] if the insect separated form the fruit and fell to the ground after it died - all of this is forbidden from the doubt if we determine and say that it like one that swarms on the ground or not.

(5) And so [too,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 67b) [that] worms that are found in the intestines of fish are forbidden on account of [being] a swarming creature, since they come from the outside; but those found in them between the skin and the flesh or in the flesh are permitted. Those that are found in the intestines of the beast are forbidden, since they came from the outside. But even those found in the brain of the beast or in its flesh are forbidden, since there is not anything in the beast that is permitted without slaughter, and they are not susceptible to slaughter. And also since the Torah added them [by implication] to the forbidden. And [it is] like they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 67b), "You shall abominate their carcasses' (Leviticus 11:11) - is to include deranin (the understanding of which is insects found between the skin and the flesh) that are in the beast." And if you will [ask], how is it that the embryo is permitted without slaughter; [it is] because the Torah permitted it - as we expound in the Gemara (Chullin 69a) from "among (which can also be read as, 'in') the beast[...] you may eat" (Leviticus 11:3). And so [too,] did they, may their memory be blessed, permit (Chullin 66b) water in vessels that became worm-ridden, or even [if they were] in ditches and caves - meaning to say, any gathered waters. And they said (Chullin 66b) that a man [may] swim and drink from them, so long as the insects have not separated to a different place. And even if they have separated to the sides of the vessel or the pit - once they returned to it, he may drink and not prevent himself [from drinking], as this is their habitat. And it appears that there is not even [an issue] of 'you shall not be disgusting' with them. And that is [the meaning] of their saying, "and he may drink and not prevent himself." And it appears that the reason is because they found explicit permissibility from Scripture for them - as they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Chullin 66b), "'In the seas and in the streams' - [is it] that what has [signs], you may eat; what does not have signs, you may not eat. But in vessels, and similar to vessels, whether they have or whether they do not have, it is permitted."

(6) And also from the laws of the commandment is that which they said (Chullin 67a) that a man should not pour ale through tsavta at night, because of the concern for insects that stay in the tsavta, and afterwards fall into the cup - and the understanding of tsavta is straw that is on top of the vessel (which serves as a filter). And once the swarming creature is on the tsavta, its status is like a swarming creature on the ground.

(7) And the law of a creature which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 96b) that it is not ever neutralized. [This is] meaning to say that even if it fell into a thousand pieces like it of permissible matter, it is not neutralized by them, and [the whole mixture] is forbidden. As just like it is significant regarding lashes, such that we administer lashes for it for the smallest amount - as it is [found] in Tractate Makkot 13a - so too, is it significant concerning prohibitions, such that it is never neutralized. And even though in Talmud Yerushalmi, Terumot in the chapter [entitled] Batsal, they said, "Rabbi Yose bar Bon taught about a mouse, 'One in a thousand'" - our Gemara (the Babylonian Talmud), which says that it is not neutralized even in a thousand, is preferable to us.

(8) And the understanding of a creature is meaning to say any living animal; and even the smallest worm, since it has life. This is the main understanding of creature. [However,] they, may their memory be blessed, also said that concerning it not being ever neutralized and [not] even in a thousand, anything that is forbidden from the beginning of its creation and is all whole like as its creation, is called a creature - to exclude if it is lacking even the smallest amount, which does not have the status of a creature, and we only administer lashes for it with a kazayit. And it must be from an animal, like the sciatic nerve which has all of this - to exclude any fruit, which is not a living animal, and anything similar to it.

(9) And [related] to the creature that we are saying that it is significant and not neutralized - we will say that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Orlah 3:7) that any significant thing is not neutralized, such as nuts with brittle shells, Badan pomegranates, sealed barrels [of wine], beet shoots, cabbage heads, Greek gourds and loaves [of bread] of homeowners. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 16:9) that it is not specifically these seven things, but rather any significant thing; except that these were the significant things at the time of the Sages of the Mishnah, may their memory be blessed.

(10) And that which we said that a creature is not neutralized and the intention was to say whether alive or dead - [that is] specifically a creature that is forbidden from the beginning of its creation, such as an impure beast or an impure swarming creature; and so [too,] a sciatic nerve, as it too is forbidden from the beginning of its creation. But a beast that is fit (kosher) from its beginning is only not neutralized when it is still alive - on account of living animals being significant and [so,] not neutralized (Zevachim 73a). But after it dies, it certainly [can have] neutralization; and we say that it [can be] neutralized, even with a large dead ox. And this is according to Rabbi Yochanan - as the law follows him - who said in the Gemara (Beitzah 3b) regarding significant things that are not neutralized, "We learned things that it is their way to be counted." [This is] meaning to say that we learned that the things that are not neutralized are those that it is the way of people to always count due to their importance, such as the seven designated above. But it is not the way of people to always consider an ox significant in their hearts; since it is not fit at the time, and [so] its benefit is not close to the hearts of people like those seven things.

(11) And do not wonder to say, [how is it that] a piece from it with which it is fitting to honor guests will be considered significant and will not be neutralized, whereas all of it together will be neutralized; as in truth, it is so. As the benefit of one piece from it is close and the hearts of people are close to it and render it significant - and hence they said that it is not neutralized, even though all of it can be neutralized. And know this and understand it.

(12) And there are some commentators that said (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 101:3) that the law of a piece with which it is fitting to honor is not neutralized, was only said with one that is cooked - as then is it fitting to honor with [it]. And there are some of them that said that it is said even when it is raw. And there are some commentators that also said that we only say that a piece with which it is fitting to honor is not neutralized, when it is forbidden on account of itself. But if a prohibited substance fell into it and gave it taste, it [can be] neutralized - since the prohibited substance it not fitting to honor. And even though we find that even with a piece of meat into which milk fell, they said in Avodah Zarah 74b that it is not neutralized - meat with milk is different, as their mixture makes them like a piece of forbidden substance on account of itself. And the rest of these many detailed matters are in Chullin and in Avodah Zarah (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 105).

(13) And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and eats a completely whole impure creature volitionally - whether it is alive or dead, and even if it is less than a mustard seed, and even if it was putrid; and whether it [came about] by way of male and female or from all the decay that is in the world - and it came out on the ground, one who eats it all is lashed for it. But if it is lacking even one leg, he is not lashed until he eats a kazayit of it.

(1) To not eat of the swarming creatures of the waters: To not eat of the swarming creatures of the waters, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:43), "You shall not abominate your souls with any swarming creature that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them and become impure through them." And the substance of a swarming creature of the waters is well-known; that it is from the minute creatures that swim in the water - and they are called the swarming creatures of the waters. And this negative commandment is specific to them, [and] besides the negative commandment that is specific to the impure fish; as these are not included as fish at all, since they are a completely different species of its own. That is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 179), about this verse, that it comes to teach about this. But Ramban, may this memory be blessed, (on Sefer HaMitzvot, Root 9, s.v. veraiti lerav z"l) disagrees with him on this and wrote, that this negative commandment is not a specific negative commandment about any swarming creature; but rather that it is from the general negative commandments for which we do not administer lashes, like "You shall not eat any abomination" in Deuteronomy 14:3 at the beginning of the sections of the prohibited animals. And so [too,] here at the end of all of them, it stated, "You shall not abominate your souls" with all of the walkers of the ground that I have prohibited. And grouped in this was the prohibition of the impure beast, the prohibition of the impure fowl, the flying swarming creature and the swarming creature of the ground. As all the forbidden and the distanced is included in abomination, as [with] "For He did not disparage nor abominate the plea of the lowly" (Psalms 22:25). And both of them, may their memories be blessed, wrote at length about this negative commandment and involved in it that which [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara [in] Makkot 16b, "If he ate a putita, he is lashed four [sets], an ant five, a wasp six." And each one explains what appears [correct to him] about the matter.

(2) And if I had come to write all of their arguments about the thing such as they are, the matter would be lengthy, to the point that a large parchment would not hold it and I would go out of this task of mine. However, according to my opinion, their main disagreement in the matter is dependent upon whether we administer two [sets of] lashes for one prohibition or not. As Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Root 9) in the roots of the commandments [such] that he made and fixed with screws that we can never be lashed two [sets of] lashes for one sin - and even if several negative commandments come about it in Scripture. [It is] as if you would say by way of illustration that "You shall not eat pig" would come in the Torah in five verses - or even one hundred; if he ate it, he would always only be lashed for one eating. And even though those negative commandments do not come to have anything expounded from them besides the additional prohibitions - nonetheless, a man is always lashed only one [set of] lashes for a single prohibition.

(3) And from the angle of this root that it is fixed for him, he had to greatly strain the explanation of that teaching of the Gemara of Makkot and to explain it not like the explanation of all of the commentators that preceded him. And he, himself, wrote that he did not see the commentary of any man before him who explains it like him. And the general rule of his commentary about the thing is that which he always reviews; that that which they said that a man is lashed for the eating of one creature [for] many negative commandments is such that that creature has the addition of an aspect, such that that [additional] negative commandment is designated for that addition; and not that he ever be lashed two [sets of] lashes for one prohibition alone - and even if there are a thousand negative commandments stated in the Torah about it, as we said. And therefore he said that the creature for which the Sages, may their memory be blessed, made liable several [sets] of lashes is such a one as brings together in its body several species. For example, [it is] such that you would say that its character is such that it is possible to call it a swarming creature of the ground and a flying swarming creature - for example that it has wings - and a swarming creature of the waters, that it also swims in the water even as it flies in the air. [This is] as we sometimes see in a few species of swarming creatures. And in this way with some strain that he strains in his explanation, he explains this teaching in the Gemara of Makkot: "If he ate a putita, he is lashed four [sets], an ant five, etc." And he exerts himself to find six separate matters in the body of one creature.

(4) And Ramban, may his memory be blessed does not require all of this. As he reasons that we should administer several [sets of] lashes for one prohibition if there are multiple negative commandments in the Torah about it and they are not required by us for other teachings. And he [presented] many proofs about this - proofs that appear 'strong as a mirror of cast metal.' And he explained the teaching of the Gemara Makkot nicely like the understanding of the early scholars. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, expounds the negative commandment of the swarming creatures of the water from that which is written in the section of the prohibition of fish, "And anything that does not have fins and scales, etc. from any swarming creature of the waters, etc. it shall be an abomination for you" (Leviticus 11:10). And this is truly a thing that is learned from its context, as it is speaking in the section about the prohibition of fish, and there it is also speaking about the swarming creature of the waters. Understand this, my son; and if you merit, choose for yourself according to your opinion - these and those are the words of the living God.

(5) We have written above (Sefer HaChinukh 73, 155) from the roots of the prohibition of food.

(6) Its laws are short, and the general principle of the matter is that all those small creatures - like worms, leeches and similar to them - that grow in the waters, are called swarming creatures of the waters.

(7) And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and eats a whole creature of them - and even if it is the smallest - is lashed. But if it is not whole, he is not lashed until he eats a kazayit of them. And nonetheless, it is forbidden to eat even less than a kazayit from Torah writ; as half of a measure [that would result in punishment] is forbidden by the Torah. But there is only liability for lashes for eating the transmitted measure.

(1) To not eat of swarming creatures that exist from decay: To not eat of swarming creatures that exist from decaying matter - even though they are not from a known species and do not exist from male and female - as it is stated (Leviticus 11:44), "and you shall not defile your souls with any swarming creature that crawls upon the ground." And the language of Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12:4 is "'Swarming creature that crawls upon the ground' - even though it does not give fruit and multiply." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote that "swarming" is stated about a swarming thing that is born from a male and female and "crawling" is stated about one that is made from decay. But Ramban, may his memory be blessed (on Sefer HaMitzvot, Root 9, s.v. vehaperush) challenged him from verses that are written; and he wrote that in all of them, [both] swarming and crawling are stated.

(2) Its root is well-known.

(3) Its laws are short, such that all of its details can be gathered in one general principle: That all swarming creatures of decayed matter in the world that crawl on the earth have been prohibited to us; except for swarming creatures from the decay of fruit that were produced there after they were detached [and] swarming creatures from decaying matter in the waters that are in vessels - it is all like we said above (Sefer HaChinukh 163).

(4) And it is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and eats a creature from any of the decaying matter in garbage dumps or in any place, even the smallest of the small - once he has eaten it and it was whole - is lashed for it. And if it was not whole, its measure is with a kazayit, as we said.