Zohar Harakia 9781618111104

Citation preview

————————————————————

Preface

————————————————————

Zohar HaRakia

—1—

————————————————————

Preface

————————————————————

Judaism and Jewish Life Series Editor: Simcha Fishbane, Touro College, New York Editorial Board: Geoffrey Alderman (University of Buckingham, Buckinham) Meir Bar-Ilan (Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan) Herbert Basser (Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario) Donatella Ester Di Cesare (Universita La Sapienza, Rome) Roberta Rosenberg Farber (Yeshiva University, New York) Andreas Nachama (Touro College, Berlin) Ira Robinson (Concordia University, Montreal) Nissan Rubin (Bar-Ilan Unviersity, Ramat Gan) Susan Starr Sered (Suffolk University, Boston) Reeva Spector Simon (Yeshiva University, New York)

—2—

————————————————————

Preface

————————————————————

ZOHAR HARAKIA RABBI SHIMON BEN ZEMACH DURAN English Translation PHILIP J. CAPLAN

Boston 2012 —3—

————————————————————

Preface

————————————————————

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Copyright © 2012 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-936235-57-5 Book design by Adell Medovoy Published by Academic Studies Press in 2012 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www. academicstudiespress.com

—4—

————————————————————

Preface

————————————————————

Contents Translator’s Preface

6

Introduction

9

Zohar HaRakia: General Principles

12

The Positive Commandments

65

The Negative Commandments

221

Appendix to the Zohar HaRakia

421

Glossary

439

Translator’s Afterword

442

Index

445

—5—

————————————————————

Preface

————————————————————

Translator's Preface In my book on the enumeration of the 613 commandments of the Torah (The Puzzle of the 613 Commandments and Why Bother, Jason Aronson Inc., Northvale, NJ, 1996), I give considerable attention to the Zohar Harakia in chapters 6 and 17. I was convinced that this work had much to offer to a broad spectrum of students. Not the least of the merits of this book is that it uses as a basis the enumeration embodied in Sh’mor Libi Ma’aneh, the poetic version of the great Solomon ibn Gabirol. A fascinating memoir by Nobel laureate S. Y. Agnon is built on his experience while reading this Azharot (poetic version of the commandments designed for recitation on the first night of Shavuot). A second virtue of the Zohar Harakia is that it serves as a concise review of the classical period of the development of the enumeration of the commandments. It summarizes the contributions of the Halachot Gedolot, Maimonides’s Sefer Hamitzvot, and the critique of Nachmanides, as well as explaining the language of ibn Gabirol. It is also noteworthy in that the author tries to make his work understandable to Jewish layman students. Finally, the author gives his own opinions, which may conflict with those of earlier authorities. The author of Zohar Harakia was Shimon ben Zemach Duran (1361– 1444). Like his predecessors, Maimonides and Nachmanides, his life was disturbed by persecution, since the Spanish anti-Semitic outbreaks of 1391 caused him to abandon his native Majorca and settle in Algiers. Also, like his great predecessors, he was trained in medicine. However, he could not practice his profession in his new home, since the people there looked to amulets for healing rather than medical expertise. He became a paid rabbinic leader, devoting his life to leadership in his community, and he produced a number of valuable books. The Zohar Harakia, although highly regarded and often quoted in subsequent works on enumerating the commandments, was not printed often, and I had difficulty in finding it in Jewish bookstores. Two things had an influence on my decision to write a translation. One is the recent appearance of Rabbi David Abraham’s improved edition of the Zohar Harakia (Jerusalem, 1987/5747). This work includes a valuable Hebrew commentary and gives sources for many biblical and rabbinic quotations, most of which had not appeared before. Without this, —6—

————————————————————

Preface

————————————————————

it would have been problematic for me to undertake this translation. The second influential circumstance was the state of the printed text of the Zohar Harakia. The Torah Shlemah Institute’s edition of this work (Jerusalem, 1977) contains notes and textual corrections by the eminent authority Rabbi Y. Perlow. I assumed, therefore, that there was no need to worry about inadequacies of the text. But upon studying a certain section in the introduction, I came across a series of obvious errors that showed that I had overrated the soundness of the text. Therefore, I sought out earlier editions and succeeded in obtaining two early versions. One of them was a copy of the first printed edition (Constantinople, 1515), which I obtained from the British Library (Shelfmark, 1962.d.20). The second was a copy of a manuscript in the Bodleian Library of Oxford University (Shelfmark MS.Mich.3434), which I obtained indirectly from a microfilm copy in the Jewish Theological Seminary library. I deeply appreciate this, since it enabled me to make many worthwhile corrections. I also thank Rabbi Ephraim Greenbaum of the Torah Shlemah Institute for enabling me to make a photocopy of the original marginal notes of Rabbi Perlow. I also wish to acknowledge Dr. Arnold Lustiger of Edison, New Jersey, for his expert help in locating a troublesome Midrashic citation, which showed that Duran had misunderstood it. My wife, Iola, my children, and their families have been helpful during the preparation of this work. My grandson Adam in particular has been my main consultant regarding the technicalities of typing the document. I am indebted to my friend Rabbi Ezra Labaton of Oakhurst, New Jersey, for his interest, encouragement, and efforts to find a publisher. Also, I am thankful to Professor Raymond Scheindlin of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America for examining a portion of my manuscript and his evaluation. Finally, I happily recall here the many years in which I had conducted weekly study sessions with my wife, Iola, and my friends Elli Epstein, Elaine Zimmerman, and Morris Zimmerman. “I learned the most from my students.” I am immensely grateful to Academic Studies Press and its staff. Dr. Simcha Fishbane was the one who initiated this connection. The editorial personnel were professional, competent, and supportive in their work on this demanding manuscript. In particular, I extend my thanks to Dr. Sara Libby Robinson, Sharona Vedol, and Kira Nemirovsky. During recent years my wife and I have undergone many challenges —7—

————————————————————

Preface

————————————————————

together. We are also thankful for the many happy times that we shared, not the least of which was when my study time and her violin practice time filled our dwelling simultaneously. Baruch Hanoten La’ya’ef Koach.

—8—

———————————————————— Introduction ————————————————————

Introduction1 In the Name of the Eternal God of the World I have seen people of quality, and they are but few, and just one in ten of these are masters. But there is a proliferation of unworthy people who are sinful to God and speak like the piercings of a sword (Prov. 12:18). They drink bowls of wine and strum on stringed instruments. They fill their houses with silver, cloaks and girdles, turbans (Isa. 3:22–23), coats, and vests. They are fat and sleek (Jer. 5:28), and they kick aside those who dwell before the Lord They encircle them and pursue them and easily trample them (Judg. 20:43), while they let go from their mouths the nipples of wisdom. They fill them with bitter herbs; they make them swallow wall ivy and asafetida. They strike the face of a judge of Israel with a rod and pluck his cheeks. And they become to all around them a prickly brier and a painful thorn, despising them (Ezek. 28:24). [The righteous] are among lions and must lie amid flames (Ps. 57:5). But I, in the exile on the river Chebar (Ezek. 1:1),2 have hated doing crooked things (Ps. 101:3), and I have hated them that keep false vanities (Jon. 2:9) and seek idols and charmers (Isa. 19:3). All my life I have grown up among the wise (Avot 1:17) from whose mouth I took Torah, statutes, and laws. I did not envy the arrogant (Ps. 73:3), those who were at ease from youth, settled quietly over their sediment (Jer. 48:11), brought up with scarlet (Lam. 4:5), and dressed in crimson delicately, having wrapped themselves with garments of linen and purple cloth (Esther 8:15) and having eaten delicacies of gazelle, deer, roebuck, and fine wheat flour. For I have seen during my days of vanity that guarded wealth can make wings for itself (Prov. 23:5); one may lie down a rich 1

2

This is a prefatory poetic statement about the author’s values and the nature of his book. It is written in the common florid style based mostly on biblical verses. I have indicated many of the biblical sources in order to make the mode of expression more understandable. The main poetic device used is the repetition of the sound teem at the end of sentences. The thoughts expressed are (a) the vanity of worldly pleasures, (b) the excellence of the pursuit of wisdom, (c) the author’s experience of conflicting enumerations by preceding authorities of the 613 commandments, (d) his decision to study the subject deeply and to formulate his own evaluations, and (e) his hope that his work Zohar Harakia will be blessed with success. The opening line is based on a Talmudic source (Sanhedrin 97b, Sukkah 45b) about a statement of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. It perhaps was part of Duran’s intention to play on the identity of his own name with that of the great Talmudic figure. Duran actually resided in Algiers. Like Ezekiel, he was forced to abandon his birthplace. —9—

———————————————————— Introduction ————————————————————

man, and at daybreak his acquisitions can tumble. Those who store up violent gain and plunder will reach a time when they will be violently hurled, and they will be wound around (Isa. 22:18). Their wealth will be no avail on the day of wrath to save those who are taken toward death and are tottering toward slaughter (Prov. 24:11). Though the same event befalls the righteous as the wicked (Eccles. 9:2), and as one dies, so dies the other (ibid., 3:19), for the one they weep and mourn, and for the other they scratch themselves and make incisions. I have seen, nevertheless, that there is an excellence of wisdom over wealth, just as those who use good sense have excellence over fools. For the rich man on his death leaves his wealth to others (Ps. 49:11) who may eat, drink, and curse, and when they quarrel, they will lie down in sorrow (Isa. 50:13), struggling and arguing. However, when the wise man lies down [in death] with his fathers, he leaves behind him a treasured and organized blessing; books that enlighten like the brilliance of the firmament (Dan. 12:3) and that extend peace like a river (Isa. 66:12). And today, I was called away from the valley of the law, and I saw army arrayed against army in battles of wielding (Isa. 30:32) drawn swords; in the hand of one a splendid rod and in the hand of the other a strong staff (Isa. 48:17) and rods, to bring forth the number of God’s host, i.e., his commandments, to call out each of them by name, according to his criteria, one saying one way and the other saying otherwise; one having his sword at his side, and the other one saying, “Brighten the arrows and gather the shields” (Jer. 51:11). I saw this, and I was confused, I fell on my face and I slumbered, I fainted and I became ill (Dan. 8:27) like a man would sleep after being chastised with scorpions and whips (1 Kings 12:11). And when I said, “Let me turn to see” (Exod. 3:3) [these discussions], pains came upon me (Dan. 10:16), and all my bones shook, and my heart swayed like the swaying of acacia trees (Isa. 7:2). But on second thought, I saw that I am not better than my fathers and not greater than my teachers. For when I see a book compiled in which weighty things are treated (Ps. 87:3), a person should sharpen the face of his comrade (Prov. 27:17). He should protect and give understanding [to his comrades], who are picking among the sheaves after the harvest (Ruth 2:15).3 3

The preceding says that one should not be overwhelmed by the difficulties in the works of his predecessors but should work on elucidating them for the benefit of his fellow students. — 10 —

———————————————————— Introduction ————————————————————

Then [there came a time when] I could say, “Behold I came with the scroll of a book written about what my eyes saw and my eyes discerned,” since I sifted the flour and removed the bran. And I spoke the prayer, “May He who answered Phineas at Shittim answer us from his holy heavens.”4 Since this book is based on the Azharot, I called it Zohar Harakia (Dan. 12:3). So perhaps God will see me in my lowly state and will show me Himself and His abode in the section of the righteous, who shine like the brightness of the firmament (ibid.). And when my transformation comes (Josh. 14:14), my name will be on this book as a memorial, as the names of the tribes were on Aaron’s shoulders (Exod. 28:9–12). And if I go on this road with my heart wayward (Isa. 57:17), will not God search this out, for He knows the hidden parts of the heart, His throne is the heavens, and His eyes survey the whole earth. May He send to us the messenger of the covenant (Mal. 3:1), for a redeemer will come to Zion, the king bound captive in their coils (Song of Songs 7:6).

4

There is no explicit mention in Num. 25 of Phineas praying at Shittim. But in Ps. 106:30, the word vayefallel is used, which is akin to the word for “prayed.” In the penitential prayer “Mi sheanah,” we have “May He who answered Phineas when he arose from the congregation, answer us.” The reason why Duran picked the particular instance of Phineas was on account of the place Shittim, which is good for his rhyme scheme here. — 11 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

Zohar Harakia: General Principles5

If you have accomplished much in Torah, God will not withhold your reward. By the breath of your mouth you will sustain the land, you will spread the firmament with Him (Job 37:18). With the rod of your mouth you will smite the enemy, and by the breath of your mouth you will breach the enemy. At the sound of the horn you will utter “Aha!” You will topple the wall when you sound a blast. With a fish-hook you will draw out Leviathan, and you will imbed a rope in his tongue (Job 40:25). Like the everlasting stars, you will shine like the brightness of the firmament. This is something agreed throughout all Israel that the number of commandments is 613. And there is no disagreement about this at all. The source of this is what is stated at the end of Makkot (23b) that Rabbi Simlai expounded that 613 commandments were spoken to Moses at Sinai, 365 [prohibitions] corresponding to the days of the year, and 248 [positive commandments] corresponding to a man’s body parts. Rav Hamnuna said, “What is a scriptural source for this? It is (Deut. 33:4) ‘Moses commanded us Torah,’ and the gematria value of Torah is this.” But it was objected that the numerical value of Torah is 611. The reply given was that (Exod. 20:2) “I am . . .” and (Exod. 20:3) “You shall not have . . .” we heard from the mouth of the Mighty One [so there were two commandments that Israel received directly and 611 through Moses]. There is not found any disagreement with Rabbi Simlai’s statement either in the Talmud or Midrash. However, there is an argument in Midrash Chazita (Shir Hashirim Raba 1:13) about the asmachta proof of Rav Hamnuna. For it is stated there that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said 5

The following poem extolling the rewards of studying Torah has six lines. Each line ends with the sound kia, which is the concluding sound of the Hebrew title. — 12 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

that two statements [of the Decalogue] Israel heard from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed is He, i.e., “I am . . .” and “You shall not have . . .” That is alluded to by (Song of Songs 1:2) “He would kiss me from the kisses of his mouth” [implying] not all of the kisses. [The rabbis say that the kisses here symbolize the giving of the Decalogue, and the preposition “from” implies that only some parts of it were given directly like a kiss.] But the other rabbis said that Israel heard all the statements [of the Decalogue] from the mouth of the Mighty One. Rabbi Joshua of Sichnin in the name of Rabbi Levi [explained] that the reasoning of the other rabbis is that only after all the statements of the Decalogue that it is written (Exod. 20:16) “You speak with us that we may hear” [that is, the people, having heard the Decalogue directly from the Almighty, were overwhelmed and asked that thereafter Moses should speak God’s messages]. How does Rabbi Joshua ben Levi deal with this [reasoning on the basis of Exod. 20:16]? He would say that there is no chronological order in the Torah [and the request in 20:16 happened after the second statement, and the remaining eight were delivered by Moses]. Then [if the chronological order is uncertain, how do you know it happened after the second statement, since] “you speak with us that we may hear” might have been spoken after two or three statements of the Decalogue. [This is addressed by] Rabbi Azariah and Rabbi Yehudah b’rabbi Simon, who said on behalf of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, whose opinion they held: “It is written ‘Moses commanded us Torah.’ The whole Torah has 613 commandments. The gematria value of Torah accounts for 611 commandments that Moses spoke to us. ‘I am . . .’ and ‘You shall not have . . .’ we heard not from Moses’s mouth but from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed is He [in conformity with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s opinion about] ‘He would kiss me from the kisses of his mouth.’” [This concludes the quotation from Midrash Chazita.] Thus, it is clear that there is disagreement about the interpretation of Rav Hamnuna. Nevertheless, we must say that even though the Midrashic interpretation of the verse, “Moses commanded us Torah” is not accepted by everyone, still the number of Rabbi Simlai is accepted by everyone. Even if they could not find any support for this in Scripture, we could say that it was an accepted tradition that this was the number of the commandments, and we should indeed say this, since we have seen this number occurring widely in the Talmud and Midrashim. For even in Midrash Chazita, in which the disagreement, which I mentioned — 13 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

was quoted, this number is mentioned even there as the number of the commandments. And in the Talmud, Sh’vuot (29a) and Nedarim (25a), regarding the oath that Moses made Israel take, they stated, “He could have said, ‘Keep the commandment concerning idol worship and the whole of the Torah,’ or else [instead of ‘the whole Torah’] ‘the 613 commandments.’” Also in the Gemara Shabbat, chapter “Rabbi Akiva” (87a), and in Yebamot (62a) it says, “What reasoning [led Moses to] break the tablets [of stone]? He said that concerning the law of the Paschal lamb, which is only one of the 613 commandments, the Torah states (Exod. 12:43), ‘No alien shall eat of it.’ So when the whole Torah is involved, and Israel as a whole have become apostates, it is even more true [that is, Israel does not deserve to have the privilege of possessing the Torah, so he broke the tablets].” Also in the Gemara Yebamot (47b), it is stated concerning Naomi that she said to Ruth, “We are charged with observing 613 commandments.” Likewise, [it is said] in Bereshit Rabba (24:5) that Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Simon said that the primeval Adam was worthy of having the Torah given through him, which is in keeping with the verse (Gen. 5:1) “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “I shall give the Torah to this work of my hands.” But He later changed His mind and said, “I gave him only six commandments and he has not been able to obey any of them: so how should I give him 248 positive commandments and 365 prohibitions?” Also, in Midrash Tanchuma (Tetze 2), it is said that there are 248 positive commandments corresponding to the limbs of a person, [to suggest] that each part of the body is telling him “Perform a commandment with me.” And there are 365 prohibitions, [to suggest] that every day is saying to him, “Do not do a transgression on me.” And it is similarly stated in Midrash Mishlei (Yalkut Mishlei 4:937). Likewise, there are hints mentioned about this matter (Midrash Rabba, end of Korach), where they expound concerning the tzitzit the verse (Num. 15:39) “And you shall remember all the commandments of the Lord” [How does the tzitzit symbolize all the commandments?] Tzitzit [when spelled with an extra yod] has the gematria value 600. And the tzitzit fringes have eight threads and five knots, so this adds up to 613. They also said about Jacob that [even while] in the house of Laban, he fulfilled the 613 commandments, as it is said (Gen. 34:2 ), “I dwelt with Laban” [the word garti, I dwelt] has the numerical value 613. They likewise said that Ruth the — 14 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

Moabite was so named [the gematria value of Ruth being 606] because she became a proselyte and received 606 commandments, which, in addition to the seven Noachide laws, becomes 613. Also they expounded that (Jer. 2:21) “I planted you as a sorek” that it [sorek] has the gematria value 606, corresponding to the number of commandments, which He added for us over the Noachide laws. Also, etrog [citron] has the gematria value 610, which combines with the three other species that are with it to become 613. We also have found a hint about this in the number of letters in the Decalogue, which are 613 until [the last two words] asher l’re’echa. And asher l’re’echa has seven letters corresponding to the Noachide laws. When these are added, it becomes 620, which alludes to the Exalted Crown of Torah [the gematria value of Keter, meaning “Crown,” is 620], as is known to those familiar with Kabbalah.6 There is another allusion to this due to the masters of Kabbalah, based on the thirty-two paths of wisdom, which Abraham, our patriarch, mentioned in his well-known book Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation). When you multiply this by ten [the number of] utterances in the Decalogue, which also corresponds to the ten Sefirot [of the mystical theory], you have 320. Multiply this number by two, one corresponding to the quality of love and the other to that of awe, and it also corresponds to the commandment of “remember” (Exod. 20:8) and “observe” (Deut. 5:12) and also to the two qualities of divine justice. This makes 640. Now subtract that from the twenty-seven letters of the Hebrew alphabet [the twentytwo regular letters] plus [the final forms of] mem, nun, tzade, pe, kaph, there remains 613. For this reason, the Torah begins with the letter bet and ends with a lamed [numerical values 2 and 30, respectively] to correspond with the thirty-two paths of wisdom. Furthermore, the number of threads of the tzitzit in the four corners [of the garment] is thirty-two, eight on each corner. Therefore, it is written (Num. 15:39), “And you shall remember [all of the commandments]” [since the 613 commandments are based on the thirty-two paths of wisdom]. In the commandment of tefillin, there is also an indication of the 613 commandments, for the two letters shin on the chamber of the 6

The kabbalistic term for the highest of the Sefirot is Keter, i.e., Crown, or Keter Elyon, i.e., Exalted Crown. The insertion “of Torah” is not standard terminology. It is based on the saying “the crown of the Torah” in Avot 4:13, where it has a different connotation. Its insertion here may be due to the numerical correspondence between the total content of the Torah and the highest Sefirah. — 15 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

head tefillin have the gematria value of 600 [since each shin equals 300]. The box itself equals six, [i.e., the six faces of a cube], and, as for the two shins on the head chamber, one has three heads and the other has four, so they all add up to 613. This is why it says, “That the law of the Lord be in your mouth” (Exod. 13:9). So there is a large consensus that this number is appropriate for the enumeration of the commandments, about which there is no doubt in the discussions of the Talmud and the Midrashim. Also, the early Geonim and their great successors held this to be fundamental. And poets relied on them and composed songs and poems about them7, and the custom developed to recite them on Shavuot in synagogues throughout the Diaspora of Israel, and no one expressed any doubt about this. But there occurred to Nachmanides a serious doubt about this. This is that many things are found in the Torah where there is disagreement among the Talmudic sages as to whether they constitute a commandment or [an expression of] permission. Nachmanides cited some of them, e.g., that Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagreed in Tractate Sotah (3a) about three verses as to whether they indicate obligation or permission. The first is (Num. 5:14) “and he be jealous of his wife,” which, according to Rabbi Ishmael, expresses permission, while Rabbi Akiva says that it is a duty. The second is (Lev. 21:3) “for her he may [or must] defile himself,” which, according to Rabbi Ishmael, expresses permission, while Rabbi Akiva says that it is a duty. The third is (Lev. 25:45) “of them you may [must] take bondmen forever,” which, according to Rabbi Ishmael, expresses permission, while Rabbi Akiva says that it is a duty. So according to Rabbi Ishmael, three of the 613 commandments will be missing. Also, in the first chapter of Kiddushin (21a) (concerning the verse Lev. 25:25), “and he shall (may) redeem what his brother sold,” Rabbi Joshua says that it expresses permission, but Rabbi Eliezer says that it is a duty. A similar case is what we learned (Makkot 12a) that if an [unintentional] murderer left his city of refuge, and a blood avenger encountered him, Rabbi Yose says that it is a duty for the blood avenger to kill him, while any other person is permitted to do so; but Rabbi Akiva says that it is permitted for the blood avenger to kill him], etc. And again in the Gemara Brachot (21a), there is disagreement whether 7

These poetic versions of the 613 commandments are called Azharot. — 16 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

the practice of reading the Shema is a rabbinic enactment or a Torah law. And I also found an argument in Tractate Yoma, chapter “Amar Lahem Hamemuneh” (30b), about the reason why no one [even one who is in a state of purity] is allowed to enter the temple courtyard [the word la’avodah, “for service” is considered as “not necessarily so,” since the law applies even for some other purpose] unless he immerses himself. According to Ben Zoma, [the immersion] is a positive duty [by Torah law]; while according to Rabbi Judah, it is not a Torah law but [was enacted by the rabbis] to awaken the memory of an old defilement and have the person separate from it.8 And Pesach Sheni [the paschal observance a month later, if one was unable to participate in the regular Passover] is, in Rabbi’s [Judah the Prince] view, an independent holiday, while Rabbi Nathan considers it a replacement for the first one and included in it, so it would not be separately enumerated. Also “that your brother may live with you” (Lev. 25:36) is a positive commandment, according to Rabbi Elazar, that one must return interest [after having received it]; but according to Rabbi Yochanan, it is not a positive commandment, as is noted in chapter “Ezehu Neshech” (Bava Mezia 62a) and in the first chapter of Temurah (6a). All of the above examples concern positive commandments. And regarding prohibitions, there are similarly arguments as to whether they are actually enumerable commandments or not, as follows. In the Gemara Zevachim (65b), they differ about severing the signs [of kosher slaughter of fowl for consumption, i.e., the windpipe and gullet] of a bird sin offering. According to the rabbis, “he does not sever it” (Lev. 5:8) is a prohibition, while Rabbi Elazar b’rabbi Shimon says that “he does not sever it” means that he does not need to sever it. Also, regarding leaven on Passover (Pesachim 28b), Rabbi Judah has three [separate] prohibitions, one before the time [prescribed in the Torah], another within that time, and another after that time, and they all would be enumerated. But according to Rabbi Shimon, there is only a single commandment, which is within that time. A similar verse is “No one who has been proscribed can be ransomed” (Lev. 27:29). According to the authority (Arachin 6b) who said, “Where does one find that if a [condemned] person is about to be executed and then someone else 8

However, it is likely that even Ben Zoma would not consider this an enumerated commandment, since it is only derived by a kal v’chomer. See principle 2. — 17 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

says, ‘I obligate myself [to make an offering] of his value,’ the latter has not said anything [that obligates him]? It is in the verse ‘he cannot be ransomed,’” and this is not a prohibition. But according to the words of the one who says [that the meaning of Lev. 27:29 is] that you should not take money from the perpetrator and let him go free, it is an actual prohibition. I have also found a disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the sages in the first chapter of Makkot (4b) about the verse relating to false witnesses (Deut. 19:20), “you shall no more do such things.” Rabbi Meir [considering this a prohibition] says that he [the false witness] is whipped for this [transgression], and thus it should be included in the enumeration. But according to the other sages, this clause is only a declaration, and it is not included in the enumeration. Also, in the chapter “Ha’isha” (Pesachim 91a), Rabbi Judah thinks that the verse (Deut. 16:5) “You cannot sacrifice the Paschal lamb in any of your settlements” has the purpose of forbidding slaughter of the Paschal lamb for a single individual [by pausing after the word b’achad and retranslating as “You cannot sacrifice the Paschal lamb for one person”]. So in his view, it is enumerated as a commandment. But according to Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon, this verse is part of the general prohibition of slaughtering in a wrong location, so it would not be enumerated separately. Also, concerning the verse (Exod. 13:10) “You shall keep this statute in its proper time from year to year,” there is an opinion that this verse applies [not to the observance of Passover in its proper time in the year, but] to the law of Tefillin [indicated in verse 9, and the meaning of “miyamim yamimah” would not be “from year to year,” but that the proper time of wearing tefillin is daytime, not nighttime]. According to this opinion, one would have to add a prohibition, if one follows the opinion that “you shall keep” (hishamer or v’shamarta) used in conjunction with a positive statement actually has a negative force; or one would have to add a positive commandment, if one follows the opinion that “you shall keep” used in conjunction with a positive statement has a positive force. Thus, generally, with these controversial commandments, those who maintain that they are commandments would have an excess, if there were already 613 commandments without them; and if there are 613 commandments with the inclusion of the controversial commandment, those who maintain that they are permissive verses would have a deficiency in the enumeration of the 613 commandments. This is what — 18 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

caused Nachmanides to be doubtful, as was noted. He says further that in the usual way of the Talmud, they should have objected, saying that the sage who counted these cases must have too many commandments or that, according to the one who excludes these cases, how is the deficiency compensated? But since this number is widely accepted in the Talmud and Midrashim, Nachmanides asserts that one must say that this was a tradition handed down from Moses, our teacher, that this was the number of the commandments. Nevertheless, they do not desist from their arguments about various commandments as to whether they are actual duties or permissive statements; for the one who says that it is permissive would know how he compensates for his deficiency in the 613 commandments. Also, the Talmud does not insist on asking how he compensates, since the matter is very deep and lengthy, for they would have to clarify all the commandments of the Torah in that place. And they have already stated (Kiddushin 30a), concerning a much easier matter, the counting of the letters in the Torah, “Why don’t we just bring a Sefer Torah and count them? It is because we are not expert in the instances where the spelling of words is shorter or longer [than the normal spelling].” And if in such a case they would not bother to count them, since they were not expert enough, how much more so for such a delicate and deep matter, like enumeration of the commandments, they would not be so particular about one who says “it is a duty” or one who says “it is permissible” how he adjusts to have 613 commandments? In any case, Nachmanides agrees with the early authorities that we should assume as a principle that the number of commandments is 613, consisting of 365 prohibitions and 248 positive commandments. The first one to enumerate them one by one to fit the proper number was Rav Shimon Kayyara, author of Halachot Gedolot. Many rabbis were drawn after him [i.e., adopted his enumeration], like Rabbi Isaac, son of Reuven, who composed the poem “Eizeh M’kom Binah,” and also many poets like Rabbi Shlomo ibn Gabirol, who composed “Shemor Libi Ma’aneh.” But the enumeration, which the Gaon adopts here [in his Halachot Gedolot] is incomprehensible, and no one has clarified his thinking on this matter. But the great rabbi Maimonides investigated the subject deeply, and he formulated principles that one can depend on in enumerating the commandments. From these principles, it became clear to him — 19 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

that the Gaon had in many places deviated from the right path, and he blamed him for making much error and confusion. Then the great rabbi Nachmanides zealously took up the cause of the aforesaid Gaon and defended him marvelously and brought his merits and showed that his words were not as muddled as Maimonides had considered them. Now, these two books are more desirable than gold. Each of them shows his strength and his mighty and powerful achievements (Esther 10:2) in thorough mastery of the Talmud, which was in their eyes like a set table (Ezek. 23:41). When I examined these books, I saw that they would give understanding to the uneducated and that anyone who is clear sighted and skilled in the Talmud would, upon reading these books, see with his eyes and understand in his heart (Isa. 6:10) that his knowledge previously was like a mustard seed in the great ocean, compared with what he would know after reading them. And so much more, if one delves deeply into all those laws that each of them quotes in his books in their sources in the Talmud and in the other places from which they are derived, then he will see himself as if he were a new creature, as a result of the different spirit within him (Num. 14:24) from the spirit conferred upon him by the spirit, which was upon them (Num. 11:25). And he may consider himself eligible to be counted with those who sit in the place of the wise (an adaptation of 2 Sam. 23:8), where he could ask, and they would reply; and they would ask, and he would reply. Fortunate are they, and fortunate would be one who had the chance to hear Torah from their mouths. Indeed with this little honey (1 Sam. 14:23), which they bequeathed to us, our eyes have been enlightened (ibid.). So if we had the privilege to converse mouth to mouth, we might have had the spirit of purity upon us, and we would be privileged to have the crown of a good name (Avot 4:13) and to be called the least of the disciples of their least disciples. Now, the latter-day scholars, although admitting (Eruvin 53a) that their own heart [understanding] is only as wide as the opening of the temple [ten cubits], compared with the earlier scholars, whose heart was like the opening to the porch [twenty cubits], they would nevertheless not be ashamed if they would speak (Ps. 127:5) in contradiction to their words [of the previous scholars]. For it is thus proper that no sage or disciple should show deference to one greater than himself, when it seems to him that there is a clear contradiction to his words. Although all my words are actually only doubts, whether it be in contradiction — 20 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

to one of them and a support to the opposing view, or whether it is in contradiction to everyone, or whether it is a novel topic of my own or something that occurred to me that escaped their notice, or whether it is a decision based on a proof from a source that they did not mention, I write it nevertheless in order to educate myself about their words. Now, in most places it is customary to read the Azharot of the great sage Rabbi Shlomo ibn Gabirol, the Sephardi [on the holiday of Shavuot]. I also saw that Rabbi Moshe, son of Rabbi Samuel ibn Tibbon, has composed a commentary on his [ibn Gabirol’s] words. But he [ibn Tibbon] followed the methodology [of enumeration] of the Sefer Hamitzvot composed by Maimonides, not mentioning how Nachmanides disagreed with him [Maimonides], since it [Nachmanides’s critique] had not come into his possession and was not seen by him [ibn Tibbon] during his [ibn Tibbon’s] time. Also, whatever he quotes from Maimonides’s words is quoted with extreme brevity. Therefore, in order to show mercy for the honor of Nachmanides that his words should not be like a hidden stillborn child, not remembered nor regarded, and since I have seen few outstanding persons [this expression is from Sukkah 45b], and there are few who seek out deep books like these, I have therefore set forth these things [Maimonides’s and Nachmanides’s words] in the framework of the aforementioned Azharot of ibn Gabirol. Thus, a person who trembles at the divine word might look at them once a year. So now I should tell you that Maimonides prefaced his book with fourteen principles on which he depends in enumerating the commandments, which are as follows: PRINCIPLE 1. This is that one should not enumerate any rabbinic laws among the commandments. He needed this principle, since the Halachot Gedolot had included among the commandments a few rabbinic commandments, and Maimonides’s objections to the Halachot Gedolot on this are great. Nachmanides attempts to defend him from Maimonides’s objections, [Nachmanides’s] decision is, nevertheless, not to enumerate rabbinic commandments. And he did well [in this decision], since the expression in the Talmud (Makkot 23b) is “613 commandments were proclaimed to Moses at Sinai.” And even if this were not the correct text, but rather “613 commandments were commanded to Israel,” [this principle would still be true] since the biblical proof for this is “Moses commanded us Torah” (Deut. 33:4), the gematria value of Torah leading to 613. Thus, it would not be proper to enumerate and — 21 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

include in this any commandment that originated after Mt. Sinai. And if there is disagreement concerning certain commandments because of this principle, it is only a few commandments where the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] includes them, and Maimonides excludes them from the enumeration because they are rabbinic; and Nachmanides attempts to find some basis for considering them as part of the Torah. And in my commentary on the commandments, I will discuss the thinking of each of them, and I will give my decision. But there developed in the context of this principle another matter where I found difficulty with their words. This is what Maimonides wrote in his essay [i.e., in principle 1] and also in his large work (Mishneh Torah, Mamrim 1:2) that if one transgresses the words of the sages, he thereby transgresses the [Torah] prohibition of (Deut. 17:11) “You shall not turn aside.” And Nachmanides refuted him, [saying] that what comes under the prohibition of “you shall not turn aside” is what the rabbis say in interpretation of the Torah, like those laws that are derived by the thirteen rules of rabbinic interpretation and similar things. But enactments of the sages are not included within this prohibition. Now the argument on this is very displeasing to me, since Maimonides’s opinion is contrary to what they concluded in the Gemara in the third chapter of Shevuot (21b) and in the last chapter of Yoma (73b).* *I will proceed If one swore not to eat forbidden food and then here with a ate that forbidden food, he has not become guilty of reworked and, I profaning his oath, and thus he does not have to bring hope, simplified version, rather a guilt offering for that oath. This is because an oath than following regarding a Torah commandment has no legal force. So Duran’s text. why do the rabbis in the Mishnah (Yoma 73b) prescribe the guilt offering? Resh Lakish gives one solution that says that the oath here concerns where the amount of forbidden food was less than the legal minimum limit required for the person to be fully guilty. Thus, the person had sworn against doing something that was not a repetition of a Torah injunction, and the oath is binding. Now Duran sees in this discussion an implication regarding the Torah prohibition “You shall not turn aside.” For he argues that if this prohibition encompasses all of the legislation of the rabbis, it would also include and overlap the rabbinic prohibition against eating less than the minimum amount [required for punishment]. But this would again invalidate the oath! Thus, Duran concludes, “So, how could our teacher — 22 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

[Maimonides] say that rabbinic prohibitions are encompassed in the prohibition of ‘You shall not turn aside’?” [At this point, we revert to the text to take up another Talmudic quotation.] And in the beginning of Nazir (3b), it is stated that mitzvah wine denotes wine for kiddush and havdalah [which becomes forbidden to a Nazirite just like ordinary wine]. [The Gemara then continues], “Is this [commandment of kiddush and havdalah wine] ordained from the oath of Sinai [that it should require a special justification to forbid it to a Nazirite]?” [The previous words from the Talmud could have been misconstrued as a positive statement. Thus, Duran explains that] Rabbenu Tam and Rabbenu Yitzchak and all the French rabbis that this was a question [as we translated it]. The meaning is that, since it is only a rabbinic law to make kiddush on wine [specifically], it is not subject to the oath of Sinai [which also implies that a rabbinic law does not have the force of a Torah law because of the verse “you shall not turn aside”]. Also, in the third chapter of Shevuot (20b) and in the second chapter of Nedarim (13b?), it is proved that one who seeks to make a vow valid by comparison with things forbidden by Torah law [e.g., “Let this food be forbidden to me like pork”], it is not binding; but if one stated the vow by comparison with something forbidden by rabbinic law, it is binding, since it is not intrinsically forbidden. And if rabbinic prohibitions were included under the general prohibition of “you shall not turn aside,” they could not have said such things. Regarding rabbinically invalid witnesses, doubt is expressed by earlier scholars regarding a woman who was married in their presence as to whether [the marriage is valid, and] she would now need a get [to dissolve the marriage] or not. What led them to this doubt is [that it is unclear] whether in such a case one can apply the principle that whoever performs kiddushin [which expresses the fact that the bride is forbidden to all men other than her husband], does so with the understanding that this is being done in conformity with rabbinic approval; thus, the rabbis are empowered to invalidate the kiddushin. Or does it not [apply to this situation]. Now, if one who transgresses a rabbinic law is in violation of the law “You shall not turn aside,” then a gambler [who is rabbinically ineligible to be a witness] would be as much a violator of words of the Torah as a robber, who is considered as a wicked person, and the Torah states (Exod. 23:1), “Do not put your hand with the wicked to be a wrongful witness” [which is the source of the law that witnesses who — 23 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

are sinners are invalid]. So to declare the kiddushin invalid, there would be no need for rabbinic authorization to invalidate it, since it is not effective at all [from the outset]. Also, Nachmanides’s words, wherein he raised many objections against Maimonides and [which appear to show] that rabbinic prohibitions are not included in the prohibition “you shall not turn aside,” are very questionable in my view. Now his objections, although very numerous, may be classified into the two following types. The first type comes from what we find throughout the Talmud that rabbinic laws [literally “words of the scribes”] are to be judged leniently. Nachmanides says that if words of the scribes are included under the prohibition of “you shall not turn aside,” they would not be treated more leniently than [explicit] words of the Torah, since both are words of Torah, with no difference between them except that [the latter] were explicitly commanded to us, while the former have no explicit commandment but are included in the general rule of “you shall not turn aside.” For every [objection] of this sort, Maimonides could reply that [essentially one indeed has to be strict with rabbinic laws], but when the rabbis originally enacted their laws, they would forbid a thing with the proviso that it would be forbidden only in cases where [the transgression] was certain, but if there was a doubt [for example, if item A was rabbinically forbidden, while item B was not, and their identities were lost], they would allow this to be treated leniently. This is not hard [to accept], since we find that they are lenient in their gezerah (an additional rabbinic prohibition, which extends a Torah prohibition in order to distance people from the actual Torah prohibition) that they would not make another gezerah on it [the first gezerah]. As we say (Shabb. 11b), “This is, however, a gezerah to a gezerah.” And in certain instances (Betzah 3a), they need to explain [an apparent gezerah to a gezerah by saying that the whole thing, both gezerahs, was instituted simultaneously] as a single gezerah. The reason for this is [not that the first gezerah lacks the backing of “you shall not turn aside,” but] that if things would proliferate from one gezerah to the next, everything might gradually become prohibited; therefore, they were lenient not to make an additional gezerah. Likewise, we should be able to say that when they forbade a certain thing, they made a proviso at the outset that a doubtful case should be regarded as permissible, and it is sufficient to forbid it when it is certain. — 24 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

For is it not so that there is something similar regarding Torah prohibitions, as they stated (Kiddushin 39a) regarding orlah [fruit forbidden during a tree’s first three years], “One might say [regarding orlah outside the land of Israel] that it was thus stated [as a Torah law] that when it is a definite case [of orlah)], it is forbidden, but in a doubtful case it is permitted” [thus indicating another instance of relaxing a law in doubtful cases, where it is not due to leniency, but due to the original formulation of the prohibition]. And in places where there is loss of money because of a doubtful instance of rabbinic law, then it is more obvious that such a doubtful case should be treated leniently, for such a thing has a basis in the Torah. An example is what they say in Eleh Trefot (Chullin 49b): “Terefah is a Torah prohibition, so how can you invoke the idea that the Torah is concerned over the monetary loss for the people of Israel?” [This implies], however, that in the case of rabbinic prohibitions, if they do claim this to permit the doubtful case, they are acting properly, since we should not cause a waste of the money of Israel, which is certainly from the Torah, just on account of a doubtful case of an infraction of a rabbinic prohibition. This is why it says in many places (e.g., Shabbat 154b) that there is concern for a substantial loss, but not for a minor loss. The second type of objection raised by Nachmanides about this is to prove that it is not possible that rabbinic prohibitions are included in the “you shall not turn aside” prohibition. He brings proof from the statement in Mi Shemeto (Berachot 19b), “All the words of the rabbis they based (asm’chinhu) on the prohibition ‘you shall not turn aside.’” Nachmanides derived from this [i.e., from the verb asm’chinhu] that this is just an asmachta [i.e., not on the basis of the actual meaning of Scripture, but merely attached to a suggestive reading of the text], and one who transgresses them [these words] does not transgress this prohibition. This is not conclusive, however, since it refers to what Rav Abba bar Shabba said that honoring one’s fellow creatures is a great matter, for it can override the prohibition of “you shall not turn aside,” but no other prohibition. And they made fun of him, for the prohibition of “you shall not turn aside” is also a Torah law, and what makes it different from other prohibitions [that it should be overridden by consideration of not embarrassing people, while others should not]? (Rav Cahana) replied, “Don’t make fun of him! The rabbis did rely on this prohibition, for the Torah enjoins us to obey their words with this prohibition. And — 25 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

the reason why it is treated leniently to allow the honor of people to override this more than other prohibitions is that the rabbis at the outset, whenever they forbade anything on the authority of this verse, they made a condition concerning this prohibition [of theirs] that it should be overridden because of the honor of people.” Nachmanides also brought proof from that [text] in chapter “Kerah” (40a), where they had to state that [even] one who transgresses a rabbinic law may be called a sinner, and if rabbinic prohibitions were included within the commandment of “you shall not turn aside,” such a statement would be unnecessary. But this [latter objection] is not such a difficulty, for since it [the rabbinic prohibition] is not written expressly in the Torah, one could be more apologetic for the person and not call him a sinner. And it is said in the first chapter of Bava Metzia (5b), “The injunction, ‘you shall not covet’ implies to [ordinary] people that [one should not desire to have something] without paying.”9 And it is also said in chapter “Zeh Borer” (Sanhedrin 26b) about certain grave diggers who buried a corpse on a holiday, thinking that they were performing a commandment, that it was [nevertheless] necessary to state that it is permissible to call them sinners. Nachmanides also quoted a proof from chapter “Mi Shemeto,” as follows: “A rabbinic law cannot override a Torah law.” This is also not problematic, since, although rabbinic laws are included within the prohibition of “you shall not turn aside,” still the Torah does not state them expressly, and they should not be brought to (the level of) words of the Torah. And in this way, one can reply to the [objection] brought from Pesachim (115a) and Zevachim (79a) concerning [in the case of simultaneous partaking of two commandments, e.g., matzah and maror] whether the two commandments disqualify each other. [It is stated that if both are Torah laws, they do not disqualify each other; but if one is a Torah law and the other is a rabbinic law,] the rabbinic law disqualifies the Torah law [and thus the difference between the Torah status and the rabbinic status is significant, even though the rabbinic law is supported by the verse “you shall not turn aside”]. But what is a more serious objection [by Nachmanides against 9

Actually, one is guilty of transgressing this injunction even when willing to pay, but such a person is treated more leniently on account of the popular misconception about it. This would be analogous to treating leniently a transgressor of a rabbinic law, since the ordinary person does not realize that rabbinic laws are forbidden through the Torah law of “you shall not turn aside.” — 26 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

Maimonides] than anything else that he [Nachmanides] raised is that from the law of the rebellious elder [which is the context of “you shall not turn aside”] one can prove that rabbinic prohibitions are not included in the prohibition “you shall not turn aside.” This is proved in chapter “Hanechenakin” (Sanhedrin 87a), [which states] that one is not guilty of transgressing [this verse] unless the prohibition is punishable by “cutting off” if done intentionally, and by a sin offering if done mistakenly. And they derive this by analogy to a bullock offering for a mistaken sin by the whole community. The rabbi [Nachmanides] explains this at length. What one can say about this is that even if we claim that rabbinic prohibitions are included in the prohibition “you shall not turn aside,” nevertheless one does not become a “rebellious elder” [with its severe punishment] for transgressing them [rabbinic laws]. For [the text concerning] the rebellious elder consists of a negative statement and a positive statement. The prohibition is quite general, but the positive statement comes to limit the scope that one does not incur the death penalty unless it is a case with “the law” [Torah law] and “which they instruct you” [rabbinic interpretation] according to Rabbi Judah. But according to Rabbi Meir [the death penalty applies to a case punishable by] “cutting off” if done intentionally, and by a sin offering if done unintentionally, and this is derived by a gezerah shavah, using the word davar. And it seems undeniable that even according to the rabbi [Nachmanides], the prohibition “you shall not turn aside” includes everything that the rabbis derived by the thirteen rules of rabbinic interpretation, for Rabbi Shimon claims that for a single point of rabbinic law, the law of the rebellious elder applies. And even though one does not become a rebellious elder [in many cases] according to rabbis Judah and Meir, according to their respective opinions, and their interpretations differ, they [these cases] are still included in this prohibition [“you shall not turn aside”], and their argument does not apply to that [the inclusion in “you shall not turn aside”]. Thus, one can say [according to Maimonides] that rabbinic prohibitions are similar [that rabbinic prohibitions come under “you shall not turn aside,” although they are not punishable under the law of the “rebellious elder”]. Summing up, the objections of Nachmanides are not capable of invalidating Maimonides’s words; the only valid objections are the quotations from Shevuot and Yoma, and also from Nazir and Nedarim, as — 27 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

I mentioned. And if Nachmanides’s objections would, as he presented them, negate Maimonides’s generalization [that all rabbinic words are included in “you shall not turn aside”], why would the rabbis in the Talmud be inclined to say that the case of half the legal minimum is actually covered by the oath of Mt. Sinai?10 And what we conclude in this principle is that what we should include in the enumeration of the commandments only those from the Torah, and rabbinic laws should not be included. PRINCIPLE 2. Maimonides posited among his principles that one should not enumerate anything derived by one of the thirteen rules of Torah interpretation or by a ribbui [an inclusive word]. Because of this, he faulted the Halachot Gedolot for enumerating [the commandment of] revering a scholar from the ribbui interpretation (Bava Kamma 41b) of [the untranslated “et” in Deut. 6:13] “You shall fear the Lord your God” He brings proof for this [principle] from what it says in Temurah (16a): “One thousand kal v’chomers [inferring major from minor] and gezerah shavas [inferences from similar terminology in two cases] and dikdukei soferim [rabbinic clarifications] were forgotten during the mourning for Moses.” And undoubtedly, there was a larger amount that was not forgotten than what was forgotten. So if [all of these] were included in the enumeration, there would be more than 613 commandments, and this is a proof that whatever is derived from the thirteen rules of Torah interpretation should not be included in the enumeration of the commandments. Regarding his [Maimonides’s] criticism of Halachot Gedolot for [including] the matter of revering a sage, I will treat this at length when it comes up in my commentary on the commandments (Positive Commandments, Stanza 30), so I will not talk about it here. But what I am writing about here will be only to justify Maimonides concerning something that many, including Nachmanides, found perplexing. For he wrote in his great work (Mishneh Torah, Ishut 1:2, and 3:20) that kiddushin [first part of the marriage ceremony] performed with money [given by the groom to the bride] is a rabbinic law, since it is derived (Kiddushin 2a) from a gezerah shavah based on the verb take [which is used in the Torah verse concerning kiddushin, as well as in the verse 10 In the next sentence, Duran briefly mentions a problem in comparing Maimonides’s words in his Mishneh Torah with those in the Sefer Hamitzvot, but he does not deal with that matter here. — 28 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

concerning Abraham’s acquisition of the field of Ephron, which was purchased with money]. Now, he wrote in a responsum (She’elot Uteshuvot Harambam, No. 116) that he did this [i.e., stated the rabbinic character of Kiddushin by money] in keeping with this principle. People assumed that he meant that anything, which is not explicit in the Torah, is not considered a Torah statement but a rabbinic statement. Therefore, they raised serious objections against him from several places in the Talmud where it is apparent in the words of the sages that anything derived from the thirteen methods of rabbinic interpretation of the Torah has the same status as an explicit Torah law. Also, anything that is termed “a law to Moses from Sinai” [orally transmitted but not written in the Torah] is still considered a Torah law. Now, I found merit for Maimonides in one responsum to the sages of Germany (Responsa of Shimon ben Zemach, part 1, nos. 1 and 151) after I delved into the intention of Maimonides, and it is the following: Maimonides never meant that a law derived from such an interpretation should have only the same legal force as a rabbinic enactment, being enforced leniently in doubtful circumstances. And his reasoning is no different than anyone else’s in any aspect of their legality, and he only calls them rabbinic in one respect, namely, that it is not actually expressed in the Torah and that they are derived from interpretation. Therefore, with regard to enumeration of the commandments, it is not proper to include anything derived from the thirteen rules of interpretation of the Torah among the enumerated commandments, unless the sages expressly state that they are essentials of the Torah [guf Torah, i.e., the body of the Torah]. I learned that this is his opinion from his language that he wrote in this principle that “anything that you cannot find in the Torah, but you find in the Talmud that they [the rabbis] learned it by one of the 13 methods [of interpretation], and they themselves explained it, saying that ‘it is an essential part of the Torah,’ or ‘it is from the Torah,’ then it is proper to enumerate it, for the receivers of the tradition have said that it is from the Torah. But if they did not explain it thus, and did not speak to us, then it is ‘rabbinic,’ since there is no scriptural verse that indicates it.” He [Maimonides] also wrote later on, “Perhaps you think that I flee from enumerating them, because they are not really true. But whether the law derived by that method is true or untrue is not the reason. The reason [for not enumerating them] is that all things that a person — 29 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

can derive like branches from the roots, which [roots] were expressly proclaimed to Moses at Sinai, and which comprise the 613 commandments, even if that person who derived it was Moses himself, then it would not be valid to enumerate them.” He also wrote, “It has already been explained that among the 613 commandments spoken to Moses at Sinai there would not be enumerated anything from the 13 methods of interpretation, even if [the derivation was made] in his [Moses’s] time. And even more so, whatever they derived in later times should not be enumerated, unless they had an explicit tradition from him [Moses, that the particular derivation had Torah status].” He [Maimonides] also learned [this principle] from what is stated in Temurah (16a) that anything that they did not hear explicitly at Sinai constitutes “words of the scribes” [and he applies this to the topic of enumeration]. And he discusses at length along these lines. Also, his opinion is evident from the fact that he criticized Halachot Gedolot for not enumerating honoring one’s father’s wife [i.e., one’s stepmother], which is derived from the ribbui based on the word et, just as he [Halachot Gedolot] had enumerated revering a sage. Now, it is clearly stated in Gemara Ketubot (103a) that honoring one’s stepmother is a Torah law. Thus, he is not arguing with him [Halachot Gedolot] on this subject with respect to their legal status, but with respect to enumerating them, and that is why he enumerated some and not others. The totality of his words is that he calls them [laws derived by rabbinic interpretation] “rabbinical,” not with regard to their legal status, but with regard to enumerating them. On account of this, he [Maimonides] wrote in his large work (Mishneh Torah, Ishut 1:2) that a woman is betrothed [in kiddushin] by three methods, by money, by written contract, or by intercourse; and all three are binding according to Torah law, although he considers kiddushin by money as rabbinic. Here [also] we learn that he does not consider it rabbinic with regard to its legal force, but with regard to it not being explicit in the Torah and being rabbinically derived, [and a source] which reveals that this is his opinion is found in his commentary on the Mishnah in Order Toharot in his introduction to that order, where he enumerates the principal types of impurities. He [separately] enumerates those that are from the Torah and those that are rabbinic. And among those that are from the Torah, he counts the carcass of a domestic animal or a wild animal; and among those that are rabbinic, he counts the carcass — 30 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

of a clean fowl. Now, after he counted them among the rabbinic [types of impurity], he wrote that “the corpse of a fowl, whether unclean or clean [i.e., whether or not it is permissible to be eaten] is not a source of impurity according to any direct expression in the Torah. For this reason we have counted [defilement by the carcass of a clean fowl] among the rabbinic sources of defilement. And regarding my affirmation that it defiles according to Torah law, although it is not actually expressed, there is proof for this in that one incurs the punishment of ‘cutting off’ if he enters the sanctuary and holy property [while thus impure]. They have this [tradition] on the verse (Lev. 22:8), ‘a carcass or a torn beast should not be eaten to become defiled by it.’” And toward the end of his [Maimonides’s] words [in his introduction], after he had written this [about the defilement by the carcass of a clean fowl], he lists the rabbinic sources of impurity, and included among them is the carcass of a clean fowl, although he insists that it is a source of impurity by Torah law. Thus, it is evident that his opinion is that, although he counts the carcass of a clean fowl as rabbinic source of impurity, it is not because its legal status is like other rabbinic sources of impurity [which are actually only rabbinic enactments], like idols and their appurtenances, which do not incur “cutting off” [for defiling the temple]. But it is in this respect like other sources, which are from Torah law. It is only called rabbinic, since it is not explicitly in the Torah, but is derived from the methods by which the Torah is properly interpreted, and it nevertheless has the authority of Torah law. This is like the situation where he [Maimonides] calls kiddushin by money as being “from the words of the scribes,” since they come out from the derivation [based on the word take], [which is used in the portion dealing with marriage as well as that about] the field of Ephron. He [Maimonides] wrote nevertheless that this has the binding force of Torah law, and if one had sexual relations with a woman married by means of money, he is punishable by execution. And if it only had rabbinic authority, they would not condemn him to death. And the same applies to anything derived from the methods of rabbinic interpretation of the Torah, that for Maimonides, it is deemed as binding with the authority of the Torah, even though he calls them “from the words of the scribes.” Likewise, in his Mishnah commentary, Tractate Kelim, chapter 17, he wrote that the expression “from the words of the scribes” includes [the situation)] where something is the opinion of the sages — 31 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

regarding the meaning [of a Torah verse], or about a law received from Moses [although not recorded in the Torah], and thus doubtful cases [of the above] would be treated stringently, as [for example] in doubtful cases involving quantitative amounts [these being orally received from Moses], although it [the term from the words of the scribes also] includes rabbinic enactments and regulations. Thus, in chapter 2 of Hilchot Tum’at Met (2:10), he wrote that the minimum size of a bone, which can cause impurity, is the size of a barley kernel, and this being an oral tradition, it has the authority of the Torah and not [that of a law enacted] by the scribes. It is also apparent that this is his [Maimonides’s] opinion, since he wrote in the prohibitions (No. 168) that he did not count the defilement of ordinary kohanim as two prohibitions, “he shall not enter” and “he shall not defile” (ibid.), as he had counted them in the case of the kohen gadol (prohibitions 167 and 168)11. For we only learn this about them [that “he shall not enter” as well as “he shall not defile” applies to the ordinary kohen] from a gezerah shavah. And he [Maimonides] wrote there (prohibition 168) that this is in keeping with what he wrote in the second principle. It has thus been made clear that his whole intention in this matter concerns the enumeration of commandments, and he does not mean that such laws have the status of rabbinic commandments. He also wrote concerning the law of terefah (prohibition 181) that the plain meaning of Scripture (Exod. 22:30) is that [terefah, meaning torn by an animal, refers to a kosher animal] torn by a lion; tradition has come down that [the expression “in the field”] refers to meat that has been eaten in an illegal place. Other rabbinic interpretations were stated [about varieties of terefah], which are punishable by whipping from the Torah, even though they come out from a rabbinic interpretation. As to what he wrote (Prohibition 181) that the types of terefah that the sages listed [not in the simple meaning of terefah] are punishable only by rabbinic flogging [rather than the whipping applied to Torah prohibitions], this is because he [Maimonides] thought that, in this instance, the interpretations were made as asmachta derivations [i.e., not meant by the Torah as authentic teachings, but merely as suggestive of these laws]. And he has already reversed his opinion in his compendium (Maachalot 11 We are here following the manuscript bet-kof-gimel [b’kohen gadol] rather than the printed version bet-he-gimel [baal Halachot Gedolot]. — 32 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

Asurot 4:6). With this analysis [that Maimonides only considered laws derived by the accepted modes of interpretation as having the validity of Torah law], all the criticisms leveled at Maimonides vanish. And many years have passed without the theory of Maimonides being clarified, and we, in spite of our inferior level, have discovered what they did not. PRINCIPLE 3. This is that one should not enumerate commandments that do not apply throughout all generations. Nachmanides also agreed with this principle. And it has to be so, since, if we were to include commandments not applicable throughout all generations, it would add up to a huge amount, since it would be counting every commandment that came in Egypt and in the wilderness, both positive and negative. Also, the number 613 for the commandments is derived from an interpretation of the verse (Deut. 33:4), “Moses charged us with the Torah,” and it is there written “as a heritage of the congregation of Jacob”; and what does not apply to all generations cannot constitute a heritage. Also, it was stated in the Midrash (Tanchuma, Tetze 2) that the 248 positive commandments correspond to the 248 limbs of the body, and the 365 prohibitions correspond to the 365 days of the year. For every limb says to a person, “Rise up and perform a commandment with me,” and every day says to him, “Do not transgress on me.” Therefore, the enumeration is that of commandments that apply to future generations. There is no doubt about this, but there is disagreement regarding this principle, since the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] lists certain commandments, which Maimonides claims are not applicable to future generations, while Nachmanides defends him and says that they are applicable. And when I comment on the Azharot, I will deal at length with all the commandments that are disputed, as to the thinking of both parties, and I will give my own decision. For at this point I only want to discuss the principles, but the particular examples, I will discuss in their place. What should be clarified here is that a “commandment only for a particular time” [not for all generations] refers only to what we were ordered to do or not to do at a particular time and never afterward in any way, such as those proclaimed in Egypt or in the wilderness. For they are dependent on a particular place and a particular time, and when that time passes, that commandment would not be in effect at all. Such things are “commandments for a particular time” and are not included as “a heritage of the congregation of Jacob.” But those commandments that are not in effect at every place and time, on account of — 33 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

the absence of that, which we are commanded to do or not to do, are not called “commandments for a particular time” on account of the absence of that thing. For then, the disuse of that commandment is not because of its being a commandment for a particular time, but because that thing which is the subject of that commandment has become extinct; and if that thing were existent, the commandment would be in effect. Therefore, the slaying of the seven nations [of Palestine)] and obliterating the descendants of Amalek are called commandments for future generations, even though these commandments are in disuse because of the disappearance of these nations. For they were not at all time dependent, but we were commanded to destroy them at any time that they could be found; and even if all of them would be destroyed, they would still not be excluded from [the permanent] commandments on account of that. Thus did Maimonides write, and Nachmanides agreed with him. And as for the disagreements that arose between them in the particulars of this principle, I will write about them in the commentary on the commandments, with the help of heaven. PRINCIPLE 4. Commandments that cover the whole Torah do not belong to the enumeration. On this basis, Mainonudes faulted the Halachot Gedolot for enumerating “you shall be holy” (Lev. 19:22), for Maimonides considers this as a summarizing commandment, like other commandments that summarize the entire Torah, with the statements (Lev. 18:4) “You shall perform my judgments and keep my statutes” and “you shall keep my charge” (ibid., v. 30). He also faults him for including in his enumeration “and you shall no more stiffen your neck” (Deut. 10:16), which includes the whole Torah, since it admonishes that one should not make his heart hard, but one should accept the whole Torah. Nachmanides agrees with this principle, and he does not take exception to Maimonides’s enumeration [involving this principle] at all, even though he defends the Halachot Gedolot, who also agrees on this matter. He [Halachot Gedolot)] only differed with Maimonides about one commandment, i.e., “you shall be heedful about everything I said to you” (Exod. 23:13), as I will mention in its proper place [Stanza 118 of the Prohibitions]. PRINCIPLE 5. The reason for a commandment should not be counted in the list of individual commandments. Maimonides brought examples of this, [e.g.] “the husband who divorced her shall not take her to wife again . . . you must not bring sin upon the land” (Deut. 24:4), for the ex— 34 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

pression “you must not bring sin upon the land” is the reason for prohibiting him from taking her again. Likewise, (in the verse) “Do not degrade your daughter, making her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry,” (Lev. 19:29), the expression “lest . . . fall into harlotry” is the reason for this prohibition. Also, regarding taking ransom for a murderer, it is written (Num. 35:34) “you shall not defile the land.” But Nachmanides objected to him in these cases, that if they are only expressions of reason, the prohibition would only apply in the land [of Israel], for it would be dependent on this reason, and the reason only applies only in the land [of Israel], so the prohibition is applicable only in the land. This [reasoning of Nachmanides] is analogous to what they [the Talmudic sages] said (Kiddushin 78a) that the reason for “he shall not marry” (Lev. 21:14) is that “he shall not profane [his offspring],” so unless he has had intercourse, he is not punishable by whipping. Also [they said in Sanhedrin 54a], “What is the reason for ‘he shall not have many’ (Deut. 17:17)? It is so that ‘[his heart] shall not go astray’ (ibid.), so he may take many, as long as they do not lead his heart astray.” So Nachmanides thinks that negative expressions are not mere reasons but prohibitions. He brings proof from their words concerning removal of the staves [of the ark, Exod. 25:15] and not loosening the breast plate (Exod. 28:28) and not tearing the opening of the robe (ibid., v. 32), which are interpreted as actual prohibitions and not just reasons. As it states in Tractate Yoma (72a), “If one tears priestly garments, he is punishable by whipping. Rav Acha bar Yaakov objected that, [when Scripture states ‘it should not be torn’ (v. 32), it might mean that one should make the binding so that it would not be torn. [The reply given was:] Is it written ‘that it should not be torn’? [No! It is written ‘it shall not be torn’].” Similarly they said there, “Is it written ‘that it shall not come loose’? Is it written ‘that they [the staves] shall not come off’?” From here, Nachmanides infers that every place where a prohibition is stated in the Torah, in addition to a commandment, and it is not an explicit reason for what has come previously, we should consider it a separate prohibition. So it is with (Lev. 18:15) “Do not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness.” It would seem that this [“she is . . .] expresses the reason for the prohibition, that, since she is your son’s wife, it is improper that you uncover her nakedness. [However,] the sages interpreted this as an ad— 35 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

ditional prohibition, which holds the person guilty even after his son’s death. 12 And Nachmanides also quotes other instances that appear to be reasons, but the sages take them to be prohibitions. Nachmanides also says that giving a reason is not expressed by a negative expression but only by a positive expression, e.g. (Lev. 19:12) “You shall not swear falsely by My name, and profane . . .” And they said in the Sifra (Kedoshim 28:7) that this teaches us that a vain oath is a profanation of the Divine Name. [I do not know why the Sifra says “vain oath” rather than “false oath.”] Therefore, Nachmanides insists that these and similar cases [negative commandments that Maimonides thinks are reasons] are not just reasons but extra prohibitions. But it is still possible that they should not come [separately] into the enumeration, for they are just repeated prohibitions about the same topic, [when done] in the Land [of Israel]. Or perhaps they might enter separately into the enumeration, being commandments to the court. Or they might be considered additional [MS has nosafim, not nohagim] prohibitions [when done] in the Land, and could be included in the enumeration, like the prohibition “Do not replace your neighbor’s boundary marker” (Deut. 19:14). For they interpreted this as a separate prohibition in addition to (Lev. 19:13) “You shall not rob,” [when done] in the Land [of Israel]. And in my commentary on the commandments, I will explain all these controversial prohibitions separately, with God’s help. PRINCIPLE 6. For a commandment that has both a positive part and a negative part, it is proper to enumerate its positive part among the positive commandments, and its negative part among the negative commandments. Maimonides listed three types among them. The first has a positive commandment to perform something, and a prohibition against negating it, such as the Sabbath, the Sabbatical year, the holidays, and the Day of Atonement. The second type has a prohibition preceded by a positive commandment, such as (Deut. 22:29) “and she shall be his wife,” and afterward “he may not divorce her.” The third is where the positive commandment comes after the prohibition, and the prohibition is connected with it [the positive commandment], like 12 The structure of Lev. 8:15 is quite different from the above verses where the second negative statement might be construed as the purpose of the first statement. Here it is a different thing, since the second negative statement is a repetition of the first, with slightly different wording. Indeed, Nachmanides discusses this verse not in connection with principle 5, but with principle 9, which deals with repeated prohibitions. See Chavell’s Sefer Hamitzvot L’harambam, p. 101. — 36 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

(Deut. 22:6) “do not take the mother with the young” and afterward “send away the mother bird.” In all three cases, he counts the positive part among the positive commandments, and the negative part among negative commandments. And Maimonides states that regarding this principle, no one has erred.13 But Nachmanides found in this matter a considerable disagreement, which concerns prohibitions derived from positive statements, like (Deut. 14:11) “You may eat any clean bird,” which they [the sages] regarded as a positive commandment [implying that] you may not, however, eat an unclean bird. And one who eats an unclean [bird] transgresses this “positive” commandment, along with the expressly stated prohibition about it. Now Maimonides does count these [positive commandments 149ff and prohibitions 172ff], while Halachot Gedolot does not count them. Also, he [Halachot Gedolot] does not count shechitah (proper slaughter, which Maimonides has as Positive Commandment No. 146), since it only means that one should not eat nevelah [a carcass that died from causes other than ritual slaughter]. In my commentary on the commandment, I will explain the opinion of both parties on all of these commandments. What you should realize at this point is that, regarding the numbering of the commandments, when we enumerate these positive aspects among the positive commandments, and the negative aspects among the negative commandments, it need not be that they are numbered equally. I mean to say [that it need not be] that the number of positive commandments should be equal to the negatives in a positive commandment, or that the number of negative commandments be equal to the positive commandments in it [i.e., in the negative commandment]. For there is a commandment of returning [wrongfully acquired things], which is counted as one of the positive commandments (see Stanza 22), while in the prohibitions, there are many in the enumeration, e.g., [things obtained by] robbery or by nonpayment of money owed (Stanza 16, Prohibitions). Also, burning of leftover [sacrificial meat] is a single positive commandment, while there are several [corresponding] prohibitions (Prohibitions nos. 111–115), as I will explain at that commandment (Stanza 40, Positive Commandments). And there 13 Note, however, that according to Perlow’s analysis of Rav Saadya Gaon’s work, the latter has quite a different approach. — 37 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

are more examples of this. Likewise, there is the commandment not to break one’s word, which is counted as one prohibition, but it is possible that there are two [corresponding] positive commandments, i.e., vows for holy purposes and vows for mundane matters, as I will explain at that commandment (Stanza 38, Positive Commandments). That which appears correct to me in the analysis of this assumption I will explain for each of these commandments. But what I wanted to bring up at this point is that we should, in enumerating the commandments, just pay attention to the verses of the Torah and, whatever their number is, count them as commandments, whether positive or negative [and not attempt to match the positive and negative, as was just explained]. PRINCIPLE 7. One should not [separately] enumerate the details of commandments. Maimonides proved the truth of this principle by [pointing out] that if we were to enumerate such details as separate commandments, the total would amount to much more than 613 commandments because there are many details included in commandments. Maimonides mentions two particular commandments, that of chalitzah [release from levirate responsibility] and that of the levirate marriage, for they include many details. For in some cases, the women are subject to the levirate marriage, and there are some cases where they are not to have levirate marriage and do not require chalitzah. Likewise, for the brother-in-law, there are such various cases as for the sister-in-law, and there are also other distinctions given in Tractate Yevamot (84a). So if we were to count every detail, the laws of that tractate would come to over two hundred. From this, we can generalize for other commandments, that only the total commandment should be included in the (613) commandments, but the details should not be enumerated. Therefore, Maimonides criticizes the one [Halachot Gedolot] who counts, [under the topic of] the obligation of bringing an adjustable sin offering [in accordance with one’s means] for [defiling] the sanctuary or its holy appurtenances, three separate commandments, for it is totally only a single commandment, i.e., to bring the sin offering. As to the subsequent details of what one brings, lamb or goat, two doves, or a tenth of an ephah of flour, all this constitutes details of this commandment [these things are from Lev. 5:2, 5:6, and 5:11]. Also, regarding the obligation to bring a sin offering for an unintentional transgression of a commandment, we should treat it this way. That is, the Torah has required a sin offering for this, and it then gives the details that if the — 38 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

person who sinned is a layman, he should bring a certain thing [as a sin offering]; if he is a prince, he brings something else; and if he is a high priest, yet something else; and if the sin had to do with idolatry, yet something else. But it would not be right to enumerate each of these details of this commandment as separate commandments. Maimonides also mentioned as this type of thing, the death penalty for one who cohabited with a married woman, specifically that if she is fully married [with nissuin] it is by strangulation; if she was only betrothed [by kiddushin], it is by stoning; and if she is the daughter of a kohen, it is by burning. All of this constitutes only a single commandment, which is to execute a man who has had sexual relations with a married woman, for he has transgressed “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod. 26:13). As for the strangulation, stoning, and burning, all that only constitutes the details of the commandment. He brings proof from what they stated in Sanhedrin (51b), “It is all included in (Lev. 20:10) ‘both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death’; but Scripture makes a distinction that for an Israelite woman it is by strangulation, and for the daughter of a kohen it is by burning.” Therefore, Maimonides faulted those scholars [e.g. Halachot Gedolot] who count for the adulterous woman three commandments: married, betrothed, and daughter of a kohen. Similarly, there evolves from this principle that one counts certain scriptural portions as a single [commandment], for if we do not count the whole section as a single commandment, the total would become too large a number. In the case of the portion on murderers [intentional and accidental, Num. 35:16–29], there are many details: “[he strikes him] with an iron object . . . or with a stone tool . . . or with a wooden tool . . . , the blood-avenger must put him to death (ibid., vv. 16–18); if he pushed him with hate or threw something at him on purpose or struck him with hate, [he shall be put to death, vv. 20–21]; but if [he pushed him] without malice aforethought or threw an object at him without intention or without seeing threw a stone at him and he died, and he was not his enemy . . . then the congregation shall protect [the manslayer] . . . and the congregation shall return him [to the city of refuge] . . . and he shall stay there until the death of the high priest . . . But if the slayer should go out . . . but after the death of the high priest the slayer may return (ibid., vv. 22–29).” If we were to enumerate each of the details of this commandment, there would be sixteen commandments in this section. — 39 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

And it would be similar in the section of plagues [of “leprosy”]. If we would do similarly for all the commandments, the number would come up to thousands. But we should only enumerate the main thing of the commandment. This is [for the case of manslaughter] to perform the law of manslaughter in accordance with these specifications. Therefore, Scripture calls these things “ordinances,” as it is said (Num. 35:24), “And the congregation shall judge between the attacker and the blood-avenger according to these ordinances,” rather than these “commandments.” Also, in the portion about the plagues (of “leprosy”), there is one of the early authorities who enumerates eleven [separate] commandments. But Maimonides says that it is all a single commandment, which is to determine the cleanness or uncleanness of the leper, and other matters about this, e.g., which plague symptom renders one unclean and which does not, and at what time [does a particular procedure become effective] are all details of the commandment. This is similar to the Torah forbidding blemished animals as sacrifices, and it still remains for us to know what these blemishes are, then it would not be correct to count each blemish, as a [separate] commandment. Therefore, Maimonides counts each type of uncleanness [e.g. uncleanness of a corpse, uncleanness of a leper, uncleanness of semen, etc.] as a separate commandment, but the details of a given type he does not count [separately]. Now, the Halachot Gedolot was not unaware of this principle. For he enumerates a list of sections [parshiot], e.g., the section on inheritance, the section on vows and oaths, and the section on one who spreads a bad rumor [about his wife]. But his words are inconsistent, since he counts among these sections items he had previously enumerated. Nachmanides also wrote that that the nature of his enumeration of sections is unclear, since he enumerates general topics along with specific ones, and negative ones along with positive ones, and he [Nachmanides] further wrote that he did not intend to treat this at length. And in my commentary, I will write about specific examples of this rule whatever should be written according to the intention of this principle. PRINCIPLE 8. It is not right to include the negation of a positive [statement] together with prohibitions. A prohibition is something that we are bidden not to do. It is expressed by four words: lo [no or not], hishamer [be heedful], pen [lest], and al [not], as they stated (Makkot 13b), “Any place where it says hishamer, pen, or al, it is definitely a pro— 40 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

hibition. And all prohibitions except for a few are expressed by lo.” A prohibition is also a commandment, in that we are commanded to do, but, in order to distinguish between it and a positive commandment, it is called a prohibition, and the other [positive] is called “commandment” [without adjective]. However, a negation is usually expressed by the word ein [“it is not” or “there is not”], e.g. (Deut. 22:26), “It is not a capital sin for the girl.” On occasion, it is expressed by lo, e.g. (Lev. 19:20), “They shall not [‘lo’] be put to death, for she was not set free,” which means that they are not subject to capital punishment. Similar cases are (Lev. 13:11) “he need not [temporarily] isolate him, for he is unclean,” and (ibid., v. 36) “the priest shall not look for the hair,” and (Lev. 27:33) “He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad.”14 The Halachot Gedolot also agrees with this principle, and therefore he does not enumerate “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity” (Lev. 25:23), since he considers this as a negation rather than a prohibition [contrary to Maimonides, who does count this as his Prohibition No. 227]. But Maimonides suspected him of not understanding it [this principle] and therefore criticized him for enumerating (Exod. 21:17) “she shall not go free as slaves go free” and (Num. 17:5) “he shall not be like Korah and his band.” Nachmanides defended him in these cases, and I will record their opinions in my commentary in the Azharot when I explain these prohibitions and others that are connected with negation. PRINCIPLE 9. It is not correct to enumerate the negative and positive statements, but the things that are forbidden or commanded by them. For the positive commandments, this thing is clear, and there is no disagreement at all about it, that if there are many commandments about one topic, we should count it as only one [enumerated commandment]. So we should not count “tzitzit” [fringes] as five commandments, even though they stated (Menachot 44a) that anyone who has no “tzitzit” on his clothing transgresses five positive commandments. Also, we do not count tefillin as eight commandments, even though they said (ibid.) that anyone who does not put on tefillin transgresses five positive statements. They also stated (ibid.) that any kohen who does not go up to perform the priestly blessing transgresses three positive commandments, 14 The last example might sound like a prohibition. But the traditional understanding is that one does not have to be concerned as to whether it does or does not have a blemish, which would disqualify it as a sacrificial animal. Whichever animal comes by as the tenth is designated as the tithe. — 41 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

but we count it only as a single commandment. And regarding resting on the Sabbath, there are many repetitious verses, and similarly for holidays, but we only count them as single com*There appears to be two mandments. And so it is with all similar cases, distinct issues in the next two paragraphs. The one and everyone agrees about this.* is that when a certain But you should realize that even if for one law [e.g. returning a lost article] is repeated, commandment a number of things are specified, once by itself and once we should not count each specific thing as a [septogether with other arate] commandment. For concerning returning things, then that law by itself constitutes one [things to the rightful owner], there are specified commandment, and the therein that which was obtained by robbery or other things collectively constitute another oppression or deposit or by loss, we would enucommandment. The merate them as only a single commandment. If it second issue is that, when were not for the fact that we find that Scripture a given law is repeated, but the repetition is repeated the commandment concerning a lost needed to complete the article in another place, we would not count meaning expressed in the first verse, they should be returning a lost article as a separate commandconsidered as only a single ment. But since Scripture has made an exception law. I do not see clearly from the others, making it separate, we count rethat these two issues are interrelated, although the turn of a lost article as one commandment, and text seems to imply that returning something robbed or deposited or gotthey are. ten by oppression as another single commandment, for the enumeration of the commandments is in accordance with the number of scriptural verses [provided that the content is not repetitious]. But if these verses are needed for the completeness of that commandment, we should not count according to the number of verses. As an example, there is the counting of the Sabbatical years, which has two verses (Lev. 25:8), “And you shall count up seven years,” and it is then written (ibid.) “seven years seven times.” Now we do not enumerate the counting of years as one commandment and the counting of the number of Sabbatical years as another. This is according to what we learned in the Sifra (Behar, section 2:13): “It might be thought that one should count the seven Sabbatical years consecutively. Therefore, Scripture states ‘seven years seven times.’ Both verses had to be stated, and without them we would not have understood [how the counting of the years should be done].” We learn from this that any commandment that has many scriptural sources, and from the combination of the sources we apprehend the meaning in its entirety, we should count — 42 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

this only singly. This applies to all such cases. Regarding negative commandments, Maimonides wrote that if many prohibitions refer to the same subject, they should be enumerated as only a single commandment. This is like [not eating] blood, about which many negative statements were made, but they are counted as one prohibition. And he wrote that the underlying principle is that for any prohibition with many negative statements, if one [the transgressor] is punished with a single whipping, it is counted as a single [commandment]. But if it is punished by a number of whippings, it is enumerated according to the number of whippings. He gave as the reason for this that a person is punished with two whippings only if it is for two [distinct] subjects [lit. names]. And when the sages state explicitly “he is whipped twice” or “he is whipped three times,” we know that there are two subjects or three; and each one of them should be enumerated. But when they do not say this, even though they may have stated that the person has transgressed many prohibitions, they should only be enumerated as one, for a multiplicity of prohibitive statements does not make for additional enumerations. The prohibitive statements were made only to inform us that it is a grave matter, or it is to complete the content of the commandment. He brought proof from what is stated in chapter “Kol Sha’ah” (Pesachim 24a): “Ravina said to Rav Ashi, ‘One could say that [the repetitious verses] meant that one has transgressed two prohibitive statements.’ That is to say, ‘Why would you interpret that these two negative statements are about two different subjects? Perhaps both should be interpreted as having the same meaning.’ And he [Rav Ashi] replied, ‘Whenever it is plausible to interpret them [distinctly], we do so, so that we do not have redundant prohibitions.’” He [Maimonides] learns from this that any negative statement that does not have additional content is considered redundant. And even if it is repeated to indicate that the perpetrator has transgressed two negative statements, they nevertheless considered this redundant, and it is improper to enumerate this [as two]. But Nachmanides had reservations about Maimonides’s decision to enumerate according to the [number of] whippings, for we enumerate 365 prohibitions, of which there are many that are not punishable by whipping [at all]. And he wrote that even if his words were correct [about enumeration], his words were not correct where he said that when there — 43 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

are many verses concerning a single prohibition, there can be only a single whipping. He cited proof from what Maimonides had quoted from chapter “Kol Shaah” (Pesachim 24a), for it is taught there as follows. “The verse (Lev. 7:19) ‘and the [sacrificial] meat which touches anything unclean shall not be eaten’ could not apply to that [i.e., sacrificial meat] only, since that is already evident by inference from the case of tithes. For in the less stringent case of tithes the Torah said (Deut. 26:14), ‘I have not consumed it, if unclean,’ and it is so much more so in the more serious case of holy meat. Now you might still maintain that a prohibition derived from a minor-to-major inference is not sufficient for proper warning [to be punished by whipping, the violator has to be warned by citing the prohibition from the Torah], it can still be derived by a hekesh [a rabbinic type of derivation from the juxtaposition of two cases]. For it is written (Deut. 12:17), ‘You may not eat in your settlements of the tithes of your grain [or of the firstlings of your herds, etc.].’ So if it [the direct statement about sacrificial meat] is not needed, let it apply to all [edibles] in the Torah that are forbidden [as sacrifices]. [This application of a verse to cases not given in the actual scriptural words is a commonly used rabbinic derivation].” Now it is concerning the above quotation that they said, “Ravina objected to Rav Ashi, ‘You could say that [the repetitious verses] mean that one has transgressed two negative statements. Did not Abaye say that if one ate a putitha [a small unclean fish] he is whipped four times; if an ant, he is whipped five times; and, if a hornet, he is whipped six times?’” This is saying that just as Abaye would impose six whippings in one case on account of the repetition of the prohibition six times, so here we could say that Scripture means [that if one ate] holy sacrificial meat [that became] impure, he would be whipped twice, because of the two prohibitions that were stated, i.e., the one derived from a hekesh from the tithe prohibition, and the other being the prohibition that specifically applies to it. Thus, it is clear that if there are many prohibitions about the same topic, one would be whipped for each prohibition, even though it is a single topic. But there is one condition about this that is agreed to by everyone,15 which is that the extra prohibitions for that commandment should not be required to derive midrashic interpretations, and they only serve to 15 Some later commentators dispute this. — 44 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

repeat that commandment. But if the [repeated prohibitions] serve to complete the legal features of that law, one would only be whipped once. An example is the prohibitions stated about diverse clothing [shaatnez, made of mixed wool and linen], one of them concerning wearing, “You shall not wear shaatnez” (Deut. 27:11), and the second concerning putting it on, “You shall not put on cloth from a shaatnez mixture of two kinds of material” (Lev. 19:19). The two verses *The next paragraph were both interpreted, and in such a case, there appears to start out is only a single whipping. There is only a single talking about a kohen, but in the latter portion whipping, since the [two] prohibitions serve to refers to the Gemara complete the meaning. For they stated (Sifre Nazir [42b], which deals Tetze, 82), “The term wearing is included in ‘putwith a Nazirite defiling himself. There seems ting on,’ so why is it expressed explicitly? It is to be a textual problem to derive from it, telling you that just as wearhere. In fact, Duran lists both a kohen gadol and a ing has the specific feature that it benefits the Nazirite as being similar in body, so all [kinds of forbidden use] are those having two prohibitions, for bodily benefit, and it excludes anything not “not entering” and “not becoming defiled” for bodily benefit. Since the two prohibitions [prohibitions 166,167, serve to complete the meaning, one would not and 266, 272]. Also, see be whipped twice, once on account of putting Zohar Harakia commentary on prohibition 262. In on, and once for wearing.* any case, the printed This is not like the case of the kohen who version, which mentions an ordinary kohen, is not enters the tent of a corpse, where the person relevant, since Duran says is whipped twice, once because of “he shall not that he only is subject to a single prohibition. become defiled” and once because “he shall not enter” (Lev. 21:11, Num. 6:6 and 6:7), as is explained in Gemara Nazir 42b, for the prohibitions of becoming defiled and of entry do not require each other for completion of the meaning. Entering is one thing, and defiling is a separate thing; and when he transgresses both [even both simultaneously], he is to be whipped twice. And so it is said in the Sifre (the author of Ziv Hazohar could not find this reference). But [in the case of shaatnez] “wearing” and “putting on” refer to one thing, and the one prohibition is complementary to the other; the person is whipped only once for both. Similarly, the [multiple)] prohibitions about unclean beasts and unclean birds do not increase the number of whippings [as in the case of] the putitha, ant, and hornet. This is because they [the extra verses for beasts and for birds] come to complete the provisions of the command— 45 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

ment. As they stated in Elu Terefot (Chullin 63b), “Why [were the laws about clean versus unclean animals] repeated (in Deuteronomy 14 after having been given in Leviticus 11)? For the beast, it is because of the [inclusion of] the sh’suah [Deut. 14:7 has this word, which normally means “cleft,” but here the sages have claimed that it refers to an unusual type of beast, which is only mentioned here]. For the birds, it is because of the ra’ah (ibid., v. 13). And since they are needed to complete the matter, one is not to be whipped for them. Also, the repeated prohibitions about the holidays all come for their teachings, and the prohibitions are repeated for the new content in them, and they are only punishable once by whipping. And thus the multiple prohibitions about blood do not give rise to multiple whippings. For they are expounded in Gemara Keritot (4b), “Why are there five prohibitions stated about blood? One is for blood of ordinary meat; one is for blood of sacrificial meat; one is for blood covered with earth; one is for blood from organs; and one is for the last oozing blood.” If it were not for this [interpretation of these verses], they would have had a person who ate blood punished with five whippings. And Rabbi Judah (ibid.) held that if one ate the forbidden fat of sacrifices, he would be whipped three times. Once is for (Lev. 3:17) “You shall eat no fat and no blood.” Another is for (Lev. 7:23) “You shall eat no fat of an ox, lamb, or goat.” And another is for (Lev. 22:10) “No lay person shall eat of the holy sacrifices.” Likewise, he (Rabbi Judah) would impose two whippings for one who eats blood, since [besides the direct prohibition] there is [an indirect one] from a hekesh [derivation by juxtaposition, in this where blood is juxtaposed] with fat. So it is an evident thing that with multiple prohibitive statements, there *The following are multiple whippings, even though they involve the remarks about taking a pledge same word [here it is “blood”].* and the Nazirite Also, in the argument of Abaye and Rava about [a are puzzling to me. They belong Nazirite eating] the husk or seed [of grapes, Stanza more to the topic 63], and about taking as pledge the upper or lower of lav shebichlalut millstone (Stanza 120), Abaye would have the trans[inclusive prohibitions], rather gressor whipped twice, since the prohibition is duthan repeated plicated, although it concerns the same matter and prohibitions. the same nomenclature. And Rava disagrees, since the second prohibition is a lav shebichlalut. But if there had been a separate prohibitive statement for each, a transgressor would have an — 46 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

extra whipping because of the repetition. And in Gemara Makkot (17b), they stated that if a layman ate of a burnt offering before sprinkling its blood, and this was outside the wall [of Jerusalem], he incurs five whippings, according to Rabbi Shimon. Now they raised the question that he should be punished for something else, as it was taught that for anything that “must be wholly consumed,” there is a prohibition against eating it (see Lev. 6:16). They concluded that this is actually so, that for eating a burnt offering, there is one prohibition, from Rabbi Shimon’s exegesis that the words your vows refers to burnt offerings; and another prohibition derived from [the verse about] the kohen’s meal offering, which includes all things that are wholly consumed, and they stated that [the transgressor] is whipped on account of the multiple prohibitive statements. They also say there (Makkot 22a) that if one, for instance, burns idolatrous asherah wood [as fuel, has transgressed] a prohibition from this verse (Deut. 13:18),“Nothing that has been doomed shall stick to your hand.” They objected that he should be whipped also on the basis of (Deut. 27:26) “You shall not bring an abomination into your house.” This objection remained unanswered, and indeed one is whipped twice for one offense because he transgressed two prohibitions, and thus did Maimonides decide in his explanation on this commandment (Prohibition No. 25). [And this is so], although these prohibitions do not have the same content, since one is specifically about idolatrous things, while the other is more general, since it is stated about one who benefits from [the belongings of an] apostatized city, and that also includes idolatrous things, which are included in the tern “herem” (“condemned,” see Deut. 7:26). This is similar to Abaye’s case of the putitha [a small creature of uncertain description], which involves one prohibition specifically concerning unclean fish, and another which includes all types of swarming things, as explained by both early and later authorities, and as I will explain later [in this ninth principle]. And also in the Sifra (Kedoshim 9:12), it states that one who makes an idol for himself transgresses two prohibitions, the one being (Lev. 19:4) “You shall not make,” and the other being “not for yourselves” [i.e., the same phrase in Lev. 19:4, which says “you shall not make for yourselves,” implies two prohibitions, one being not to manufacture an idol, even for someone else, and the other being not to make it or have it made for yourself]. But Rabbi Yose said that the person transgresses — 47 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

three prohibitions, [two being from] “you shall not make for yourselves,” and [the third being] from (Exod. 20:3) “You shall not have.” Hence, according to the words of Rabbi Yose, one is to be whipped twice on account of two prohibitive statements regarding keeping an idol, the one being “not for yourselves,” and the other being “you shall not have.” And in Sanhedrin, we learned in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:4) that if one had intercourse with his daughter-in-law, he is guilty on account of her being his daughter-in-law (kallah) and also on account of her being a married woman. And they raised the question (Sanhedrin 54a) why he was not also guilty on account of her being his son’s wife [since in Lev. 18:15, the first clause mentions kallah, and the latter part uses the term your wife’s son]. Abaye replied that the verse begins with “his daughter-in-law” and concludes with “his son’s wife” to indicate that “his daughter-in-law” and “his son’s wife” are identical terms. One can deduce from this that if it were not for this limiting meaning found in the word hee [“she is,” which indicates that the term kallah here is limited to the son’s wife], they would hold him guilty on account of two prohibitions stated about this, i.e. (Lev. 18:15), “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law,” and “she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness.” One would have to [therefore] bring two sacrifices [sin offerings] if he had intercourse with her mistakenly, and a third [sacrifice] for [the prohibition of] a married woman. And so it would be regarding whippings [i.e., three whippings, if done intentionally]. Nachmanides brought all the above proofs in order to refute the words of Maimonides, who said that one is not punishable with two [or more] whippings because of multiple prohibitive statements about a single matter [lit. a single name], and that when a person is punished with two whippings, it is only because there are two matters [two names]. So from the totality of these proofs, his [Maimonides’s] opinion is refuted. Also, he [Maimonides] had to give a very forced treatment of Abaye’s dictum that if a person ate a putitha [a small creature of uncertain description], he is whipped four times [and other small creatures are also multiply punished], by explaining that [the putitha, the ant, and the hornet] involve [respectively] four, five, and six cases. He explains that the putitha is a fowl, a swarming fowl, a swarming land creature, and a swarming water creature, which makes four [distinct cases]. And an ant is a winged creature, which is born from rotting fruit, which does not — 48 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

propagate, and for which one would be culpable, since it is a swarming thing that has emerged from food. This is punished by whipping because of (Lev. 11:42) “swarming things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are a detestable thing,” from which [this case) is included, according to his [Maimonides’s] opinion. And the hornet, in addition to this [the five aspects of an ant], is an unclean fowl and [one who eats the hornet] is to be whipped [also] on account of [it being] an unclean fowl. This is what I found written by Nachmanides concerning his [Maimonides’s] view, according to [Maimonides’s] first version, which came to his [Nachmanides’s] hand. But I found in a later copy [of Maimonides’s Sefer Hamitzvot] that he [who ate a putitha] is guilty on account of [it being] a worm from fruit and on account of [it being] a land swarming thing and account of [it being] a thing that does not reproduce and on account of [it being] a swarming flying thing. There is a specific prohibition for each of these cases, as he explained, and as I will mention in my commentary on these Azharot (stanza 72 of the prohibitions). The ant has the additional [feature] of being a thing that swims on the water, and one would be guilty on account of (it being) a swarming thing of the water. The hornet has the additional [feature] of being an unclean fowl, and one would be guilty on account of [it being] an unclean fowl. And Maimonides does not consider it farfetched that [one creature] could be a swarming flying thing as well as an unclean fowl, since it is possible that it should have characteristics and actions of a swarming flying thing and [also] characteristics and actions of a fowl. Also, Maimonides does not think it farfetched that a worm emerging from a fruit can [also] be an unclean flying thing, since we see that from rotting fruit, there are generated flying creatures larger than a small nut. All of the above words of Maimonides are in support of his words that a person cannot be whipped twice for one “name” [case]. And the multiplicity of whippings for the putitha, the ant, and the hornet is not on account of many prohibitive statements [about the same thing], but on account of the many different “names” [applicable to a single creature]. But there are many difficulties with his words. For he claims that the putitha is a swarming land creature, while in the Gemara they do not say this. For in the Gemara (28a), they raise an objection: “How could Abaye think that fish are grown from the earth? Abaye has said that if one ate a putitha, he is whipped four times; if an ant, he is whipped — 49 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

five times; and if a hornet, he is whipped six times. Now, if it were so [that Abaye considered a fish as being grown from the earth], one should also be whipped on account of ‘a swarming thing that swarms on the earth’ (Lev. 11:42).” It is thus evident that a putitha is not something that grows from the earth at all, but it is from the fishes, which do not grow from the earth at all. Also, he [Maimonides] thinks that a swarming thing that swarms over a fruit is whipped because of a specific prohibition concerning this, which is (Lev. 11:42) “all swarming things that swarm upon the earth; you shall not eat them.” And [he also thinks] that when it falls upon the earth and swarms over it, there is another prohibition. But this is not true, for in chapter “Elu Trefot” (Chullin 67b), it is proved that a worm from fruit is prohibited only after it gets off onto the ground, and it is forbidden only because it has swarmed on the earth, not that it should be a separate prohibition. This is not the place to expand on this, but one may look it up there, if he is well versed in these laws. Also, he [Maimonides] thinks that a swarming thing, which is born from rotting matter, which does not reproduce, has a specific prohibition, which is (Lev. 11:44) “with any swarming thing that moves (romess) upon the earth (this emendation of the text is based on the manuscript, the printed text being not understandable).” And this is due to the difference between shoretz (swarms) and romess (moves).16 But this also is not so, for one finds the expression “moving” used for those things born from male and female, like (Ps. 104:20) “in it all the forest creatures move.” Therefore, all creatures [even those born without sexual reproduction] are included under “swarming things of the earth” (11:41). And in the Sifra, [which states that v. 11:44 teaches us to include nonreproducing species], they do not derive this from the expression “that moves” as a specific commandment, but [they derive it] from [the inclusive term] any (in 11:44), that they [nonreproducing things] are included with those born by sexual reproduction in the same prohibition. Now Maimonides states that if one eats a hornet, he is punished by whipping on account of [it being] a worm from fruit and on account of [it being] a swarming thing of the earth that reproduces and on ac16 The argument is that shoretz, as in 11:41, indicates sexual reproduction, while romess refers to nonsexual generation. — 50 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

count of [it being] a worm generated from rotting fruit that does not reproduce. [These are three of the six forbidden characteristics of the hornet.] But all this is difficult, that a worm that develops from rotting fruit should be able to propagate, for anything that is not generated by [a union of] male and female should not be able to reproduce. And a proof of this is that [as noted in Betza 7a] an egg that is generated by [a hen] rubbing against the earth will not hatch into a chick. This objection is what Nachmanides wrote. But this is not difficult at all, in view of what they state (Chullin 127a) that a mouse that developed from the earth [i.e., without parents] can procreate, and the accepted rabbinic tradition was that such a mouse is a source of defilement [like any other mouse]. And the only exception is for a mouse, which [is not fully developed, but] is half mouse and half earth, which is not considered as reproducing; but when it is entirely developed, they considered it as a source of defilement, since they consider him capable of reproduction, as they mention in chapter “Haor V’harotev” (Chullin 126b). Thus, there is no problem for Maimonides’s view that one can be punished [for eating a hornet] on account of it being reproducing and on account of it being not reproducing, since it would not be possible for one species to be reproducing and not reproducing simultaneously [since, although its origin was not reproductive, it becomes capable of reproducing after its full development, and thus it has characteristics of both]. Another thing [that makes Maimonides’s explanation of putitha, etc. difficult] is that Scripture mentions only twenty-four unclean species of fowl. And such a species that would evolve from fruits, with which of those [twenty-four] could this be identified? For the Torah has no [general] prohibition about unclean fowl except those particularly mentioned, “And these of the fowl you shall detest” (Lev. 11:13). Also, how is it possible that the hornet [which according to Maimonides also has properties of an unclean fowl] tramples and eats [its prey], for any fowl that does not trample is not forbidden, as it is noted in the Gemara, chapter “Elu T’refot” (Chullin 59a)? Also, Maimonides wrote that there is a specific prohibition about unclean fish (Prohibition No. 173) and a [separate] prohibition about swarming sea creatures (No. 179) from the verse (Lev. 11:43) “You shall not make yourselves abominable with any swarming thing.” This does not specify fowl or earth creatures or water creatures, and this prohibition would be applied to swarming sea creatures [i.e., land swarm— 51 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

ing creatures and swarming fowl are already covered by other specific verses, so Lev. 11:43 is needed particularly for swarming sea creatures]. But this is not true, for the Torah included in a single prohibition all water creatures, whether large or small [small ones are indicated by the term swarming], which is the verse (Lev. 11:10–11) “Of anything that swarms in the water, and of any living being in the water, etc. . . . you shall not eat of their flesh.” Therefore, Maimonides’s explanation about “one who eats a putitha, etc.” is refuted [we follow the MS reading nidcheh, not nireh]. Therefore, three [of Maimonides’s] prohibitions had to be removed from our enumeration. These are (a) the prohibition he interprets [as referring] to worms from fruit and (b) [that applying] to swarming things that do not reproduce, for both are included in the prohibition of swarming land creatures; and the [third deleted prohibition] is what he explained as referring to swarming water creatures, for they were already included with unclean fish. Now, the [following is the] correct interpretation of Abaye’s teaching that one who eats a putitha is whipped four times. For it is written regarding unclean fishes (Lev. 11:11) “They shall be detestable to you; you shall not eat of their flesh.” And it is [further] written about swarming things (v. 43), “Do not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing, and do not become unclean with them.” [Now,] “do not make yourselves detestable” and “do not become unclean” constitute two prohibitions including all swarming things, which are not specifically about sea or land or flying creatures. And in Deuteronomy, it is written (14:10), “Everything not having fins and scales you shall not eat.” [So this is the fourth prohibition for the putitha, which is a fish.] [Eating] an ant is punished by whipping five times [on account of the following prohibitive verses:] “Any swarming creature that swarms over the earth is detestable; it must not be eaten” (Lev. 11:41); “Anything that goes on its belly . . . of any swarming creature that swarms over the earth, you shall not eat” (v. 42): “you shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms” (v. 43); “and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them” (v. 43); “and you shall not make yourselves unclean with any swarming that moves over the earth” (v. 44). [For eating] a hornet one is whipped six times, for the five prohibitions about swarming creatures [which apply to the ant], and the sixth is “Every swarming fowl” (either Lev. 11:20 or Deut. 14:19). And this is how the Halachot Gedolot explained, and also Rav Acha of Shavcha in the — 52 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

She’iltoth (Shemini 84), and the Alfasi in his Halachot (Chullin, end of Elu Terefot) explained thus, as well as Rashi in his commentary (Makkot 10b). And all the Geonim and the French rabbis decided thus. Now Rashi raised an objection as to why there should not be a whipping on account of a seventh prohibition [for swarming things], as it is said in the Parshah Kedoshim Tihyu (Lev. 20:25), “You shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by fowl.” And he replied that the verse did not apply to swarming things (sh’ratzim). Even though it is written (later in v. 25) “which teems (tirmos) on the earth,” that expression means large creatures, whereas “a swarming thing” (sheretz) means small creatures. But this reply is insufficient, since it (tirmos) includes both large and small creatures, as it is said (Gen. 7:21), “And all flesh that teemed (haromess, another form of tirmos) on the earth perished— birds, cattle, beasts, and all things that swarmed over the earth”; and it is written (Lev. 11:46) “which teems in the water” [where the subject is “every living thing”]. Also that verse itself (i.e., Lev. 20:25) indicates this [that it also includes small creatures], since after having said “you shall not make yourselves abominable with beasts and fowl,” which means large creatures, when it then says “which teem on the earth,” it is meant to also include small creatures. Furthermore, why would one not be punished [for eating] an unclean beast or unclean fowl with two whippings, the extra one being on account of this prohibitive verse? And it is known that one is [in fact] punished with one whipping, as is evident at the end of chapter “Gid Hanasheh” (Chullin 100b). But Nachmanides’s opinion [as to the proper answer to Rashi’s question] is that this prohibitive verse includes everything prohibited in other sections, just like the verse (Deut. 14:3) “You shall not eat any abominable thing” includes everything that the Torah forbids afterward. So does this verse include everything preceding it in other sections. Included in this is the prohibition of unclean beasts, the prohibition of unclean fowl, the prohibition of swarming fowl, the prohibition of swarming land creatures, the prohibition of swarming sea creatures, and even the prohibition of carrion and of a terefah animal, and a limb from a living animal, and others. For every “abominable thing” (to’evah in Deut. 14:3) is equivalent to “make abominable” (shikutz in the form t’shaktzu in Lev. 20:25), as expressed (Deut. 7:26), “You shall consider it abominable and you shall consider it detestable” (shaketz t’shaktzenu v’ta’ev t’ta’avenu). — 53 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

Similarly did they interpret in the Sifra (Kedoshim 127:20): “[The verse Lev. 20:25 states,] ‘And you shall set apart the clean beast from the unclean, the unclean bird from the clean.’ Is it necessary to say this about [separating] a cow from a donkey, or a donkey from a cow? Are these not clearly stated? So, what is the meaning of ‘the clean beast from the unclean beast’? [It means] between that which is clean for you and that which is unclean for you, (e.g.) between the one whose windpipe is mostly severed [which is permissible] and the one that is just half severed [and this is forbidden]. [The following clause is] ‘And you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by fowl, or by anything that teems on the earth, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean,’ [and the Sifra comments that ‘to hold unclean’ means] to be forbidden.” And so they include in the positive and negative commandments stated here all prohibitions, even those due to faulty slaughter. Therefore, he, i.e., Nachmanides, says that one would not be punished by whipping for this [i.e., verse 25], since it is a lav shebichlalut [inclusive prohibition encompassing a number of things]. This is similar to the prohibition “You shall not eat over blood” (Lev. 19:26) and the prohibition of not eating any holy thing that has become invalid as a sacrifice. Regarding this type of lav shebichlalut, everyone agrees that [a violator] is not punished for it, as I will discuss shortly. Now that this has been clarified, I will explain the matter of different types of lav shebichlalut; which types are punishable by whipping, and which types are not punishable by whipping. Now, there are three types. The first type is where one prohibitive statement includes many things that do not resemble each other, like the prohibition (Lev. 19:26) “You shall not eat over blood,” which includes eating an animal before its life has totally left it; eating sacrificial meat before sprinkling its blood; a court that has condemned a man to death eating during the entire day of execution; and other matters. About this type of prohibition, they said in Gemara Sanhedrin (63a), “One may not be punished by whipping for [transgressing] a lav shebichlalut, and they explained that a lav shebichlalut is where two or three prohibitions are contained in one negative commandment.” Now, Maimonides (in his ninth principle) included in this type “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Lev. 19:14) and “You shall not raise a false report” (Exod. 23:1) [the latter is Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 281]. Nachmanides included with them the prohibition — 54 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

interpreted [by the rabbis] that any holy thing that has become invalid [for its intended use] would be forbidden to eat [this is based on the verse Exod. 29:34 or 33]. For this includes [holy things rendered invalid by] becoming unclean, being removed from their proper place, being unduly delayed, being slaughtered at night, wrongful thought during slaughter, and other things. These are many cases totally different [in nature], and everyone agrees that for this, one is not punished by whipping. Also, if one hugs or kisses an idol, or sweeps or sprinkles [to keep the dust down] before it, the sages (Sanhedrin 63a) consider these as a lav shebichlalut, and there is no whipping for any of these. Now, as to why they call this a lav shebichlalut, it is not because of the various kinds of service17 that they are called a lav shebichlalut, for they are all of the same nature, and they [all] are termed service. This is like the prohibition of carrion, which includes a number of things of the same nature. And [it is also like the] prohibitions “You shall do no work [on the holiday]” (Deut. 16:8), which subsumes many distinct kinds of work, but their character is the same, and the term work applies to all of them. So one is whipped on account of these prohibitions, as is explained in Makkot (21b), Pesachim (47b), and Yom Tov (Betzah 12a). Similarly, hugging, kissing, etc., [an idol] are all expressed by the same term [i.e., service]; so this is not the reason for considering this a lav shebichlalut [and thus not subject to punishment by whipping]. But their intention in considering this a lav shebichlalut is [the following]. The prohibition that warns against this is (Deut. 6:14) “You shall not go after other gods,” in which separate matters are included. For it (6:14) comes right after what is written (ibid., v. 13) “You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve, and by His name you shall swear.” So when it says thereafter “You shall not follow other gods,” it gives warning that one should not fear it [an idol], nor honor it, even in a way that is not the way it is usually worshipped, like hugging and kissing, and also one should not swear by its name. [Also], one should not seek knowledge of the future from it, and if we hear them [predictions of the future], we should not believe them. It is on account of this [variety of content] that they considered this a lav shebichlalut, and it is not punished by whipping. Now, I have found another lav shebichlalut that they [Maimonides 17 We are here following the text of the first printed edition and the manuscript, which read avodot instead of averot; hugging, kissing, etc., are various examples of service. — 55 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

and Nachmanides] did not mention, and this is what is stated about the “inner” sin offering (Lev. 6:23) “it shall not be eaten; it must be burnt in fire.” They said in the Sifra (Tsav 76:7) that this prohibition against eating is applied to anything requiring burning, which includes a sin offering that has to be burnt and piggul [sacrifices slaughtered with wrongful intentions] and notar [sacrifices whose proper time of eating is expired]. And Maimonides holds that only the prohibition that includes everything should enter into the enumeration of the commandments, not every individual prohibition [included in the general prohibition], unless there is a difference in punishment among the particular prohibitions, in which case they will be listed according to their punishments. I will speak about these later in the commentary on the prohibitions with the help of God; here it is only appropriate to write about what they wrote on this principle. The second type of lav shebichlalut is when a single prohibition specifies several things, all of which are punished by whipping, but they would be punished by a single whipping [even when more things than one were transgressed simultaneously]. The proof for this is what they say in Gemara Kiddushin (77b) about a widow, a divorcee, a chalalah [a woman born from a union forbidden to a kohen], or a harlot [all of these being forbidden to a High Priest]. Just as for an ordinary Kohen, the divorcee is separate from a chalalah or a harlot, since there is a separate prohibition for her (Lev. 21:7), “They shall not take a woman divorced from her husband” [i.e., if a kohen had relations with a chalalah who was also a divorcee, he is guilty of transgressing two prohibitions], similarly for the high priest, the widow is considered separate from the divorcee or the chalalah. It can be inferred from this that, if it were not for this interpretation [based on the specific verse about the divorcee (Lev. 21:7)], if one had intercourse with a woman who was all of these, he would be punished by whipping only once, since they were all stated in a single prohibition. This is also evident from what they said in chapter “Gid Hanasheh” (Chullin 102b) about eating a limb from a live animal. According to Rabbi Yochanan [one who ate both a limb severed from a live animal as well as severed flesh] is whipped twice, since they [limb and flesh] are, in his opinion, based on two separate verses. But according to Resh Lakish, he would only be whipped once, since, in his opinion, both cases are included in a single verse. Also, regarding flesh from a living animal and terefah meat, Rabbi Yochanan holds that [if one eats — 56 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

both] he is whipped only once, since, in his opinion, they are both included in the same verse; while, according to Resh Lakish, he is whipped twice, since in his opinion the two are forbidden by two distinct verses. Also, in the Gemara Sanhedrin (65a) and in the Gemara Keritot (3b), regarding the ob and the yidoni [various types of witchcraft], it is taught that they are not considered as separate regarding sin offerings [if the wrongful acts were done unintentionally], since they are stated in a single prohibition. And we deduce from this that the same applies to whipping [i.e., only one whipping when the sin is intentional]. Also, in the Yerushalmi in Tractate Nazir (6:1), they said regarding fat and blood that the prohibition “You shall not eat any fat nor any blood” (Lev. 3:17) is inclusive [of both fat and blood], and it would have been punished only once [for eating both], if it were not for their separate specific [prohibition] elsewhere (Lev. 7:24 and 26). Also, with the prohibitions of a Nazirite, they were inclined to say that one should only be punished once, except that they found an additional *Note that the following word that separated the two [forbidden items]. two examples, i.e., Similarly, [the prohibitions) “[No fat of] ox, or homosexual intercourse and mating of diverse sheep, or goat [shall you eat]” (Lev. 7:23) and species, are not of the “You shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, same format as other “type II” situations. In nor fresh ears” (Lev. 23:14) would rightfully be the previous cases, the punished only once, except that they found exmultiple component tra words that divided them.* prohibitions are explicitly I found another proof for this stated in stated. In the two examples following, the text appears Sanhedrin, chapter “Arba Mitot Bet Din” to be single-component prohibition, but rabbinic (Sanhedrin 54b), “If a man comes upon a male, interpretation implied a and let a male come upon him, he is guilty of two second prohibition. Thus separate sins according to Rabbi Ishmael, the in a certain sense, it is like a “type I” prohibition, first based on (Lev. 18:22) ‘You shall not lie,’ and except that here the two the second based on (Deut. 23:18) ‘There shall be components are closely related in content. no sodomite.’ Rabbi Akiva considers him guilty of a single offense, since lying or allowing a male to lie is one [i.e., the verb tishkav in Lev. 18:22 can also be read tishakev, implying the reversed roles; thus, both are included in that one verse]. If one came on a beast and brought a beast on himself, he is guilty of two offenses, according to Rabbi Ishmael, the first being from (Lev. 18:23) ‘You shall not lie,’ and the second from (Deut. 23:18) ‘there shall be no sodomite.’ According to Rabbi Akiva, he is guilty of a single prohibition, — 57 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

since sh’chavt’cha (in Lev. 18:23) and sh’chivatcha [by altering the vowels and understanding this as lying as a receiver] constitute a single prohibition.” From all the above, it comes out that the particulars of an inclusive prohibition are not to be punished separately. And in the Yerushalmi, Tractate Kilayim, chapter 1 (7), I found written: “Only concerning beasts is it written (Lev. 19:19) ‘You shall not have your cattle mated with a different kind.’ How [is it known that this prohibition applies also] to fowl? Some teachers learn this from (ibid.) ‘You shall observe my laws’ [which is a more comprehensive statement]. Other teachers derive it [the case of fowl] from ‘you shall not have your cattle mate with a different kind’ [by means of rabbinic exegesis]. Now, suppose that one grafted a tree [prohibition of grafting was derived by the rabbis from ‘you shall not have your cattle . . .’] and also crossbred his fowl. According to the sage who said [that the fowl is forbidden] by ‘You shall observe my laws,’ the person is guilty of two prohibitions. But according to the sage who says [that fowl is forbidden] by ‘you shall not have your cattle mate with a different kind,’ he is guilty of only one prohibition [i.e., both actions are from the same prohibition, ‘you shall not have your cattle . . .’]. Now, suppose one had crossbred his cattle and also crossbred his fowl, then, according to the one who says that [fowl] is from ‘You shall observe my laws,’ he is guilty of only one prohibition. But according to the one who says it is from ‘you shall not have your cattle mate with a different kind,’ one is guilty of two [prohibitions].” But it seems to me that this is an erroneous version, and it should be reversed. For [prohibitions] emerging from a single verse make [a person] guilty once, while those emerging from two verses make one guilty twice. And this is the way it also is in the argument of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael regarding [a man] who comes upon a male and who also brings a male upon him, that the text [as it appears in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7:7] must be changed from “Rabbi Ishmael” to “Rabbi Akiva,” and from “Rabbi Akiva” to “Rabbi Ishmael.” And the version of the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 54b previously quoted) is correct. So what emerges from all this is that particular things that are included in a general prohibition should not be punished by whipping twice, but only once, unless Scripture has separated them [the two component parts]. Now, Maimonides included in this [type II] category [the following prohibitions]: [meat of the paschal lamb which is] partially roasted or water-cooked (Exod. 12:9); grape skin and seeds [forbidden to a — 58 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

Nazirite, Num. 6:4]; leaven and honey [forbidden in a meal offering, Lev. 2:11]; [marrying an] Ammonite or Moabite (Deut. 23:4); oppressing the stranger, orphan, or widow (Exod. 22:21).18; food, clothing, and marital relations [not to be withheld by the husband (Exod. 21:14)]; and, finally, “You shall drink no wine or strong drink” (Lev. 10:9). For all the above are enumerated as only single commandments, since they are punishable by a single whipping. Nachmanides disagrees in some cases, and their respective opinions will be explained in my commentary on the prohibitions, with God’s help.* *The Concerning the grape skins and seeds, they are included following Hebrew in Maimonides’s Book of Commandments among the text [separately] enumerated prohibitions, and also in his large seems work (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nezirut Introduction); and awkward. he counts among the prohibitions for a Nazirite [regarding eating] five prohibitions [among them two for grape skins and seeds]. But in his Hilchot Sanhedrin (19:4), where he enumerates the prohibitions punishable by whipping, he lists [marrying] an Ammonite and a Moabite [separately, nos. 164 and 165], but [all five] prohibitions for a Nazirite as only a single [commandment, No. 101]. But this is because in that enumeration (Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4), he does not maintain consistency in that enumeration of commandments. For he may separate a single prohibition into a number of cases of whipping, and [conversely] he may include several prohibitions as one case of whipping. For Maimonides did not mean (in Hilchot Sanhedrin 9:4) to be precise about the enumeration of the commandments, but only to cover as many case as there are of transgressors against prohibitions who are to be whipped. He divided the subjects according to what he saw fit in his mind, not paying attention if sometimes several entries are actually included as a single prohibition, or if several prohibitions are included in a single entry. Now, the third type [of lav shebichlalut, in Maimonides’s classification] is a prohibition having a general term and also particular terms, and one is whipped for every individual term [that was transgressed]. Maimonides brought among these types the verse (Deut. 12:17) “You 18 But as pointed out by Perlow, the prohibitive clause in this verse does not mention “widow,” and thus Duran’s statements here on this commandment are not understood. In Duran’s list of commandments, in commandment no. 64, he omits the widow. It is interesting, however, that in the related verse in Deut. 27:19, all three persons are mentioned. — 59 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

may not eat within your settlements the tithes of your grain, your wine, or your oil, etc.” For they said in the Gemara Keritot (4b) that if one ate tithe of grain, wine, and oil, he is [separately] guilty for each. They objected to this: “Can you punish with whipping for a Lav Shebichlalut?” And they responded that this is due to a redundant expression. Since it is written (Deut. 14:23) “You shall consume the tithe of your grain in the presence of the Lord your God,” why would it be necessary to write (in 12:17) “You may not eat within your settlements, etc.”? You might say that this is [needed in order to have an explicit] negative form [the positive form in 14:23 is not sufficient to justify whipping for one who eats these things outside of Jerusalem]. But for that purpose, it could just say, “You shall not consume them.” Why should it have been necessary to repeat all [three] of them? It is to imply that they are separately [punishable]. They said likewise concerning (Lev. 23:14) “bread, parched grain, or fresh ears” that one is whipped for each one separately. But how can one be whipped for a lav shebichlalut? [Here also] a redundant verse is written, and they conclude there that parched grain is not needed; and since Scripture does record it between the other two things, this makes one guilty for bread separately, and for parched grain separately, and for fresh grain separately. And if it [parched grain] were at the beginning or the end, one would be guilty for parched grain separately and for bread and for bread and fresh ears separately [i.e., eating them both would result in only a single whipping]. From here [i.e., this reasoning], Maimonides learned concerning (Deut. 18:10–11) “Let there not be found among you one who consigns his son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer, one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or familiar spirits, or who inquires of the dead,” that every one of these nine things is enumerated as a separate prohibition. [This is because] among them are persons who are [expressly] separately enumerated elsewhere, namely, “You shall not practice divination, and you shall not practice soothsaying” (Lev. 19:26). This is similar to parched grain, which, being placed in the middle, separates everything specified along with it. And also of this type (type III) is “they shall not take a woman who is a harlot, or who has been profaned, and they shall not take a woman who was divorced by her husband” (Lev. 21:7), as the sages mentioned (Kiddushin 77b), and as I mentioned previously. And Nachmanides in — 60 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

this type included the case of partially roasted and water-cooked [paschal lamb] grape skin and grape seeds [consumed by a Nazirite], leaven and honey [in a meal offering], and oppressing a widow and an orphan. And in my commentary on the prohibitions, I will explain the opinions of both of them [Maimonides and Nachmanides]. He [Nachmanides] also does not agree with Maimonides, who enumerates [negative] commandments according to the number of separate whippings, and he [Nachmanides] also does not [enumerate] according to the number of prohibitive statements. But he enumerates every forbidden thing. Therefore, he enumerates among the commandments all things that are specifically mentioned in the Torah. So he counts partially roasted and water-cooked as two, and the gift to a harlot and the price of a dog [as two], and leaven and honey [as two], and Ammonite and Moabite [as two], and other such cases. Even in Maimonides’s opinion, there are eight items mentioned singly, but it is proper [in Maimonides’s view] to count them only two by two [i.e., each pair belongs to a single prohibitive clause, which is enumerated alone. But [Nachmanides] counts tithe of grain, wine, and oil [when eaten outside of Jerusalem] as only a single prohibition, for all [three] of them constitute “tithe.” And similarly bread, parched grain, and fresh ears [which Maimonides enumerates as three prohibitions], he [Nachmanides] counts as a single prohibition, since it is a single subject, i.e., the prohibition of new produce. As for my own opinion on this, you will find it at the end of the book.* PRINCIPLE 10. One should not enumerate *The subject of among the commandments the preliminaries Lav Shebichlalut is and procedures that are for a single final result. complicated, and there are many opinions Therefore, everything written in the section of “And about it. Helpful material is found in you shall take fine flour, etc.” (Lev. 24:5–9) should The Puzzle of the 613 not be enumerated, except for the final purpose of Commandments by this commandment, which is (Exod. 25:30) “And Philip J. Caplan, chap. 27, pp. 227–245. you shall set the showbread on the table.” Likewise, from the section “and they shall bring unto you olive oil, etc.” (Exod. 27:20) we should only enumerate “to have a lamp burning regularly.” Also, from the section “Take unto you spices, etc.” (Exod. 30:34), we should only enumerate “when he tends the lamps, he shall burn it” (Exod. 30:7). Everything stated in these sections about preparing the bread, the oil, and the incense is the preliminaries to ar— 61 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

ranging the bread, lighting the lamp, and the burning of the incense, and it is the final commandment that comes into the enumeration, not the preliminaries. Also, analogously, in the section “Take new choice spices, etc.” (Exod. 30:23–28), we should only count the final purpose, not the preliminaries, which is that we are commanded to anoint specific things with this oil. This principle is true, and Nachmanides agrees, saying that even the Gaon [author of Halachot Gedolot] also holds this opinion, even though Maimonides considered him mistaken about this; and in my commentary on the Azharot, all this will be explained. PRINCIPLE 11. Specific parts of a commandment should not be enumerated, each part separately, when the sum total of them constitutes a single commandment. Now, regarding things that are mutually invalidating [i.e., if one element of the group is absent, the remaining elements have no status of fulfilling a commandment], it is an obvious thing that the parts cannot be enumerated. This is like the four species that comprise the lulav or the purification of the “leper” (Lev. 14:4–7) with cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet stuff, and two birds, in which cases we should only count the commandment of lulav as one commandment, and the commandment of purification of the “leper” as one commandment. It is thus in all similar cases, and everyone agrees about this. But Maimonides (in principle 11) raised some doubt about the tzitzit (Num. 15:37–41), since we learned in the Mishnah (Menachot 4:1) that the [absence of] the blue thread does not invalidate the white thread, and the [absence of ] the white thread does not invalidate the blue thread. For it would be proper, according to this principle, to enumerate these as two commandments. Nevertheless, he decided to count them as only one commandment. For it is stated in the Mechilta,19 “It might be thought that they [blue and white] are two [separate] commandments. Therefore, Scripture says (Num. 15:39), “And it shall be for you” [implying a single commandment]. And I will write a more detailed analysis about this in my commentary on the Azharot. PRINCIPLE 12. One should not enumerate portions of any action, each portion separately. Therefore, we enumerate “They shall make me a sanctuary” (Exod. 25:8) as a single commandment, but we should not enumerate everything about which it is said, “And you shall make” (e.g., vv. 10, 17, 23, etc., in Exod. 25) as a separate commandment. Now this 19 Actually Sifre Zuta Sh’lach 15:39. — 62 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

is true, and there is no argument about this, except about making the ark, whether it is included in the general [commandment] of making the sanctuary, or whether it is a separate commandment, and I will explain this in my commentary on the Azharot (Positive Commandments, Stanza 49). Also concerning the preparation of the sacrifices, there is no agreement among them [Maimonides and Nachmanides] as to how they are included in the enumeration of the commandments, and all this will be explained in my commentary on the Azharot (ibid., Stanza 45). PRINCIPLE 13. The number of the commandments should not correspond to the number of days on which that commandment applies. Therefore, we count the additional offering for New Moon as one commandment, and the additional Sabbath offering, and the additional offering for all five holidays as one [apiece]. Also, the festival offering, appearing [on the festivals with a burnt offering], and rejoicing [on festivals] are each counted as a single commandment. For, if these things were enumerated corresponding to the number of days [when they are required], then we would have to count the law of the daily offering as a separate commandment for each day, and cleaning the lamps as a separate commandment for each day, and the commandment of the lulav as being seven, and the number of commandments would be much too large. And this is the proof that the number of days does not increase the number of commandments. But Maimonides found fault with whoever [e.g. Halachot Gedolot] counted all additional offerings as only a single commandment. For according to their theory, they should have counted resting on all holidays as a single commandment, whereas they [in fact] counted each holiday separately. And he [Maimonides] wrote that their way is not straight, and his is correct. I did not see Nachmanides saying anything about this principle. I did see that he counts the two daily offerings [morning and afternoon], and burning incense morning and evening, and reading the shema morning and evening as two [commandments in all three cases]. For these are commandments that do not invalidate each other [i.e., if the morning offering was not done, the afternoon offering is still required], and the time for one is different than the time for the other. PRINCIPLE 14. This [deals with] how the various punishments are to be included in the enumeration of the commandments. For example, there is whipping, various kinds of capital punishment, having to bring sacrifices, and the like. Much confusion has befallen this topic among — 63 —

——————————————— Zohar HaRakia: General Principles ———————————————

the early authorities. What needs to be written about this the reader will find scattered in my commentary on the Azharot. With this, the principles are concluded. And now I am beginning to explain the Azharot, adhering to the way of the earlier commentator [Moses ibn Tibbon], except for the cases where I differ from his comment. And I ask for help from God, blessed and exalted is He. Blessed is the Merciful One who has supported us.

— 64 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

The Positive Commandments*

1. My heart, heed the response; be exceedingly *The 248 positive commandments are humble. embodied in eighty-five Fear God and enumerate His righteous stanzas. The number of commandments in words. a stanza varies. The The poet speaks, as it were, to his own heart, poetic structure is that and adjures and commands it to take heed of the each stanza has four “lines.” The first three response (ma’aneh). And we do not know what “lines” rhyme with each ma’aneh refers to. Some explain that it is the reother, while the fourth “line” always ends in the sponse of Israel at Mt. Sinai who answered and sound rim. This “poem” proclaimed, “All that the Lord spoke we shall do” is well known and has (Exod. 19:8). Or [perhaps] he is calling the Torah been translated and interpreted by various a response (ma’aneh), since it is God’s speaking scholars. The text of the and communicating with Israel. He then instructs Azharot of ibn Gabirol is in bold font; the text of it [his heart] to be humble (ne’eneh), for (ne’eneh) the Zohar Harakia is in indicates submissiveness, similar to “how long do regular font. you refuse to be humbled (le’anot) before me?” (Exod. 10:3), this being in the passive form. He further urges it [his heart] to fear God and to enumerate His commandments, which constitute the paths of God by which He guided Israel, so that they should not follow paths that deviate from the truth. The initial letters of the words of this stanza spell out his name and his father’s name [Shelomo ben Yehuda].20 2. And He will forgive error, and He will give abundant strength, And He will grant wisdom, to give understanding to the simple. 20 Note that the poet uses the less-common form bimeod rather than just meod for the purpose of incorporating his name here. — 65 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

The poet comes into a prayerful mode, that God should forgive his sin if he errs in counting the commandments, since he is aware of his weakness and inadequacy of his knowledge concerning the enumeration. For this poet was not a rabbi, who is expert in the Talmud, and he was relying on the words of the Halachot Gedolot. He is fearful lest he might misunderstand his words [of the Halachot Gedolot], or lest that author was mistaken, and that he himself would be following his error. This is why he prays for forgiveness. He also prays to God to increase his strength, for it is God who increases the strength of the powerless (Isa. 40:30). This strength refers to granting wisdom for “it is God who grants wisdom, and from his mouth are wisdom and understanding” (Prov. 2:6). In the phrase l’havin nimharim, he refers to the simpleminded, all of whose understanding was gotten hastily without careful consideration (the adjective nimhar is found in Isaiah 32:4 and 35:4; also Job 5:13). 3. Let me tell weighty matters, sweet to the mouth, And I will set up turrets, to lead the travelers aright. The wisdom for which he prays is in order to proclaim wise doctrines and commandments, for commandments are indeed sweeter to the mouth than honey and the flow from the honeycomb (Ps. 19:110).21 “And I will set up turrets” in enumerating them, i.e., by poetic meter, the reader will have the commandments like turrets, which are the teeth of the wall “to lead the travelers aright,” that they will observe them from afar and know the location of the city. 4. I will recount the positive commandments of the Law, [our] stronghold and refuge, And may my sins be forgiven by Him who reveals secrets. God, exalted is He, is our stronghold and refuge, and he [the poet] again beseeches that the Holy One, blessed is He, who reveals secrets, will cover [forgive] his sins; and the covering of sins is linked with uncovering (revealing) secrets, these antonyms [covering, uncovering] being a poetic device. 5. Forty and eight and two hundred, which are planted, 21 Note that the Ziv Hazohar edition omits the words metukot lapiyot midvash v’nofet tsufim, which follow the words shehamitzvot hem. — 66 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

And anchored with nails in the number of limbs (also 248). I have already explained this in the introduction, and the verse [on which this stanza is based] is (Eccles. 12:11) “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well fastened.” 6. At Sinai they were made known, on high they were heard, And together they were imbedded in the Ten Words. For they [the commandments] are well indicated by the letters [of The Decalogue] being equal To the number of the commandments, and they were expressed in them. The vav in b’tevot nishtavot is weak, similar to the vav in eshet m’danim nishtavah (Prov. 27:15).22 7. And He who saves you and who made known to you [the Decalogue] Till [its conclusion] “which is your neighbor’s,” He made you grasp them. All this is explained in the Introduction. 8. And the omniscient God thundered with a marvelous awesome voice, Jumping over hills, skipping over mountains. The Holy One, blessed is He, who is the omniscient God, emitted awesome thunder, with an extraordinary sound, as recorded by Deborah (Judg. 5:4) and David (Ps. 6:9): “the earth roared, etc.” And that sound leaped over hills (Song of Songs 2:8); or the meaning may be that the “jumping” and “skipping” refer to God. 9. And when he called them [the words] out, trembling seized them; And their souls expired, with trembling and shattering. Scripture says (Exod. 20:16) “Let not God speak to us lest we die.” And it is written: (Exod. 20:15) “And all the people saw and trembled and stood back.” “With trembling” (retet) is related [by replacing the tet 22 The vav is a consonant in nishtavah and nishtavot, although I don’t know that this is termed grammatically as “weak.” — 67 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

by a tav] to r’ses [which also means trembling]. [The word retet] is found in Jeremiah (49:24), “trembling seized her.” 10. He then brought down his misty dew, to his people, his subjects; And in his mercy He restored the souls to the corpses. This is mentioned in the Midrash, that [the Israelites at Sinai] died when they heard the first voice, and that He revived them with dew. Similarly, at the resurrection, He will revive the dead with dew, as indicated in the Gemara (Shabbat 88b), and this is why we mention dew [in the Sephardic ritual] in the blessing of resurrection [the second of the Eighteen Benedictions]. 11. “I brought you out, I adjured you, I led you in the paths of righteousness.” The commentator on the Azharot (Moses ibn Tibbon) includes here the commandment of believing in God, which is indicated in the words “I am the Lord your God” (Exod. 20:2). Maimonides also wrote this [commandment], and he brings proof that the verse “I am . . .” is an enumerated commandment from what the rabbis said at the end of Makkot (23b). “613 commandments were spoken to Moses at Sinai. Which verse indicates this? It is (Deut. 33:4) ‘Moses commanded the Torah to us.’” This is telling us that this [the number 613] is the numerical value of [the word] Torah. Against this, the objection was raised that the actual numerical value of “Torah” is only 611. The answer was given that two commandments, “I am . . .” and “You shall not have any other gods . . .” we heard directly from God’s voice [rather than through Moses]. These are the words of Maimonides [proving that “I am . . .” is one of the 613 commandments], and on this basis, the commentator [ibn Tibbon] relied. But this was not the intention of the poet [ibn Gabirol], for he based [his poem] on the Gaon Rabbi Shimon Kayyara, the author of Halachot Gedolot, and the latter did not write the utterance “I am the L . . .” in the enumeration of the 613 commandments. Nachmanides has justified the Gaon, saying that his intention was that the utterance “You shall not have other gods, etc.” contains two commandments that complete the number 613, one being “You shall not have . . .” and “you shall not make . . .” and the other being “you shall not prostrate to them nor serve them” (v. 5), which indeed the Gaon enumerated as commandments. As to the Talmud saying that “I am . . .” and “You shall not have . . .” were — 68 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

heard from the divine voice, it did not mean that “I am . . .” is a commandment that is part of the 613 commandments. It was only to say that the language of these two utterances proves that they were heard directly from the divine voice, not through Moses. For it is written “I am the Lord your G . . . you shall not have other gods before me; for I am the Lord your God,” while the other commandments are written in the third person, with someone else mediating between them. So since we heard the first two utterances from the divine voice, and the second utterance contains two prohibitions, we therefore have 613 commandments, 611 from Moses’s mouth according to the numerical value of “Torah,” and two from the divine voice, the statement “I am the L  .  .  .” not being enumerated. This, then, is the discussion that took place between these two great mountains [Maimonides and Nachmanides]. Now I have in my humble opinion found a basis for the words of the Gaon that the utterance “I am, etc. . . .” is not to be enumerated, from what is said in Horayot (8a) as an inquiry about the passage “And when you shall err . . .” (Num. 15:22): “How do we know that this verse refers specifically to [an unintentional error regarding] idolatry? The school of Rabbi Ishmael derived it from the expression (ibid., v. 23), ‘from the day that the Lord had given commandments, and onward, through your generations.’ Which commandment [fits the description] as having been spoken first? Presumably that about idolatry. An objection was raised about this from the teaching that Ten Commandments had previously been given at Marah [i.e., prior to the revelation at Sinai], and thus the prohibition of idolatry was not the very first commandment. But it is clear that we must revert to the previous answers that were given [as to how it is known that the verse is about idolatry]. Now, if the utterances [“I am, etc.”] were indeed enumerated among the 613 commandments, then the utterance about idolatry would have been the first commandment spoken in any event! The viewpoint of the Gaon [author of Halachot Gedolot] about this is that it is not proper to include in the detailed numbering of commandments that which is the foundation of the faith upon which all commandments depend. For all commandments are decrees issued by the Blessed Name as a consequence of this belief. And one who does not believe in the deity has no [basis for] Torah at all, and it is impossible for one who subscribes to the Torah not to accept this belief. Therefore, how can one include in the detailed enumeration that which is the root — 69 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

and foundation of the whole Torah? This seems to be the opinion of the rabbis who said in the Mechilta (Yitro 6:3), “Why was the statement ‘You shall have no other gods, etc.’ made? It is because of his [previously] saying ‘I am the Lord your God’ This is similar to a king who entered a country and his servants said, ‘Issue decrees to them.’ He replied, ‘No, only when they accept my rule will I issue decrees to them, for if they do not accept my rule, how would my decrees be fulfilled?’ So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Israel, ‘I am the Lord your God,’ [and then] ‘you shall have no other gods,’ i.e., ‘I am the one whose rule you accepted; therefore accept my laws, e.g. that you shall have no other gods.’” [This is the end of the Mechilta quotation.] I also found it [the above quotation] in the Sifre in the section about forbidden sexual relations, in the same language as the Mechilta, but there they added the following. “‘I am He whose dominion you accepted at Sinai.’ They declared ‘Yes, indeed.’ [He continued] ‘Therefore accept my decrees, i.e., do not do like what is done in the land of Egypt where you dwelt.’” From this, it appears explicit that the beginning of the decrees of the Holy One, blessed is He, is the utterance “You shall have no other, etc.,” while the utterance “I am, etc.” refers to the belief in the deity that they already affirmed in Egypt. What He was saying to them was that I am the Lord your God in whom you believed in Egypt, and now you shall accept my commandments. This Mechilta [quotation] was already mentioned by Nachmanides in his book. He also cites another thing where they said (Mechilta Yitro 5:2), “Why wasn’t the Decalogue stated in the beginning of the Torah? It is comparable to one who enters a country and says ‘Let me rule over you.’ They said, ‘Have you done anything for us that you should rule over us?’ What did he do? He built them a wall, he brought water to them, and he waged wars for them. He then said, ‘Let me rule over you.’ They said yes. So it was with the Holy One, blessed is He, who brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, split the Red Sea, brought the manna for them, supplied them with the well, caused the quails to fly to them, and led them in the war against the Amalekites. He then said, ‘Let Me rule over you’; they replied, ‘Yes, indeed.’ This reflects credit on Israel, for when they all stood at Mt. Sinai to receive the Torah and to receive the words with one heart, they accepted the yoke of divine rule joyfully.” This quotation from the Mechilta implies that the utterance “I am, etc.,” [which indicates] accepting the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, should be considered the — 70 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

detailed enumeration of the commandments. But I am perplexed that Nachmanides deduced from it [this very quotation from the Mechilta] that the expression “I am, etc.” should be counted among the commandments, and he agreed with Maimonides to count it among the 248 [positive commandments], since its meaning [according to Duran] actually is closer to the opinion of the Gaon [not to count it]. For this matter, there is conclusive evidence from its place [i.e., from its own text without regard to the Mechilta], for what difference is there between the phrase “I am the Lord your God” in the Decalogue and what is stated in the section on fair weights and measures, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the Land of Egypt” (Lev. 19:36). So I consider it better not to count “I am, etc.” as a distinct commandment, but rather the foundation and origin. But I found in the Yelamdenu (Tanchuma Naso 2) that the phrase “I am, etc.” is among the commandments and is also one of the ten statements in the Decalogue. This is where it states that adulterers transgress each of the ten statements of the Decalogue. How do they transgress against “I am, etc.”? It is because anyone who commits adultery with the wife of his fellow denies the Holy One, blessed is He, as it is said (Jer. 5:12) “They have belied the Lord and said ‘It is not He’” [connecting this verse with the mention of adultery in verse 7]. Likewise in the Sedrah Kedoshim (Tanchuma on Kedoshim 3) and in Vayikra Rabba (24) it is mentioned that the Ten Utterances of the Decalogue are included in the Sedra Kedoshim, one of them being the utterance “I am, etc.” It is understood from this that this is one of the Ten Utterances, and it would seem that since it is enumerated among the utterances, it is also enumerated among the commandments. Also, one who does not believe in Him is considered a kofer [unbeliever]. But this does not necessarily prove it [i.e., that “I am” is an enumerated commandment], for one who does not believe this would be considered a kofer whether it would be inserted among the enumerated commandments or not. For those who excluded it from the enumeration did not do so because it is not obligatory, but because it is the foundation and source, and one should not consider such a general statement as part of a detailed enumeration. Also, its being one of the utterances in the Decalogue does not prove that it must be enumerated as a commandment, for not every utterance is a commandment, and also not every utterance is [only] a single commandment. For the utterance about the Sabbath is a single utterance, — 71 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

but it contains both a positive commandment and a prohibition; the positive one is sanctifying the day [“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”], and the negative one is the prohibition of working. Likewise, the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] and Maimonides both count in the [second] utterance “You shall not have, etc.” more than a single commandment. Thus, we may say that the utterance “I am, etc.” does not necessarily imply that it is a commandment just on the basis of its being one of the ten utterances. The conclusion of all this is that the words of the Gaon are more appealing to me according to the plain meaning of the sayings of the sages, and according to the plain interpretation of Scripture, unless the actual enumeration would require it, i.e., if we were not able to complete the 248 positive commandments without including the statement “I am, etc.” in the enumeration. 12. To declare the unity of the awesome God twice a day; And to pray every day, evening and morning. Here too the commentator on the Azharot includes the commandment of affirming the unity of God, as Maimonides did. And the content of this commandment, in his view, is that we should believe that this God in whose existence we believe, as stated in the utterance “I am, etc.,” is one. And this is stated in the verse (Deut. 6:4), “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” I do not see Nachmanides opposing him about this, and he also includes this in the enumeration. But I do not find the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] enumerating this commandment at all, but he did write down the commandment of reciting the Shema. The proof that Maimonides brings from the words of the sages is that they speak of “the commandment of expressing the unity,” and they also call this “the kingdom of heaven,” when they speak of “accepting the yoke of the kingdom of heaven”; this is his proof. Now in my humble opinion, it seems that the declarations “I am, etc.” and “Hear, O Israel, etc.” are identical in content, i.e., the acceptance of the kingdom of God by believing in God and his unity, and this is not to be counted as an individual commandment but constitutes the foundation and the root. And this seems to be the opinion of the Gaon, and what is to be counted here as a commandment is the recitation of the Shema. A proof from the words of the sages is what they said that reading of the first verse of the Shema paragraph constitutes the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and the Torah requires nothing except — 72 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

this verse for this commandment. This is stated in the second chapter of Berachot (13b): “The words ‘Hear O Israel, etc.’ constituted the reading of Shema for Rabbi Judah the Prince.” They further said there: “Rav said to Rabbi Chiya, ‘I have not seen Rabbi [Judah the Prince] accepting the kingdom of heaven.’ He [Rabbi Chiya] replied, ‘Noble sir, when he [Rabbi Judah] covers his hands over his face, he accepts the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.’” They further said in the last chapter of Berachot (61b) regarding Rabbi Akiva [at his martyrdom] that when he was receiving the yoke of the kingdom of heaven by reciting the Shema, his soul expired at the word one. Thus, they made it clear to us that receiving the kingdom of heaven consists of reciting that verse, and that is what should be counted as a commandment, not that the reading of Shema is counted as one commandment, and receiving [the kingdom of heaven] as a separate commandment, unless the actual count requires it. So the words of the poet are not in agreement with those of the commentator. Now the commandment of the reading of the Shema is undoubtedly part of the enumeration, since they cite in the third chapter of Berachot (21a) that if one is in doubt as to whether he has or has not recited the Shema, he should recite it again, since it is a Torah law. They further said there regarding one who is unclean as a result of a seminal emission should nevertheless recite the Shema and recite the blessings after meals, since they are Torah laws. But Nachlmanides had to enumerate the recital of Shema as two commandments, since this was needed by him to complete the number of the 248 positive commandments, i.e., one in the morning and one in the evening, since the time for one is not valid for the other, and the nonperformance of one does not invalidate the performance of the other, i.e., if one did not recite it in the evening, he still must recite the morning reading of Shema, as he argues in the eleventh principle. Now I have considerable doubt regarding his [Nachmanides’s] giving two reasons for his counting this as two commandments, i.e., that they are done at different times and that the performance of one does not invalidate the performance of the other. For if they were to be done at the same time, and they did not invalidate each other, it would be more of a proof for counting them as two. But inasmuch as they apply at different times, it follows [automatically] that they would not invalidate each other, for we never find a single commandment applying at different times, such that if one would not do it at one time, then it would invalid at the other time. But as to whether — 73 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

a commandment having separate times is sufficient to imply this [i.e., that it should be counted as separate commandments], this is possible; but when you [actually] count up the number [of commandments], this would become clarified. The poet has included among the commandments “praying every day,” whereas the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] did not count prayer, but he did write “to serve Him and to love Him.” Now if prayer is counted as a commandment, it has no indication in the Torah other than the scriptural verse (Deut. 11:13) “and to serve Him with all your heart and all your soul.” Therefore, it is not proper to count prayer as one commandment and to serve Him as another commandment. Now Maimonides, although he established one principle (No. 4) regarding enumeration of the commandments that one should not count summarizing commandments, such as (Lev. 18:30) “you shall keep my charge” and like (Lev. 19:2) “you shall be holy” and the like, he nevertheless decided to include this “service” among the commandments, since within this [general] commandment, there is [also] a particular commandment, i.e., prayer, and this is what is enumerated. He cites a proof from the phrase in the Sifre (Ekev 13) that “to serve Him” implies prayer. And in the Midrash of Rabbi Jose the Galilean, they said, “Whence do we know that prayer essentially is among the commandments? It is from here (Deut. 10:20): ‘You shall fear the Lord your God and you shall serve him.’” And they said [Midrash Tannaim on this verse], “Serve Him in His Torah, and serve Him in His sanctuary,” i.e., go there [the sanctuary] to pray in His presence. Regarding what is said in the Talmud (Berachot 21a) that reading the Shema is from the Torah, while prayer is rabbinic, this would be explained by Maimonides as referring to the regular time of prayer, which is rabbinic, though prayer itself is a Torah commandment. This is said in the Tosefta (Berachot 3:1): “Just as the Torah assigned specific times for reading the Shema, so did the sages set times for prayer.” This is Maimonides’s view. But Nachmanides objected that it seems from the discussions in the Gemara that prayer is entirely a rabbinic commandment. For they said (Berachot 21a) regarding one who is impure because of a seminal emission that he reads the Shema, but he should not pray, and they gave the reason that reading the Shema is from the Torah and prayer is rabbinic. Even if he remains impure for many days, he does not pray until he immerses himself. Also, one who was unable to pray for — 74 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

many days, and thereafter he was in doubt as to whether he had or had not recited that prayer that he intended to do now, he should not pray [possibly again], for prayer is rabbinic. Now, if it were a Torah law, and only its time rabbinic, they would be obliged to pray, both the one who was impure, and the one who was in doubt as to whether or not he had prayed, similar to the law for reading the Shema. And in the Talmud, they make no distinction about this law whether it is a long time or short time [since the last praying]. Also, if praying is a Torah law, at what time does it apply? In the case of Rabbi Judah, he only prayed once every thirty days (Rosh Hashanah 35a), since he was very busy with Torah study, because scholars who are occupied in Torah study are supposed to interrupt their study to recite the Shema, but not for prayer, which is rabbinic. So if it is not a Torah commandment to pray within thirty days, when is its required time according to the Torah? From all this, it seems that prayer is not required in the Torah; and as to the interpretation in the Sifre that “and to serve Him” implies prayer, this is apparently only an asmachta. So Nachmanides concluded that prayer is not a law from the Torah. But regarding his enumeration of the commandments, he haltingly includes this [“to serve Him”] in the enumeration of the commandments, in accordance with the Gaon (Halachot Gedolot), but disagreeing with Maimonides, who does not interpret this “serving” as a commandment referring to the entire Torah, but to a specific part of it, which is to be enumerated. This is that all our service to God, exalted is He, should be with all our heart, i.e., with proper intent toward Him and without any bad thought. We should not perform commandments without intention or being doubtful as to whether they have any value. Nachmanides furthermore said that the statement in the Sifre “the phrase ‘and to serve Him’ refers to study and also to prayer” means that divine service includes studying His Torah and praying to Him in time of trouble. Since this commandment has specific content of being single minded in His service or also to pray to Him in time of trouble, it is therefore possible for Nachmanides to include this in the enumeration of the commandments. And I detect from his words that he is forcing himself to include it in the enumeration of the commandments, since the Gaon has counted it, and otherwise he would have deleted it from his enumeration. Also, at the end of his book, when he counts each commandment one by one, he does not count it, since the structure of the — 75 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

verse shows that it is a commandment encompassing the whole Torah. That is that one should serve God, blessed be He, by His Torah with all its commandments, whether in prayer or in the sanctuary by bowing and performing the services; therefore, it would be improper to count it. In any case, to count prayer as a commandment, and service as another commandment, is something that no one could say. 13. To serve Him and love Him in your heart, and to cleave to Him, And to adhere to his path with your footsteps and strides. I have already written in the previous stanza about the commandment of serving. Regarding the commandment of loving God, it is included in the enumeration and its content, as it is stated in the Talmud (Pesachim 25a) is to love God and not to deny worshipping Him, even under dangerous circumstances; but one should rather be killed than giving up loving Him. Also included in this is what is stated in the Sifre (Ekev. 13): “Since you might say, ‘I will study Torah so that I might be called wise’ or ‘that I may sit in the academy’ or ‘that I will have a long life’ or ‘that I may be worthy of the world to come,’ the Torah asserts that to love [God is the only proper motive].” A similar statement is in the Talmud, tractate Nedarim (62a). Another thing stated in the Sifre about the verse “And you shall love the Lord your God” (Deut. 6:5) is that, at this point, one does not know how to love the Omnipresent; so the Torah continues, “And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart” (Deut. 6:6), for from this [embedding the words of Torah in your heart], you come to awareness of Him who spoke and the world came into being. Another explanation23 is that v’ohavta is causative [i.e., not “you shall love,” but “you shall cause love”], i.e., one should expound the Torah to others in such a way as to inspire love in their hearts. This is stated in the Sifre: “V’ohavta means that you should lead people to love Him, as did Abraham our father, as it is said (Gen. 12:5), ‘And the persons whom they acquired in Haran’ [which, taking the literal meaning of asu to mean ‘made,’ indicates that Abraham proselytized people in Haran by bringing them to love God]. On this account he is denoted as ‘Abraham who loved Me’ as it is said (Isa. 41:8), ‘the seed of Abraham who loved Me.’” 23 Maimonides, Sefer Hamitzvot, positive commandment no. 3. — 76 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

The poet continues, “To cleave to Him,” which was counted by the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] to which Maimonides agreed. The meaning of this commandment, as included in the enumeration, is as the sages interpreted in the Sifre (Ekev, end of 22), i.e., to be attached to the sages and their disciples. They further said (ibid.) that it means that one should study Aggada, since, from the words of Aggada, one becomes cognizant of Him who spoke and caused the world to exist, and one becomes attached to His ways. And in the Talmud (Sotah 14a), they included in it [i.e., cleaving to Him] all kinds of attachment. Similarly, they said (Ketubot 111a), “Is it possible for one to cleave to the Shechinah, when it is written (Deut. 4:24), ‘The Lord your God is a consuming fire’? But [the verse means] that anyone who marries the daughter of a scholar or who gives his daughter in marriage to a scholar or engages in business with a scholar or who lets him use his property, Scripture considers this as tantamount to attachment with the Shechinah.” There is a similar statement in the Yelamdenu (Tanchuma Mattot 1) and in Temurah (3b), where they included in it swearing in God’s name to perform a commandment [actually the citation in Temurah does not appear to discuss the content of “cleaving to Him” at all]. This is what one can say about the commandment on the basis of rabbinic interpretation. But the standard [biblical] commentators [ibn Ezra and Nachmanides] explained that “cleaving to Him” refers to the final outcome, which is a deep insight, which says that one who worships God can merit a close connection to Him. Although the concept is correct, it is not reflected in this verse, for it is stated in Joshua (3:7), “Neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, nor serve them, nor worship them, but cleave to the Lord your God as you have done to this day.” According to this, it [cleaving] just indicates a warning among several warnings about idolatry, i.e., that you attention should not deviate from God, blessed is He, to go after other gods, similar to what is said elsewhere (Deut. 13:5), “Him you shall serve, and you shall cleave to Him.” Likewise the Sifre says (Re’eh 60:5), “Separate yourselves from idolatry, and cleave to the Omnipresent.” Though this is the simple meaning of Scripture, one also includes here that a person’s thought should be attached to God all the time, at every moment, whether at eating time or when taking care of any bodily needs, as it is said (Exod. 34:28), “And he was there with God forty days and forty nights, etc.” The sages stated (Berachot 63a) that the verse (Prov. 3:6) “Know Him — 77 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

in all your ways” means that [one should know Him] even with regard to a transgression. This is the degree of excellence of the forefathers, about whom it is said (Bereshit Rabba 47:48) that they constituted the divine chariot. And the author of the Cuzari said that the people on this spiritual level are a dwelling place for the Shechinah. In this respect, it is also proper to count it [cleaving to Him] among the commandments [because of its distinct content]. The poet says further, “And to adhere to His path with your footsteps and strides,” which the Gaon enumerated, as did Maimonides, who wrote that its content is to emulate Him, blessed is He, as much as we can, which is expressed by (Deut. 28:9) “and you shall walk in His ways.” And in the Sifre (Ekev 22), it says in explanation of this commandment, “Just as the Holy One, blessed is He, is merciful, you too should be merciful; as He is gracious, you be gracious; as He is righteous, you be righteous; as He is kindly, you be kindly.” And in Gemara Sotah (14a), they said that Rabbi Chama bar Chanina said, “What does the verse ‘after the Lord your God shall you go’ mean? Is it possible for a person to walk behind the Holy One, blessed is He? But it means that just as the Holy One, blessed is He, clothes the naked, so you should clothe the naked; as He visits the sick, so you should visit the sick; as He buries the dead, so you should bury the dead; as He consoles mourners, so you should console mourners.” And we have in the Sifre (Re’eh 60:5) that “after the Lord your God you shall go” constitutes a positive commandment; and the content of this [in its context of the preceding verse] is that it refers to the false prophets to whom we are not to pay heed, but we should follow the counsel of His Name, blessed is He, and we should seek from Him all that is unknown through His prophets. This is like what is said (1 Kings 22:7), “Is there not here besides a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of him?” and like another instructive verse (Jer. 42:2), “Let, we pray, our supplication be acceptable to you, and pray for us unto the Lord your God . . . that He tell us the way.” In the Gemara Sotah (39b), they base on this [“going after the Lord”] the practice of accompanying a Sefer Torah to its place of arrival. According to all of the above, it is proper to count this also as a commandment. 14. To sanctify the Almighty, to fear His wrath, To swear in His name, neither in vain or falsely. The commandment of sanctifying the Name is to be included in — 78 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

the enumeration of the commandments undoubtedly, and so all the early authorities have counted it. The proof for this is what is said in the Gemara Sanhedrin (74b): “Is a descendent of Noah commanded to sanctify the Name, or not?” The answer is derived from the teaching that the descendants of Noah are charged with seven commandments, and if sanctification were a commandment [to them], there would be eight. So it is clear that it is one of the 248 positive commandments. The content of this commandment is that we should let ourselves die a martyr’s death during a time of persecution for [transgressing] even a minor commandment and even when there is no persecution, if a gentile insists that a Jew transgress not for his own enjoyment, but just to force him to do a sin. In such circumstances, the commandment (Lev. 22:32) “I will be hallowed among the children of Israel” applies. But if it is not a time of persecution, and the gentile means that the transgression is for his own benefit, then we are not obligated to submit our bodies to death [rather than transgress] unless the sin is idol worship, which is derived from the commandment of (Deut. 6:5) “And you shall love the Lord your God . . . with all your soul”; or unless it is the sin of murder, which is understood rationally, or unless it is the sin of sexual immorality, which is derived from the case of murder, as is recorded in Sanhedrin (74a) and elsewhere (Pesachim 25a and Yoma 82a). To fear His wrath. The commandment of fearing is also an enumerated commandment, and this is evident from what is said in Gemara Sanhedrin (56a) in interpreting the verse (Lev. 24:16), “If one pronounces (v’nokev) the name of the Lord” [How does one know that the death penalty specified in this verse applies to the action of cursing the divine name?] One might say that the meaning of (v’nokev) is merely expressing the holy name needlessly, as [this same verb is used] in the verse (Num. 1:17), “who were designated (nikvu) by name,” which is forbidden according to the verse (Deut. 10:20) “you shall fear the Lord your God.” They rejected this hypothesis, since this prohibition is [actually only] a positive commandment, and a positive commandment does not count as a prohibition [i.e., a punishment is always assumed to apply only to an expressly prohibited action]. Similar phraseology is also found in the first chapter of Temurah (4a) regarding pronouncing the divine name needlessly, and it is thus made clear that “fearing” is a positive commandment applied to needlessly pronouncing the divine name. They have also said in the Yerushalmi (Sotah 1:5), “Act from love, for one — 79 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

who loves does not act hatefully; act from fear, for if you are about to rebel, you will be restrained.” To swear in His name. The Gaon included this in the enumeration, as did Maimonides, who brought a proof from what is said in the first chapter of Temurah (3b), “Where is it indicated that one may take an oath to keep the commandments? It is said (Deut. 6:13) ‘And in His name you shall swear.’” This matter is perplexing, for the meaning of the discussion there is not as Maimonides thought [i.e., implying that swearing in God’s name is to be counted as a positive commandment], since there we are investigating whether it is forbidden to swear in His exalted name even if the oath is true, [the prohibition being based] on the verse (Deut. 28:58) “to reverence this awesome and honored name.” They said thus (Temurah 3b), “The expression v’hifla (Deut. 28:59) [which the Gemara cites as the scriptural source for punishing by whipping one who swears in God’s name] might even apply to a true oath.” But they countered that a true oath is permissible [thus not punishable]. After some discussion [on the scriptural basis of permitting true oaths], they say that there is another scriptural verse (Deut. 10:20), “by His name shall you swear,” implying that here Scripture permits a true oath and that one is not punished for that. But they objected that this verse might apply rather to the teaching of Rav Gidal, who said that one may take an oath to fulfill commandments [even though this is actually a needless oath], as is reflected in the verse (Ps. 119:106). But they responded that it [swearing to fulfill commandments] is authorized by the verse (Deut. 10:12) “unto Him you shall cleave.” To what then do I apply “by His name shall you swear? It is not needed to permit a judicial oath, which is permitted by (Exod. 22:10) “the oath of the Lord” So it must be needed to permit nonjudicial oaths. And since it is not needed for an oath to perform commandments, which is derived from “unto Him you shall cleave,” then it is used to permit [true] oaths for ordinary use. What comes out from this is that swearing in His name is not an obligation, but a permission. Nachmanides found a proof [that it is a permission] from Midrash Tanchuma (Mattot 1), in which the Holy One, blessed is He, said to Israel, “Do not think that you may [under any circumstances] swear in My name, even for a true oath; you may not swear in My name unless you have all these qualities: ‘fear the Lord your God, and serve Him, and cleave to Him, and swear in His name’ (Deut. 10:20). If you have all these qualities, you may swear, and if not, you may not swear.” It is un— 80 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

derstood from this that “swear in His name” is not an obligation, but a permission after all the conditions specified in the verse are met. [But an argument against “swear in His name” expressing permission] is in accord with its repetition twice, i.e., once in Vaetchanan (Deut. 6:13) “You shall fear the Lord your God, and serve Him, and cleave to Him, and swear in His name,” and then in Sedra Ekev (Deut. 12:20), “You shall serve the Lord your God, and serve Him, and cleave to Him, and swear in His name.” If it expresses merely permission, it would be pointless to repeat it, for verses of permission are not repeated [repeating verses expresses urgency and emphasis]. Therefore, Maimonides thinks that it is related to the following verse, i.e., “and swear in His name” relates to “do not go after other gods” in this way by swearing in their name. Although this is already forbidden by a negative commandment (Exod. 23:13), “You shall not mention the names of other gods,” Scripture emphasizes it by both negative and positive formulation, for the prohibitions against idolatry are numerous in the Torah. Thus, “and swear in His name” is a prohibition derived from a positive statement, i.e., swear in His name, not in the name of others, or associating another with Him, as they said (Sukkah 45b), “Whoever associates the divine name with anything else is uprooted from the world.” Thus also did Ravad write24 [that it is not a “normal” positive commandment]. If it is not a prohibition based on a positive statement, but an expression of permission to take oaths, one can explain the duplication in Scripture as expressing a prohibition not to swear unless one has fulfilled the conditions expressed with it in this verse. Whether regarded as an expression of permission or as a prohibition derived from a positive statement, it would not be proper to count it according to Nachmanides’s opinion, although Maimonides does count a prohibition derived from a positive statement as part of the positive list.25 But the Gaon does not count this [a prohibition derived from a positive statement], as I wrote in the Principles, and we will treat this later on here with God’s help. In any case Maimonides’s contention that this is an actual positive commandment is refuted, and if he wants to include it as a prohibition based on a positive statement, which prohibits 24 Ravad’s criticism on Maimonides’s brief list of commandments. 25 In translating the above sentence, I have deleted the words ein ra’ui limnoto in accordance with the manuscript reading. — 81 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

swearing in the name of anything besides Him, blessed is He, this would be possible according to his policy. But the problem is with the Gaon who counted it, for his policy is not to include this type in the enumeration, and Nachmanides removed it from his list. 15. To render His law righteously, and to pursue His justice, And to observe His law, and to perform His sayings. The Gaon wrote, “To love justice and to make judgment righteous (tzidduk hadin).” Now some say that tzidduk hadin means to recite the blessing “the true judge” over a bad happening, and I saw in the Sefer Mitzvot Katan that this is derived from the verse (Deut. 8:5) “And know in your heart that as a man chastises his son, the Lord your God chastises you.” To me, it does not seem right to include this in the enumeration, since this is part of “and you shall love” (Deut. 6:5), as the rabbis expounded in the last chapter of Berachot (54a) that “with all your might” (ibid.) means that you should love Him whatever the measure He metes out to you. But tzidduk hadin means to judge with fairness, and the commandment about this is (Lev. 19:15) “and you shall judge your neighbor righteously.” And in the Sifre (39:4), they explained that this means treating both litigants equally. And doing justice in monetary matters is a positive commandment, as it is said (Deut. 16:18), “They shall judge the people with rightful justice.” Also, in chapter “Shnei Dayyane Gezerot” (Ketubot 106a), they said that [there were involved in the circumstances related there] both this positive commandment and that positive commandment, referring respectively to equal justice and honor due to a Torah scholar. Now Nachmanides (in his critique of the fourteenth principle) included in this commandment [of judging righteously] all sorts of cases, whether fines, torts, accidents, and all types of monetary cases under “they shall judge the people with rightful justice.” He proves this from what they said (Sanhedrin 56b), “At Marah the people of Israel were made responsible for ten commandments,” i.e., the seven Noachide laws, and the three additional laws of the Sabbath, honoring father and mother, and administering justice. Now it is said in the Mechilta on the verse (Exod. 15:25), “there did He give them a statute and an ordinance,” that this refers to laws of accidents, fines, and bodily injuries, so all kinds of laws are included in one commandment. But at the end of his book [where he summarizes his entire enumeration], I see that he — 82 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

agrees with Maimonides, counting each of these separately, as will be explained later on, with God’s help (Stanza 53). And to pursue His justice is not a countable commandment, because this is part of being righteous in judgment [previously counted], namely, to seek out a reliable court. And one should not enumerate a part of a commandment as a separate commandment, as Maimonides explained in his principle (No. 7). To observe His law and perform His sayings is not a countable commandment, since it is a commandment that encompasses the whole Torah, and it is not proper to count such general commandments, which Maimonides declared as a principle (No. 4). It is thus puzzling that the Gaon wrote (Halachot Gedolot, positive commandments 40 and 41) “to observe and to do.” Also, in Sotah, chapter 7 (37a), the sages declared concerning the oath (at Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Eval to observe) the Torah, that it refers to four commandments, to learn, to teach, to observe, and to perform; but this source was not brought up by Maimonides who criticizes [the Halachot Gedolot], nor by Nachmanides, who defended him. 16. Make His words a healing, in your heart and also in your mouth, And you shall write them at the threshold of your doorposts and gates. We will take note later (Stanza 25) of the commandment of studying the Torah, where it says, “And you shall learn and teach.” Here (in Stanza 16) he uses the scriptural expression in the section of the Shema, “and these words shall be . . . on your heart.” The words of the Torah are “healing,” as it says (Prov. 3:8), “It will be healing to your navel.” When he says, “Also in your mouth,” he thereby includes “and you shall speak of them” (Deut. 6:7). All these parts of the commandments do not enter into the enumeration, as is known from the principles (No. 7). But “and you shall write them at the thresholds of your doorposts and gates” is counted as a commandment (Maimonides’s Positive Commandment 15). 17. And you shall teach them always, to your son and to students, And you shall assemble blessings, completing one hundred. This is also concerning study of the Torah, which is a single positive commandment of learning and teaching, and there is, in all this, no more than a single commandment, whose parts are learning for oneself and — 83 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

teaching one’s son and one’s students and instructing the people of Israel, as is explained in the first chapter of Kiddushin (30a). I have seen that the Gaon wrote “to learn, to teach, to observe, and to do,” since all this constitutes a single commandment, namely, that one should learn with the intention of teaching, observing, and doing, as in Pirkei Avot (4:6). But when he [ibn Gabirol] says, “And you shall assemble blessings, completing one hundred,” he is following the Gaon, who includes among the 248 positive commandments those that are rabbinic. And Maimonides refuted him with great objections. The greatest objection is from the language of the Talmud that 613 commandments were spoken to Moses at Sinai, so how can you include in this rabbinic commandments? Now Nachmanides answered concerning this that, since at Sinai they were commanded to accept ordinances of the sages, it is plausible to say that all of them were [indirectly] spoken to Moses at Sinai. And in the chapter “Shevuot Hadayyanin” (Shevuot 39a), it says concerning the oath that Moses made Israel take [to observe the Torah], that it is not only for the commandments given at Sinai, but also for new commandments that would arise, like reading the Megillah. How is this known, i.e., that Moses caused them to swear concerning the latter? It is from the verse (Esther 9:27), “The Jews fulfilled and accepted upon themselves,” i.e., they fulfilled what they had already accepted upon themselves [under Moses]. So this is an explicit indication that Moses made Israel swear to accept all the rabbinic commandments. Furthermore, this is like our counting commandments in the section on drunken priests, the duty division of the priests, and the sacrificial portions of the priests, although they were spoken to Aaron [thus not technically not describable as among “613 commandments spoken to Moses”]. Also, in the section on the daughters of Tzelaphchad [we list the commandments about inheritance] even though it was not spoken at Sinai. Similarly one can count rabbinic commandments, even though the expression in the Talmud specifies them as “spoken to Moses at Sinai,” for the statement covers most of the 613 commandments. And in chapter 1 of Berachot (5a), they said that the verse (Exod. 24:12), “And I will give you the tablets of stone, and the teaching and the commandment which I wrote to instruct them,” means the following: “Tablets” refers to the Decalogue; “teaching” refers to the Torah; “the commandment” refers to the Mishnah; “which I wrote” refers to the Prophets and Holy Writings; “to instruct them” refers to the Gemara. This shows that — 84 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

all of the above [which includes rabbinic laws] were spoken to Moses at Sinai. All of these arguments were written by Nachmanides. Furthermore, I found in chapter 2 of Megillah (19b) a proof for the Gaon, where they said that “upon them [the stone tablets] was like all the words, etc.” [On the basis of the inclusive term k’chol, which means “like all,” the rabbis claim that this verse] indicates that the Holy One, blessed is He, showed Moses the details of the Torah, the inferences of the scribes, and whatever new [commandment] would develop. So everything was spoken to Moses at Sinai. Now even though Nachmanides found answers to all the objections that Maimonides brought up against the Gaon, he nevertheless held with him [Maimonides] not to count rabbinic commandments. Thus, the commandment of reciting one hundred blessings is to be deleted from the commandments, even though it is hinted in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings [as follows]. In the Torah, the verse (Deut. 10:13), “What (Heb. mah) does the Lord ask of you,” can be read with me’ah instead of mah [which could then be understood as the Lord requiring one hundred blessings of you]. They saw fit to interpret thus, since in this verse, there are ninety-nine letters; and if you add the aleph in the middle of mah, it becomes me’ah, which then means one hundred, in addition to having one hundred letters. Furthermore, the letters mem and he, forming the word mah, transpose according to the Atbash scheme [aleph and tav interchange, bet and shin interchange, etc.] into yod and tzady, whose numerical value of ten and ninety add up to one hundred. In the Prophets (2 Sam. 23:1), the verse states, “The speech of a man raised on high (Heb. Al ).” The letters ayin and lamed of al have the numerical value of 70 + 30 = 100. And in the Writings (Ps. 128:4), we have “For thus (Heb. ki chen) will be blessed the man.” The word for “will be blessed” (y’vorach) has no vav (so it can be vocalized as y’varech, meaning “will bless”). Now the numerical value ki chen is 20 + 10 + 20 + 50 = 100. Thus, the verse can now be translated as “a man should make a hundred blessings” every day. 18. Redeem your firstborn sons, and put on totafot, And rule the foreign slave, and circumcise the flesh. The commandment of redeeming the firstborn son is part of the enumeration, for we recite a blessing over it, as is mentioned at the end of Pesachim (121b). And in the first chapter of Kiddushin (29a), it is stated that all commandments that a father is charged with regarding — 85 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

his son [which includes redeeming his firstborn] are incumbent on men, but not on women. The commandment does not apply to the firstborn of Levites nor to the firstborn of daughters of Levites and certainly not to kohanim, as is mentioned in the first chapter of Bechorot (4a). And put on totafot. There is here an abridgment of the commandments, for totafot represents both the hand tefillin and the head tefillin, although the term totafot really only refers to the head, as is mentioned in the verse (Exod. 13:16). The expression totafot means a crown. It is like we learn in the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:1) that a woman should not go outside [on the Sabbath] wearing her totefet, which the Gemara explains as a headband that reaches from ear to ear. This is how Nachhmanides explains in his Torah commentary, differing from Rashi, who explains totafot as referring to speaking, as in (Ezek. 21:2) “preach (hatef) to the south.” But it would seem that Rashi’s words would make sense, that originally totafot referred to tefillin, and later it was applied to a crown, since it is worn on the place of the tefillin. This is borne out in the Yerushalmi (Shabbat 6:1), where the phrase “should not wear her totefet” is said by Rabbi Bun ben Rabbi Chiyya to refer to a kevurtaya, an article situated in the place of totafot. Also the Targum Yonatan translates (2 Sam. 1:10) “the bracelet on his arm” as “the totefta on his arm,” because the ornament is worn on the place of the hand tefillin. In this way, one can find merit in the poet’s including in the word totafot both head tefillin and hand tefillin. As to the word ta’adeh [which we translated as “put on”], this has the meaning of decoration, since the head tefillin is called a thing of beauty (pe’er), as it is written (Ezek. 24:17) “put on your headtire (pe’ercha),” and the rabbis explained that this refers to the tefillin. They similarly explained “a garland (pe’er) instead of ashes” (Isa. 61:3). Now these [head tefillin and hand tefillin] are counted as two commandments. Maimonides brings a proof for this from what is said in the Gemara Menachot (44a) expressing surprise at the idea considered that one who does not have a head tefillin does not put on the hand tefillin, for “if a person cannot have two commandments, should he not at least perform the one commandment?” Thus, they are called two commandments, and it is proper to so count them, and Nachmanides agrees with him, although the Gaon only counts them as one. Now Maimonides’s proof does not refute the Gaon in my opinion, since, regarding the lulav whose four species comprise only a single commandment, as everyone agrees, they said (Sukkah 37b) that the etrog is held in the left hand — 86 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

and the lulav in the right hand [the more honored position]. This is because the latter consists of three commandments [palm branch, myrtle, and willow], while the former [etrog] is just one commandment. So the rabbis have [in the above quotation] termed the component parts of a single commandment as commandments. [The tefillin are not counted as more than two] although they said (Menachot 44a) that one who abstains from wearing tefillin violates eight positive commandments, we still do not count them as eight commandments, as is explained in the principles (No. 9). And rule the foreign slave. The Gaon wrote that to retain a foreign slave [is a commandment], and Maimonides also includes it. For there is an argument in the first chapter of Sotah (3a) whether [retaining lordship of a foreign slave] is a duty or is merely permitted, and the conclusion is that it is a commandment. And in the Gemara Gittin (38b), they said, “Anyone who frees his slave transgresses a positive commandment, as it is said (Lev. 25:46), ‘You will keep them as slaves forever.’” Maimonides included with this the freeing of a gentile slave upon disabling of his “tips of limbs” [by the master]. But Nachmanides decided to make it a separate commandment, i.e., to carry out the rule that one who knocks out his slave’s tooth, etc. must free him. This does not mean that the master does a commandment by freeing the slave, for the freeing of a gentile slave because of “tips of limbs” is nothing but a fine, and a fine would not be entered among the commandments (see principle 14). But the substance of the commandment is for us [the community, acting through the court] to execute this law. And Nachmanides says that just as we consider marriage and divorce as separate commandments, so is it proper to count the commandment of retaining the slave and of freeing him as two commandments. And circumcise the flesh. The commandment of circumcision is part of the enumeration. It is already stated in the beginning of Keritot (2a) that there are thirty-six commandments punishable by “cutting off,” and two of these are positive commandments, i.e., the paschal lamb and circumcision. There are other proofs that are unnecessary to mention, since they are well known. 19. And redeem the firstborn donkey, and observe the Sabbath, And recite the whole hallel on specific days. The Gaon counted the redemption of the firstborn donkey and the — 87 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

breaking of its neck as a single commandment, while Maimonides made them two commandments. And he supported this by what the sages said (Bechorot 13a), “The commandment of redemption takes precedence over the commandment of breaking the neck,” just as they said that the commandment of levirate marriage takes precedence over chalitzah. And just as the levirate marriage and chalitzah are counted as two, so should redeeming the donkey and breaking its neck should be counted as two. I did not see Nachmanides criticizing him [Maimonides] on this point, and he included this in his enumeration. But Ravad (Laws of Firstborn, 12:1), at the end of his critique, wrote that this [breaking the neck] should not be counted as a commandment, since he is wasting wealth, as the sages said (Bechorot 10b), “He causes the kohen to lose money, so he should lose his money”; it is thus more proper to call it a sin rather than a commandment. And the term “the commandment of breaking the neck” [cited by Maimonides from Bechorot 13a as a proof] was used merely since it follows the expression “the commandment of redemption,” for he is commanded to suffer a monetary loss, not that this should be actually counted as a commandment. And I say that if we are to include it as a commandment, we must say that the commandment is for the court to carry out this law of making him lose money. The loss is not the commandment, but carrying out the law properly is one of the commandments of the Torah, as is the case with other fines. And observe the Sabbath. Along with profanation of the Sabbath being punishable by stoning, there is a positive commandment to rest on the Sabbath, and we enumerate the negative part among the negative commandments, and the positive part among the positive commandments, as I wrote in the sixth principle. Concerning the commandment, it is like what they said in the first chapter of Yevamot (6b), “Let execution override the Sabbath on the basis of a kal vachomer (inference minor to major),” i.e., capital punishment is a positive commandment, and they have said that a positive commandment overrides transgression of a negative commandment.26 The Gemara’s response to this supposition was that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition only when there is only a prohibition, but when a positive commandment 26 Perlow, in his note on this section, says that the words above misrepresent the Gemara cited; I presume that he is referring to the apparent identification of the kal vachomer with the principle of a positive commandment overriding a negative commandment. — 88 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

is attached to the prohibition, that prohibition cannot be overridden.27 A similar passage in the second chapter of Bava Metzia (32a) is about a person whose father tells him to profane the Sabbath, where the positive commandment of honoring the father does not override the negative and positive of “observe my Sabbaths” (Lev. 19:3). The Torah expresses this [positive] commandment by (Exod. 34:21) “and on the seventh day you shall rest.” And the Talmud in chapter “Eilu Kesharim” (Sabbath 114b) and “Bameh Madlikin” (Sabbath 25a), Keitzad Tzolin (Pesachim 84a) uses the expression, “resting on the Sabbath is a positive commandment.” Now28 there is concerning the Sabbath a positive commandment indicated in the last chapter of Yoma (81b), where it is learned that one adds from the profane time [preceding the onset of a day of rest] on to the holy time, in all instances of rest days in the Torah. This is not just based on an asmachta, for in the fourth chapter of Yom Tov (Betza 30a), they said that [the following principle applies not only to rabbinic laws but also] to Torah laws, [i.e., the principle of not interfering with widely established infractions of the law], for it is better that the public should be sinning in ignorance than intentionally. They cite the example that people customarily ate and drank on Yom Kippur eve until dark [thus not observing the additional observance time], and the authorities did not restrain them [thus the additional time is regarded as a Torah law]. You might argue that the augmented time and the basic time are all counted as one commandment. But you can’t say that, because the time of one does not coincide with the time of the other. And the additional time involves only a positive commandment [resting], while the basic commandment involves both positive and negative commandments [resting and not working]. And since Scripture separates them [i.e., differentiates the basic day from the additional time with respect to the prohibition], it is proper to count the addition to all the rest days as a single commandment, since the Torah expresses this in one commandment (Lev. 23:32), “From evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath.” 27 The fact that the Gemara is saying that the Shabbat commandment cannot be overridden because it has a positive commandment proves that there is indeed a positive commandment of resting on Shabbat. 28 At this point, we switch into another aspect of the Sabbath, which is not so evident from the Hebrew text. I would like the text to read “hineh od yesh bashabbat.” — 89 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

Now Maimonides [in another context, makes a separate commandment of an extended observance time, since he] counts in the list of negative commandments the prohibition of eating chametz before the holiday (Pesach) as one commandment, and the prohibition during the holiday as another one. And what clinches [the conclusion] that this [the additional rest on the holidays] should be enumerated comes from [the fact] that the rabbis in the Talmud had to derive that women are subject to the law of the additional rest period from a ribbui on the word ha’ezrach (Lev. 23:42), and they are not exempt because of the principle that this is a positive time-dependent commandment; this is discussed in chapter “Hayashen” (Sukkah 28b). But if the additional time is just an expansion of the day itself, they would not need this derivation that they [women] must observe the day itself. And recite the whole hallel on specified days. If the hallel is a rabbinic commandment, we have already (Stanza 17, end) spoken about this [whether rabbinic laws may be enumerated] in connection with the daily hundred blessings, which are rabbinic. The Gaon did enumerate them, while Maimonides does not. But there is some doubt regarding hallel on another issue, i.e., one can claim that it is actually from the Torah. Some say that it is included in the verse (Deut. 10:21) “He is your glory.” But I say that, if it is a Torah law, it is included in (Lev. 19:24) “holy for giving praise to the Lord,” since from there, we are enjoined to praise His name when our joy is great because of the abundant produce and likewise of every day of our rejoicing. It is also said in Isaiah (30:29), “You shall have a song as on the night when a festival is hallowed,” which means that when you will be saved from Sancheriv, you will be singing as you do on one of those days when you recite the whole hallel. He alludes to the most outstanding miracle, which is [celebrated in] the hallel recited on Passover night, since the miracle of Sancheriv also happened on Passover night, as the rabbis mentioned in chapter “Chelek” (Sanhedrin 95b) and in “Tractate Arachin” (10b); and they deduce [from that verse] that a night hallowed as a festival requires singing. This [that hallel is from the Torah] is supported by what is said in the Gemara Taanit (28b), “The Rosh Chodesh hallel is not from the Torah,” which implies that on the days that the entire hallel is recited, it is a Torah law. There is another proof from what is said in Pesachim (117a) where they discuss who originally said the hallel. Rabbi Yose said, “My son Elazar said that Moses and Israel said it when Israel was standing — 90 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

at the Red Sea. But his fellow scholars differed, saying that David said it first. But his [Elazar’s] words are more reasonable; for could it be possible that the people of Israel were slaughtering their paschal lambs and taking their lulavs without saying Hallel?” They further spoke there about who [originally] said Hallel [as follows]. “Rabbi Eliezer the Great said that Moses and Israel said it when the evil Pharaoh stood against them. They said (Ps. 115:1), ‘Not for us,’ and the Holy Spirit replied (Isa. 48:11), ‘For My sake, for My sake, will I do it.’ The other sages said that the prophets among them established it (the hallel) to be recited on every holiday and for every trouble which may befall [may it not!] upon the congregation. And when they are saved, they should say it for their redemption.” So according to Rabbi Eliezer, Moses said it concerning the oppression of Pharaoh, and then David wrote it [in the book of Psalms], just as he wrote down (Psalm 90:1) “A prayer of Moses, the man of God,” for the book of Psalms is a collection of all the songs of praise that were said in Israel. And in the first chapter of Bava Batra (14b), it says that David wrote down the book of Psalms on the basis of hymns of the ten elders (Adam, Malchizedek, Abraham, etc.). But even according to the words of the sages who said that the prophets who came out of Egypt instituted the hallel in Moses’s time for every redemption, and even according to the one who said that David composed it, it is not farfetched to say that hallel is from the Torah. For Maimonides admits that prayer is a Torah law, but the form of prayer was instituted by the Men of the Great Assembly, as he explained in the first chapter of the Laws of Prayer (par. 4). A similar thing is the song that was sung in the temple, according to the opinion that the essence of the song was the voice, the music being an accompaniment for the voice, and the song is essential to the sacrifice according to the Torah; then David established it [the specific songs to be recited], as was taught in tractate Arachin (13a). Also, regarding the blessing after meals, which is a Torah commandment, Moses instituted the first blessing, Joshua the second, Solomon the third (Berachot 48b). From all the above, it is seen that, although the commandment in all cases is from the Torah, the text of the blessings and the songs were established by the prophets. Therefore, it is plausible that the hallel is a Torah law, even though David composed it. But there is a difficulty with all this from what is said in the second chapter of Tractate Berachot (14a), “May one interrupt the reading of hallel and of the Megillah? Should we say that, since one may interrupt — 91 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

the reading of the Shema, which is a Torah law, so it is even more logical to permit interruption of the Hallel.” From this, it seems that the hallel is a rabbinic law. But it might be that they were only referring to the hallel of Chanukah, similar to the Megillah, but the hallel at the slaughter of the paschal lamb and that accompanying the taking of the lulav could be from the Torah. All of the above is what Nachmanides wrote [in his critique of principle 1]. It is certainly plausible to maintain that the hallel for the slaughter of the paschal lamb and for taking the lulav is from the Torah, according to the words of Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Eliezer the Great, as I mentioned previously. But regarding the proof he brought from Taanit (28b), which says, “hallel on Rosh Chodesh is not from the Torah,” which implies that other recitations of hallel are from the Torah, this is not a decisive proof, in my humble opinion. For it is characteristic of the Talmud to call the essential part of an enactment a Torah law, even though it is rabbinic. For it is taught in Megillat Taanit (chap. 2), “It is found that Pesach Sheni is from the Torah, which means that it is forbidden to have a eulogy or a fast day [on Pesach Sheni], which is based on a kal vachomer, and on Pesach Rishon it is forbidden even more so.” So “from the Torah” [as used here] is not exactly accurate, for it is forbidden by only by rabbinic law, and it is established that Megillat Taanit is no longer valid, and when they say “from the Torah,” it only means that this is a basic element of the rabbinic enactment. Rashi commented similarly in chapter “Ha’or V’harotev” [perhaps referring to Rashi on Chullin 120b on the phrase “af terumah.”] They said similarly in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (16b), “The Torah said, ‘Recite before Me Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shof ’rot,’” and it is clear that these blessings of Rosh Hashanah are only rabbinic, as mentioned in the last chapter of Tractate Rosh Hashanah (34b) and in the first chapter of Berachot [perhaps this reference is actually to the fourth chapter 29a]. And in Yevamot (4a), they said, “How do we know about the validity of deriving laws from juxtaposition? It is from the verse (Ps. 111:8) ‘They are established for ever and ever’ [the word smuchim, meaning ‘established,’ is also used to mean juxtaposition of paragraphs in the Torah].” And in Menachot (81a), they said, “The Torah said, ‘Better that you do not vow’ (Eccles. 5:4).” And they said in the first chapter of Tractate Chullin (17b), “Whence is it known that examination of a slaughtering knife is a Torah law?” when this law is actually just a sign of respect for the sage — 92 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

to whom one shows the knife, as is mentioned there. And the expression “Torah” in this citation is not precise; it only signifies a teaching and an established practice, as in Gittin (44a), “From me, Ami bar Natan, Torah (i.e., teaching) goes forth to Israel.” Also, in certain places, they speak of a private positive commandment [which conflicts with a public positive commandment] even though that [private] commandment is rabbinic, as in Tractate Mashkin (Moed Katan 14b) regarding mourning on the first day, according to the French sages who say that this is a rabbinic commandment, and there are other similar instances. So when it is said that the hallel of Rosh Chodesh is not from the Torah, the meaning is just that this is inferior to the status of hallel on Chanukah, and it is known that Chanukah itself is rabbinic, and so much more is the hallel recited on it rabbinic. Nevertheless, even if we would agree that hallel in certain instances is from the Torah, we could still find justification that it should not be enumerated; for it is possible that it is included in the commandment of rejoicing on holidays, as it is written (Num. 10:10), “And on your joyous occasions, your fixed festivals, and new moon days, you shall sound the trumpets.” The main rejoicing would be by vocal music with the instruments as accompaniment; the commandment would consist of an appropriate song at the time of the sacrifice, and of the recitation of hallel not at the time of sacrifice. On the new moon, however, the sages eliminated the recitation of hallel outside the temple, since it is not a day hallowed as a festival. Similarly, in Tractate Arachin (11a), they said, “Whence is the principle of singing from the Torah? It is from here: ‘Because you did not serve the Lord your God in joy and gladness’ (Deut. 28:47). What is service in joy and gladness? Presumably it is singing.” In summary, we have three distinct possibilities for this matter: (1) hallel is rabbinic according to Maimonides, and in his view should not be enumerated, while the opinion of the Gaon is that it is enumerated; (2) it is from the Torah and should be enumerated; and (3) it is a Torah law but should not be enumerated, since it is part of a commandment of rejoicing, and this is Nachmanides’s view. 20. And on the corner of your garment, attach fringes, And lend to the poor, and assuage the distressed with words. Maimonides counted the commandment of tzitzit as a single commandment. But in keeping with the way he counted tefillin as two — 93 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

commandments, he should have, according to his principles, counted tzitzit as two commandments. For he wrote in principle 11 that for any commandment whose components do not prevent the performance of each other, it is proper to count each part separately. Just as we learned (Menachot 44a) that [absence of the head tefillin] does not prevent the performance of the hand tefillin, so we learned (Menachot 38a) that [absence of] the blue fringe does not prevent the keeping of the white fringe observance. But Maimonides decided to count it (tzitzit) as a single commandment, on account of what is found in the Mechilta [actually Sifre Zuta, Num. 15:34] that it is just a single commandment. It says there, “You might think that they comprise two commandments, that of the blue [threads] and that of the white [threads]; so the Torah states, ‘It shall be your tzitzit,’ i.e., it is a single commandment, not two commandments.” But this is no proof, since this Baraita follows the opinion of rabbi (Judah the Prince), who said in chapter “Hatechelet” (Menachot 38a) that the blue thread does prevent the performance of the white fringe. And the meaning of the Baraita is you might think that they are two commandments, which do not interfere with each other; therefore, Scripture says, “And it shall be your tzitzit,” which means it is a single commandment, and the two do interfere with each other. They said a similar thing in the Sifre (Shelach 67) and in the Mishnah (Tractate Menachot 28a): “The four fringes mutually interfere, for the four of them constitute a single commandment; but Rabbi Ishmael said that the four of them are four separate commandments [i.e., they do not invalidate each other].” From this, it is evident that in every instance when they say that they constitute a single commandment, they are only referring to the opinion of rabbi (Judah the Prince), who holds that the parts invalidate each other; but according to the sages who hold that they do not invalidate each other, they are two commandments. And it would be proper, according to Maimonides’s principle, to count them as two commandments, just as he counted the tefillin as two commandments. We already indicated that the Gaon (Halachot Gedolot, Positive Commandment 2) counted tefillin as just a single commandment, since what is written in one is written in the other. So much more is it proper that the tzitzit should be counted as one commandment comprising both the blue and white components, since the action [of wearing the tzitzit] is a single one, and the intent of both is the same, i.e., to remember — 94 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

the commandments of the Lord and to perform them. According to the words of Maimonides [that tefillin is two commandments], it would be plausible to say that tzitzit is two commandments. For if tefillin, where there is no difference between them regarding the Torah portions, what is written in one likewise being written in the other, and the intention of both tefillin is that the teaching of the Lord should be placed near the heart and mind, which are the organs of thought; so much more is it proper in the case of the tzitzit [to consider them as two], since one part is white and one part is blue. But perhaps Maimonides could make a distinction between tefillin and tzitzit in that putting on the tefillin requires two actions, which justifies counting them as two commandments, while putting on the tzitzit is only a single action. This is what Nachmanides wrote to explain the enumeration of Maimonides. But in keeping with his [Maimonides’s] own principles, since his proof from the Mechilta is invalid, it would be proper to count them, the blue fringes and white fringes, as two commandments, just like tefillin. In my humble opinion, there arises another doubt for me concerning the enumeration of the commandments, and this concerns what is said in the Gemara Menachot (44a) that a person who does not have a tzitzit on his garment transgresses five positive statements. Now Maimonides has already explained in the ninth principle that it is not right to enumerate the number of the negative and the positive statements, only the subject matter that is prohibited or enjoined by them. Therefore, he decided to count the commandments of tzitzit, tefillin, the priestly blessing, and mezuzah only according to the subject of the commandment, without regard to the number of positive statements about them, even though there are five statements about tzitzit, eight about the tefillin, three about the priestly blessing, and two about the mezuzah. This is true, and I have no doubt about this, but I have some suspicion as to whether there may be one statement among the five [relating to tzitzit] that does not refer to the action of wearing the tzitzit and which could be counted separately. Now Maimonides explained that the five positive statements are (1) “Let them attach to the fringe of each corner” (Num. 15:38); (2) “Let them make for themselves a fringe” (ibid.); (3) “That shall be your fringe” (ibid., v. 39); (4) “You shall make tassels” (Deut. 22:12); (5) “On the four corners of your garment” (ibid.). This is his explanation, but it is not acceptable, for the entire verse (Deut. 22:12) is no more than — 95 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

one commandment, “You shall make tassels on the four corners of your garment,” and the latter part of the verse only specifies the place of the tzitzit, and it is not a statement action. Therefore, it would seem that the fifth positive statement is “and you shall see it” (Num. 15:39), and Rashi also has explained thus. If so, why should we not count the commandment of seeing as a separate commandment, which is the main commandment, as they said in chapter “Hatechelet” (43b), “Seeing leads to remembering, remembering leads to doing”? And in Midrash Tillim (Yalkut Shimoni, Tehillim No. 723) it is said that David said before the Holy One, blessed is He, “I praise you with all my limbs. With my head I turn it as I recite the shema; with the hair on my head I fulfill the prohibition against rounding the corners of the head (Lev. 19:27), and I also place the tefillin on my head; with my neck I perform the commandment of wrapping in a fringed garment; and with my eyes I fulfill ‘and you shall see it.’” And it is further said there, “With my right hand I write, and with it I point out the logical reasoning in the Torah; on my left hand I bind the tefillin; and I hold my tzitzit during the reading of the Shema in order to see them with my eyes.” Therefore, why should the commandment of seeing not be counted as a distinct commandment, for wearing is one action, and seeing is a separate action? The author of the Book of Commandments has already counted “gazing at the tzitzit” (SeMaK, Positive Commandment 29). Do not err in thinking that this [taking “you shall see it” as a commandment] would only be said according to the sages who do not interpret this passage as implying that night clothes are exempt from tzitzit. For they think that it is a positive commandment, which does not depend on time and which [consequently] is incumbent on women. But Rabbi Shimon does interpret this clause as exempting night clothes from requiring the tzitzit [for in the dark one does not see], and it is a time-dependent commandment, for which women are not responsible [women generally do not observe time-dependent commandments]. Indeed, the law follows his opinion, according to the decision of the early authorities. [You might think that] he would not construe “and you shall see it” as a commandment, since it is used for this limitation [of tzitzit not applying to night clothing]. But this assumption would be erroneous, for even though Rabbi Shimon finds in this verse exemption for night clothing, the main message of this verse does not depart from its simple sense, which is a commandment to see the tzitzit. For they — 96 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

said there (Menachot 43b), “And you shall see it, and you shall remember . . . and you shall do” (Num. 15:39); seeing leads to remembering, remembering leads to doing. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says that anyone who is careful about this commandment merits to encounter the divine presence, for it is written here (Num. 15:39) “And you will see Him [taking oto to mean Him rather than it],” and it is written elsewhere (Deut. 6:13), “You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him” [oto here clearly means Him]. So it is evident that although Rabbi Shimon interprets this verse to exempt night clothes, he does not desist from considering it as a commandment, and it is equivalent to receiving the Divine Presence. Therefore, why not include it in the enumeration of the commandments. But the commandment of remembering is not to be included, since it is one of the all-inclusive commandments, which are not to be enumerated, as is known from the principles (No. 4). And lend to the poor is an enumerated commandment, as is stated in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 19:182),“Every im (if) in the Torah expresses permission, except for three cases, to wit ‘If you lend money’ (Exod. 22:24) is a duty. How do you know it is a duty, and not just permission? It is from the verse ‘You shall surely lend him’ (Deut. 15:8), which expresses duty, not permission.” And assuage the distressed with words. This is from the prophets (Isa. 58:10), “If you draw out your soul to the hungry.” This means that if you have no money, draw out your soul to him and tell him, “If I could fill your need with the blood of my life, I would do so.” This is part of doing acts of kindness and is included in “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). It is therefore not counted as a separate commandment, for it is part of another commandment, and the commandment of loving comrades has already been counted. 21. Recite the proper blessing for food, slowly or with haste; And may you not be undernourished by the affliction of atonement. The blessing for food after meals is from the Torah. It is clearly stated thus in the third chapter of Berachot (21a), “The reciting of Shema and the blessing for food are from the Torah.” And they said in the Yerushalmi (Megillah 4:1 and Berachot 7:1), “The law of blessing after food is written in the Torah, but the blessing before food is not written in the Torah.” And they said in the Tosefta (Berachot 6:1), “The — 97 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

blessing for food [i.e., after the meal] is from the Torah, as it is said (Deut. 8:10), ‘And you shall eat and be satisfied and you shall bless.’” And in Tractate Chullin (87a), it is explained that the four blessings constitute just one commandment, not four commandments. For when our holy rabbi (Rabbi Judah the Prince) gave a certain main forty gold coins as a reward for his reciting the blessings after a meal, they learned from that incident that the reward was not ten coins per commandment, but ten coins per blessing, for had it been ten coins per commandment, he would have given him only ten coins altogether, since the four blessings constitute only a single commandment. Slowly or with haste is poetic to complete the rhyming [mazon rhymes with chipazon].29 And may you not be undernourished by the affliction of atonement. It is a commandment to afflict oneself on the Day of Atonement. And there are five afflictions that are written concerning this commandment, as mentioned in the last chapter of Yoma (73b), but it is counted as only one commandment, since the action is expressed as a single action [afflicting oneself], as is expressed in the principles (principle 9). The expression “And may you not be undernourished” is an assurance that one would not become lean. 22. Return the poor man’s security pledge; let it not remain with you; And return what was robbed, and what was gained from economic oppression. Maimonides explains that for every commandment that involves both a prohibition and a positive statement, the prohibition should be listed among the prohibitions, and the positive statement should be listed among the positive commandments. And in these two commandments, namely, returning a pledge and returning a robbed article, there are prohibitions for each one, i.e. (Deut. 24:10), “You must not enter his house to seize his pledge” and (Lev. 19:13) “You shall not commit robbery.” And there is also a positive commandment involved, i.e. (Deut. 24:13), “You must return the pledge to him” and (Lev. 5:23) “He shall return that which he robbed.” And in Tractate Makkot (16a), they said 29 The meaning of this phrase is obscure. Perhaps it refers to the alternative versions of the blessing, which is valid in difficult circumstances. — 98 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

about these commandments that they are prohibitions, but they are attached to a positive commandment [i.e., the offense can be corrected by returning the object]. Note that even though robbing and coercion (Lev. 19:13) comprise two enumerated commandments (Lev. 19:13), “You shall not coerce” and “you shall not rob,” returning the objects taken [by coercion or robbery] is only counted as a single commandment, for the scriptural expression is “he shall return what he got by robbery or coercion.” Since it is expressed in one clause, it is only counted as a single commandment, although this positive statement corresponds to several prohibitions, i.e., robbery, coercion, or wrongful retention of a deposit, as I mentioned in the principles (No. 6). 23. Be humble to the elder, for his understanding and his age; Rise before him, and honor his presence. Giving respect to the wise and elders by rising before them and honoring them is an enumerated positive commandment. It trains one to be humble, which is the greatest virtue, and brings one toward the Holy Spirit (Avodah Zarah 20b). The chief of all the prophets was praised for it [his humility] (Num. 12:13), and the wise one (Solomon) said (Prov. 22:4), “Fear of the Lord results from humility.” The poet [Gabirol] explains [by his phraseology] that this commandment applies to both a wise youth and an undistinguished older person [termed zaken ashmai in Kiddushin 32b], meaning an empty person (bur).] [The source for ashmai meaning empty] is the Targum on the verse v’ha’adamah lo tesham (Gen. 47:19) as lo t’vur (will not become empty). Therefore, he said, “For his understanding and his age,” i.e., whether it is intellectual age or temporal age. The commandment consists of rising and honoring, as is mentioned in Kiddushin (32b). 24. And you shall learn and teach, and honor your parents; And you shall return a lost article, and sanctify the firstborn. Just as the Torah repeated the commandment of studying the Torah, so did the poet repeat it twice. He said previously, “Make his words a healing” (Stanza 16), and again, “You shall diligently teach them continually.” And here he said, “And you shall learn and teach”; and in all this, there is only one enumerated commandment, which is the commandment of Torah study for oneself, one’s children, and one’s pupils — 99 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

who are also considered children (Sifre Devarim 6:7). Now, Nachmanides added the commandment to recite a blessing before reading the Torah, this being from the Torah, as it is said (Deut. 32:3), “When I proclaim the name of the Lord, give glory to our God,” and thus it is stated in the Yerushalmi (Berachot 7:1). He wrote that it would not be correct to count the reading of the Torah together with the blessing as a single commandment, just as the recital concerning the first fruits is not enumerated as part of bringing [the first fruits], and just as telling about the Exodus from Egypt [is not counted together] with eating the paschal lamb. And honor your parents. In the words your parents are included father and mother. Also included here from the Torah are stepmother and stepfather and older brother. For in Ketubot (103a), we have that in the will of our holy master [Rabbi Judah the Prince], he said to his children, “Be mindful of the honor due to your mother.” And the question was asked: “This is a Torah commandment, as it is written, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ which includes your stepmother from the et in v’et imecha, and your elder brother is de*Why did Rabbi Judah have rived from the vav in v’et imecha.”* It is clear to exhort his children to do something that was already that honoring the stepmother and stepfather ordained in the Torah? The and older brother is a Torah law, but it is all Talmud replies that the law of honoring a stepmother counted as only one commandment, because is meant by the Torah to be these laws only apply during the lifetime of binding only during the father’s the natural parent, as was mentioned there; lifetime. Rabbi Judah was thus asking his children to maintain it all reverts to the honor due to the natural the honor of their stepmother parents and is a single commandment. Also, even after his death. the inclusion of the older brother from the vav is analogous to the inclusion of the stepmother and stepfather during the natural parents’ lifetime from the word et. Thus, everything refers back to the honoring of the natural parents; the parent is distressed if his younger son does not respect the elder son, and the whole matter constitutes a single commandment. Even if honoring the older brother applies even after the parent’s death [which is not explicitly clear from the Talmudic citation], still we have not seen anyone who includes this in the enumeration of the commandments. Nachmanides reasons that it is not counted, since a law derived by inclusion from a vav is not like a law derived from et; the latter being an authentic derivation from the Torah, whereas a law based on a vav is only an asmachta. For the ac— 100 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

cepted ruling in the Talmud is in accord with the opinion that we may not use a vav to extract a law. In any event, all agree that the father and the mother comprise a single commandment, because they are stated in one clause. We need not belabor the point, looking for justification that all the extra included persons are not to be separately numbered, for there is only a single commandment regarding the natural parents and the ancillary persons included in the scripture. In a similar way, we count returning what was robbed or obtained wrongfully or what was deposited in our care, all as one commandment. Also, rising and honoring an elderly person or a scholar is a single commandment, and so I have written in the fourteen principles. And you shall return a lost article. The Mechilta states concerning a lost article that it is commanded by both a positive and negative statement. This comment also comes in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 32), i.e., returning a lost article is stated both as a positive and negative commandment. And they argued that a person who is keeping a lost article [until the owner shows up] is like a paid guard, since he is exempt from giving a perutah to a beggar as charity [while he is occupied with the lost article], since he is already busy performing a commandment, so he is exempt from another commandment.30 Furthermore, they stated in the Sifre (Tetze 42) that the verse (Exod. 23:4), “When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him,” is a positive commandment. I have previously written in the principles (No. 6) why this commandment is enumerated separately from that of returning an article that was robbed. And sanctify the firstborn. This means the dedication of the firstborn of clean animals. Maimonides holds that this law applies to the land of Israel, while Nachmanides says that it also applies outside the land of Israel, and he discusses this at length in his Laws of Firstlings. 25. Be merciful to the poor, and comfort the mourners; Converse with the sick, and bury those who are cut off. The poet repeated the commandment of charity in a number of stanzas; in this stanza and in the following stanza, “to open and to give”; and 30 Note that in the version of this opinion of Rav Yosef in Bava Kamma 56b, the small donation to the beggar is a rifta [a piece of bread]; but in the version of his opinion in Nedarim (33b), the donation is a perutah [ a small coin]. — 101 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

in the next one, “and to perform charity.” For the Torah also reiterates this commandment in a number of places. But since the action is the same, i.e., giving to the poor, it is only counted as a single commandment. And in chapter 3 of Shevuot (25a), they said that if a person takes an oath to give to a poor person, [it does not count as a separate obligation] since he is already bound by the oath at Sinai [to observe the Torah]. The commandment of granting loans has previously been separately enumerated. And he says, “Be merciful to the poor,” a poetic phrase, even though Scripture says (Exod. 23:3), “You must not show deference to a poor person in his dispute,” and Onkelos rendered this, “v’al miskena lo t’rahem” (lit. “You shall not show mercy to the poor”). Comfort the mourners; converse with the sick. The Gaon (author of Halachot Gedolot) counted these as positive commandments. The rabbi [Maimonides] criticized him, for these laws are homiletically derived in the Talmud from the verse (Exod. 18:23), “And you shall show them the way wherein they should walk,” with the word yeilchu indicating visiting the sick, and the word va indicating burying the dead. The rabbi does not consider such interpretations as enumerable commandments, as I have written in the introductory fourteen principles. But Nachmanides has defended the gaon by asserting that he did not include these commandments on account of the quotation from Bava Metzia, but from another Talmudic passage (Sotah 14), where Rabbi Chama ben Chanina, “What is the meaning of ‘And you shall walk after the Lord your God (Deut. 13:5)?’ Is it possible to walk after the Holy One? It means, however, that as the Holy One clothes the naked, so should you, as He visits the sick, so should you, as He buries the dead, so should you, as He comforts mourners, so should you.” These laws are derived in the Sifrei from (Deut. 28:9) “and you shall walk in His ways,” so they are Torah laws, but are not to be enumerated separately; they are part of either “walking in His ways” or “love your fellow as yourself.” And regarding mourning itself, it is an enumerated commandment from the verse (Lev. 21:3) “for her he shall defile himself,” which is explained in Sotah (3a) as a commandment [rather than expressing permission]. As to what he says converse with the sick, it is because talking is beneficial to the sick, as it is stated (Nedarim 41a), “Talking is helpful for a fever.” And bury those who are cut off. It is a positive commandment to — 102 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

bury those executed by the court, as it is said in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 46b), “There is a hint regarding burial in the Torah, as it is said (Deut. 21:23), ‘But you must bury him on the same day,’ and the statement in the Sifre (Tetze 40) is ‘but you must bury him’ is a positive commandment.” A dead person is termed cut off from the land of the living, for the law [of burial] applies to corpses in general, although the scriptural verse is only referring to those executed by the court; for they said there (Sanhedrin 46a) that anyone who leaves his dead [kin] unburied transgresses a negative commandment; thus, just as the negative commandment applies to all corpses [not just to those executed by the court], so does the positive commandment of burial apply generally.31 26. And to open and give to the impoverished needy; And to destroy and put to death, Amalek the archenemy.32 The Torah says [with regard to giving charity], “You shall surely open” (Deut. 15:8) and “you shall surely give” (Deut. 15:10). This was mentioned above (in the previous stanza). To destroy and put to death, Amalek the archenemy. [The unusual verb form] lashmid means the same as [the more conventional] l’hashmid, and its source is lashmid ma’uzneha (Isa. 23:11). The expression “archenemy” [lit. head of enemies] is [suggested by] “Amalek is the first of nations, and will ultimately be destroyed forever” (Num. 24:20). It is a positive commandment to wipe out the descendants of Amalek. They have already stated in Sanhedrin (20b) that Israel was commanded three commandments at the time of their entry into the Land: to appoint a king, to build for them the temple, and to destroy the descendants of Amalek. So this is an enumerated commandment, and the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] also listed it. The poet included in his statement another commandment, i.e., to remember what Amalek did to us, for remembering precedes destroying 31

See reference on this in Ziv Hazohar pp. 25, 26, note 364. He mentions Torah Temimah on Devarim 21, 23, note 160, which argues the opposite of Zohar Harakia. He claims that the extension to a general corpse of the prohibition is an obvious asmachta, and from this, it is clear that the positive commandment is likewise an asmachta. 32 The fourth Hebrew word in this stanza is “v’chatet.” But we adopt here the reading yechatet, according to the reading in the MS and in the first printed edition, replacing the vav with a yod. The word yechatet is an unusual form, which would mean “one who is destroyed,” and we translate it as “impoverished.” The usage of “yechatet” referring to a poor person is in keeping with the verse, (Prov. 10:15) “The destruction of the poor people is their poverty.” — 103 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

and leads to it. In the Sifre,33 it is stated, “[The expression] ‘remember’ (Deut. 25:17) means verbally; ‘you shall not forget’ (ibid., v. 19) means in your heart.” And in the Sifra, it is stated, “You might think that ‘remember’ means in your heart; however, ‘you shall not forget’ already implies in your heart. So one must apply ‘remember’ to verbal repetition.” Just as the commandment of remembering the Sabbath is an enumerated commandment, so should this one be enumerated. Although the Gaon does not count it, Maimonides does count it. Now Nachmanides also counts (Deut. 24:9) “Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam” as a commandment, which means that a person should keep far away from slander, for on account of the sin of slander, diseases come. This is why Scripture juxtaposes the verse (Deut. 24:8) “Be careful regarding the illness of tzora’at.” In the Sifre, it is stated, “The verse ‘Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam’ could be interpreted as meaning in your heart. When Scripture says, ‘Be careful regarding the illness of tzora’at,’ this already covers keeping in mind. So I must apply ‘remember’ to verbal repetition.” Also, Nachmanides expresses doubt regarding the rabbis’ interpretation (Sifra B’chukotai): “(The verse) ‘Remember, do not forget, how you angered the Lord in the wilderness (Deut. 9:7)’ could mean remembering in the heart, etc.” Was this spoken just to that generation, or is this is a commandment for all generations, like what is said (Mic. 6:5), “My people, remember what Balak, king of Moab, planned.” In his [Nachmanides’s] view, it is right to include such a commandment, although earlier authorities do not count it. I have found another commandment of remembering that I consider correct to enumerate, i.e. (Exod. 13:3), “Remember the day when you left Egypt.” Concerning this, in the Mishnah in the first chapter of Berachot (12b), they explained [the verse] “in order that you may remember the day of your departure from Egypt all the days of your life.” [They explain that] the meaning of “all the days of your life” is, since “the days of your life” refers to this life, “all the days of your life” refers to the time of the Messiah as well. In the Gemara (ibid., 13a), it is explained that freedom from all national persecution in the Messianic time would be the main thing to remember, while remembering the Exodus from Egypt would be secondary; nevertheless, the latter will never be eliminated. And in chapter 2 of Berachot (13b), it says that rabbi [Judah the Prince] used 33 Ziv Hazohar discusses this apparently mistaken citation. — 104 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

to review the portion about the Exodus [in the course of his lectures], but he would nevertheless say the complete recital of Shema [as part of the evening service, which includes “who brought you out of the land of Egypt”], so as to mention the Exodus at the proper time [of the evening Shema]. In the same chapter (ibid., 14b), they express amazement at those who did not recite the portion about the tzitzit [as part of reciting the Shema] at night, since one has to make mention of the Exodus from Egypt [at night, as well as in the day]. They answered that [those who omitted that paragraph would in its stead] say the following: “We acknowledge, Lord our God, that you brought us out from the Land of Egypt.” And in chapter “Mi Shemeito” (Berachot 21a), they said that if one is in doubt as to whether or not he recited the section emet v’yatsiv [following the scriptural portions of the Shema], he should go back and say this, because emet v’yatsiv is from the Torah, i.e., because of [its containing material on] the Exodus from Egypt. Thus, it [remembering the Exodus] should be an enumerated commandment. Now, Maimonides must have included this law with that of “you shall tell your child” (Exod. 13:38). This does not seem right, for that commandment [of telling] applies particularly to that night [of Passover], and neither the recital of the section vayomer [concerning the tzitzit] nor the [following] section emet ve’emunah [although both sections allude to the Exodus] discharge a person of his duty of telling his children. This is like our counting reading the Torah as a commandment [which applies at all times, as does the commandment to remember the Exodus] and reading the Shema as a separate commandment, which applies at a particular time [like the commandment to “tell your child” on Passover night]. [They are separately counted, even though they are of essentially the same nature,] since the same blessing suffices for both of them, namely the blessing ahavah rabbah, as indicated in chapter 1 of Berachot (11b). So it is correct to count the commandment of remembering separately and that of telling separately even more so [remembering and telling being different actions]. 27. To eliminate leaven, with decisive destruction; And to burn an abominable thing, idols and asherahs. The commandment of eliminating [leaven before Passover] is from the Torah, as it says in chapter 1 of Pesachim (4b), “It is sufficient to renounce ownership [of the leaven].” And in the Jerusalem Talmud in — 105 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

Sanhedrin (5:3), it states, “One is obligated to eliminate by a positive commandment, as it is written (Exod. 12:15), ‘You shall eliminate.’” This is what Maimonides has written. I have also found this in Pesachim (Yerushalmi 1:4). They have already argued there (Pesachim 21a) as to whether the elimination should be by burning or otherwise. The poet wrote [the expression kala necheretzet, following the phrase in Isa. 10:22 kilayon charutz (meaning decisive destruction)], whatever type that may be.34 And to burn the abominable image is like the scriptural expression (1 Kings 15:13) “[He cut down] the abominable image (Heb. mifletzet) and burnt it,” referring to the idol pejoratively, derived from (Job 9:6) “And its pillars tremble” [i.e., abomination so intense that it makes one tremble]. But the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 44a) explains: “What is mifletzet? It is composed of two words mafle and letzanuta (meaning extraordinary lewdness).” The commandment is to destroy any idolatrous object with all kinds of destructive action, breaking, burning, and wrecking. This is from the Scripture (Deut. 12:2), “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations worshipped, and you shall smash their altars and break down their pillars, etc.” And in Sanhedrin (90a), it is stated with wonderment concerning idolatry, “What positive commandment is there?” Rav Hisda explained that it is “and you shall smash,” which means that it is a positive commandment to uproot idolatrous objects. 28. To make the day of rest joyous, with quiet and security; And to feast and rejoice, and to love converts. It is a positive commandment from the prophetic tradition (Isa. 58:13), “And you shall make the Sabbath a delight.” It should not be enumerated, unless one counts rabbinic commandments [i.e., any laws not from the Torah of Moses], as is the opinion of the Gaon, author of Halachot Gedolot. The commandment of resting on the Sabbath, which is from the Torah, was recorded previously (Stanza 19), “And you shall keep the Sabbath.” And to feast and rejoice comprises two enumerated commandments. They said in the Sifre (Re’eh 191:11), “Three commandments apply to a festival, namely, feasting, appearing [at the sanctuary], and 34 Actually kala v’necheratza in verse 23 is closer to ibn Gabirol’s phrase. — 106 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

rejoicing.” Mentioned later (Stanza 55) is “to appear and to go up.” The commandment of feasting means to offer the festival peace offerings, and the commandment of rejoicing means to offer additional peace offerings for rejoicing. It also includes various other types of rejoicing, like rejoicing with the drawing of water [on Sukkot] and providing enjoyment to one’s children and other family members, to each one according to what is fitting, as noted in chapter 1 of Chagigah (8a) and in the last chapter of Pesachim (109a). I previously wrote (at the end of Stanza 19) that it may be possible to include the recital of hallel in this commandment [of rejoicing]. Ulesimchah (to rejoice) is not a noun [although “simchah” is usually the noun “rejoicing”], but an infinitive, like velismo’ach [the usual infinitive form]. It has a parallel about the Philistines gathering (Judg. 16:23) “to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god and to rejoice (ulesimchah).” And to love converts is a special commandment for converts in addition to [the commandment to love] other Israelites, love of one’s fellow [Israelite] being counted as a specific commandment. We learn [that we have two distinct commandments] from what the rabbis said (Bava Metzia 59b) that if one wrongs a proselyte, he transgresses (Lev. 25:17), “You shall not wrong each other” and (Exod. 22:20) “You shall not wrong a proselyte.” Analogously, we count loving an Israelite and loving a convert as two commandments. Now, I wonder why there was not included among the sum of the commandments that of receiving converts, which specifically applies to the court to receive them35 and not to put them off, as it is said in Yevamot, chapter “Hacholetz” (47b), “He is to be circumcised immediately, for one does not delay a commandment.” A similar statement was made (ibid., 39a) about the levirate marriage, that if [the dead brother had] a younger brother as well as an older one who lived in a distant country, one cannot say that one should wait until the older brother arrives, and the reason given is that a commandment should not be delayed. Therefore, receiving proselytes by the court is a commandment. And this is expressed in the Torah (Deut. 1:16) as “And you shall judge rightly between a man and his brother, and the stranger.” From here,

35

At this point, the acronym bet, yod, mem, kaph appear in parentheses in the recent editions but are absent in our manuscript and in the Lemberg edition. — 107 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

they learned36 that a court of three judges is needed to instruct him on both lighter and more serious commandments, as is mentioned in chapter “Hacholetz” (Yevamot 46b) and in third chapter of Kiddushin (62b), for the expression of “judging” is written there. And they said in Ketubot (11a) that a gentile minor [who is a candidate for conversion] would be immersed [as part of the conversion] based on the consent of the court [even though a minor is generally not competent for such transactions]. And this ruling is due to this commandment that they are responsible for receiving converts. Therefore, it is proper that this should be enumerated as a separate commandment. I do not know to which [other commandment] we could attach this [receiving converts] if it is not counted as a distinct commandment. If all kinds of judicial decisions would be included under a single commandment, as I myself think (commandment No. 144, “to judge righteously”), one could include this among all the others. But since they [Maimonides and Nachmanides] decided to enumerate the various judicial functions as separate commandments, they should make this [also] a separate commandment. There is not any commandment among all the civil laws, [which are enumerated by Maimonides] which is more deserving of enumeration than this [commandment of conversion], since it is completely dissimilar to them, since it is not a civil case and not a matter of claims that occurs between a person and his fellow. Just as the law of inheritance is counted as a separate commandment (Maimonides’s Positive Commandment No. 248), even though it is part of civil laws, since Scripture applies the word judgment (mishpat) to it, as mentioned in chapter “Yesh Nochalin” (Bava Batra 113b); so is it proper to count receiving converts? And even if we include all legal procedures under a single commandment, as is my opinion, this commandment should be separately counted. 29. And to act charitably, according to one’s ability and to the need; And loaded burdens to raise and lift. The commandment of charity was previously mentioned. [In the word] uch’missot, [which I translated as “according to  .  .  . needs,” although it is usually understood as “measure”], the mem is vowelized 36 According to Tosafot, though Rashi cites another scriptural source. — 108 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

with a chirik, in accordance with the language of Scripture (Deut. 16:10), “with the measure of the voluntary donation of your hand.” And loaded burdens does not have an “and” [connecting the two nouns mas’ot and ma’amasot], since mas’ot is in the semichut form [meaning “burdens of” rather than “burdens”], and the intent is “heavy burdens.” Getting the animal up and lifting [the fallen load] are two separate commandments. The one is derived from what is said (Exod. 23:5), “You must raise it with him,” and they explained in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 20:208) that this is a positive commandment to remove the burden from an animal who has fallen under the burden. The second is derived from what is said (Deut. 22:4), “You must help him lift them up,” which is to replace on the animal a load that fell from it. In the second chapter of Bava Metzia (32b), they said that the commandment of removing [an excessive load] takes precedence over reloading [a fallen load], on account of the pain of a live creature. 30. And joyful study, to beautify and make pleasant; And to correct one’s fellows, and love comrades. Some read this text as v’talmid sha’ashuim [which would mean “a beloved pupil” instead of “joyful study”], meaning that a beloved child who is studying with a person should be honored and treated pleasantly, as they said (Avot 4:12), “Let the honor of your pupil be as important to you as your own.” This is not an enumerated commandment, since it is an excellent trait, which is part of the commandment of (Deut. 28:9) “And you shall walk in his ways” or part of (Deut. 6:5) “and you shall love your neighbor.” But some read the text as v’talmud sha’ashuim (joyful study), and the Torah is called a beloved study on the basis of the expression (Prov. 8:30) “I [Torah wisdom] was by Him as a nursling, and I was a delight (sha’ashuim).” The commentator on the Azharot [Moses ibn Tibbon, whose commentary was lost] inserted here the commandment of writing a Torah scroll, which has been counted as a commandment (Maimonides’s Positive Commandment No. 18). This is based on what is said in Tractate Sanhedrin (21b), “Rabbi Abba [or Rabbah] said that even if a person inherited a Torah scroll from his parents, it is a commandment to write his own, as it is said (Deut. 31:19), ‘And now write this song for you.’” The meaning is that, since one must write the song, one must complete the whole Torah, since one is not allowed to write the whole — 109 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

Torah in separate sections. The above commentator explained l’hanim (to act pleasantly) as meaning to read melodically. This is based on what is said in Nedarim (37b), “It is a Torah law to read the musical notes of the Torah.” This is a good explanation. And to correct one’s fellows is an enumerated positive commandment from the verse (Lev. 19:17) “Reprove your comrade,” and love of neighbors is an enumerated positive commandment from the verse (Lev. 19:18) “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”37 This includes many things, as they said (Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:4), “This is a great general rule of the Torah.” 31. Wholeheartedness and humility, and wine for kiddush and rejoicing; Revering the sanctuary, and sages and parents. The Gaon mentioned this commandment in his enumeration of the commandments, which is to be wholehearted. And Nachmanides (Additional Positive Commandment No. 9) supported him and explained that one should be single minded in his worship of God, as it is said (Ps. 119:80), “Let my heart be whole in your statutes.” We should believe that He alone made everything, and we should not go astray to astrologers, as they said (Pesachim 113b), “From where is it that we do not consult astrologers? It is from the verse (Deut. 18:13) ‘You shall be whole-hearted with the Lord your God’” And Nachmanides brought a proof from the text of Sifre (Shofetim 66:13), “If you have done everything stated about this matter [in the previous verse], this constitutes being whole-hearted to your God” Now, what is stated about this matter is the prohibition against witchcraft and asking [foreknowledge of the future] from an ov or a yidoni, or the dead or a soothsayer or an augur. And [the wholehearted person] believes that everything is in the hand of heaven, and He “frustrates the tokens of the impostors, and makes diviners fools” (Isa. 44:25). And he does not inquire from charmers, as it is said (Jer. 10:2), “Learn not the way of nations, and be not dismayed by the signs of the heavens.” Such a person is considered wholehearted. And our father Abraham was charged with this commandment by His saying (Gen. 17:1), “Walk before Me and be whole-hearted,” and as the 37 The translation of the previous sentence is according to Perlow’s emendation. — 110 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

rabbis said (Sabbath 156a), “Depart from your astrology, etc.” Thus far is the explanation of Nachmanides. Now in my humble opinion, I find an objection against him [Nachmanides] from what is said in Gemara Sanhedrin (59a), that any commandment spoken to the descendants of Noah and repeated at Mt. Sinai applies to both [Jew and non-Jew]. Thereupon, they objected that circumcision was stated for the descendants of Noah [in the loose sense that it was stated previous to the giving of the Torah at Sinai, i.e., to Abraham], [in the verse] “And you shall observe my covenant” (Gen. 17:9). And it was repeated at Mt. Sinai, i.e., “On the eighth day . . . shall be circumcised” (Lev. 12:3). Nevertheless, it [in fact] applies to Israel and not to other descendants of Noah [contrary to the above generalization about such repeated commandments]. Now, if being wholehearted is an enumerated commandment, they would have raised a similar objection from what was said to the descendants of Noah [again actually spoken to Abraham], “Walk before Me and be whole-hearted”; it was repeated at Sinai, “You shall be whole-hearted” (Deut. 18:13); and it applies to Israel and not to the descendants of Noah. For if it applied to the descendants of Noah, there would be eight commandments for the descendants of Noah, whereas the Talmud only enumerates seven. There should thus be no difference between being wholehearted and circumcision on the eighth day [with regard to their status as commandments] in my opinion.38 Also, the verse that Nachmanides brought, “Let my heart be perfect in Your fear,” is not true, but it is “Let my heart be perfect in your statutes, that I be not ashamed.” If, however, this commandment should be enumerated, as is the opinion of the Halachot Gedolot, we would have to explain that His saying to Abraham (Gen. 17:1), “Walk before Me and be whole-hearted” pertains to circumcision and is a warning not to be negligent about it, which is not Nachmanides’s interpretation. But “you shall be wholehearted” (Deut. 18:13) would then apply to Israel, and not to the sons of Noah.39 38 The version of Nachmanides’s text used by Duran had the verse from Psalms 119:80 misquoted, reading b’yiratcha, “in your fear,” rather than b’chukecha, “in your statutes.” The wrong version possibly would have been a better support for Nachmanides’s thesis than the true reading. Duran does make a point of giving the quotation correctly. 39 i.e., the commandment of wholeheartedness in Genesis and that in Deuteronomy are referring to different things, the one to circumcision, and the other to fortune telling. Thus, the Zohar Harakia’s objection on the basis of Sanhedrin 59a would be solved. — 111 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

The expression humility includes all aspects of modesty.40 There is included under this [humility] the substance of another commandment, which is actually enumerated, namely, to hearken to the voice of a prophet, expressed by (Deut. 28:15) “to him you shall hearken.” [Disregarding this commandment] involves capital punishment, as is mentioned in Sanhedrin (89a). This also includes a prophet who transgresses his own words and one who suppresses his prophecy. Wine for kiddush and rejoicing. It is said of wine (Judg. 9:13), “That makes God and men happy,” and they explained (Arachin 11a) that one should recite a song over the wine. It is the preferred way of performing the commandment of sanctifying the Sabbath. They have already said (Berachot 20b) that women would have been exempt from the commandment of kiddush, if they were not included on the basis of the argument that anyone commanded to observe the Sabbath (Deut. 5:12) is also commanded to remember it (Exod. 20:8). The intent here is that since it [kiddush] is a time-dependent positive commandment [from which women are generally exempt, we needed a special argument to include them here]. They stated (furthermore in Berachot 20b), “Women are obligated to [verbally] sanctify the Sabbath day by Torah law.” So it is clear that sanctification of the Sabbath day is enumerated under the 248 positive commandments. Likewise, they stated, “The kiddush at night is a Torah law, while the daytime kiddush is a rabbinic law.”41 Revering the sanctuary. It is a positive commandment to revere the sanctuary, as it is said (Lev. 19:30), “And you shall revere My sanctuary.” Revering it means not to enter it with one’s staff and pouch, as mentioned at the end of Berachot (54a). They stated in the Sifra that it is not the sanctuary itself that you should revere, but Him who ordained the sanctuary. There is another [related] commandment [to be enumerated], which is to exclude defiled persons from the sanctuary, as it is said (Num. 5:2), “. . . to remove from the camp anyone with an eruption or a discharge.” The Mechilta states, “Removing from the camp is a positive commandment.” The sages. The Gaon counted revering the wise through the interpretation (Bava Kamma 41b) that the verse (Deut. 10:20) “You shall revere 40 “Humility” as such is not a counted commandment; the Zohar Harakia does, however, enlarge on “humility” in stanza 23. 41 This statement does not seem to be an actual Talmudic quotation. — 112 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

the Lord your God” includes [revering] the wise. Maimonides criticized him, since he considers this as only a rabbinic law, since this interpretation is based on the inclusive property of “et”; and Maimonides holds that any such interpretation is only rabbinic. Even if this is so, we have already stated that this is no problem for the Gaon, since he does enumerate some [totally] rabbinic commandments. But Nachmanides differs with Maimonides, since his [Nachmanides’s] opinion is that all rabbinic interpretations constitute Torah law, unless it is expressly stated that they are rabbinic and that the Torah verse is cited merely as an asmachta. We have already found many instances in the Talmud, where something is derived from a ribbui [derivation from an inclusive term, of which et is an example], and it is a Torah law. This is what I mentioned before (Stanza 24) regarding honoring a stepmother and stepfather. Likewise, they said in the Gemara (Sukkah 6a), “The law of interpositions [i.e., anything preventing contact between the body and the water of a mikvah renders the immersion invalid] is a Torah law. However, the law that the hair [as well as the flesh requires immersion] is known only by rabbinic tradition [and not directly from the Torah]. This law, however, [on second thought] is also a Torah law, since it is written (Lev. 14:9), ‘v’rachatz et b’saro bamayim,’ the redundant et indicating that what is attached to the flesh, i.e., one’s hair, also [needs immersion].” I found also in chapter “B’not Kutim” (Niddah 35a) the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that even the third emission of a zav should be investigated [as to its authentic zav character, since the symptoms at the outset may be misleading, and unless there are three consecutive zav emissions, the man is not considered a full-fledged zav who must bring] a sacrifice [after his recovery]. His opinion is based on the interpretation of et [in the phrase hazav et zovo in Lev. 15:33] that hazav indicates one instance, et indicates the second, and zovo the third. It is evident from this that a ribbui interpretation from et is a Torah law. Thus, revering the sages is a Torah law, and he counts them as two commandments, i.e., revering God and revering the wise, since it is possible to revere one without the other. Now, according to this, it would be proper to enumerate one’s father and mother and fearing them as two commandments [in both cases], and I have not seen anyone who does this. Nachmanides agreed with Maimonides on this matter, and this is correct in accordance with what I wrote in the principles (No. 9) that particular cases in a single commandment are enumerated as one item, — 113 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

since they were proclaimed in a single statement. And in the second principle, I wrote a defense of Maimonides [as to why he excludes enumeration of laws derived by rabbinic exegesis of the Torah, even though they have the force of Torah law]. And “parents” means father and mother, as I explained (v. 24). The commandment of revering [parents] is explained in Kiddushin (31a), and it is part of the enumeration. 32. And teach faithfully to the children with chanting; And the orphan and widow, and Levite with strangers. The best possible interpretation of this stanza is that of the commentator on the Azharot, which is telling about the Exodus from Egypt on the first night [of Passover], as it is said (Exod. 13:8), “And you shall tell your son on that day,” this being an enumerated commandment. The meaning [of the stanza], accordingly, is to teach the faithfulness (ne’emanah) of God to your children with song, as they said (Pesachim 85b), “When they had an olive’s bulk of the Paschal lamb in the house, the singing of the hallel burst out from the roof,” i.e., they recited it loud, reaching to the heavens. A similar expression is found in Song of Songs Rabba on the verse (Song of Songs 2:14) “Let me hear your voice.” Although in chapter “Keitzad Tzolin” (i.e., the above quotation, Pesachim 85b), this saying is quoted regarding the practice of eating the paschal lamb on the ground floor and reciting the hallel on the roof [rather than to show that the hallel was sung loudly]; both deductions are true. A fact that supports this interpretation [of our stanza] is that Rabbi Isaac Albargelone wrote down this commandment with similar phraseology, when he says, “Let the freedom of the night of watching be proclaimed with songs [i.e., the hallel], and tell and inform your son of my faithfulness; thus, one acts praiseworthily, understanding and knowing Me (Jer. 9:23).” The end of the stanza includes the less fortunate together with one’s children, as the Torah says (Deut. 16:14), “Rejoice on your festival, etc.” 33. Keep the poor man’s tithe, and also the second tithe; And the first and eighth day, sanctify with glory. The poor man’s tithe is a commandment, which is to remove it in the third and sixth years of the sabbatical cycle, unlike the second tithe [which is removed during the first, second, fourth, and fifth years]. — 114 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

Concerning the poor man’s tithe it is stated (Deut. 14:28), “At the end of every third year you shall bring out the full tithe of your produce.” And regarding second tithe, it is stated (ibid., v. 22), “You shall surely take a tithe (aser t’aser) from all the produce of your sowing” [the dual form aser t’aser implying a second tithe for one’s own celebration of holidays, as well as the first tithe, which must be given to Levites]. Both these commandments [second tithe and poor man’s tithe] are enumerated commandments. Concerning the first and eighth days of the Sukkot holiday, it is a commandment to sanctify them with glory and honor by resting. These are two commandments, namely (Lev. 23:35), “On the first day there is a holy occasion” and (ibid., v. 36) “On the eighth day there is a holy occasion.” For each one, [the term] shabbaton (resting) is prescribed, and the expression in the Talmud (Sabbath 25a) is “Rav Ashi said that shabbaton is a positive commandment”; and on this basis, they said that that the holidays entail both a positive and a negative commandment [regarding resting]. Even though the resting is identical [on both days], nevertheless, since the days are separated, the first day and the eighth day, they are counted as separate commandments. This opinion was upheld by all who enumerated the commandments, as Maimonides agreed in the thirteenth principle. 34. Tithing from the tithe, and also the recitation for the tithes; And give the cattle tithe, and the first shearing of the flocks. It is a positive commandment to remove a tithe [called “first tithe”] from the produce of the land, as it is said (Num. 18:24), “For it is the tithe set apart by the Israelites as a gift to the Lord,” and (Lev. 27:30) “All tithes from the land, whether seed from the ground or fruit from the tree, are the Lord’s.” The above is what Maimonides wrote, and it is in error, for the verse (Lev. 27:30) was said about second tithe, which is considered holy [as described at the end of verse 30], and which is to be eaten in Jerusalem but can be redeemed to be eaten outside Jerusalem, and about which it is said there (v. 31), “If a man wishes to redeem any of his tithes.” But first tithe need not be eaten in Jerusalem, and one need not redeem it, and it is said concerning it (Num. 18:31), “You may eat it anywhere.” Nachmanides already noticed this (in the twelfth principle). Actually, the commandment for both the first tithe and second tithe is from (Deut. 14:22) “You shall surely tithe all the produce of the seed”; — 115 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

and they explain [in Rosh Hashanah 8a, that the dual form, aser t’aser, implies that] the scripture is talking about two tithes, i.e., first tithe and second tithe. Now, according to this, these [first tithe and second tithe] should have only counted as a single commandment [as they both derive from a single clause]. However, in the Sifre (Korach 55), they learn this [the commandment of first tithe] from another verse (Num. 18:26), “You [the Levites] shall set apart from it [first tithe] a gift for the Lord” The Sifre continues, “It would seem [that the mention of the first tithe] is intended to teach [us something about the Levites’ gift from their portion]. [On the contrary, something] is learned [about first tithe from the Levites’ gift]; i.e., just as the Levites’ gift is stated as a positive commandment, so is giving first tithe [to the Levites] a positive commandment.” Scripture specifies that this tithe is to be given to the Levites, as it states (Num. 18:21), “And to the children of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithes in Israel,” and the Levites are commanded to remove a tithe of their tithe and give it to the priests, which is explicit in Scripture (ibid., v. 28). Now these are enumerated as two commandments, first tithe and the removal of [the portion for the kohanim] from the [first] tithe. Their legal severity is not the same, since the [consumption of first tithe by a layman] is not a capital sin, while [consumption of the priests’ portion] is a capital sin.* Also, in the Sifre (Korach 57), it is taught that *The last clause “and you shall set apart from it” (Num. 18:26) im“while . . . capital sin” is missing in the Ziv plies that one must separate from a given species Hazohar edition. The produce of the same species and not that of another entire subject of how the various elements species. They also derived that one should not sepaof the agricultural rate from uncut produce for harvested produce, nor portions levied on the vice versa; not from new produce for old produce, farmers are derived from scriptural roots nor vice versa; not from fruits of Israel for fruits is complicated. There is grown outside, nor vice versa. In view of this, there yet more to come. is another commandment, a prohibition inferred from a positive statement, such that if one [wrongfully] separated in this way, he would be transgressing a positive commandment [i.e., “you shall set apart from it”]. This is similar to one who eats an olive’s size of the roasted [paschal lamb] while it is yet daytime, and thus transgresses the positive statement [of eating it at night]. Nachmanides counts this in his enumeration (Additional Commandments No. 12); [indeed he also includes a closely related case of priestly portions wrongfully separated — 116 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

in No. 9]. Thus, it is proper to include this positive statement in the enumeration. Also, in the first chapter of Temurah (5a), they discussed separating terumah of one species for another, on the basis of (Num. 18:12) “All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, etc.,” the repetition of “all the best” for both this [oil] and that [wine, thus implying that one separates from each species individually. Now the Gemara continues:] “We have learned in the Mishnah (Terumot 2:6) that if one separated terumah of one species for a different one, the terumah is invalid.” From this, the Gemara raised an objection against Abaye, who claimed generally that when the Torah forbids an action, it is still effective [although wrong]. In view of this [discussion, we see that using one species as terumah for another] is forbidden from the Torah. Also the recitation for the tithes. It is a positive commandment to recite before the Lord the tithe avowal, as it is said (Deut. 26:13), “And you shall declare before the Lord your God, ‘I have removed the consecrated portion from the house.’” And give the cattle tithe. It is a positive commandment to tithe cattle according to the statement (Lev. 27:32), “All tithes of the herd or the flock, of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff, shall be holy to the Lord” And thus is it stated in the Sifre: “[The phrase]‘shall be holy to the Lord’ means that every tenth of the cattle must be tithed [even though there is not an explicit “you shall tithe”], and the ohanim get no part of this sacrifice or of the paschal offering, but the blood is for the altar, and the rest belongs to the owner.” Now I am wondering what compensation did Hashem give the kohanim for this service, since it seems from the scriptural language in Sedra Tzav (Lev. 7:31ff) that the priestly portions are compensations for the priestly service, like the remnant of the meal offerings, and the breast and the thigh, and the cakes of the thank offerings, and the hide of a burnt offering, and the meat of sin offerings and guilt offerings.42 The first shearing of the flocks. The commandment of the first of the shearing is stated (Deut. 18:4), “The first of the shearing of your sheep you shall give to him.” The expression “of the flocks” is used, since one is not obligated to give the first of the shearing unless there are five sheep, as it is said (1 Sam. 25:18) “five sheep ready dressed” constitutes a flock. 42 Actually, the author of Ziv Hazohar notes that elsewhere Duran says that the priests do eat the meat of the tithed cattle, and this has become a subject of controversy among the authorities. — 117 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

The poet (ibn Gabirol) forgot one commandment and did not write it, namely (Deut. 18:3), “He must give the priest the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach.” 35. And My holy sacrifices, and second tithe, You shall eat in My dwelling, and remove the dough-offering. The Gaon (Halachot Gedolot) enumerated eating holy offerings and second tithe in Jerusalem, while Maimonides did not. Nachmanides (Additional Commandment No. 1) reinforced the words of the Gaon from what is said in the Gemara (Pesachim 59a) that a person who has not given his atonement offering [required, for example, for completing purification from “leprosy”] can immerse himself and eat [meat from his sacrifice] in the evening any day of the year [even though normally one is required to offer the various sacrifices before the afternoon daily offering]. That is, he brings his sacrifice after the afternoon daily offering so that he can eat the sacrificial meat. Concerning this assertion, they ask, “We have this commandment [eating sacrificial meat] and that commandment [completion of all other offerings before that afternoon daily offering]; why should one override the other?” So it is evident that eating from an offering by the one who brought it is a positive commandment, just as it is commandment for a priest to eat his priestly portions. Nachmanides further proposes that these are really two commandments. Eating second tithe is one, as it is said (Deut. 14:23), “You shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God the tithes of your grain, etc.,” while eating other holy offerings is a second commandment, as Rashi wrote in chapter “Shelosha She’achlu” (Berachot 48b) that one recites a blessing for a sacrifice, “Blessed is He, who commanded us to eat the sacrifice.” Where is it commanded? In the verse (Deut. 12:27) “And you shall eat the meat.” Nevertheless, Nachmanides in his actual enumeration only listed them as a single commandment. Also, he listed another commandment from the same proof source (Pesachim 59a), which is the positive commandment of completing all sacrifices between the morning daily offering and the afternoon daily offering, since it states “this is a positive commandment [eating sacrificial meat] and that is a positive commandment [completion of offerings between the two daily offerings].” And remove the dough offering. It is a positive commandment to remove the dough offering from the dough, as it is said (Num. 15:20), — 118 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

“The first of your kneading-troughs.” 36. And strengthen the poor person who is slipping, and you will never slip; And in the seventh year, release the spontaneous growth of produce and of grapes. And strengthen the poor person who is slipping is included in the commandment of charity, which he already mentioned (stanzas 25 and 29), and it is based on the Torah’s expression (Lev. 25:35) “When your brother becomes poor, and his hand slips with you, then you shall uphold him, etc.” The Gaon considered enabling your brother to live as a [separate] enumerated commandment [from the concluding words of v. 35, “and he shall live with you”]. The poet wrote it later (Commandment No. 80), and there I will explain it. And you will never slip is a promise [not a commandment]. And in the seventh year, release the spontaneous growth of produce and of grapes. It is a positive commandment to disown the fruits of the seventh year, as it says (Exod. 23:11), “But in the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow.” This is a positive commandment, as they said in the Mechilta (Mechilta of R. Shimon bar Yochai on that verse), “The vineyard is specifically mentioned as a positive commandment [in v. 11 after the general term and you shall let it rest at the beginning of the verse], and it is also specifically mentioned in the prohibition [not to harvest grapes in the sabbatical year, see Lev. 25:5, although we do not have there a general prohibition against harvesting all kinds of produce. But the fact that grapes have both a positive and negative commandment, so all produce has that feature.] So it is evident [from the language of the foregoing Mechilta] that just as there is a prohibition against tilling the soil [and harvesting it], so there is a positive commandment to disown the produce, that the poor may come and eat them, as it says (Exod. 23:11), “That the poor of your people may eat.” [The above translation follows the text of the Zohar Harakia, which I found confusing in its brevity. The same quote from the Mechilta is explained in some detail in Maimonides’s Positive Commandments No. 134.] Nachmanides added another commandment here, namely, eating the fruits of the sabbatical year, since it says (Lev. 25:6), “The sabbatical growth of the earth shall be for your food,” and they interpreted as implying that it is for food but not for business. For they said in the last — 119 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

chapter of Avodah Zarah (62a) [concerning the possibility of interpreting a Baraita as meaning that if donkey drivers were doing work with produce of the sabbatical year, they could be paid with sabbatical-year produce] that in this case, one would be paying a debt with sabbaticalyear produce, while the Torah said that it can be used as food, but not for business [so the above-proposed interpretation could not be valid]. Likewise, Scripture repeats this commandment (Exod. 23:11), “That the poor of your people may eat,” i.e., they are obligated to eat these fruits and not to abandon them as unclaimed property, as is the case with dropped sheaves of grain, whose law is (Lev. 19:10) to “leave them for the poor and the stranger” [but the poor person is not obligated to eat it]. It is thus found that if someone does business transactions with seventh-year fruit, he transgresses a positive commandment, and this enters into the enumeration of commandments. Also, I have a proof for this from what is said in Yoma (86b) in an allegory of two women who were to be flogged in court. One of the two had committed adultery, and the other had eaten seventh-year fruits. The latter was punished for not eating unripe seventh-year fruits normally, and she transgressed the verse “for your food,” and what she did was not normal consumption of food. There is another commandment here, which is enumerated according to everybody. This is to desist from tilling the fields in the seventh year, as it is said (Exod. 34:21), “You shall rest in threshing time and harvest time.”43 It is repeated in another place (Lev. 25:5), “It shall be a year of rest (shabbaton) for the land,” and the sages have stated “shabbaton” is a positive commandment. 37. And release debts, and the forgotten [sheaf], and edges [of the field]; On trees and in fields, and immature [grapes] without harvesting. And dropped [grapes] from harvest, and dropped [fruit] from harvest; Leave them without aggravating the unfortunate poor. 43 The simple meaning of this verse is addressed to the Sabbath day rather than the seventh year. It is thus curious why Duran, as well as Maimonides, cites this verse primarily. The question is discussed in Heller’s edition of Maimonides’s Book of Commandments, positive commandment no. 135, and in Ziv Hazohar on the Zohar Harakia. — 120 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

The remission of debts is a positive commandment from the Torah, as it is said (Deut. 15:2), “Every creditor shall remit that which is due.” The meaning of masha’ot [akin to the words mashei and yasheh in this verse] means debts, as in mashat me’umah (ibid., 24:10). And the forgotten [sheaf]. It is a positive commandment to leave it, since it says (Deut. 24:19), “If you forget a sheaf in the field, do not return to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” This commandment is to leave it for them, just as it is said regarding the dropped produce and the edge of the field and the dropped grapes (Lev. 19:10), “You shall leave them to the poor and the stranger.” They explain in Tractate Makkot (16b) that these are prohibitions connected with positive commandments. [This means that if one transgressed the prohibition of harvesting dropped sheaves, the edge of the field, etc., he can later rectify this through the positive commandment of “leaving them to the poor and stranger.”] There are five such commandments that are enumerated: the forgotten sheaf, the edge of the field, unripe grapes, dropped grapes, and dropped grain. The rabbis noted that for the tree and the grain, i.e., either for the orchard or for the grain field, the two commandments of leaving what is forgotten and leaving the edge of the field apply. But the commandment of leket applies specifically to dropped harvested grain, while ole’lot (unripe grapes) and peret apply specifically to the vineyard.44 Reading miv’tzirim (from the fruit harvests) with a soft bet (i.e., vet) is not a mistake, for it is written (Judg. 8:2), “The unripe grapes of Ephraim are better than the fully ripe ones (miv’tzir) of Aviezer,” with the soft letter (vet) [though grammatically unusual]. It is from that verse that the poet derived his expression. The commandment is to leave them [the agricultural gifts for the needy], so as to relieve the poor who are lacking any good thing (cf. Ps. 34:11), and are cursed with a curse (Mal. 3:9). And in the Gemara Chullin (131a), they said that four gifts [to the poor] are given for the vineyard: dropped fruit, immature fruit, forgotten fruit, and the edge of the field; three are given from grain, dropped grain, forgotten grain, and the edge of the field; and two from fruit trees, the forgotten fruit and the edge of the field. Now, Maimonides enumerated a commandment to exact payment 44 See note in Yad Halevi, pos. comm. 124, which asks why leket and peret are not considered a single commandment. — 121 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

from a gentile [whose debt is not cancelled by the sabbatical year], because of what is said in the Sifre (Re’eh 130) that the verse (Deut. 15:3) “You may/shall exact payment from the gentile” is a positive commandment. Nachmanides disagreed, [saying] that this verse only means to prohibit collecting debts from one’s fellow Jew, emphasizing it by the implication from this positive statement, as well as by the explicit prohibition. The meaning of the verse is “you may exact payment from a gentile,” but not from your brother. It is called a negative commandment implied by a positive statement. Similarly, Maimonides wrote (Positive Commandment No. 198) that it is a positive commandment to take interest from a loan to a gentile, since it says in the Sifre (Tetze 129) that “from a gentile you may/shall take interest (Deut. 23:21)” expresses a positive commandment. But it [actually] only means to forbid [taking interest] from an Israelite through a prohibition implied by a positive statement, as well as an explicit prohibition, so that one who lends to an Israelite with interest is transgressing both a positive and a negative statement. This is seen from what is said in Bava Metzia (70b): “The meaning of lanachri tashich (Deut. 23:21) must be that you may lend with interest [to a gentile].” “Not necessarily,” it continues. “It may mean that you can borrow from him with interest [because of the causative form of tashich].” The Gemara objects, “Is it not self-evident without this [i.e., that this is permissible]?” The meaning is that if Scripture were permitting lending with interest, this would be new information that Scripture permits interest of a gentile, similar to permitting [keeping] his lost article, and one would not need to construe lanachri tashich as a commandment. But if the verse comes to permit borrowing from him, it would be unnecessary for Scripture to permit giving interest to the gentile. Thus, what purpose would this verse have, since it would be impossible to think of it as being a commandment? This is the meaning of “Is it not self-evident without this?” They answered [finally] that [the positive permissive statement implies] that your brother is excluded, and it is not permissible, so that this transgression involves both a positive and a negative expression. This is how the matter concludes. Now, I found a proof there for Nachmanides that the commandment lanachri tashich is not an actual positive commandment, from what is stated in Sanhedrin (25b), concerning the penitence, which is appropriate for one who has lent with interest, which is that he should not even — 122 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

lend to gentiles. Now, if it would be a commandment to lend to a gentile with interest, this would be a penitence entailing a transgression, while the Gemara calls it a complete penitence. And in Tractate Makkot (24b), it states that the verse (Ps. 15:5) “He does not lend his money with interest” includes interest from gentiles [implying that lending with interest to a gentile is certainly not a commandment], and Nachmanides wrote this in his novella (ibid., Bava Metzia), and therefore he does not consider them as complete commandments [that one must do something], but they are prohibitions implied by positive statements. He does not cause a difficulty for Maimonides except for the interpretation of the verse, but regarding the enumeration, there is no objection in the case of lanachri tashich, since he, Maimonides, does enumerate such prohibitions derived from positive statements as part of his enumeration of positive commandments. This is contrary to the policy of the Halachot Gedolot, as I noted in the principles (principle 6), and we will discuss this later (on v. 84). But the verse (Deut. 15:3) “You may/shall exact payment from the gentile” should not be enumerated, since it has an explicit positive form, as it is said (Deut. 15:2), “Every creditor shall remit the due,” and Nachmanides did count this. 38. And look toward them with giving and lending; And fulfill your contributions and vows, lest you be caught. Look toward them. Look toward the above-mentioned poor to have mercy on them with gifts and loans. The commandment was previously mentioned (Commandment No. 18) “And lend to the poor,” and there I explained it, but giving a gift (ha’anek) refers to a Hebrew slave when he goes free, as it is written (Deut. 15:14), “You shall furnish him liberally,” and this is an enumerated commandment. And fulfill your contributions and vows, lest you be caught. “You must fulfill and perform what has come out of your lips” (Deut. 23:24) is a positive commandment, as they explained in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (6a). He says “lest you be caught” based on the verse (ibid., v. 22), “When you make a vow to the Lord your God, do not delay fulfilling it, for the Lord your God will require it of you, and you will have incurred guilt.” [The word tilavet] means “you will be caught,” [for the verse] “v’evil s’fatayim yilavet” (Prov. 10:8) is rendered yitachez (will be caught) by the Targum [for yilavet]. The meaning is you will be trapped by your sin, similar to (Prov. 5:22) “His own iniquities will trap the wicked.” — 123 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

Contributions (nedavot) are when one says, “Here, this thing [is given for charity],” while vows (nedarim) are when one says, “I am obligated [to give such and such].” In Maimonides’s view, this commandment encompasses both vows for holy purposes (nidrei gavo’ah) and elective vows, which the sages call nidrei bittui. But Nachmanides considered them as two enumerable commandments, since they differ in content; since for nidrei gavo’ah one does not have to mention that this is a vow, but simply says, “This animal is for sacrifice” or “This article is for temple maintenance” or “This amount of money is for the poor.” For such a commitment, the admonition, “You must fulfill and perform what has come out from your lips,” applies. But for elective vows, one needs to mention that this is a vow or some phrase indicating that [for it to be fully binding]. Another distinction between them is that for nidrei gavo’ah, one transgresses “Do not delay” (Deut. 23:22); while in the case of nidrei bittui, this transgression does not apply. So it states in Bava Kamma (80a) that if one vowed to buy a house or to marry a woman in the land of Israel, he is not required to do so immediately, only after he can find one suitable for him; but the commandment (Num. 30:3) “He shall do all that came from his mouth” applies to nidrei bittui. Consequently, Nachmanides (on Positive Commandment 94) counts them as two. There is some difficulty [with this view], since both of them are alike with regard to the prohibition (Num. 30:3) “He shall not break his word.” From this, we might infer that, since this prohibition applies to both types, so should the positive commandment be counted as a single topic [combining both nidrei gavo’ah and nidrei bittui]. But we have already found the reverse of this, where many prohibitions correspond to a single positive commandment, i.e., the commandment to restore (Lev. 5:23) corresponds to several prohibitions, such as something robbed and something obtained by oppression, as I explained in the principles (No. 9). Now there is another commandment to be listed along with fulfillment of nidrei gavo’ah, which is to bring them to the temple by the first festival, which occurs thereafter. Even though one does not become guilty of “Do not delay” until three festivals have passed, there is a positive commandment to offer it on the first festival. In the Sifre (Re’eh 11), they said that the verse (Deut. 12:5–6) “You shall come there, and you shall bring” is stated in order to make this an obligation. And it is said in Tractate Rosh Hashanah (6a) that Rabba said that when one festival — 124 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

passes by, one transgresses a positive commandment. They also said there that Rabbi Meir’s reason [for considering one guilty of lateness even after one festival] is that the words and you shall come there mean that you must bring your vow as soon as you come, while the rabbis said that [the verse means that] this is a positive commandment. So it is clear that they were saying that “and you shall bring there” is a positive commandment.45 And bringing offerings to the temple rather than elsewhere is a separate enumerated commandment from the statement (Deut. 12:14) “And there shall you do everything I command you.” And the statement in the Sifre (Re’eh 24) is “The verse (Deut. 12:13) ‘Take heed that you do not offer your burnt-offerings in every place’ might lead me to think that this means only burnt-offerings. How do I know about other sacrifices? It is from the verse (ibid., v. 14) ‘and there you shall do everything I command you.’ I might still think that only burnt-offerings are covered by both positive and negative statements; how do I know that other sacrifices [are covered by a negative as well as a positive statement]? This is from the statement ‘and you shall do everything I command you.’”46 Thus, it is clear that the verse, “And there you shall do everything I command you,” is a positive commandment, i.e., to offer the sacrifices in the temple. It is also stated at the end of Zevachim (112b) that one who sacrifices outside the temple transgresses a positive and a negative commandment. Now, Maimonides enumerated another commandment (Positive Commandment 85), to bring sacrifices from outside the Land of Israel to the Temple. This is from the verse (ibid., v. 26) “But your sacred and votive donations as you may have, you shall take and come, etc.,” concerning which the Sifre comments that “your sacred, etc.” refers to sacrifices from outside the Land of Israel. Nachmanides disagrees, saying that this law is included in the previous one, that we are ordered to bring all sacrifices from whatever place to the temple. So it seems from the Baraita in the Sifre. It is stated there as follows: “The verse says ‘But your sacred, etc.’; to what is it referring? If it refers to sacrifices from the Land of Israel, this has already been stated. It must then refer to sacrifices brought from outside the Land.” From this, we learn that 45 The text in our Talmud differs significantly from that quoted here. 46 It is not clear to me how the conclusion is drawn that other sacrifices are also covered by an explicit negative expression. — 125 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

all sacrifices constitute one subject and one commandment concerning bringing them to and sacrificing them in the temple. But in the Gemara Temurah (17b), another interpretation is given. 39. Rejoice and say “he’ach,” when you give life to your brother; And what remains in the fireplace should be cast in the fire. The Gaon listed this [sustaining your brother] from the verse (Lev. 25:36) “That your brother may live with you.” But Maimonides considered this as included in giving charity. Nachmanides agrees with the Gaon, explaining that this verse means to save one’s brother from an accident, that if he is drowning in a river, or a pile fell down on him, one must save him; and if he becomes sick, one should heal him. This is the commandment of saving a life, which overrides the Sabbath, and it includes the ger toshav [resident alien abiding by the Noachide laws]. For it says (Lev. 25:35), “When your brother becomes poor, and his means fail with you, you shall uphold him, as a stranger or a sojourner, he shall live with you.” They stated in the Talmud (Pesachim 21b) that you are commanded to sustain a ger, but not a gentile [who is not a ger toshav]. Nachmanides adds on a separate commandment (Additional Positive Commandment No. 17) to return interest, if he had sinfully taken it. Just as the commandment of returning stolen goods is enumerated (Maimonides’s Positive Commandment No. 194), so is the commandment of returning interest. This they derive (Bava Metzia 62a) from the verse (Lev. 25:36) “Take from him no interest or increase, but fear your God, that your brother may live with you,” implying that you return the interest so that he may live with you. From this, they proclaimed that the court forces the return of actually stipulated interest. The poet said that one should accept the commandment of saving the life of one’s brother happily, as the Torah ordered about this (Deut. 15:10), “Have no regrets when you give to him.” And say “he’ach” is an expression of happiness, as in (Ezek. 36:21) “Because the enemy has said against you he’ach.” We only find it [the word he’ach] as [rejoicing for] revenge, but the poet was not particular about this. But we find (Isa. 44:16) “he also warms himself and says ‘he’ach,’” and the poet has justification from here [that he’ach is not necessarily a sound of joyful revenge]. What remains on the fireplace should be cast on the fire, which means that what remains should be thrown into the flames in the fireplace. The word ach means the oven in which the fire is kindled, taken — 126 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

from the verse that says (Jer. 36:33) “in the fire that was in the ach” and (ibid., v. 22) “the ach was burning before him.” The commandment enumerated is to burn in fire what was left over from a sacrifice. In the Mechilta (our standard Mechilta does not have this, but it is found in the Yalkut, Remez 199, and in Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on Exod. 12:10), they said that by “you shall not leave any of it over” and “whatever is left over until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exod. 12:10), Scripture means to express this as a positive as well as a negative commandment. And in Tractate Pesachim (84a) and in Tractate Makkot (4b), it is said that this law of not leaving it over is not subject to punishment by whipping, since it can be rectified [by burning the remainder]. 40. And when piggul rots, burn it in fire; And the paschal lamb is to be roasted in fire, and the matza and maror. The poet made notar (the leftover sacrificial meat) and piggul (invalid sacrificial meat because of wrongful intention, as explained below) two separate commandments, while not enumerating burning sacrificial meat that has become impure, and that is an omission. Also, what he says, “And when piggul rots,” is inaccurate, since piggul refers to a sacrifice that has been offered with intention to sprinkle its blood or eat its flesh beyond its allotted time. And if one eats it even on that very day [when it would normally be permitted], he is punishable by excision (karet), and it is a positive commandment to burn it immediately, even though it has not become rotten. It would make sense to emend the poem to read “That which is impure should be cast on the fire in the fireplace, and when that which is left over (notar) becomes rotten, burn it in fire,” and I previously explained burning the notar (end of previous stanza). Now, we do not find a verse concerning piggul, but it is included in notar, since we have found that the Torah speaks of piggul in terms of notar, in the rabbinic interpretation of the verse(Lev. 19:6–7) “And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul,” which [according to the rabbis] means when it is slaughtered with the intention of eating it beyond its proper time. Regarding burning sacrifices that have become impure, it is written (Lev. 7:9), “Meat that touches any unclean thing must not be eaten; it must be burnt in fire.” In the second chapter of Tractate Shabbat, it is said that just as it is a commandment to burn sacrificial — 127 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

meat that has become unclean, so is it a commandment to burn terumah oil, which has become impure. Now, they gave the reason in the Mishnah (Sabbath 2:2) that one should not kindle lamps on a holiday using oil that must be burnt. [They said] that this refers to terumah oil, which has become impure, and it is a commandment to burn it. They said that the prohibition against burning things on a holiday is enjoined both by a positive and by a negative commandment, and the positive commandment [of burning impure terumah] does not override the negative and positive [commandment regarding the holiday, although a positive commandment can override a negative commandment alone]. It is thus evident that burning impure terumah oil is a positive commandment. I wonder why we do not enumerate under burning of notar two commandments, the one stated regarding the paschal offering, and the other stated regarding the peace offering in Sedra Tzav, as it is said (Lev. 7:17), “What remains of the sacrificial meat on the third day must be burnt in fire.” Just as we count in the negative commandments every verse prohibiting notar separately, i.e., counting one for that of the first Passover offering, one for that of the second Passover offering, and one for the thank offering; so it would be proper to count the burning of the notar of the paschal offerings as one [positive commandment] and that of the peace offering as one. This should be investigated. Furthermore, consider what is said about the “inner” sin offering [whose blood is sprinkled on the inner altar], “Any sin-offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the sanctuary, may not be eaten; it must be burnt in fire” (Lev. 6:23). Why should we not include that [being burnt] among the positive commandments? And the paschal lamb is to be roasted in fire, and matzah and maror. This constitutes three commandments. The first is to slaughter the paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan. This entails the penalty of “cutting-off” [if not performed]. As we learnt in Keritot (Mishnah 1:1), “Cutting-off is prescribed for violation of 36 precepts . . . [which includes] the paschal lamb and circumcision among the positive commandments.” The second commandment is to eat it, having been roasted in fire, on the fifteenth day of the month. And the third commandment is eating Matzah, whether or not we are observing the paschal lamb. But the maror (bitter herb) is not counted as a commandment, since eating it is not a requirement in itself unless the paschal lamb is there. This is what they said in the last chapter of Pesachim (120a), “Maror at — 128 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

the present time [when there is no paschal lamb, in the absence of the Temple] is only a rabbinic ordinance.” But concerning matzah, they said, “Scripture has made this a duty,” as it is said (Exod. 12:18), “In the evening you shall eat matzot.” It is clear from this that eating the paschal lamb is one commandment, eating matzah is a separate commandment, while eating maror is just an adjunct to eating the paschal lamb, and [its absence] does not invalidate eating it [the paschal lamb]. Likewise, they said in the Mechilta (Bo 6:39), “Whence do you assert that if there is no matzah and maror, one still performs one’s duty of eating the paschal lamb? The Torah says (Exod. 12:8) ‘they shall eat it’ [singular, i.e., the lamb itself]. You might have thought that just as without matzah and maror one fulfills the duty of eating the paschal lamb, similarly, if there is no paschal lamb, one fulfills [partially] the duty [of the paschal offering] with matzah and maror. [But this is negated by the] verse saying ‘they shall eat it’ [specifically the lamb].” Since [in absence] of eating the paschal lamb, the eating of matzah and maror is invalid [as the paschal offering]; while [in absence of] eating matzah and maror, the eating of the paschal lamb is not invalidated [as the paschal offering], then the commandment of eating the paschal lamb is the main thing, and matzah and maror are auxiliary to it. And were it not for Scripture specifying a requirement to eat matzah aside from eating the paschal lamb by saying, “In the evening you shall eat matzot,” eating matzah would not have been enumerated, as is the case with eating maror. Nachmanides added here another commandment, that the paschal lamb should be eaten [that night] not while it is daytime. He brings a proof from Pesachim (41b) where they said that if one eats, while it is still day, a piece of roasted lamb, which has the size of an olive, he transgresses a positive commandment. This is on account of the verse (Exod. 12:8) “And they shall eat the meat on this night,” implying that it must be done at night, and not by day. This is a prohibition derived from a positive statement, which is considered a positive commandment. In my humble opinion, I would add another commandment, to refrain from eating leaven all seven days of Passover. For thus did they say in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 1:4), “The verse (Deut. 16:3) ‘Seven days you shall eat matzah with it’ implies that leaven must not be eaten, and a prohibition based on a positive statement is considered a positive commandment. Maimonides indeed quoted (in his Mishnah commentary to Pesachim, chapter 1) this section of the Yerushalmi re— 129 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

garding destroying leaven [that it is enjoined both by a positive and a negative commandment]. So I wonder why he did not derive from this section regarding eating leaven [that it is forbidden both by positive and negative commandments]. Perhaps he rejected this because our [the Babylonian] Talmud, where they bring this up at the end of Pesachim (120a), states that this verse expresses permission [to eat matzah]; and since it is a statement of permission, it does not intend to imply that it forbids eating leaven by a positive commandment. But it seems that it would be quite the contrary, for if the positive statement was set into itself [i.e., was an actual positive commandment], they would not be interpreting it as a prohibition derived from a positive statement, which forbids eating leaven, since any positive statement, which is “set into itself,” is needed for itself and would not be interpreted [as implying a prohibition]. Rather, since the Yerushalmi is in agreement with the Babylonian Talmud that it is a permissive statement, they interpreted it as a prohibition against eating leaven on the basis of the positive statement. It is similar to (Lev. 11:3) “it you may eat,” which refers to clean animals, which does not imply a duty to eat it, but it forbids eating unclean animals with a prohibition implied by the positive statement*, i.e., it you may eat, but not an unclean animal. *The next Everyone is in agreement about this, and this is stated seventeen words in the Hebrew in the Gemara (Makkot 18b). So just as Maimonides text from “v’chen” counts “it you may eat” among the commandments (his through “te’achel” are to be omitted. Positive Commandment No. 149), so he should count “seven days you shall eat matzot with it,” meaning to abstain from leaven, as being among the commandments. This is similar to a person who does not bring his sacrifices to the temple and thereby transgresses a positive commandment, as it is said (Deut. 12:14), “And there you shall perform everything that I command you,” as I wrote previously (Stanza 38). And even in the case of a positive commandment that expresses an obligation, one can have a prohibition implied by the positive commandment, such as eating an olive’s bulk of roasted paschal lamb during the daytime, as mentioned previously (in this stanza). 41. And the first and the seventh you must sanctify on the holiday of my salvation; And the Shavuot convocation, with the first of the harvests. I have already explained that every day among the holidays is ap— 130 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

propriately counted as a separate commandment. Here, he counts three commandments, the first and seventh [days] of Passover, which he calls “the holiday of my salvation,” since it is the time of our freedom and [also the holiday of] Shavuot. Concerning these three days, it is not written that they are rest days. But this is derived from the other holidays by the hekesh of Rabbi Jonah in the first chapter of Sh’vuot (10a). [It states that in the verse, Num. 29:39] “There you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons,” so that all of the appointed holidays are equated with each other. And there is a proof for this matter, since in chapter “Ketzad Tzolin” (Pesachim 84a), they state a reason for forbidding the burning of leftover meat of the paschal meat as follows. The positive commandment of burning leftover sacrificial meat does not override the combined positive and negative commandments regarding resting on the holiday. They quote Rav Ashi, who said that resting on the holiday is enjoined by a positive commandment [as well as a negative commandment], and a positive commandment does not override another commandment, which is both negative and positive. There is no explicit commandment to rest on the first day of Pesach, but it is derived from other holidays by [the above-mentioned] hekesh. Likewise, in chapter “Rabbi Eliezer D’milah” (Shabbat 123a), they learn that circumcision does not override [resting on] a holiday, unless it is on time [the eighth day since birth] for the same reason. 42. And the Memorial Day of blowing, and the Day of Atonement for error; And the Sukkah and the four choice plants. Here he includes two other commandments of rest, on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and resting is already specified in each case as a positive commandment. The meaning of to’ah is similar to ta’ut, i.e., unintentional errors. This is found in the verse (Isa. 32:6) “To speak wrongly concerning God,” and in Nehemiah 4:2, “To cause confusion therein.” There are included in here two other commandments, i.e., to blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, and the second is to confess sins. The expression in the Torah is (Lev. 26:40) “And they shall confess their sins.” And the expression in the Mechilta (Sifre Zuta, Naso 5) is “From where do you include other commandments [i.e., other than those expressly stated in the biblical verse]?” And there (in the Sifre) all [kinds of] commandments are included, positive and negative, those that ap— 131 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

ply in the land of Israel and those that apply outside it. He lists dwelling in the Sukkah as a positive commandment, and he lists taking the lulav as a separate commandment with its four species, [which in the absence of any one] the other three are rendered invalid, as I explained in the principles (No. 11). 43. Willow [sprigs] in bloom, and [sprigs] of a beautiful thick tree, And the fruit of a beautiful tree, and palm branches. [These specifications of the four species] do not indicate an additional commandment. The term willow sprigs in bloom indicates that the leaves should not be dried up, and they remark in the Yerushalmi (Sukkah 3:1) that “the dead do not praise God” (see Ps. 115:6). A beautiful thick tree [the biblical term a branch of a thick tree is applied to the willow] indicates that if some of the *The real meaning is leaves fell off, it still must maintain its thickness “to execute upon them the judgment written; (Sukkah 32b). it is glory . . .” But in The term beautiful (Heb. hadar) [which in the the poetic adaptation quoted here, the words Torah is applied specifically to the etrog] is required would mean “one for all four species. Maimonides, among the prohishould do for them bitions dealing with the laws of Sukkot [this cita[the four species] the law of beauty which is tion is questionable], quoted the verse (Ps. 149:9) written.” “la’asot bahem mishpat katuv hadar.”* 44. And the High Priest must abhor marrying a widow; He must marry a virgin, and he shall raise his hand. The high priest is commanded to marry a virgin, as it is said (Lev. 21:13), “And he shall take a woman in her virginity,” and this is a definite positive commandment. They have already said (Horayot 11b) that he [the high priest] is commanded concerning a virgin; and if he had relations with a nonvirgin, he has transgressed a positive commandment. Likewise, they said (Ketubot 29b) that Rabbi Akiva considered the child of a union forbidden by a positive commandment as a mamzer, and they explained that this applies to the child from a union of a high priest with a nonvirgin. And in chapter “Haba al Yevimto” (Yevamot 60a), one finds that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov held the opinion that if he [the high priest] had intercourse with a woman raped by someone else, the child is a chalal [invalid for priesthood]. They explain that this is because he holds that a child born from a union forbidden by a positive command— 132 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

ment is a chalal. Now, I wonder why they did not count this as specific commandment, besides the commandment [of marrying] a virgin. For if he married a virgin, he has fulfilled a commandment; and if he had intercourse with a nonvirgin, he transgressed a positive commandment. This is analogous to eating an olive’s bulk of roasted paschal lamb while it is yet day, about which we wrote previously (v. 40) that even though eating at night and eating during the day come out from the same verse [they are counted as separate commandments]. Our present case is even more so, for the commandment about the nonvirgin has its specific verse (Lev. 21:14), “Only a virgin of his own people may he take to wife,” which implies not marrying a nonvirgin. Also, why did they not enumerate [marriage to] an Egyptian or Edomite as positive commandments? (The verse Deut. 23:9) “The third generation may be admitted into the congregation of the Lord” excludes the first and second generations as a prohibition derived from a positive statement. Maimonides writes this at the beginning of his Laws of Marriage (1:8), but he does not enumerate this commandment. In the Gemara Yevamot (49a) and Kiddushin (68a) and chapter 3 of Ketubot (30a), these commandments are equated with the prohibition of a high priest marrying a nonvirgin. It is proper to count them as a single commandment, although there is a specific prohibition for each case.* And he shall lift his hand to bless the *The meaning of the last people, as it is said (Lev. 9:22), “And Aaron sentence is problematic. It seems that the implication is lifted up his hands toward the people and that there is a direct prohibition blessed them.” They have already said (Sotah of marriage to an Egyptian or Edomite convert in the first 38b) that any kohen who does not ascend the or second generation. In fact, platform [to bless the people] transgresses there is no such prohibition, three positive commandments, but it is only and the only prohibition is that derived from the positive counted as a single commandment, as I menstatement above (Deut. 23:6) tioned (Stanza 20). But one should also count permitting marriage to a third generation convert. separately the prohibition for an Israelite See comments in Perlow’s [other than a kohen] to lift his hands [in the comments on this section. priestly blessing]. For they said in chapter 2 of Ketubot (24b) that lifting the hands by a non-kohen constitutes the violation of a positive commandment and is analogous to one who eats an olive’s bulk of roasted paschal meat while it is yet daytime, which Nachmanides included in his enumeration. — 133 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

45. And he shall know the times to purify clothing and houses; And he shall break [meal-offerings] into pieces, and he shall bring sacrifices for burning. The priest must know after which week clothing or a house [which has been afflicted with tzora’at] becomes purified. But the commentator on the Azharot did not explain it thus. These are to be enumerated as two commandments, the one being cleanness or uncleanness of clothing, and the other being the cleanness or uncleanness of a house. But Nachmanides does not count any form of uncleanness, as we will explain his view [later]. Any of the details pertaining to these two commandments [clothing and house] would not be separately counted, for only the entire thing is counted, as Maimonides explained in the seventh principle. Sut [the unfamiliar Hebrew term used by ibn Gabirol] means clothing, as in the verse (Gen. 49:11) “And his garment in the blood of grapes.” Nachmanides added here a commandment not to have any benefit from a garment defiled by the plague (of tzora’at). And they said in the Sifra that the verse (Lev. 13:51) “A malignant tzora’at” means that one should consider it malignant so that one would not have any benefit from it. I might think that this applies only where the tzora’at is definitely established. How do we know that even suspected tzora’at under observation is forbidden for use? It is from the additional verse (Lev. 13:52) “For it is a malignant tzora’at.” One who derives benefit from this or from the stones of a plagued house transgresses this positive statement. They said in the Yerushalmi (Orlah 3:3) that if the plagued stones were made into plaster, they are forbidden, for the verse “a malignant tzora’at” means that you should consider it malignant and not benefit from it. Nachmanides claims that the above prohibition is not just included as part of the law of impurity of the house, but it is a law in itself, in the same way that the law that a “leper” [with tzora’at] must sit isolated, which Maimonides listed separately, is not just part of the law of a person with tzora’at. Nachmanides said that this applies even more convincingly in the above case [of afflicted clothing and houses]. And he shall break [meal-offerings] into pieces. The Gaon counted pouring the oil, mixing, breaking, salting, bringing near, and waving [all these are preparations of a meal offering], since these are commandments assigned to the sons of Aaron. As they said (Menachot 18b), — 134 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

“Whence is it known [that for participations in priestly portions, one must acknowledge the validity of the sacrificial service], which includes 15 actions, i.e., pouring, mixing, etc? It is from the verse (Lev. 7:33) ‘He from among Aaron’s sons who offers the blood of the peace-offering, etc.’ [This implies that, regarding] any service entrusted to Aaron’s sons, any kohen who does not affirm its validity, is not to have any portion in [the privileges of] the Priesthood.” So whenever a kohen does any of these tasks, he is performing a commandment; but the commandment for one who committed a sin to offer certain sacrifices [in atonement] for his sin is not enumerated [by the Gaon]. Now Maimonides disagreed with him and said that these [preparations] are portions of a commandment, and it is not right to count them, only the total commandment. He summarized all these tasks as five positive commandments, i.e., preparation of the burnt offering, preparation of the sin offering, preparation of the guilt offering, preparation of the peace offering, and preparation of the meal offering. Nachmanides’s opinion [also] is that we should not enumerate these actions [pouring, etc.] as commandments, since this is the execution of what we were commanded to bring a bunt offering or sin offering or peace offering or meal offering. It is necessary to explain the manner of preparation of each one; and once we have listed bringing them, how can we list their preparation? Nevertheless, he wrote (principle 12) that it seems plausible that we count the entire sacrificial service as one commandment, not distinguishing whether the kohen is performing a sin offering, guilt offering, burnt offering, or peace offering. All the descendants of Aaron are commanded to perform their service under a single commandment, as it is said (Num. 18:7), “I will make your priesthood a service of dedication.” However, in his actual listing, Nachmanides agrees with Maimanides. In my humble opinion, I favor the opinion of the Gaon, for in the Gemara Chullin (132b) and in the Gemara Menachot (18b), where they list the fifteen tasks assigned to the children of Aaron, they include among them lifting the hands [in the priestly blessing] and salting sacrifices and having the suspected adulteress drink [the prescribed water] and breaking the neck of the calf [as required for an unsolved murder] and the purification following tzora’at. Since these particular tasks are counted as individual commandments by everyone, [I think] that pourings, etc, should also be counted as separate commandments. Also, I — 135 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

found in the Sifra (96:24): “The verse (Lev. 6:7) ‘This is the law of the meal-offering’ indicates that all [voluntary] meal-offerings [whether offered by priests or Israelites] have the same law, i.e., they require preparation with oil and frankincense. Rabbi Akiva, however, [deriving his teaching by logic rather than from the wording ‘This is the law of the meal-offering’] said, ‘Since we find that Scripture does not distinguish between the sin-offering of an Israelite and a sin-offering of kohanim, in that one does not put in [oil and frankincense], similarly we should not distinguish between a voluntary meal-offering of an Israelite and a voluntary meal-offering of kohanim, that one does put in [these ingredients].’ Rabbi Hanina ben Yehuda objected [to Rabbi Akiva’s argument], ‘What kind of proof can one bring from not putting in, which is a prohibition, to putting in, which is a positive commandment.’” This shows that putting in the oil and frankincense is a positive commandment, in agreement with the Gaon. And he shall bring sacrifices for burning. This is one of the priestly functions, i.e., bringing them near the southwestern horn of the altar to the point of the horn. The poet neglected to include the commandment of offering the two daily offerings. Maimonides reckoned this as a single commandment, while Nachmanides counts this as two commandments, the morning offering as one and the evening offering as another. Likewise, he counts reciting the shema as two commandments, as I have written (principle 13). 46. And he is sent for burning and salting, To obtain atonement and forgiveness for a multitude of transgressions. And to pour and mix, and to slaughter a bullock or ram, And to pinch the bird’s neck and receive blood, and to take a fist-full of memorial offerings. Burning offerings, salting them, pouring oil, mixing, pinching [a bird’s neck], receiving blood, taking a handful [of flour] are types of service assigned to descendants of Aaron, just as is breaking into pieces [the meal offering] previously mentioned (Stanza 45) where I explained this. These are according to the words of Rabbi Shimon, but the other rabbis differ with him, in that pouring and mixing are not restricted to the kohanim, since only those actions from taking a fistful [of the meal offering mixture] and onward are assigned to the kohanim, as stated in — 136 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

the second chapter of Menachot (18b). Burning refers to burning the limbs [of an offering] and the fistful of a meal offering on the flames of the wood pile. This is not the same as bringing sacrifices for burning (end of Stanza 45) as the commentator on the Azharot [Moses ibn Tibbon] had thought. And to salt. It is a positive commandment to salt the sacrifice. The expression “And he is sent” [i.e., the kohen] comes from the statement in Nedarim (35b), Kiddushin (23b), and Yoma (19a) that the kohanim are sent as agents of the Merciful One. To obtain atonement and forgiveness for a multitude of transgressions, i.e., by the process of the priestly services serious transgressions can be atoned for. And to slaughter a bullock and ram. This is not an action assigned to the kohanim, since only those actions from receiving [the blood] and onward are commanded for the kohanim. This indicates that slaughtering [which precedes receiving] is valid when done by a layman. Also, in the Gemara Chullin (132b), when they enumerated fifteen kinds of sacrificial service, they did not count slaughtering. Even though the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] did count it, he did not mean that it should be like the other services that are restricted to kohanim. It is just that he considers slaughtering sacrifices as an enumerable commandment, although slaughtering nonsacred animals is not counted by him. And to take a fist-full of memorial-offering is the fistful of frankincense, as it is said (Lev. 2:9), “Its memorial portion.” There is in this context another enumerated commandment, that the kohanim should do their services in courses, as it is said (Deut. 18:6, slightly misquoted), “And the Levite shall come, etc.,” and (ibid., v. 7) “then he shall serve.” And it is written there (ibid., v. 8), “Besides his purchased rights according to the fathers.” [It is explained in Sukkah 56a]: “What did the fathers sell one to the other? ‘You take the right to serve in your week, and I will take my week.’” And so did Onkelos explain it (in the Targum on v. 8). Now Nachmanides (on Maimonides’s Positive Commandment No. 36) considered dividing the commandment into three commandments, one commandment that the kohanim may serve “with all the desire of their soul” [the sages interpreted this phrase in Deut. 18:6 to mean that all kohanim can share equally in the sacrificial service on the festivals, not just the group of kohanim assigned for that week]. The second commandment is that both kohanim and Levites are assigned to specific du— 137 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

ties [i.e., Levites are either singers or gatekeepers, etc.]. And the third is that they should sell their particular weeks of service to each other. But when he [Nachmanides] enumerates them, he agrees with Maimonides that it is a single commandment. The poet has neglected several enumerable commandments, which are connected with the kohanim. One is to light the fire on the altar, as it is said (Lev. 6:6), “Fire should always be burning on the altar”; and in explaining this, they said (Yoma 21b) that even though the fire comes down from the sky, it is still a commandment to bring ordinary fire. The second commandment is to remove the ashes each day from the altar, as it is said (Lev. 6:3), “The priest shall dress in linen raiment . . . and he shall take up the ashes.” The third is carrying the ark on the shoulder, as it is said (Num. 7:9), “For theirs is the service of the sacred objects, they shall carry by shoulder.” Now Maimonides thought that this commandment was given to the Levites in the wilderness, since the kohanim were few in number, but in future generations applied only to kohanim. But Nachmanides wrote that this commandment applies to all descendants of Kehath, either Kehathite Levites or kohanim, for they are all descendants of Kehath [Aaron being a grandson of Kehath], and he brought many proofs for his words. I discuss this at length among the negative commandments (Stanza 115). The fourth commandment is guarding the temple, as it is said (Num. 18:4), “And they shall keep the charge of the tent of meeting.” Now in the Mechilta [actually in the Sifre Zuta, end of Korach], they said, “One can see [from the above verse only] a positive commandment, but whence do we see a prohibition?” It is from the word v’nishmartem (v. 5), [which often has the force of a prohibition]. The fifth one is that the tribe of Levi should perform the tasks specifically assigned to them concerning gatekeeping and singing, as it is said (Num. 18:18), “And the Levites shall serve.” They stated in the Sifre (Korach 52), “One might have thought that if he wants to, he may serve, and if he did not want, he does not have to serve. Therefore, it says ‘The Levite shall serve.’” All of the above are commandments that Maimonides enumerated. Now, I have, in my opinion, come upon a commandment, which the earlier scholars did not mention. This is that the kohanim in the time of their service must be complete in their good looks, and they should have nothing in their physical form which is not the usual way of the formation of a person. This is stated in Bechorot (43a): “The verse (Lev. 21:21) ‘Any man from the seed of Aaron who has — 138 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

a blemish’ implies that he should be equal to the seed of Aaron,” i.e., it is a positive commandment that the kohen should be equal in the shape of his limbs to the children of Aaron. And if he is not equal, even though this is not designated a blemish (mum), if he performs the priestly service, he has transgressed a positive commandment. And they said there (43b), “What is the difference between one who is not equal to the seed of Aaron and one who is ineligible for service on account of a less serious condition which was considered unsightly? It lies in whether or not he is guilty of a positive commandment.” This says that one who is not equal to the seed of Aaron is forbidden to serve by a positive commandment. And if he is not so [i.e., equal], he transgresses this positive commandment, although his service is not rendered invalid, as is the case for one with an actual blemish. So we have gained this commandment. 47. And so he shall teach to wave and sprinkle, And the thigh and the breast are held as his portion. And so those who teach (Duran implies here that the verb here is “y’la’med,” not “yilmad”; the following two words can be read as im zeh or am zeh, and I have left them out of the translation) the laws of taking the fistful [of] flour and other tasks would take their wages from the temple treasury, as mentioned at the end of Ketubot (106a). And for five years [the new kohanim] had to study, since the laws of the service are difficult, as mentioned in the first chapter of Chullin (24a). Therefore, he [the poet] said that the kohen must learn about waving and sprinkling, which are tasks assigned to the sons of Aaron, and I have explained this above (Stanza 45). And the thigh and the breast are held as his portion [i.e., they belong to the kohen]. Maimonides did not count this as a commandment, and he criticized those who did count it, since it is part of the commandment regarding peace offerings. Also Nachmanides agreed with him, since no verse contains a commandment ordering us to give these portions to kohanim. But they are God’s portion, which He took from the sacrifice and gave them to the kohanim, as it is said (Lev. 7:34), “For the breast of wave-offering and the thigh of heave-offering I have taken from the children of Israel . . . and I gave them to Aaron, etc.” 48. And he shall dress for his work in priestly robes, and when going — 139 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

Inside the curtain, his clothing is of twisted strands. The Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] did not count the priestly garments among the positive commandments. But he did count [a kohen] lacking his garments as a prohibition punishable by death. His reasoning is that there is no commandment to wear them except as a requirement to do priestly service; for if he did serve without these garments, he is punishable by death, just as if he were a lay person. But there is no commandment to wear them at times when he is not doing service, and so wearing the priestly garments is only a part of a commandment. And Maimonides has explained (principle 12) that parts of a commandment should not be separately enumerated. But Maimonides did enumerate this commandment among the commandments, and Nachmanides agreed with him to count it as a commandment. They said in the Sifre (Acharei Mot 5), “Whence do we know that Aaron should not wear his garments for their grandeur, but as one who is simply fulfilling the decree of a king? It is from the verse (Lev. 16:34) ‘And he did it as the Lord commanded Moses.’” This is his reasoning. However, he wondered about Maimonides why he did not count the garments of the high priest as a commandment and the garments of regular kohanim as another and the white clothing for Yom Kippur as yet another. Likewise, it would be proper to count that priestly service should be done while standing, from the verse (Deut. 18:5) “To stand to minister” [which is explained in Zevachim 23b to mean], “I chose them for standing, not for sitting.” But in his actual counting, Nachmanides agrees with Maimonides. Also, Maimonides counted the commandment of sanctifying the hands and feet [by washing], from the statement (Exod. 18:19) “And Aaron and his sons shall wash from it their hands and feet.” The word m’lechet (work) we have found as a regular noun [not as possessive, which this word usually denotes] in 2 Chronicles (13:10) “Vhalviyim bim’lechet,” where it is equivalent to m’lachah [the usual nominative form]. The rabbis explained (Yoma 72a) that the expression “clothing of s’rad” (Exod. 31:10) means clothing of priestly service, and so did Onkelos translate it. Rashi and ibn Ezra do not explain it thus, and the poet relied on the rabbis’ interpretation. Consider what he [the poet] wrote, “When he goes inside the curtain (l’vet laparochet) his clothing is of twisted strands.” If he actually means inside the curtain [as the meaning of l’vet laparochet], then — 140 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

there is something missing in his poem, for “strand-twisted garments” (mashzar) indicates that the thread is twisted from strands, as the rabbis explained in Yoma (71b). But the white clothes [worn within the Holy of Holies] do not have such twisted threads!47 Therefore, one must apparently distinguish between the words beit laparochet [in the poem] and mibeit laparochet [the expression in Lev. 16:2, having the prefix mem]. And the expression beit haparochet [without the mem, or even beit laparochet without the mem] would [mean the house containing the curtain, and refer to] the heichal [the latter term including both the holy place as well as the Holy of Holies]. There [in the holy place)] he [the high priest] serves in golden garments, whose threads are twisted from strands. It is also conceivable that the thread of the white clothing is made with six strands, even though it is designated by Scripture simply as “linen” (bod Lev. 16:4) [rather than shesh mashzar, which is the usual phrase attached to six-stranded linen]. This would be indicated by what is said in chapter 1 of Yoma (12b) that the only difference between the white clothing of the high priest on Yom Kippur and the general priestly garment is the girdle. So did Maimonides write (Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 8:3), but the intent of the poet is what I wrote.* What he wrote, “He shall prepare for his work,” *We have so far used the version for the beginning refers to the service on Yom Kippur, for we refer of this stanza, “He shall to the service on Yom Kippur as avodah (service) dress for his work.” There without any adjective, and “work” (m’lachah) is is another version, “He synonymous with “service.” The word s’rad [used shall prepare for his work,” which is found in our in Exod. 39:1 to describe priestly clothing] would manuscript version and also in the manuscript be associated with sarid ufalit (Josh. 8:22), meanby Duran, as is ing to be solitary, i.e., not stranded threads. On evidentused from what follows. the other hand, if the threads are actually sixfold stranded, it would mean [singular in the sense of] excellence. This is indeed true, in accord with the verse (Joel 3:5) “Among the remnant (s’ridim) whom the Lord will call” [the remnant are God’s elect, indicating that s’rad denotes excellence]. This then would be referring to the clothes of the high priest. The commentator on the Azharot [however] did not explain it thus.

47 Perlow in his gloss on the Zohar Harakia denies this assumption, quoting the Mishneh Lamelech on Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 8:3. — 141 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

49. And the forming of the Sanctuary, and the arrayed bread, And the oil prepared, for anointing and light. The rabbis have stated (Sanhedrin 20b) that Israel were enjoined to perform three commandments when they would enter the land of Israel, one of these being to build the temple. This is said in the verse (Exod. 25:8) “They shall make Me a sanctuary.” Maimonides thinks that the appurtenances of the temple should not be counted as independent commandments, because they are parts of the temple. Now, Ravad in his critique (on the enumeration of the positive commandments, No. 20) counts making the altar as a separate positive commandment, whereas Maimonides considers it as part of the temple, like the ark and other appurtenances that are not to be counted since they are parts of a [single] commandment. But in his treatise (Hilchot Bet Hab’chirah 1:15), he wrote that if one built a defective altar, he transgresses a positive commandment, although he does not include it in his enumeration. However, Nachmanides (Positive Commandment 33) considers that this [reasoning of Maimonides] is irrelevant, since the [absence of] appurtenances of the temple do not preclude its use, and the sacrifices can be offered in the temple even if the appurtenances are absent. But the reason for not counting this [not counting the appurtenances] is that they [the appurtenances] are preliminary to another commandment, the table to arrange the showbread on it, and the candelabrum to kindle the lights. With this reasoning, Nachmanides does introduce into the enumeration [the commandment of making the ark and its cover to place therein the tablets of testimony]. This is considered a permanent commandment [Maimonides’s principle 3 counts only commandments that apply forever] even though they never made another one, since it is incumbent on us forever; and if the [original] ark were broken, we would have to make another one like it to place the tablets of testimony in it. Now in the second temple, where there was no ark, it is not because the commandment was absent that they did not make one, but because it had been hidden (Yoma 53b), and it will be discovered in the days of the Messiah, may it be soon in our times. Nachmanides [Maimonides according to note 804 in Ziv Hazohar] likewise counted carrying the ark on the shoulders [that is, in the future times the ark will have to be carried to its proper place in the temple]. I have found a proof that making an ark is a commandment for all generations in Menachot, chapter 3 (28b) where they said in disbelief, “But — 142 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

then you would have to hold that the verse (Deut. 10:11) ‘And you shall make for you a wooden ark’ means only for you and excludes future generations.” Just as the prohibition of not removing the staves from the ark has been enumerated (No. 86 of Maimonides’s prohibitions), so should we include making the ark in the enumeration. And the arrayed bread. It is a positive commandment to set out on the table the showbread, as it is said (Exod. 25:30), “And you shall set the show-bread on the table to be before Me always.” It is because they consist of two rows, six loaves per row, that he says “the arrayed (ha’nitchan) bread, from the verse (Exod. 5:18) “You shall produce your measure of bricks (ha’nitchan derived from tochen, i.e., measure).” The oil prepared for anointing and light. It is a positive commandment to make oil with which to anoint the king and high priest [and the tabernacle] and its appurtenances, as it is said (Exod. 30:25), “And you shall make it a holy anointing oil.” And whatever is in the Torah about preparing the bread and preparing the oil is all part of that commandment, as Maimonides explained in the tenth principle; but what is included as a commandment is to set out the loaves and to anoint with the oil. We are not to make any other oil than what Moses made and which Josiah hid away. So during the second temple period, the priests were not anointed. This commandment is still considered effective for all generations, since as long as the oil exists, it is incumbent upon us to anoint high priests, and we trust in His exalted name that it will be revealed to us in the days of the Messiah. And what he said, “And the oil prepared,” means that there was much expertness involved in it, as mentioned in Keritot (5a) and Horayot (11b). And what he said, “And light,” does not mean that the substance of this commandment is to make oil for lighting, but commandment enumerated here is kindling the light of the Menorah, as it is said (Exod. 27:21), “Aaron and his sons shall set it in order.” The oil for lighting is not of the same kind used for anointing oil, since it had no spices in it, but was pure. The meaning of “for anointing” (l’moshcha) is connoting aggrandizing, as in (Num. 18:8), “To you I have given them as a special portion (l’moshchah).” Also, (Ps. 105:15) “Do not touch my anointed ones” [indicates that the Hebrew root of l’moshcha means excellent or chosen rather than smeared with oil], since our forefathers were not consecrated with oil. And it is a commandment to aggrandize kohanim — 143 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

and to treat them with honor, and this is an enumerated commandment from the verse (Lev. 21:8) “He shall be holy unto you.” The rabbis (Gittin 59b) explained that this refers to anything of a sacred nature, i.e., to open the Torah reading first, to be first in the blessing for food, to have the first choice in a distribution. It is possible that there are two commandments [regarding the kohen’s sanctity], the one being for the Israelite, “You shall sanctify him” (Lev. 21:8), by giving him precedence for reading the Torah and for reciting the blessing after meals; and the second being for the kohen himself to be careful not to defile himself by a corpse, as it is said (Lev. 21:6), “They shall be holy.” And in chapter 2 of Bava Metzia (30a), they stated that if a kohen had to go into a cemetery to recover a lost object, the positive commandment of returning a lost object does not supersede the positive and negative commandments regarding defilement, and the positive commandment is “they shall be holy” in my view. 50. The dedication and the work of the grand incense; And the rows of six, and the two loaves. The dedication of the altar was written by the Gaon [as an enumerated commandment], and Maimonides criticized him for this, while Nachmanides sought to justify him. I will take up their argument soon at length, as well as what my view is. Nevertheless, with regard to the commandments, Nachmanides agrees with Maimonides not to count it. The work of the grand incense. Maimonides has already explained that one should not enumerate the preludes for a certain purpose as commandments in themselves. Therefore, he did not count preparing the incense as a commandment, but [he counted] burning the incense on the altar, as it says (Exod. 30:7), “On it Aaron shall burn aromatic incense.” He counts this as one commandment, while Nachmanides counts it as two commandments, i.e., the morning burning and the evening burning, like reading the Shema [morning and evening], as I wrote above (Stanza 12). The poet refers to this as “work,” since preparing it involved considerable expertness, as stated in Yoma (38a). He calls it “grand” (nisechet), which expresses princely status and greatness, as in the statement (Prov. 8:23) “From everlasting I was established (nisachti), from the beginning.” For it [the incense] is a splendid service, which leads to wealth (Yoma 26a). Therefore, when they cast lots for performing the incense service, they announced for [only] new — 144 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

[kohanim to enter, i.e., only those who never had the privilege before] for the incense, since it brings wealth. For it says (Deut. 33:10), “They will place incense in Your nostril,” and directly thereafter, “Bless, O Lord his substance.” That is why it is customary to read the Baraita of Pitum Hak’toret after Shabbat, just after the section V’yiten L’cha. And the rows of six is a part of the arrangement of the showbread and is not to be counted, and this is what was previously written (Stanza 49) as “and the arrayed bread.” And the two loaves are those two loaves that are a commandment to bring on the day of the first fruits, and they are unleavened, as it is written (Lev. 23:7), “And you shall bring from your settlements two loaves of bread as a wave-offering,” and the sacrifice is part of the bread offering and is not separately counted. Shimon the son of Rabbi Zemach says the following. The Gaon, author of Halachot, Rabbi Shimon Kayyara, included in his enumeration of commandments that of inaugurating the altar. But Maimonides criticized him in his work, as he considered this as a onetime commandment, not one applying throughout all generations, in accord with the established principle that such things should not be enumerated. Now, Nachmanides does not differ with him about this principle, yet he defends the Gaon, saying that dedication of the altar does apply through all generations. For it is written in Parshah Tetzaveh (Exod. 29:38), “Now, this is what you shall offer upon the altar,” which is the commandment of inauguration; and regarding this, we learned in the Mishnah (Menachot 4:4) that we may only inaugurate the altar with the morning daily offering. The above is what Nachmanides said. But in my humble opinion, I think that this was not the intention of the Gaon, for this inauguration, which we find in chapter “Hat’chelet” (i.e., Menachot 4:4 above) would not be included in the enumeration of the commandments. It just concerns the continual offerings, which are a duty every day, at a time when a new altar is being built, and they are about to commence offering them, as they did in the wilderness according to the divine command, as it is written (Exod. 29:38), “Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar,” and such a commencement is called “inauguration” (chinuch). Likewise is it when a new golden altar or table or candelabrum is made and is to be used [for the first time] for the commandment requiring it, such a commandment is called “chinuch.” For such occasions, we learn (Menachot 4:4) that one inaugurates — 145 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

the golden altar only with the twilight incense offering, and the altar of burnt offerings only with the morning continual offerings, and the table only with the showbread on the Sabbath, and the candelabrum only with lighting its seven lamps at twilight. Now this verse is in the portion beginning with (v. 38) “Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar,” which is in the Sedra Tetzaveh; and this section, which is the section dealing with the inauguration, is not an additional commandment, for it is specified as “continual” (v. 58), and it is identical with the section on continual offerings in Sedra Pinchas. It is thus taught in the Sifre (Pinchas 29:4): “Since it is said regarding the inaugural of the altar (Exod. 28:38), ‘Now this is what you shall offer,’ I might think that there are four offerings on that day. But since I read (Num. 28:4) ‘One lamb you shall offer in the morning and the second lamb, etc.,’ it shows that two were to be offered, not four.” Therefore, the inauguration of the altar has no additional content that would be fitting for its enumeration among the commandments. Furthermore, Nachmanides defended the Gaon by saying that it is plausible that when the Tabernacle would be erected; and when the temple would be built, they would always have to have an inauguration. The donation of the princes (Num. 7:20ff) was a teaching for that particular time [not for the future as well] and the particular amounts [of the gifts] were what they [the princes] thought fitting, but the inauguration [in its general scope] was a commandment. Thus did Solomon make an inauguration (1 Kings 8:63), and so did the men of the Great Assembly (Ezra 3:1), and furthermore, it will be so in the days of the Messiah. As they said (Menachot 45a), “They offered inaugural sacrifices (milu’im) in the days of Ezra just as they offered them in the days of Moses.” It is made plausible by what He said, exalted be He (Lev. 7:37), “This is the law of the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, the inaugural-offering, and the peace-offering which God commanded Moses, etc.,” [which implies] that the inaugural offering should be counted as permanent sacrifices and were enacted as a law. This is the end of Nachmanides’s words. But this [the argument of Nachmanides presented above] does not seem reasonable to me at all, since we have no indication in Scripture that they must dedicate the temple with extra sacrifices, as they did in the days of Moses. For if there was a permanent commandment to inaugurate it, as they did in the days of Moses, why did not Solomon and — 146 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

the men of the Great Assembly do it in the same amounts? Why should they have made a distinction between one inauguration and the other? Also, it seems from the Talmud that the inauguration was not for all generations in any way, neither in those amounts nor in other amounts. For they discuss in the first chapter of Hagigah (6a) the saying of the School of Hillel that the [minimum value of the] festival offering is a silver ma’ah, and that the [minimum value of the] appearance sacrifice is two silver ma’ahs. They derive this [that the value of the appearance sacrifice, a burnt offering, exceeds that of the festival offering, which is a peace offering] from the [offerings of the] princes, where Scripture specifies more peace offerings than burnt offerings (Num. 7:15, 17). But the School of Shammai [in whose view the relative minimal values are reversed] did not want to model after the [princes’ offerings] for inauguration. And they stated there that the reason why the School of Shammai did not agree with the School of Hillel is that one should derive laws that apply to all generations by analogy to other laws that apply to all generations, and one should not derive laws applicable to all generations from those that do not apply to all generations. This expression proves that the inaugural offering of the princes does not apply to future generations, neither in the same amounts nor in different amounts. For they did not say that one cannot derive amounts pertaining to all generations from an amount not pertaining to all generations, but from a law [actually davar, a thing] that does not apply to all generations. This shows that there is no commandment here. For even if you would say that the [basic] law is applicable, though not the amounts, nonetheless, in whatever way the amounts differ, it would have to be that the peace offerings should exceed the burnt offerings, as it was in the time of Moses. Thus, the School of Shammai would have to derive from there [the law quoted in Hagigah 6a], for the peace offering exceeding the burnt offering would be applicable forever. Furthermore, [if the basic law is forever applicable], it would have to have the same character, consisting of burnt offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, incense, and meal offerings. But in fact, this is not so. For in the time of Ezra, there were burnt offerings and sin offerings, but no peace offerings, for thus it is written (Ezra 6:17), “And they offered for the dedication of this House of God a hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, and twelve he-goats for a sin-offering for all of Israel.” Certainly, all these [bullocks, lambs, and rams] were burnt of— 147 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

ferings, for we have found that those who came back from the exile [i.e., the later returnees who came back with Ezra] offered burnt offerings, and not peace offerings, as it is written (Ezra 8:35), “Twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety six rams, seventy seven lambs, twelve he-goats for a sin-offering; all this was a burnt-offering unto the Lord” [While the inaugural offering in Ezra’s time was dissimilar to that in Moses’s time because it did not include peace offerings, the inaugural offering for Solomon’s temple was dissimilar in another respect, as follows.] For Solomon offered peace offerings and burnt offerings, but he did not offer sin offerings. [Indeed Solomon did follow Moses’s model in that the number of] the peace offerings exceeded that of the burnt offerings, for it is written (1 Kings 8:63), “And Solomon offered for the sacrifice of peace-offerings which he offered unto the Lord twenty two thousand oxen and twenty thousand sheep; and they dedicated the house of the Lord” Now there is no mention of burnt offerings or sin offerings, but there must have been some burnt offerings there. For it is written (ibid., v. 64), “On the same day the king hallowed the middle of the court that was before the house of the Lord, for there he offered the burnt-offering and the meal-offering, and the fat of the peace-offerings.” But Scripture does not mention the number of burnt offerings, apparently because their number was small compared with the peace offerings. If not for that, Scripture would have mentioned [the amount], for Scripture seemingly wanted to inform us of the abundance of sacrifices that Solomon offered, and since the amount of burnt offering is not mentioned, it must have been minimal. Furthermore, in another place, it is written (ibid., 3:4), “A thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon offer up on that altar” [thus indicating that Solomon customarily made burnt offerings]. Also, in both cases, in the inauguration of Solomon and in that of Ezra, there was no incense in the outside altar, as was the case in the inaugural of the princes. So if the inaugural procedure was valid for future generations, although not in the same amounts, they should then have offered everything that was offered in the days of Moses either in the same quantity or another comparable quantity. But they have already stated in chapter “Hat’chelet” (Menachot 50b) that incense is never offered on the outer altar either for an individual or for the community, and the incense brought by the princes was an exceptional ordinance for that particular time. And in chapter “Eizehu M’koman” (Zevachim — 148 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

48b) and in chapter “Kol Ham’nachot” (Menachot 56a), they discussed the goat brought by Nachshon [the first prince to present his offering, and thus representative of all the princes who brought offerings] as to whether [the rules] of placing hands on the head of the sacrifice and of slaughtering on the north side of the altar [which apply normally to sin offerings] should include the goat offered by Nachshon. [And they concluded that a case of] a onetime commandment cannot be derived from that of a permanent commandment. And in chapter “Tevul Yom” (Zevachim 101a), they stated concerning it [the sin offering of Nachshon] was a holy sacrifice for that particular instance, and it could be eaten even in a state of mourning, which is not the case for the sin offering of the New Moon, which is a sacrifice applicable forever. They said a similar thing in chapter “Hakometz Raba” (Menachot 19b), and thus the goat offered by Nachshon, which was a sin offering, was only for that time and not to indicate a law for all generations, and the same thing applies to the burnt offerings and the peace offerings [offered by the princes]. And in chapter 8 of Menachot (59a), they stated that laws for onetime commandments cannot be derived from permanent laws. So we should say that the inaugural offerings of Solomon and that for the second temple were not brought as a commandment, but they were a voluntary donation. Now, you might claim that only the burnt offerings and peace offerings were voluntary, but the sin offerings offered for the second temple could not be considered as a voluntary act, but as a religious duty, and there could be no other duty than that of inauguration. But one could not actually say this, for they said clearly in the Gemara (Menachot 56a) that the goat offered by Nachshon was for that time only and not for future generations, as I have written. Also [there is another significant difference between the offering of the princes and that at the inaugural of the second temple, since] the goat brought by Nachshon was that of an individual. For in the discussion of incense in chapter “Hat’chelet” (Menachot 50a), they said that the [rare case of] an individual offering incense on the outer altar occurred in the instance of the princes, and the entire offering of the princes was that of an individual. [On the other hand], the sin offerings brought at the dedication of the second temple were collective, for it is written (Ezra 6:17), “And he-goats to atone for all Israel.” Thus, this obligation of bringing sin offerings was not of the character of the obligation of the inaugural sacrifices of the princes, but it was another sort of obligation. — 149 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

Also, the burnt offerings were not of the nature of that obligation [of the princes’ inaugural], since this is evident from its context [i.e., they are part of the same inaugural gifts]. Another point is that we found that those who came from the exile [under Ezra] offered burnt offerings and sin offerings, as I wrote previously, and this was no inaugural [since the inauguration of the second temple happened much earlier], but a voluntary offering. Indeed, it was like the earlier offering, which was also voluntary, the only difference being that the first one was called “inaugural,” and the latter was not called “inaugural.” So all of this works out well, except that we have to straighten out what was the requirement for the sin offerings. And I found in chapter 1 of Horayot (6a) that the sin offerings brought by those who returned from captivity were on account of their idolatrous worship in the days of Zedekiah. They discussed this at length there that those who had thus sinned had already died out, and furthermore, their sinning was intentional [and sin offerings only apply to unintentional sins]. They concluded that this law was only for that particular time. A similar discussion is in chapter “Yesh B’korb’not Tzibur, Temurah” (15b), and they brought proof from the fact that the rams and lambs must have been onetime instructions that we should also presume that the he-goats were a onetime instruction to atone for all Israel for the above-mentioned sin or something similar. But in any event, they were not brought as a requirement to be like the he-goat of Nachshon [as an inaugural offering]. For they state in the Gemara that the he-goat offered by Nachshon was an individual offering, *There are two key biblical words in the discussion of the inaugural whereas these others [in Ezra’s time] were ceremonies. The one is “hanukah,” communal offerings, as I have stated. So it which refers to celebratory follows from all this that we do not have a offerings brought by the princes and which we have translated commandment of inaugural included in the as “inauguration” or “inaugural enumeration of commandments.* offering.” This has been the main subject of discussion up to Now Nachmanides wrote that [there is this point. Now, the discussion a permanent commandment to bring spewill switch to another word, cial offerings of initial consecration, which “millu’im,” which refers to the initial procedures specified in were applied at the time of the first and the Torah for sanctifying the second temples and will apply] even at the sanctuary and also for ordaining Aaron and the other kohanim for time of the Messiah [for the third temple] their priestly service. We will in in accord with the statement (Menachot the following translate millu’im as 45b) that they offered consecration offer“consecration.” — 150 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

ings [millu’im] in the days of Ezra. Nachmanides’s opinion is that the millu’im that were used to consecrate the kohanim applied only to that time, and that is what they meant by (Sukkah 43a) “The millu’im are excluded [from comparing them to dwelling in the Sukkah], since they do not apply throughout the generations.” But there was [another kind of] millu’im, which concerned sanctification of the altar, as it is written (Exod. 29:36), “And each day you shall prepare a bull as a sin-offering for expiation; you shall purge the altar by your performing purification on it.” It is also written (ibid., v. 37) “Seven days you shall perform purification for the altar to consecrate it.” It is such millu’im that were offered in the time of Ezra, for the new altar needed consecration (millu’im) offerings to sanctify it, just as did the first one in the days of Moses. Likewise, for the temple itself, millu’im were offered to sanctify it, as it is written (Ezek. 45:18), “In the first month, on the first day of the month you shall take a blemishless bullock and you shall purify the sanctuary.” This verse was interpreted (Menachot 45a) as referring to millu’im offerings. They said that [the verse does not make sense, since] the bullock normally offered at the New Moon is a burnt offering [rather than as a sin offering as suggested by the words and you shall purify]. Rav Ashi responded that they brought millu’im offerings in the days of Ezra [just as in the days of Moses; thus, this bullock brought as a sin offering was not the monthly New Moon sacrifice], but a millu’im sacrifice for the sanctuary. There is yet another explicit verse referring to millu’im brought for the altar (Ezek. 43:25–26), “Seven days you shall prepare a goat for a sin-offering every day, and a young bullock, and a ram from the flock . . . Seven days shall they make atonement for the altar and cleanse it, and they shall thus consecrate it” [the Hebrew umillay yado indicates millu’im offerings]. All the above are the words of Nachmanides. But this [statement of Nachmanides that the consecration of the altar expressed in Ezekiel 43:25–26 is in the opinion of the rabbis a millu’im ceremony required by the Torah] is actually not the opinion of the sages. For they did not say that they offered millu’im in the days of Ezra with reference to sacrifices, which are mentioned in the section of “telling the house of Israel about the temple (Ezek. 43:10).” This consisted of a bullock on the first day and of a goat, bullock, and ram for seven days to cleanse the altar. This verse did not disturb the sages, for the content proves that this was a onetime procedure in accordance with a special revelation. For in the days of Moses, they cleansed the altar for seven — 151 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

days with a bullock for a sin offering; while in the time of Ezra, there was a bullock sin offering on the first day; whereas on the second day, there was a goat sin offering, and also a bullock and ram as a burnt offering. However, they did find difficulty with the verse (Ezek. 45:18–19) “In the first month, on the first day you shall take a blemishless young bullock and you shall purify . . . and the kohen shall take of the blood of the sin-offering . . .” because we do not find a bullock sin offering among the additional New Moon offerings. It is concerning this that they raised the question, “Is this a sin-offering? It should be a burnt-offering [which is a New Moon sacrifice].” Then Rav Ashi came and explained that this is not intended as a New Moon offering but as a millu’im offering. This would be identified with the calf offered on the eighth day of the millu’im (in the time of Moses, Lev. 9:2), which was on the New Moon, as mentioned in Sabbath, chapter “Rabbi Akiva” (87b). There they said, “That day [the first of Nissan] took ten crowns [i.e., was marked by ten important events].” As they then offered the calf of the herd as a sin offering, so did they offer a bull as a sin offering in the days of Ezra. Rashi explained the Gemara thus, and we must assume that Rav Ashi was referring to the calf of the eighth day and not to the bull with which they were purifying the altar in the time of Moses all seven days of the millu’im, since the altar was already purified for seven days with a bull as a sin offering on the first day, and with a goat as a sin offering and bull and ram for a burnt offering for the next six days, as I mentioned before. As to what is written later (Ezek. 45:20), “And so shall you do on the seventh day of the month for every one that has erred or was ignorant; and you shall make atonement for the Temple,” they have already explained it there (Menachot 45a). They said [giving a completely different meaning to the passage] that “seven” refers to a case where seven of the tribes commit a sin on the basis of a wrong decision of the court) and that chodesh refers [not to the new month but] to the new [and erroneous proclamation of the court], even though the seven tribes do not constitute a majority of the population. An example would be if they [the court] declared that it was permissible to eat the forbidden animal fat. The phrase “for every one that has erred or was in ignorance” is understood to imply that the requirement of bringing for such an error of the court depends on people actually committing the sin in error. So Rav Ashi, who said that they offered millu’im in the days of Ezra, did not mean that it was for purification of the altar as Nachmanides — 152 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

had said, for it had been previously purified. And thus we have no proof from the Talmud that the dedication of the altar was a commandment for all generations. In addition, I think that what Rav Ashi said that they offered millu’im sacrifices in the days of Ezra, he did not mean that there was a commandment to bring the millu’im as was done in the time of Moses. For they brought in the Gemara (Sukkah 43a) that millu’im should be excluded, since they do not apply to future generations. He just wanted to say that they brought these millu’im because of a divine revelation [at the time]. So did Maimonides write in Hilchot Ma’aseh Hakorbanot (2:15), for the opinion of the sages is that everything done on the eighth day of the millu’im was only for that occasion. For they said in chapter “Kol Hamenachot” (Menachot 59a), concerning the meal offering of the eighth day, that one does not derive a law regarding a onetime commandment from a permanent commandment. In this commandment, one could not maintain that this refers to the amount of the sacrifice [being not comparable] but to the meal offering altogether. The same applies to all the sacrifices that were required for that day, i.e., they were not meant to be required for future times. If they were in fact offered in the days of Ezra, in accordance with Rav Ashi, then it was on account of a specific revelation [at that time] and not as a requirement of the Torah. And in chapter “Eizehu M’koman” (Zevachim 56a), concerning the verse (Lev. 8:31) “Boil the flesh at the door of the tent of meeting,” [they stated that the proper place of eating sacrifices generally cannot be derived from this instance of a millu’im offering, since] onetime offerings are different. And in chapter “T’vul Yom” (Zevachim 101a) regarding the New Moon goat offering that was burnt (Lev. 10:16), it is likewise [that they say that this verse regarding a millu’im sacrifice deals with a onetime offering and is not applicable to permanent offerings]. In fact, Rashi explains in his commentary on Ezekiel (43:10 and 43:18) that the millu’im offered in the time of Ezra is identical with the bull with which the altar was purified in the time of Moses (Exod. 29:12). This bull was the same that was sacrificed in the time of Ezra on the New Moon (Ezek. 45:18). However, it seems [to Duran] from the simple reading of the verses that the altar had been purified for seven days preceding the New Moon. But Rashi wrote that this bull mentioned on the New Moon is the same as that mentioned in the section of “telling about the Temple” (Ezek. 43:10 ff). And that which is written, “On the seventh day of the month” (Ezek. 45:20), Rashi explains as meaning — 153 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

seven consecutive days, as mentioned in the “telling of the Temple” section (Ezek. 45:25). This is not according to the opinion of the sages. And according to Rashi’s interpretation, how can he say that the verse, “And so shall you do” (Ezek. 45:20), means that the bull should be offered as a sin offering for seven days, since (in the text of chapter 45), it was only on the first day that there was a bull for a sin offering, as it is written in the section of “telling about the Temple” [i.e., on the succeeding days the sin offering was a goat, not a bull, see 45:25]. But the way Rashi explains the Gemara (Menachot 45a) is in keeping with the opinion of the sages. Rashi also explains in his commentary on Ezekiel that the goat that was to be offered was according to a specific revelation at that time. From the words of the rabbis, it seems that everything written in the book of Ezekiel happened in the time of Ezra. However, the commentators were doubtful about this, in that it might apply to the distant future. Nachmanides also claims that this [that the millu’im apply for all time] is made plausible by the verse (Lev. 7:37) “This is the law (torah) of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering (millu’im), and the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.” [Nachmanides’s reasoning is that this otherwise redundant summary verse implies that all of the sacrifices here are of the same character, i.e., applicable for all time; and they are all considered “law, i.e., torah”]. I, however, do not agree that this is the opinion of the rabbis, for they interpreted this entire verse, which they considered redundant, in chapter “Dam Chatat” (Zevachim 97b) and in chapter “Hatodah” (Menachot 82b). [They take the juxtaposition of the various sacrifices recapitulated here to mean that certain laws spelled out for a particular sacrifice apply as well to the others, as follows.] They said that just as the burnt offering requires the use of an instrument [a knife], so do all of them require the use of such an instrument. Just as the meal offerings may be eaten only by male kohanim, so all of them may be eaten only by male kohanim. Just as for the sin offering, when a piece of it becomes mixed into the peace offering meat, it causes the entire mixture to be treated according to the [higher] sanctity [i.e., that of the sin offering], so it is with all mixtures [taking on the higher sanctity]. Just as for the guilt offering, a fetus or placenta does not have the sanctity of the sacrifice, this also holds for fetus and placenta in other sacrifices. Just as for millu’im, the excess remnant of the sacrifice must — 154 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

be burnt, although if the excess is alive [this can happen if an animal is designated for an offering and is then lost, and another animal is offered in its place; if the original animal is then found, it is not to be offered and is considered excess, but] it is not to be burnt, so for all sacrifices, their excess meat is burnt, but live excess is not burnt. Just as for the peace offering, the components render each other piggul [when one has an intention to eat from a sacrifice after it has become invalid, it is called piggul, and it is forbidden to eat of it from that moment on, and the sacrifice is invalid; if one component of a sacrifice, like its meal offering, becomes piggul, then other components, like the accompanying drink offering, also become piggul], so generally for all sacrifices, the components render each other piggul. So in the opinion of the sages, this verse is needed for [the above] interpretations [and not to imply that all of these offerings are applicable for all time]. Also, just the simple sense of the verse does not demonstrate that the millu’im are forever, since at that time the millu’im had not been offered, so therefore their rules were included with those of other sacrifices that applied to future generations. Now, he [Nachmanides] quoted from Yoma (5b) regarding the procedure of putting on the priestly clothing [at their induction into the priesthood], and they said there that [the need to discuss this matter is due to the fact that] in the time of the resurrection, the milllu’im sacrifices will again be brought, when the kohanim will be consecrated. For after death, their original consecration becomes invalid, and therefore the millu’im portion applies to future generations. But this is incorrect to include this commandment among the 248 positive precepts on account of what will be renewed at the resurrection. This is also refuted by what is said in (Sukkah 43a) that millu’im does not apply to all generations. Also, it is refuted by the source quoted by Nachmanides from the Jerusalem Talmud (Shevi’it 1:1), which speaks of the sections concerning the millu’im and the generation of the flood, which could be omitted, since they will never happen again [thus the millu’im are here identified as a commandment not applicable to future generations]. As far as the renewed lives at the resurrection is concerned, the Torah will be given anew for them, and commandments that are not applicable now should not be part of the enumeration, even if they will become applicable at that time [of resurrection]. There is something to investigate about this, namely, what is taught — 155 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

in the Mishnah in chapter “Hatodah” (Menachot 7:2) that with the millu’im ram, they brought cakes like the unleavened cakes specified for the thank offering, while the Nazir offering had twice as many cakes. From this quotation, it looks like the millu’im offering was considered as a commandment for all generations. Rashi (Menachot 78b) takes care [to avoid this conclusion] by saying that this refers to the millu’im in the time of Moses. But there is still a big problem about this, for in this same chapter, the Mishnah says (7:3) that [just as when one slaughters a thank offering for another purpose, the bread does not become holy], so it is with the millu’im ram and the two lambs offered on Shavuot that if they were slaughtered for another purpose, their bread does not become holy. Now the question is raised in the Gemara (ibid., 79a) why the teacher of the Mishnah does not mention the case of the Nazir ram, which is commonplace, and does mention the case of the millu’im ram. The answer is given that the teacher gave preference [to the case of the millu’im ram], since it is the original instance [of a bread offering]. Now from this language, it looks like it (millu’im) is for all generations, although not common like the ram of a Nazir. For if it were not at all applicable to the future at all, they should have said, “Why does the teacher neglect the ram of a Nazir, which applies to all generations and speaks instead about the millu’im ram, which was only for one time and then was whatever it was.” That is how it should have read. And Rashi commented there [on the Gemara’s answer] that it (millu’im) is the initial offering for all offerings. It would seem from his words that this would be a permanent commandment, whenever there would be [a new] beginning of sacrifices, that there should be a millu’im ram. But we have not found either for Solomon’s inaugural [of the first temple] or for the second temple that they brought such a milllu’im ram, which was in the form of a peace offering and which needed an accompanying bread offering. Also, such a thing is not mentioned in the words of Ezekiel. Also, we would have to harmonize this [the inference from Rashi that millu’im applies to all generations] with what is stated in Sukkah that millu’im does not apply to future generations. Now I found in Zevachim, chapter 1 (9b) that if one slaughtered a regular sin offering but designated it for a millu’im sin offering, it is invalid. The question is raised why this statement was not made about (designating as) a Nazir sin offering or a leper’s sin offering. [The answer is given that the example of a millu’im sin offering was chosen, since] it was the original instance of a sin of— 156 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

fering. This shows that the sin offering of Nachshon and the millu’im ram are alike, and [in both cases] the Talmud does not mention [the objection] that the original instance of the offering was cited [which according to the inference from Rashi would mean that it applied in the future for a new resumption of the sacrificial service]. However this may be resolved, it does not rectify the words of Halachot Gedolot at all, since this (millu’im) ram is not a dedication for the altar [it is rather a dedication for the kohanim], and Nachmanides who is defending him [Halachot Gedolot] did not alert himself to defend him [on this point]. 51. Peace-offerings and meal-offerings, and burnt-offerings and [other] offerings; And three gifts specified for the holidays. I have already explained (Stanza 45) how the rituals of the temple should be enumerated, that they are five commandments, and here are given the individual rituals. Gifts (manot) indicates meal offerings. Burnt offerings and [other] offerings are the other sacrifices, like sin offerings and guilt offerings. The commentator on the Azharot included here two other commandments. One is that every animal sacrifice should be without blemish, and no one disputes this. But in chapter “Oto V’et B’no” (Chullin 80b), it is said, “Leave out the case of an animal that is not old enough (to be valid for sacrifice), for Scripture attaches it to a positive statement (which makes it not comparable to another commandment under consideration).” This is of the nature of a prohibition derived from a positive statement. For it states there in the Gemara that the verse (Lev. 22:27) “From the eighth day and thereafter it is acceptable,” which implies that before that it is prohibited, and a prohibition derived from a positive statement is counted as a positive commandment. Another wording there states that “it is an attachment to the positive statement,” but it all amounts to the same thing, that during the first seven days, when it is not old enough, there is a prohibition of the nature of a positive commandment. Now, I wonder why they did not count [as a prohibition derived from a positive statement] the designation of an unblemished animal for maintenance of the temple, for this transgresses a positive commandment. In the first chapter of Temurah (7b), they derive this from the verse (Lev. 22:23) “You may present as a freewill offering that with an — 157 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

extended or contracted limb,” which implies that blemished animals may be offered for maintenance of the temple, but not blemishless animals; and a prohibition derived from a positive statement is considered a positive commandment. And in chapter “Yesh B’kodshei Mizbeach” (Temurah 33b), it is stated that if one designated an unblemished animal for the temple maintenance and redeemed it, that animal does not leave the status of being bound to the sacrificial altar. Now, I need to examine and analyze this statement.48 Also, I wonder why one should not enumerate the commandment regarding leaving fats of sacrifices on the floor for a whole night [rather than burning them on the altar]. This is stated in the form of a positive commandment [implying a prohibition] aside from the explicit negative commandment, as mentioned in the first chapter of Chagiga (10b). There is also a commandment to offer blemishless animals for [a sacrifice on] the altar, for in the Sifre, they stated that the verse (Lev. 22:21) “It shall be perfect to be accepted” is a positive commandment. Also, Nachmanides adds a commandment here that all animals that may be sacrificed are from the cattle, sheep, and goats. And in Tractate Zevachim (34a), it is stated that if one offers the limbs of a wild animal as a sacrifice, according to Rabbi Yochanan, he transgresses a positive commandment. For when Scripture states “cattle,” it means to exclude a wild animal, and a prohibition derived from a positive commandment is considered equivalent to a positive statement. Resh Lakish disagrees with him [Rabbi Yochanan], but his words are refuted, and Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion was upheld. This is what Nachmanides wrote; but he need not have gone so far, since even Resh Lakish agrees that if one offers up the limbs of an impure animal, [it is forbidden since Scripture specifies] a pure animal, which implies no impure animal, and a prohibition derived from a positive statement is considered as a positive commandment. Maimonides wrote this commandment in his Yad Hachazakah (Issurei Mizbe’ach 5:6), although he did not make of this an enumerated specific commandment. And three gifts specified for the holidays. I have explained previously (Stanza 28) that these are [the burnt offerings of] appearing [at the temple on the festival] the [peace offering of] rejoicing and the festi48 The problem presented by this citation and its relevance in our context is not evident, but it is discussed in Perlow’s work on Sa’adya Gaon’s enumeration. — 158 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

val offering. Above (Stanza 28) two [the festival and rejoicing offerings] are listed, and below (Stanza 55), the third one is listed, “To appear and go up.” 52. To lead the omer, and the Sabbath lamp shall shine, And the section of hakhel, and judges and officials. The commandment of waving the omer sheaf is enumerated, and it is mentioned in the verse (Lev. 2:14) “And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits.” It is said in Menachot (72a) that harvesting the omer overrides the Sabbath, since it is a commandment. It is also written (Exod. 34:21), “At plowing and harvesting you shall cease from labor” [where harvesting here refers to optional harvesting], since just as plowing is an optional act, so harvesting [here] is optional, which excludes harvesting the omer, which is an obligation [and thus is not precluded by Sabbath resting]. Nevertheless, we do not count separately harvesting the omer as one commandment and waving it as another, as is known from the principles (No. 10), for it is the final goal that is counted, not the preparations leading to it. To lead (l’nahel) means waving it, and this constitutes the commandment. The Sabbath lamp shall shine is not to be enumerated according to Maimonides, since it is a rabbinic law to make the house peaceful. And the section of hakhel (assemble). It is a positive commandment to assemble on the holiday of Sukkot following the shemitta [year of release], as it is said (Deut. 31:12), “Gather the people.” And in the first chapter of Kiddushin (34a), they said that, although hakhel is a timedependent positive commandment, women are bound by it; so it is clear that this is a commandment that is enumerated. And judges and officials means appointing the Sanhedrin; this being a commandment applicable to all generations, as they said (Vayikra Rabba 2:2) concerning the verse (Num. 11:16) “Gather for me seventy men,” that whenever the word li (for Me or to Me) is used, it is a permanent institution, as in Exodus (40:15), “They shall minister to Me, etc.” It also is stated (Deut. 16:18), “You shall appoint judges and officials in all your gates.” It is also a positive commandment to obey them, as it says (Deut. 17:10), “And you shall act according to the decision that they give you, etc.” Now Maimonides included in his enumeration that one must follow — 159 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

the opinion of the majority, and he cites as proof their statement (Bava Batra 23b) that majority rule is from the Torah. If Maimonides had not said this, I would have said that this is one detail of the rules of judges that comprise judging rightly, and the rightful thing is to follow the majority decision. The fact that they say that the majority rule is from the Torah is indeed so, but this does not mean that it must be separately enumerated. For it is stated in the first chapter of Sukkah (6a) that the laws of intervening objects, which prevent proper rinsing, are from the Torah. It also says in chapter “Hamadir” (Ketubot 72a) that the prohibition against a woman leaving her hair unbound is from the Torah. Still these laws are not enumerated. And in Nazir, chapter “Sheloshah Minnin” (42a), in connection with what is said that if a recovered “leper” would shave but neglect to shave two hairs, his shaving is invalid, as it is said (Lev. 14:9), “All his hair,” they stated that this implies that the majority being tantamount to the entirety is a Torah law. This means that, since the Torah had to specify “all his hair” in order to say that one must not neglect even two hairs, it follows that if not for that [verse], we would have said that the majority is equivalent to the entirety [according to Torah law]. Nevertheless, it would not have been considered an enumerated commandment, even though they said that it is a Torah law. Similarly, when they said that the law of majority [opinion being decisive] is a Torah law, it does not imply that it should be included among the enumerated commandments. 53. To investigate quarrels, capital cases and monetary cases, And the laws of the four main types of damage, about which one must be heedful. To investigate quarrels. It is a positive commandment to investigate witnesses, as it is said (Deut. 13:15), “You shall investigate and inquire and interrogate thoroughly.” Also, the witnesses themselves must testify in court, and this is a positive enumerated commandment, as it is said (Lev. 5:1), “He being a witness,” [which implies] that he must be a witness in a way that justice will be fulfilled by his testimony.49 And in chapter “Shevuat Ha’edut” (Shevuot 30a), they interpret the verse (Deut. 19:17) “The two persons engaged in the dispute shall stand before the 49 Considering Lev. 5:1 as equivalent to a positive commandment to give testimony is not obvious. This difficulty is discussed by Radbaz on Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Edut 1:1. — 160 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

Lord” as applying to the two witnesses. They further say there (30b) that a scholar is not required to testify while standing, even though [generally] it is a positive commandment to testify while standing, because there is a positive commandment [to testify standing], and another positive commandment [to honor a scholar], and the honor toward the Torah takes precedence. [The phrasing in this last citation suggests that testifying is a positive commandment]. Capital cases and monetary cases. He includes here both capital and monetary matters, the word ma’aravot meaning monetary matters, as in the verse (Ezek. 27:23) “With the multitude of your riches and your merchandise (ma’aravecha).” There are herein a number of laws enumerated as separate commandments. One must administer whipping to the guilty person, as it is said (Deut. 25:2), “The magistrate shall have him lie down and be given lashes in his presence.” One must put the guilty person to death when required, and Maimonides considered this as four separate commandments, stoning, burning, slaying by sword, and strangulation. He cites a proof (fourteenth principle) from the terminology in Sanhedrin (49b, 52a), “The commandment regarding those to be executed by burning” and “the commandment regarding those to be executed by stoning.” But this is no proof, for they are just describing the manner of performing the commandment, and this does not imply that each is a separate commandment. Maimonides himself wrote (Positive Commandment 171) that it is not right to separately count numbering days [of the Omer] and counting the weeks, even though it is stated (Menachot 66a) that it is a commandment to count the days, and it is a commandment to count the weeks. And Maimonides said [about that] that regarding any part of a commandment having many parts, it is a commandment to perform that part [although it is not a separate commandment]. So why does Maimonides not say the same thing here? Nevertheless [although there is no proof to number the various death penalties separately], it is proof to contradict the words of the Gaon, who does not list this commandment [altogether]. Nachmanides also agrees to number them as a commandment [collectively]. He cites as proof what is said in Yevamot (7a) that [one might think that] execution should supersede [resting on] the Sabbath by arguing from minor to major [i.e., execution by the court is a positive commandment, which supersedes the prohibition requiring resting on the Sabbath. The quotation from the Gemara given here is confused]. — 161 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

The opinion of Nachmanides is that all executions are combined into a single commandment, from the verse (Deut. 17:7) “You shall remove evil from your midst.” He cites as proof the statement in the last chapter of Chullin (140a) that if a bird killed a person, it must be brought to the court to fulfill the verse (Deut. 13:6 and several other places) “And you shall remove the evil from your midst.” And Nachmanides said that this does not mean that it is not [just] this bird [in particular] is condemned to death by “and you shall remove the evil from your midst” as well as by “the ox shall surely be stoned (Exod. 21:28)” [but all types of death penalty are covered by that verse]. There is another case in Sanhedrin, chapter “Elu Hen Hanisraphin” (78a), that a terefah [one whose disease or injury will cause his death soon] who has committed an unnatural sex act [although not punishable by death by normal judicial procedure] is subject to capital punishment if [he committed the deed] in the presence of the court, on the basis of the verse, “And you shall remove the evil from your midst.” And [again here] it is not [just] the person who did this sexual act who is covered by the verse, “And you shall remove . . .” but all who are subject to the death penalty are included in the verse, “And you shall remove the evil from your midst.” The fact that some are executed by stoning, some by burning, some by the sword, and some by strangulation is a detail of the commandment. Along with this, there is one [other] commandment, i.e., to exile the [unintentional] murderer. Also to be enumerated is the commandment to hang [the body of the executed murderer] on a tree, when he is subject to hanging. Nachmanides (Additional Commandment 13) added the commandment that the blood-avenging kinsman must slay the murderer, and if he [the murder victim] has no kinsman, the court appoints another person selected by them to pursue the murderer and kill him. This is from the statement (Num. 35:19) “The blood-avenging kinsman shall slay the murderer.” And in the sixth chapter of Sanhedrin (45b), they stated that the verse, “The blood-avenging kinsman shall slay the murderer,” means that this is a commandment incumbent upon the blood-avenging kinsman. And from where is it derived that if there is no blood-avenging kinsman then the court appoints an avenger? It is from the verse (Num. 35:21) “Upon encountering him” [these otherwise superfluous words implying] whatever the origin [of the blood-avenger] may be. And [Nachmanides continues] there is a commentator [Rashi on Sanhedrin 45b] who applies this to an unintentional murderer — 162 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

who went outside his city of refuge. But according to this, it would not constitute a commandment, since this case is disputed by Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Akiva; Rabbi Yose saying that it is a commandment for the blood-avenging kinsman [to kill the escapee] and permissible for any other person, whereas Rabbi Akiva says that it is permissible for the blood-avenging kinsman, and any other person [although not given permission to kill the escapee] does not incur any punishment thereby; and the law was decided according to Rabbi Akiva. And [in continuation] Nachmanides wrote that this is how Maimonides reasoned [that it involves the unintentional murderer who ventured outside his city of refuge], and on account of this [and in agreement with Rabbi Akiva who says that it is in no way a commandment to kill him], Maimonides does not enumerate it. However, Nachmanides continues this assumption is incorrect, for this verse, “the blood-avenging kinsman shall slay the murderer,” actually applies to an intentional murderer, and the argument of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose is about an unintentional murderer. Therefore, what the rabbis derived from this verse is the law, and there is no difference of opinion [and consequently it is appropriate to consider this verse as a positive commandment, as Nachmanides said, and this concludes the presentation of Nachmanides’s discussion in his additional commandment No. 13]. But I would say [unlike Nachmanides] that Maimonides did not include this commandment [not because he thought that our verse is dealing with the case of an unintentional murderer, but] because it is included in the commandment of those who are executed by the sword. Also, according to Nachmanides’s opinion [who does not enumerate a commandment for execution by sword], one should not introduce this [the law of the blood-avenger] into the enumeration, since it also is included in the commandment “and you shall remove the evil.” Now Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah, recorded this obligation [of the blood avenger] in the beginning of Hilchot Rotze’ach (1:2), even though he [Nachmanides] suspected him about this [i.e., he here theorized that Maimonides held that this verse referred to an unintentional murderer], while the [actual] reason why he does not enumerate it is [not because there is no obligation, but] because it is included under the commandment of those to be executed by the sword, and the blood avenger is the agent of the court in this case, just as are the witnesses in other capital cases. And I am astounded by Nachmanides concerning this. — 163 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

Now, regarding the total number of ma’aravot, i.e., civil laws, I have previously written (Stanza 15) that Nachmanides wrote (principle 14) that it seemed right to him to include all of them in a single commandment, but I observed that he desired to count each particular part. Maimonides listed them as follows: the first is to carry out the law of an unpaid guardian; the second is the law of a paid guardian or renter; the third is the law of the borrower, for the sages said that there are four guardians, but three regulations [since the same regulation applies to both the paid guardian and a renter]. The fourth law is about buying and selling. The fifth law is about claims. And the sixth law is about theft. And the laws of the four main types of damage. These are (Maimonides’s nos. 237, 238, 240, 241) four enumerated commandments: the case of the ox, the case of a pit, the case of a fire, and the case of a crop-destroying beast. In the language of the Mishnah (Bava Kamma 1:1), “There are four main types of damage.” [Actually avot (main types)] is masculine gender, but the poet treated it as feminine [by using the feminine adjective arba], and this is not correct. But all these moneyrelated commandments, which add up to ten, in my view, are just one commandment, which is to judge righteously, and the righteousness for us is exactly what the Torah proclaims. 54. Defining and calculating the months of the year; And the dues for the priesthood, which are twenty four. This is the commandment of determining the New Moon, as it is said (Exod. 12:2), “This month for you is the first of months.” Now this commandment depends on a court of mumchin [experts having the original semichah ordination] who would sanctify the New Moon [i.e., officially declare the first day of the new month] by observation, giving the months a specific length (ketzev), either twenty-nine or thirty days, as is mentioned in Rosh Hashanah (24a) and in Sanhedrin (11a) and in Arachin (9a). But nowadays, since we have no experts ordained [in the chain extending] till Moses our Master, we depend for the determination of the extra time length, whether that involved in declaring the New Moon [thirty v. twenty-nine days], or that involved in the leap year [intercalating an extra month in certain years], on the calculation of Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Judah Nesiah, the son of Rabbi Gamliel, the son of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, i.e., our holy rabbi [a common designa— 164 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

tion of Rabbi Judah Hanasi]. He [Rabbi Judah Nesiah] lived in the time of Abbaye and Rava, and when he saw that [the chain of] semicha was becoming extinct, and on account of the extinction of the semichah the holidays might become extinct, as indeed the laws of fines had become extinct [since these laws were also dependent on ordained sages], he instituted this calculation, which we utilize in the Diaspora until Elijah will come, when we will return to our determination [of months and leap years] by observation. And the dues for the priesthood, which are twenty four. These are listed in Chullin, chapter “Haz’ro’a” (133b) and in chapter “Hagozel Etzim” (Bava Kamma 110b). Ten of these [are permitted to be eaten only] in the temple; ten of them within all the land of Israel; and four only within Jerusalem. The ten [edible] in the temple are the sin offering, the fowl sin offering, the guilt offering for definite sins, the guilt offering for possibly wrongful acts, the communal peace offering, the log of oil with the “leper’s” offering, the excess for the omer offering, the two loaves [on Shavuot], the showbread, and the remainder of meal offerings. The ten [edible] in the whole land of Israel are terumah, the Kohen’s portion of the Levites’ tithe, the challah portion, the redemption money of the firstborn son, the [lamb used as redemption for] a firstborn donkey, the first of the wool shearing, the shoulders, cheeks, and stomach portions of sacrifices, the [unredeemed dedicated] field of one’s holding [which after the Jubilee is distributed to the kohanim], a field contributed as a herem, and the restitution for robbing a convert [who died without heirs]. The four in Jerusalem are the firstborn animals, the first fruits, the kohen’s portion from thank offerings, from peace offerings, and from the ram of a “leper,” and the skin of holy sacrifices. Now Maimonides counts as a commandment to eat the leftover portions of the meal offerings from the language of the Sifre (Tzav 30:9) that the verse (Lev. 6:9) “And that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat; it shall be eaten without leaven” constitutes a commandment. [Maimonides explains further in Positive Commandment 88 that] a similar case is “her husband’s brother shall go in unto her” (Deut. 25:5), which is a commandment; and as the levirate marriage is a commandment, so should we include this eating in the enumeration. He also counted (Positive Commandment No. 89) the commandment for the kohen to eat the consecrated offerings. For they said in the Sifra — 165 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

(Shemini 54:4) that we derive that the [the kohen] eating consecrated offerings provides atonement for the Israelite from the verse (Lev. 10:17) “And He has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement.” “How is this?” [the Sifra asks, and it replies] that when the kohanim have eaten, the owners [of the sacrifice] receive atonement. They also said there (Sifrei Korach 14) that the verse (Num. 18:7) “I make your priesthood as a service of gift” implies that eating consecrated offerings in the whole [land of] Israel should be similar to the temple service in the sanctuary; just as one cleans one’s hands before one performs the temple service in the sanctuary; so for eating consecrated offerings in the whole of Israel, first one cleans one’s hands and then he eats.50 Now, I have another commandment here, which is that when meat from a sin offering is intermingled with ordinary meat or peace offering meat [whose regulations are less restrictive], the latter is treated with its greater sanctity [that of the sin offering]. I derive this from the saying in chapter “Dam Chatat” (Zevachim 97b), which understands the verse (Lev. 6:20) “Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy” as meaning that it becomes like it [the sin offering meat], such that if it [the sin offering] is invalid, it [the other intermingled meat] is also invalid. The question is raised there as to why this is so [in a case where the mixed-in meat is, say, from a peace offering, which in itself is valid, but the sin offering is invalid, why does the mixing make the peace offering meat invalid?], since the positive commandment [of eating the peace offering] should supersede the prohibition [against eating sacrificial meat]. The discussion concludes with Rav Ashi saying that the [prohibition also involves] the positive commandment of “shall be holy” (Lev. 6:20), and the positive commandment of [eating the peace offering] does not override a positive commandment with a negative commandment [thus showing that the expression “shall be holy” is construed as a positive commandment]. So I wonder why they [previous scholars] did not take note of this, and it needs investigation. Now, Nachmanides added (Additional Commandment No. 2) regarding eating impure terumah, such that if one eats impure terumah, he transgresses a positive commandment. He brings proof from what is stated in Gemara, chapter “He’arel” (73b) that in the case of second 50 I do not see the relevance of the last quotation. — 166 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

tithe and first fruits, if one eats these when they are impure, he incurs whipping; however, in the case of impure terumah, he is not whipped, although this is prohibited. From where does it [this prohibition] come? [The Gemara answers] that it is from the verse (Deut. 15:22) “In your gates you shall eat it, etc.” [i.e., meat of a firstborn animal may be eaten without regard to impurity, but this rule applies only] to it [i.e., firstborn meat] but not to another case [i.e., terumah]. And a prohibition derived from a positive statement has the force of a positive commandment. Likewise, they brought this derivation in the Yeushalmi, Tractate Bikkurim, chapter 2 (Halachah 2). Also, I found another proof from what is stated in chapter “Kol Habasar” (Chullin 113b) that an impure kohen who ate impure terumah does not incur the punishment of [divinely ordained] death [as he would if he had eaten pure terumah]. They explain there the prohibition [of a kohen eating terumah] while his body is impure is not applicable in addition to the prohibition of eating terumah, which is itself impure, the prohibition being this positive commandment (Deut. 15:22 mentioned above]; and thus did Rashi explain [the Gemara] there. It appears that eating pure terumah is a commandment, just as eating second tithe is. For it is taught in Torat Kohanim in the Parshah of Acharei Mot (Sifra 72:3, which discusses the characteristics of various classes of food that might affect the likelihood of their inclusion in the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur), “I would include ordinary food, since there is not a commandment to eat it, but exclude terumah and Second Tithe which we are commanded to eat.” This is quoted in the Gemara in the last chapter of Yoma (74b). That is what I think. It is also taught in the Sifrre [actually Yalkut Shimoni Korach 754] that it was told about Rabbi Tarfon [who was a kohen] that when he ate terumah in the morning, he would say, “I have offered the morning daily sacrifice”; and when he ate it in the evening, he would say, “I have offered the daily evening sacrifice.” And in Pesachim, chapter “Elu Devarim” (72b), they ask where terumah is referred to as divine service. [They reply] that it is taught that when Rabbi Tarfon once failed to come to the house of study on the previous day, Rabban Gamliel asked him in the morning why he had not come to the house of study. He replied, “I was doing the temple service.” He said, “Your words are perplexing; is there any temple service nowadays?” He [Rabbi Tarfon] then cited the verse (Num. 18:7) “I give you the priesthood a service of gift, and an — 167 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

outsider who encroaches shall be put to death” as implying that eating terumah [even] in the territories [outside of Jerusalem] is equated to the temple service [from the expression a “service of gift,” that the gift of terumah to the kohen is considered as a service]. Maimonides did not neglect this commandment but included it with eating sacrificial meat (Positive Commandment No. 89). Nevertheless, one would plausibly make a separate commandment here [regarding terumah], which is a prohibition derived from a positive statement [which has the force of a positive commandment]. This is stated in chapter “Almanah L’kohen Gadol” (Yevamot 68a) concerning the daughter of a kohen who had been married to an Israelite and then (Lev. 22:13) “returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread.” [Implied is that] before this [while married to the non-kohen] she may not eat [terumah], and a prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the character of a positive commandment. Now, with regard to all of the gifts due to the kohen, Maimonides wrote in his twelfth principle that one of the earlier scholars had erred by enumerating the twenty-four priestly commandments as twentyfour distinct commandments, after having counted several of the commandments of which these portions are a part. Examples are the skin of the burnt offering and the breast and shoulder [of peace offerings]. On this account, he [Maimonides] counts the removal [of the priestly portions, e.g., terumah] as the commandment rather than giving it [to the kohen]. But Nachmanides thinks that one should make a distinction in this matter that there are portions where the separation is a commandment, and the giving is a commandment. The reasoning according to his opinion is that there are instances of the tevel type, i.e., that it is forbidden to eat the produce until the priestly portions are removed; and in such instances, we should count the separation as a commandment and the giving as a [separate] commandment. An example of this is challah, since all of the dough is forbidden until challah is separated from it; and there is also a commandment in the separation, as it is said (Num. 15:20), “You shall set apart a cake for a gift.” Whether this is given to the kohen or burned up, this commandment has been fulfilled, and the dough becomes permissible for food. Therefore, a second commandment enters into giving it to the kohen, and we should not rob it from the kohen, as it is said (Num. 15:21), “Of the first of your dough — 168 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ———————————————— *The following several you shall give unto the Lord a gift portion.”* paragraphs continue A similar case [continues Duran] is that of to paraphrase Nachmanides on terumah, as it is said in the Sifre in Sh’lach 24 [conprinciple 12, with cerning the verses], “You shall set aside a gift poroccasional insertions tion (terumah) unto the Lord” (Num. 15:19), and by Duran. “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake (challah) as a gift offering (terumah)” (ibid., v. 20). [The question is raised whether in the first] verse “terumah” refers to the “great terumah” [which is separated from the crops, and which is also known simply as terumah], or does it refer to the terumah [gift portion] of challah. [The reply is that] when Scripture says (v. 20), “You shall set apart a cake (challah) as a gift offering,” the gift portion of challah has already been stated, and the verse (19) “You shall separate a gift offering to the Lord” is used to refer to the “great terumah.” This was the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiah. Rabbi Yonatan said that the verse (Deut. 18:4) “The first of your grain, wine, and oil (i.e., terumah) is a duty.” How does one know that it is a duty and not just a permissive statement? It is from the verse, “You shall separate a gift offering to the Lord,” which expresses duty, not permission.51 Since the setting aside of terumah constitutes a commandment, one must recite a blessing upon its separation, as explained in Terumot (1:1) and in the Tosefta Berachot (6:19). If the commandment was only in the giving and not in its separation, there would be no blessing for the separation, since they said (Menachot 42b) that one does not recite a benediction for something whose performance does not constitute the completion of that commandment. Also, kohanim separate terumah, reciting a blessing for that, although it is for their own use, as stated in the first chapter of Bechorot and in chapter “Yesh Bechor,” and so did Rashi write there52. And in the case of impure challah, a blessing is recited upon separating it, even though it is not given to the kohanim, as is explained in the Gemara Bechorot (27a). So [in summary] the separation of terumah is a commandment, and giving it is another commandment from the verse (Deut. 18:4) “You shall give to him.” Likewise, the

51 The words attributed to Rabbi Yonatan are not readily understood, since the simple sense of Deut. 18:4 is that this is definitely a duty. Also, there are textual variants of this quotation from Sifre. In any event, Nachmanides sees from the Sifre that the setting aside of terumah is in itself a commandment. 52 These references are not found in Nachmanides, but were added by Duran and are questionable; see note by Perlow on Zohar Harakia. — 169 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

separation or challah is from the verse (Num. 15:19) “You shall set aside a gift portion to the Lord,” and giving it is a [separate] commandment from the verse (Num. 15:2) “Of the first of your dough you shall give unto the Lord a gift portion.” Likewise, in the case of first tithe, we should count setting it aside as a commandment from the verse (Deut. 24:22) “You shall surely tithe,” as I wrote previously (Stanza 34). And giving it [to the Levite] is [another] commandment, i.e. (Deut. 26:12), “And you shall give it to the Levite, the stranger, to the orphan, and the widow.” This [latter verse] includes two commandments, giving first tithe to the Levite, and the poor tithe [and/or second tithe] to the stranger, orphan, and widow; however, according to what I wrote in the principles (No. 9), they are counted only as one commandment, since they were stated in a single statement. But for those priestly portions that do not render the produce forbidden, like tevel [before separation], only giving them should be counted. Therefore, one should count the first wool shearing as one commandment, and the shoulders, cheeks, and stomach as another commandment. This is in accord with the straightforward meaning of the verse (Deut. 18:3) “And he shall give the kohen the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach” and (ibid., v. 4) “The first shearing of your sheep you shall give to him.” One does not recite a blessing upon setting these things apart. However, the priestly portions [of sacrifices] in the temple, like the breast and shoulder, as I explained previously (Stanza 47), are not to be counted [separately], since there is no commandment to give them; but they [kohanim] have the right to these things “from the table on high,” and they constitute parts of the performance of the sacrifices. For it is commanded as to who should eat them and to whom they belong, and upon this, the atonement [of the donors of the sacrifices] depends, as it is said (Pesachim 59b) that as long as the kohanim have not eaten the [sin offering] meat, the donor has not received atonement, as it is written (Exod. 29:33), “And they shall eat those things by which atonement was made.” Thus, these [portions] actually are [constituents of] the sacrifice. With this understanding, we enumerate additionally separation of the challah portion, separation of terumah, separation of the first tithe and also second tithe and also the poor tithe. All of the above Nachmanides wrote. He did not, however, make it clear whether he would delete from the enumeration the commandments of eating leftovers of meal offer— 170 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

ings and eating sacrifices; and I have already written about this in the stanza (No. 35, which begins) “My sacred portions.” Nachmanides added another commandment (Additional Positive Commandment No. 9) that we should separate terumah of good quality, not from poor quality, leaving behind the good quality; likewise for Levites when they separate their terumah from their tithe produce. For the Sifre states (Korach 67:29) that the verse (Num. 18:29) “Of all that is given you, you shall set apart all that which is due unto the Lord, of all the best thereof, that which is to be consecrated” applies to the “great terumah” [i.e., regular terumah]. And the verse (ibid., v. 30) “And you shall say to them: ‘When you set apart the best thereof from it’” is a prohibition for the Levites that they should only set aside [the priestly portion] from the best produce (Sifre Korach, 69). Nachmanides says that this commandment is separate from the commandment of separation (of terumah), for if one sets apart bad (grain as terumah) for high quality (remaining grain), the terumah is still valid, as stated in chapter 1 of Temurah (5a); but the person is guilty of neglecting this positive commandment, in that he did not set aside high-quality grain. However, with regard to the actual enumeration of the priestly portions, he agreed with Maimonides’s enumeration, and I did not see that he mentioned them [as separate commandments to set aside priestly portions, as well as giving them to the kohen] among his addenda [to Maimonides’s] enumeration. 55. And to calculate [the supplements of] the cycles, and to light the Chanukah lamp, And to appear and go up with both tithes. The Gaon counted computations of [astronomical] cycles as a commandment, but Maimonides criticized him in his second principle. He said that it was meant as a midrashic interpretation when they discussed (Sabbath 75a) the verse (Deut. 4:6) “For it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations.” [They asked as to] what is the meaning of “wisdom in the eyes of the nations,” [and they replied that] it is computation of [astronomical] cycles and planetary motions. But this is not what the Gaon meant, for the rabbinic statement was meant to urge those who know astronomy to make calculations in order to be aware of coming events. This is similar to what they said (Sabbath 75a) that if one knows how to make the calculations about [astronomi— 171 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

cal] cycles and planets, but does not do so, Scripture says of him, “They do not look at the work of the Lord” (Isa. 5:12). Also, concerning this, they said (Avot 3:23) that [astronomical] cycles and geometry are ancillary wisdom. But the Gaon does not specify “[astronomical] cycles and planetary motions” [he just says “cycles”], but he meant to include in the enumeration of positive commandments the computation of cycles regarding leap years. This is a commandment based on the verse (Deut. 16:1) “Observe the month of Abib.” It is a positive commandment, in accordance with the statement (Eruvin 96a) that “observe” (Heb. shamor) is a positive commandment when used regarding a positive action. Concerning this, it is stated in the Gemara Rosh Hashanah that when one sees the Tevet period [of the solar year] extending to the sixteenth of Nissan, it should be made into a leap year without hesitation. Now, Maimonides included this [determination of the leap year] together with the sanctification of the New Moon. But the Gaon made this into two commandments [fixing the day of the New Moon and declaring a leap year]. And Nachmanides found a proof that they are two separated commandments from what is stated in Sifre (Ha’azinu 1) that the verse (Deut. 32:1) “Listen, you heavens,” [means to bear witness against Israel when] they do not obey those commandments, which are determined by the heavens. And these are commandments given to them, which are determined by the heavens: determining leap years and sanctifying the New Moon, as it is said (Gen. 1:14) “And they shall be for signs and seasons, etc.” [The Sifre continues] that the verse (Deut. 32:1) “And let the earth hear,” [means to bear witness against Israel when] they do not perform those commandments given to them, which are connected with the earth. And these are the ones given to them that are connected with the earth: the dropped sheaf, the forgotten sheaf, the edge of the field, terumah portions, tithes, sabbatical years, and jubilee years. Therefore, [on the basis of the Sifre citation] he counted them as two [commandments]. And to light the Chanukah lamp is a rabbinical commandment, and I wrote above (first principle) about the argument about counting them. And to appear and go up. This is the third commandment, which we were commanded for the pilgrim festivals, i.e., the burnt offering of appearing (olat re’iyah), the joyful offering, and the festival offering. These were explained above (Stanza 28). — 172 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

With both tithes, i.e., second tithe and cattle tithe; and the commandment is to eat them in Jerusalem. I have already recorded these commandments (Stanza 34). 56. To make the chomoshim pleasant, and also to be holy, And to immerse those set apart at specified times. To make the chomoshim pleasant. Some explain this as referring to writing a Torah scroll, which I have recorded above (Stanza 30). The meaning of chomoshim would be the five books of the Torah, and [the meaning would be] that they should be written pleasantly. But the Gaon wrote, “Returning lost articles, making restitution for robbery, and the five additional fifth surcharges,” these five cases being found in the Mishnah, chapter “Hazahav” (Bava Metzia 4:8). So the meaning would be to pay these five surcharges of one fifth, as they are listed there. The first is if [an Israelite mistakenly] ate terumah, terumah of the Levite tithe, terumah of doubtful Levite tithe, the challah dough portion, and first fruits [all of which are priestly portions forbidden to a non-kohen], he must add a surcharge of a fifth [when he replaces it]. Maimonides counts this in his enumeration of the commandments (No. 118). The second case is that one who redeems fruits of the fourth year [after planting] or second tithe [which must be eaten in Jerusalem; but if it is burdensome to transport it to Jerusalem, one may redeem them for money and, upon arrival in Jerusalem, purchase food to eat in Jerusalem] must add a surcharge of a fifth. The third case is if one wants to redeem [a field], which he had dedicated [as temple property], he must add a fifth. The fourth case is when one makes [unintentional] use of dedicated property, he must add a fifth [to his restitution]. And that case is recorded by Maimonides together with terumah. The fifth case is if one robs from his fellow a perutah [or more in value] and had made an oath [denying the robbery], he adds a fifth [in restitution after subsequently confessing his guilt]. These latter cases [of adding a fifth] should not be separately added, since they are details and portions of other commandments, and the totality of a commandment should be listed, not its parts, as is known from the principles (twelfth principle). And also to be holy. Maimonides criticized (principle 4) the Gaon for counting (Lev. 19:2) “You shall be holy,” for he said that this is one of the commandments encompassing the whole Torah, and these are not eligible for enumeration. And thus they said in the Sifre (Kedoshim — 173 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

1:2) that “you shall be holy” means “you shall be separated [from sin].” But Nachmanides defended him [Halachot Gedolot] in that he did not mean to enumerate “you shall be holy,” but the verse (Lev. 11:44) “and you shall sanctify yourselves.” He explained that this latter verse is not a generalized commandment, but a particular admonition to abstain from eating swarming and crawling things, for it is written thus (ibid.), “You shall sanctify yourselves and not defile yourselves with every swarming thing that crawls on the earth.” According to this, one who keeps away from eating them fulfills a particular commandment about them, and that is the commandment of holiness. But in his actual enumeration, Nachmanides agreed with Maimonides. But I think that the Gaon meant to include washing one’s hands in the enumeration of the commandments, similar to [his enumeration of] reading the Megillah, and [lighting] the Chanukah lamp, since we recite upon performing] them [the benediction] “who has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us.” Now Maimonides raised an objection against him [the Gaon] as to why he did not also enumerate washing the hands and the [law of eruv] for which we [also] recite such a blessing. Nachmanides defended him in that, since he [the Gaon in Halachot Gedolot] had enumerated the law forbidding eating terumah while impure, he did not have to count washing the hands, which is a preventive enactment attached to the law of terumah. And he gave the same explanation for the law of eruv, that it is included in the law of Sabbath, so that we should not come to [the prohibited action on the Sabbath of] carrying things from one domain to another. Concerning the law of eruv, it is possible that his words are plausible; but in the case of washing hands, since this [the enactment of washing] applies to regular food, while that [law forbidding eating in a state of impurity] applies to terumah, I [would rather] say that the verse “and you shall sanctify yourselves,” which he wrote, refers to washing the hands. For it is from here that the sages interpreted that the rule of washing before eating is from “and you shall sanctify yourselves,” while the rule of washing after meals is from “and you shall be holy (Lev. 11:44),” [as stated] in chapter 8 of Berachot (53b). I wrote previously that there is a commandment for kohanim to be holy, which can be counted, and perhaps the Gaon had this in mind. And to immerse those set apart [as impure] at specified times. When the impure person immerses himself at the time specified for him, i.e., — 174 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

either on that day [when he became defiled] or on the seventh day, whatever is specified in the Torah, he has fulfilled a commandment. Therefore, one recites the blessing “concerning immersion.” There is an authority in the Talmud (Niddah 30a) who says that immersion at the proper time is a commandment; and according to his words, it is proper to count this commandment, similar to other commandments pertinent to this time. But according to the [other authority], who says that immersion in its proper time is not a commandment, nevertheless, since one cannot eat holy food or enter the Temple BEFORE the immersion, this law still constitutes a commandment, and Maimonides has written so (Commandment 109). 57. And the resting of animals, and of male slaves and female slaves; And first fruits of the earth, and the recitation for first fruits. And the resting of animals, and of male slaves and female slaves; these are partial commandments included in “And the Sabbath you shall keep,” which was already enumerated (Stanza 19). And the first fruits of the earth is an enumerated positive commandment, which is to bring first fruits to the temple, as it is said (Exod. 23:19), “The first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God” And the recitation for first fruits. It is a positive commandment to tell the kindnesses that the Holy One, blessed is He, has done for us, at the time of bringing the first fruits; as it is said (Deut. 26:5), “Then you shall recite as follows before the Lord your God: ‘My father was a wandering Aramean, etc.’” And one must investigate if we should count separation of the first fruits as a commandment, just as we count separation of terumah, since Scripture terms it [i.e., first fruits] terumah, as it is said (Deut. 12:17), “And the contribution (terumah) of your hands,” [the Sifre explaining that ] this means the first fruits. Also it is like terumah in that [if one wrongfully eats it], he incurs death [by the heavenly tribunal, if he sinned intentionally], or a surcharge of a fifth [when replacing it, if he sinned unintentionally]. But it is possible that if he did not separate the first fruits, the [other] fruit would not be forbidden, and consequently we would not enumerate the separation. And it appears that one should recite a blessing upon separating them [the first fruits]. As to [actually] giving them to the kohen, it is apparently not to — 175 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

be enumerated, for [the kohanim] have their rights [to the first fruit] from the “divine table” [rather than from the owner], for they need to be brought near [to the altar, hagashah].53 The correct [conclusion] is that the separation should not also be enumerated, for there is no specific verse regarding its separation or giving it. 58. And strengthening motnayim, and honesty of scales; And the double portion to first-born sons. The meaning of strengthening motnayim is very obscure; its content is not clear to me. The commentator on the Azharot suggested some opinions. He says that it refers to the commandment about the bar of a balance scale and its strings [i.e., the commandment of true weights and measures], since matna in Aramaic means a string. But this is remote from the style of the poet. He [the commentator] also explained that it could be related to the expression “your loins (motneichem) girded” (Exod. 12:11), i.e., one should diligently prepare his body for the Passover to wait expectant for the Messiah. This ideal is upheld by the Yerushalmi (Pesachim 10:1). [This citation relates the four cups of wine to the ultimate Messianic time.] But it also seems implausible that this should be the intention of the poet. The Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] wrote the phrase “the commandment of the body,” which is also obscure. Perhaps he is urging people to be diligent regarding commandments, according to the saying (Avodah Zarah 20b), “Caution leads to diligence, etc.,” which is not at all part of the enumeration. And honesty of scales is from the verse (Lev. 19:36) “honest scales.” Maimonides wrote (Positive Commandment 208) that fluid measure and dry measure and everything related to the commandment of measurement is enumerated altogether as a single commandment. The Sifra (Kedoshim 87:10) states, “On this condition did I bring you out of the Land of Egypt, on the condition that you will accept the commandment of [honest] measures [noting the proximity of the law of measures with the exodus in verse 36]; for anyone who acknowledges the law of measures [note play of words between modeh (acknowledges) and middah (measure)] acknowledges the exodus.” And the double portion to first-born sons [as inheritance]. Maimonides wrote (Positive Commandment 248) that this should not 53 The note of Zophnat Pane’ach here says that the latter argument is completely wrong. — 176 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

be enumerated separately, but it is one of the laws of inheritance. But Nachmanides said (Additional Commandment No. 12) that since the firstborn has a special law in excess of the other brothers, this should be counted separately. And if the father took away the firstborn privilege from the firstborn son, he transgresses a positive commandment; and he also must make known who his firstborn is and must order that he receive his birthright. The Gaon also enumerated this [commandment]. 59. And the law of two ephahs, and also two measures, And that which comes from your lips, and the redemption of those who are sold. The dual plural is used in ephotayim (ephahs) and middotayim (measures) to forbid either an oversize [measure] or an undersize [measure], that one should only have a correct measure. I have already written (Stanza 58) that all types of measures are included in a single commandment. And that which comes out from your lips. I have written previously (Stanza 38) that Nachmanides made a separate commandment of [fulfilling] ordinary vows, while Maimonides has included this together with holy vows. I have written this above in the clause “And fulfill your donations and vows lest you be caught.” Now even when there is no vow, it seems to me that there is [another] positive commandment, which is (Exod. 23:7) “Be far from false words.” Many rabbinic interpretations were derived from this in Tractate Shevuot (30b) in chapter “Shevuot Ha’edut” and also in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 20:210). So how can this not be included in the enumeration of the commandments? In addition, how can true speech not be a commandment for us, when it was taught in Tractate Derech Eretz (chap. 6) and in chapter 2 of Ketubot (17a) that the School of Shammai said to the School of Hillel, “According to your opinion should [the attendees at a wedding] say even to a lame or blind bride ‘Oh, comely and charming bride,’ when the Torah has said ‘Be far from false words’?” Indeed I have found some of those who enumerated the commandments have included this in the enumeration. This commandment is repeated in the verse (Lev. 19:36) “an honest hin,” since they said in chapter “Hazahav” (Bava Metzia 49a), the hin is in the same category as ephah [and is redundant]. But [by vocalizing hen, which means “yes” instead of hin, which is a measure, the meaning can be taken as] your saying “yes” and “no” should be honest. And Abaye — 177 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

said that this means that one should not speak one way with his mouth when his heart is otherwise. Now Rashi explains in Ketubot (86a) that when it is stated in chapter “Get Pashut” (Bava Batra 174a) that paying one’s debt is a commandment, it refers to this positive commandment (i.e., Lev. 19:36). But [various scholars] have objected to this, saying that this positive commandment was explained as implying that one should not speak one way, while meaning otherwise in his heart. But the explicit positive statement regarding payment of a debt is the verse (Deut. 24:11) “The man to whom you made the loan shall bring the pledge out to you,” which is a positive commandment. This is not merely an asmachta, since, in the Gemara, it is equated to a Torah commandment. This is what they stated in chapter “Hakotev” (Ketubot ibid.), “According to you [Rav Papa], who said that payment of a debt is a commandment, what happens if [the debtor] is unwilling to do his duty?” [Rav Papa replied] “We have learned this (Arachin 22a) [where it says that punishment with thirty-nine lashes] applies [to one who has transgressed] a prohibition, but in the case of a positive commandment, e.g., a person refusing to build a sukkah, or refusing to take a lulav, he is whipped [until he agrees, or] until he expires.” So I am adding two commandments, “Be far from false words” and “the man to whom you made the loan shall bring the pledge out to you.” And the verse “an honest hin” is included together with “Be far from false words.” [Going back now to fulfilling vows], the law of the Nazirite vow is included in fulfilling vows, but there is a specific commandment that the poet forgot, which is letting the hair of his head grow. In the Mechilta, it states that “leaving it grow untrimmed” (Num. 6:5) is a positive commandment, and this is counted by Maimonides (Positive Commandment 92). There is another specific commandment here, which is that the Nazirite must shave his head and bring his sacrifices when he completes his Nazirite period. Maimonides wrote that bringing the sacrifices and shaving are a single process, which is counted as a single commandment. This is different from the case of a metzora (“leper”), where shaving is a commandment, and bringing his sacrifice is a separate commandment. He gives the reason (Positive Commandment 111) that the Nazirite may not drink wine until he both shaves and brings his sacrifices, all of which is a single procedure to allow him to drink wine [so it is a single commandment]. But the metzora, as soon as he shaves, is considered pure and will not defile anything, but he has not received atonement — 178 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

until he brings his offerings. Therefore, the shaving is one matter, and bringing offerings is a separate matter; thus, they are enumerated as two commandments. In fact, Maimonides decided that the shaving of a Nazirite upon defiling himself (Num. 6:9) and his shaving in purity [at the end of his undefiled Nazirite period] are only one commandment, since shaving upon defilement is a detail of the Nazirite vow, and one should not count parts of a commandment as a [separate] commandment. He [Maimonides] also counts the two shavings of a metzora as a single commandment. Nachmanides (Additional Commandment No. 6) added on another commandment, which is to hallow the [shorn] hair of a Nazirite. Thus, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, as it is said (Num. 6:5), “It shall remain consecrated, the hair of his head growing untrimmed,” i.e., [the hair] which he grew is consecrated. He cites a proof that this prohibition is a Torah law, in that one is forbidden even with the smallest amount, as is mentioned in the last chapter of Avodah Zarah (74a); but rabbinic enactments do not apply to such smallest amounts, except for those relating to idolatry, as is mentioned in the first chapter of Betzah (3b). Perhaps Maimonides thinks that this positive commandment is part of the commandment to let the hair grow. But it would be plausible to add here another commandment, i.e., that the Nazirite keep his body holy, being careful about that which is forbidden to him. For so it is stated in the Sifre (Naso 107:8), that the verse (Num. 6:8) “He is consecrated” refers to the holiness of his body. It might have meant [only] the sanctity of his hair; but the sanctity of his hair is [already] stated in (Num. 6:5) “it shall remain consecrated,” so when Scripture stated (ibid., 6:8), “He is consecrated to the Lord,” it must mean holiness of his body. I am surprised that [earlier authors] did not take note of this positive commandment. [Regarding the general topic here of keeping promises], Maimonides (Positive Commandment No. 95) counted the law of annulment of vows. But Nachmanides (in his criticism of Commandment No. 96) wrote that this is just a part of the laws of vows, i.e., that we are commanded to keep [the promise] coming from our mouths, and we should not desecrate our words, except through [annulment by] the court, the father, or the husband. And redemption of those who were sold. A Hebrew slave or a Hebrew maidservant may be freed by [redemption] at his reduced — 179 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

value [the prorated value of his remaining service time], as explained in Kiddushin (14b). And Maimonides counted (Positive Commandment 234) redemption of the Hebrew maidservant, as it is said (Exod. 21:8), “And he shall redeem her.” They have already stated (Bechorot 13a) that the commandment of ye’ud [the owner of a Hebrew maidservant marrying her or having his son marry her] takes precedence over the commandment of redeeming her; so redeeming must be counted. It appears that the poet has included this with the redemption of a Hebrew slave who was sold to a gentile, since the Gaon wrote thus. [This commandment] is evident from what is said in the first chapter of Kiddushin (21b) that everyone agrees that [redeeming a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile] is a duty, not merely a permission, even according to Rabbi Joshua [who held that the statement in the Torah about redeeming a relative’s house expresses permission, not duty]. The poet did not mention the commandment of ye’ud [marrying the Hebrew maidservant], but Maimonides does list it (No. 233), in accord with the expression (Bechorot 13a) “The commandment of ye’ud takes precedence over that of redemption.” Maimonides considers the law about the Hebrew slave with all its ramifications as a single commandment (No. 232) and the law of the Hebrew maidservant as two commandments, i.e., ye’ud and redemption. 60. And freeing the maidservant with the sign of staining; And the law of walled cities and village houses. The word nichtamah (stained) is derived from ketem (a stain), in the sense of (Jer. 2:22) “your iniquity is stained.” It is common in rabbinic language for blood stains (Niddah 56b). Here it is adapted to the idea of [staining as a] sign of na’arut [maturing from childhood into “adolescence”], for a Hebrew maidservant is freed [at this juncture], as is interpreted in Kiddushin (4a) from the verse (Exod. 21:11) “And she shall go free without payment.” And the law of walled cities and village houses. It is a commandment to deal with them according to the law stated in the Torah (Lev. 25:29ff) that a house in a walled city is subject to redemption only for one year, while the village houses are forever redeemable. 61. And a man should not rule [a slave] sold for his misdeed; At the Jubilee year or death of the master he is set free. — 180 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

There is no commandment here that is in the enumeration, but there are detailed parts of the law of the Hebrew slave. It says that a Hebrew slave who was sold because of stealing, this being the meaning of “for his misdeed,” will go free at the Jubilee year or when the owner dies. This is true, although there are other ways of becoming free, and there are other [types of slave] other than one sold because of stealing who go free in these ways. But the poet took this [case] for poetic purposes and did not intend to cover all cases. One need not insist, as the commentator on the Azharot did, to interpret that lo yadon means “should not rule” on the basis of [yadon meaning “judge”] that a judge exercises rule; [thus] it is not from the expression (Gen. 6:3) “my spirit shall not contend (yadon) with man” [where Duran sees yadon as not intrinsically meaning “rule”]. But it is possible [says Duran] that in the expression “my spirit shall not contend (yadon) with man,” [the verb yadon] could have a meaning like [a theoretical verb] yod-aleph-dalet-vav-nun [related to the noun aleph-daletvav-nun, a ruler], which would be similar to what the poet intended [i.e., rule or exercise lordship]. 62. And a Hebrew maidservant going free at the Jubilee or on completing six years; And hides, and a fifth, and setting apart six cities. Here also the commentator on the Azharot gave a forced explanation. The proper explanation is to say that the Hebrew maidservant also is set free by the Jubilee year or after six years of service, just like the Hebrew manservant, since Scripture equates the law of the Hebrew manservant and maidservant by juxtaposition (Kiddushin 14b), and this is the truth. And hides and a fifth. On this text, the commentator on the Azharot based himself on Halachot Gedolot and other enumerations, all of whom wrote that the hides of sacrifices are included in the twentyfour priestly portions. This is a correct rendition of the text, for this poet [ibn Gabirol] followed the path of the early authorities [like Halachot Gedolot]. I have previously recorded above (Stanza 54) concerning the words and the 24 priestly portions, what Maimonides’s opinion was, and also Nachmanides’s opinion on this.54 And a fifth refers to the commandment for one who [wrongly, but 54

At this point, there is a slight omission in the Ziv Hazohar edition, which we correct in translation. — 181 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

unintentionally] ate terumah must add a fifth on his restitution, as it is written (Lev. 22:14), “And he shall add a fifth of its value.” I have previously written this concerning the content of “l’hanim chumashim” (Stanza 56). And setting aside six cities. It is a positive commandment to set aside six cities [of refuge) and to prepare the road for the unintentional killer, as it is said (Deut. 19:3), “And you shall prepare the road, etc.” There is likewise another commandment to be enumerated here, which is to remove the killer from his city and to lead him to one of these cities, that he should stay there until the death of the high priest or his own death, as is explained in the Sifre (Re’eh 75). We have recorded this previously (Stanza 53, Commandment 142 of Duran) on the expression “investigating arguments, and capital cases.” These cities belong to the Levites along with their forty-two cities. The latter [giving cities to the Levites] is another commandment which is enumerated. 63. And the law of the betrothed maidservant, and the mystery of the heifer whose neck is broken; And the paschal sacrifice which is a remedy for those who are impure. The verse (Lev. 19:21) concerning the betrothed maidservant is considered a commandment only with regard to [one who violates her] bringing a guilt offering. But this has already been included among other sacrificial laws, so it should not be an enumerated commandment separately from its mention among other guilt offerings, according to Maimonides’s opinion. But I say that it counts as a separate commandment, and I will write about this later (Stanza 66). Now the sages explained [that this law is about] a gentile slave woman who has become half free, but she is still half slave, and she is married to a Hebrew slave, the latter being permitted to take a gentile slave woman. So if she had not been redeemed to any extent [and a Jewish free man had a sexual relation with her], she would only be [considered in the category of] an unattached woman; this relationship would not be punishable by bringing a sacrifice, [since this relation was only forbidden] on the basis of (Deut. 23:18) “There shall not be a sodomite,” according to Onkelos [who translates this verse as “a Jewish man should not take a gentile slave”]. [On the other hand] if she had been totally redeemed [from slavery and thus achieved the status of a Jewish convert], she would be — 182 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

actually a married woman [i.e., married to the Hebrew slave], and the misdeed would be punishable by strangulation [if the relation with the Jewish free person were intentional], and if unintentional [it would be punishable by bringing] a sin offering. Now, [since the actual case here is that of a woman who is] half slave and half free, and who was married to a Hebrew slave, who is permitted to marry a gentile slave, she is thereby, to some extent, like a married Jewish woman. The death penalty [for adultery] would not be applicable, since she is not completely a Jewish woman, but there is a need for [atoning by bringing] a guilt offering, whether the act was done intentionally or not. The mystery of the heifer whose neck is broken. It is a positive commandment to break the heifer’s neck in a valley, as it is said (Deut. 21:4), “And there they shall break the neck.” There is no rationale for this commandment that is known to us, so the sages have combined it with the red heifer and the he-goat who is sent away (Lev. 16:10) as [commandments] whose reasons are unknown; that is why it is termed the mystery of the heifer whose neck is broken. The paschal sacrifice which is a remedy for those who are impure. This is the commandment of the second paschal offering for one who was impure for the first paschal offering. Maimonides (Positive Commandment 57) decided to count this as a separate commandment and not to include it with the commandment of the first paschal offering. It would have been proper on the basis of his principle (No. 7) not to count this separately, since it is one part of the laws of the first paschal sacrifice, i.e., one is obligated to perform the first one if he is pure, and if impure to make it up with the second. But Maimonides resolved this by saying that it is debated in the Gemara Pesachim (93a) whether the second paschal offering is a holiday in itself or is to be construed as a completion of the first paschal offering. According to the opinion that it is a holiday in its own right, it should be counted as a separate commandment. Maimonides decided thus [i.e., a holiday in its own right], since this is the opinion of rabbi [Judah the Prince], and the law follows rabbi when he differs with a colleague. But there is a problem with this decision, since in Pesachim, chapter “Mi Shehayah Tameh” (93b), it is stated that if one unintentionally missed the first paschal offering and consciously abstained from the second one, he is guilty according to rabbi [Judah the Prince], and innocent according to Rabbi Nathan and Rabbi Hanina ben Yaakov. This — 183 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

implies that the latter two hold that [the second Passover offering] is not a holiday on its own. So the law does not follow Rabbi, since the rule is that the law follows Rabbi when another colleague disagrees, but not when [a number of] colleagues disagree. This objection was made by Ravad (Hilchot Korban Pesach 5:2), and thus this [law of the second paschal offering] should not be a separate commandment, since it should be included with that of the first paschal offering. I observe, however, that Nachmanides does not object to Maimonides [on this matter] and relies on them [Maimonides and Halachot Gedolot] for the enumeration [of this] among the commandments, and their knowledge was more extensive than ours. It seems that there is a Talmudic discussion that implies that it is a separate commandment.55 For it is stated in the first chapter of Chagigah (9a and 9b) that Rav Papa asked, “[The statement of Rabbi Yochanan] is compatible with the opinion that the second paschal offering is a completion of the first, but what can be said [to make it compatible] with the opinion that it is a separate holiday?” So Rav Papa, who was a late authority, was intent on making Rabbi Yochanan’s words compatible with the opinion that it is a separate holiday; so it seems that this is the accepted law, as mentioned initially. When it says “a remedy,” it seems to mean that this [second] paschal offering makes it easier for a person [who is far from Jerusalem so that he cannot return until evening, and thus could not be present for the slaughter of the paschal lamb and the sprinkling of the blood]. If he wishes to do the first paschal offering, he can still do it by designating an agent [to act on his behalf]. However, the Torah is sensitive to his situation [and allows him to postpone it to the second paschal celebration]. And so is it stated in the Gemara. There are [actually] two commandments here, one the “doing” [slaughtering and sprinkling of blood] and the other the commandment of eating [the paschal lamb]. 64. Purification of those who are ill, in the mikvah waters; And the bullock that comes for commandments, and the bullock of atonement. He has previously written (Stanza 56) “And to immerse those set 55 In the Ziv Hazohar edition, there are a couple of lines missing. Our translation does, however, include this material. — 184 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

apart [by impurity], at specified times.” And his mention here of “purification of those who are ill,” i.e., menstrually unclean women, is one part of the several parts of that whole group [impurities]. Such parts should never be enumerated, as is known from the principles (No. 12). When it says “in the mikvah waters,” it means that a niddah does not need to immerse in running water, as [is required for the purification of] a zav, but the waters of a mikvah are valid for her, as is explained in the first chapter of Megillah [actually Tosefta Megillah 1:11] and in Tractate Mikvaot (1:8). Now the Sefer Mitzvot Katan [an enumeration of the commandments by Isaac of Corbeil in the thirteenth century] has another commandment here concerning a niddah. This is if a man were having intercourse with a woman who was menstrually pure, and [in the midst of it] she experienced a flow of blood, he should separate after his member’s detumescence [thus avoiding stimulation during withdrawal]. [This author] claims that this is a positive commandment regarding niddah, as mentioned in the second chapter of Shevuot (18b). The verse cited for this is (Lev. 15:24) “and her impurity be upon him,” [taken to mean that there is an occasion when a woman] although being niddah should remain with her husband. And the bullock that comes for commandments, i.e., if the Sanhedrin had declared permissible something, which, if done intentionally, would be punishable by “cutting off,” and they made an erroneous decision, so that the public acted wrongly on the basis of this decision, they must bring a sin offering. This is called “a bullock that comes for commandments [rather than for transgression],” since it is stated (Lev. 4:13), “And they do one of all the commandments of the Lord which should not be done.” This counts as a commandment. And the bullock of atonement. This bullock along with all other services performed on Yom Kippur are counted as only one commandment. Maimonides brought a proof for this from the saying in Tractate Yoma (60a) that for any action of Yom Kippur, which is stated in the orderly sequence, if one did any action prior to the previous ones, he has not accomplished anything at all. 65. And the purification from uncleanness, with appropriate sacrifices, And the sin-offering, and twenty additional- offerings. There are various kinds of impure people whose purification is not — 185 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

completed by immersion and the arrival of sunset, unless they bring atonement offerings. These four whose atonement is incomplete are, as mentioned in Keritot (8b), the zav, the zavah, the woman who has given birth, and the person with tzora’at (“leprosy”); and they constitute four commandments. The zav and zavah are not counted as a single commandment, like the male and female “leper,” since it would not be right to count an additional commandment just because of the difference between one being a man and the other being a woman. But in the case of the zav and the zavah, there is something substantial requiring them to be counted as two commandments. The thing that makes it necessary for a male “leper” to bring a sacrifice is the same thing that makes it necessary for a female “leper,” so that is counted as one commandment. But for the zav and the zavah, it is not so, since the zav becomes impure with a white discharge, not with red, while a zavah becomes impure with red discharge, not with white. Thus, the thing requiring a sacrifice for the zav is not the same thing that requires it for the zavah; so it is proper that they are counted as two commandments. Maimonides brings as a proof the statement (Mishnah Keritot 2:1) that there are four cases requiring atonement [with a sacrifice], and they are not counted as three cases. The meaning of korban nirah is “an appropriate sacrifice,” nirah being [passive] masculine present [literally “is seen,” i.e., fitting, similar to ra’ui, which means “proper”], as in the verse (Lev. 9:4) “Today God is seen to you.”56 The Gaon (Halachot Gedolot) wrote “a sacrifice as is proper (ra’ui),” and our poet learned from his example. And the sin-offering. Maimonides counted [as a commandment] that an individual must bring a sin offering for certain sins. And I have written previously (Stanza 45) how performing the sacrifices should be properly enumerated. And twenty additional offerings. Maimonides (Principle No. 13) found fault with those who would count all additional offerings as a single commandment. It would seem that any additional offering, which belongs to a certain day and no other days, should be counted as one commandment. This is like resting on the Festival of Matzot is one commandment, and that on the Festival of Shavuot is another, and similarly for other days. Therefore, he decided to count the Sabbath additional 56 I don’t think that this quotation supports Duran’s explanation. — 186 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

offering, that of the New Moon as another, that of the seven days of Passover as another, that of Shavuot as another, that of Rosh Hashanah as another, that of Yom Kippur as another, that of the seven days of Sukkot as another, and that of Shemini Atzeret another. 66. The low with the high, the definite and the conditional, The clearly expressed cherem, and the evaluation of vowing. Maimonides also listed bringing an offering of higher or lower value for certain sins. It is called thus, since it is higher for a rich person and lower for person with little means. The definite and the conditional [guilt-offerings]. These are two commandments. The one is to bring a guilt offering for some sins, namely robbery, secular use of sacred property, and the betrothed maidservant. It is called the definite guilt offering, since it does not involve any doubtful aspect. The other commandment for bringing a guilt offering concerns a person who committed a sin of doubtful nature, which, if it were certain, would incur “cutting off” if done intentionally, and a sin offering if done unintentionally. For a doubtful case [as to whether the sin was actually committed or not], he must bring a guilt offering, and this is called a dependent (talui, which is another form of nitlah, which is used by ibn Gabirol) guilt offering. I am doubtful regarding the guilt offering as to why we should count all of them as one commandment. Why should we not rather count the betrothed slave girl as one, the guilt offering for improper use of sacred property as another, and the guilt offering for robbery as yet another? For this is unlike the dependent guilt offering and the sin offering, which apply to a particular type of transgression. However, the guilt offering of a Nazirite and of one afflicted with “leprosy” [would not constitute additional enumerated instances of guilt offering], as they are included among their other offerings [at the conclusion of the Nazirite period and the “leprosy” period]. Thus, I would here be adding two additional commandments.57 [This is so] despite the fact that all guilt offerings are counted as a single priestly portion, as mentioned in chapter “Haz’roa V’halechayayim” (Chullin 133b) and in chapter “Hagozel Etzim” (Bava Kamma 110b). Since each one [i.e., guilt offering] is distinct from the 57 In Perlow’s book on Saadya Gaon, he quotes the words of Zohar Harakia here, but he notes that Duran does not in fact include them in his enumeration. — 187 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

other, it is possible to count each one as a separate commandment. [Whether these things are counted as a single priestly portion is clearly not significant], since Maimonides [himself] counted the fixed sin offering and the offering of higher or lower value as two commandments, although they are counted as one of the priestly portions. It does not bother me why the offering of higher or lower value is not counted according to the number of transgressions [to which they apply], since they are all expressed in a single statement, as is written in the principles (No. 9). By contrast, the guilt offerings, each of which concerns a particular transgression and which is separately expressed, are properly counted separately, even though they all termed a guilt-offering. This is similar to counting each additional offering assigned to a particular day as a separate commandment, even though they are all termed additional offerings. The clearly expressed cherem. It is an enumerated commandment to administer the laws of cherem [dedication of property], so if one declares his possessions cherem, they should be given to the kohanim for use in the temple, according to the terms in each case, as expressed in the Talmud (Arachin 28b). The term cherem hamufla is based on the scriptural expression, “When a man or woman expresses (yaflee) a vow.” The sages (Temurah 2b) explained [the unusual terminology yaflee] as including a person close to adulthood [as being eligible to make such vows], i.e., if he vowed while still a minor, yet within his thirteenth year, if he can competently express himself, his vow is valid. And the evaluation of vowing. There are many commandments enumerated among the laws of evaluations (Lev. 27). The first is the law of personal evaluation; i.e., if one says, “I obligate myself to give away my value” or “I obligate myself to give the value of another person,” he must give the value prescribed in the Torah. The second is the law of evaluation pertaining to an animal unfit [for service], which needs to be brought [before the kohen] and to be evaluated. The third is the law of evaluation of houses, which is that a person who dedicates his house must contribute its value as determined by the kohen. The fourth is the law of evaluation of fields, whether it is one’s inherited property or purchased property, the same law applies, and it is all one commandment. This is the way Maimonides divided them and did not count all four of them as a single commandment, since each of the four parts has a distinct law. Even though the noun “evaluation” is common to all of — 188 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

them, and even though they are all vows, there is nevertheless a commandment to deal with each one according to its regulation. Since this is what Maimonides says [about subdividing the evaluations], why does he not [similarly] enumerate each type of guilt offering separately, as I have written [earlier in this stanza]? The poet has forgotten or included under other commandments [the following two commandments]. The first is to redeem offerings, which happened to become blemished [and thus ineligible for offerings], as is said (Deut. 12:15), “Nevertheless you may slaughter and eat meat, as you desire,” which they explained (Sifre 25:15) as applying to offerings, which happened to become blemished. The second one is that a substitute donated offering becomes holy (Lev. 27:10, “Both it and its substitute shall be holy”). Now this is an enumerated positive commandment, for they have said (Temurah 4b) that one who attempts to make a substitution [in his desire to reclaim the original sacrificial animal] is punished by whipping, although this is a prohibition attached to a corrective positive commandment [a prohibition is usually punishable, but if the Torah prescribes a positive act, which corrects the situation, there is no whipping]; for a positive commandment cannot prevent [whipping for a prohibition expressed by] two negative statements [ibid., “He shall not change it” and “He shall not substitute for it”]. 67. And a place and a tool to dig, and counting the omer, And to send away the mother in the bird’s nest in the woods. These are two enumerated commandments. One is to have a designated place outside the encampment to go and relieve oneself. The second is to have in addition to weapons, a tool to cover excrement. Maimonides wrote that these are separate commandments regarding the encampment. But I say that, if these are two separate commandments regarding the encampment, there is then, in the view of the sages, yet a third commandment. This is not to engage in holy speech in a filthy place, which is from the statement (Deut. 23:15) “Your camp shall be holy.” This is stated in chapter 3 of Berachot (25a) concerning excrement, which is being carried by, that it is forbidden to recite the Shema in its vicinity, for it is necessary that “your camp shall be holy” [in order to recite the Shema], and it is not. However, the latter clause would not be counted as a separate commandment if this legislation is not specific for an army camp, — 189 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

but requires that any place where the Ark and the Shechinah are present, or where the divine name is uttered, should be clear from any filth. In this manner, it says there (Berachot ibid.) that the passage (Deut. 23:13) “You shall have a place outside the camp” refers to urination, for it is sufficient to have a place to go out [without covering it afterward], since one may not recite the Shema in the presence of a stream of urination, but after it has fallen to the ground, it does not require covering. That is why they said that the Torah only forbids [reciting the Shema] while the streaming urine is visible. But the law (Deut. 23:14) “And you shall have a tool” applies to excrement, which requires covering, according to the Torah. According to this [explanation that these laws are not just specific for the army], the words and your camp shall be holy is the reason for these two commandments, rather than a separate commandment. And counting the omer. It is a single commandment to count days and weeks [of the omer], and they are not counted as two commandments, although they said (Menachot 66a) that it is a commandment to count days and a commandment to count weeks. Maimonides brought a proof from the custom that we do not recite two blessings, one for the days and another for the weeks. [This proof is valid] even though we do not pay attention in enumerating the commandments as to whether they involve blessings. There are commandments, which are enumerated and for which we do not recite blessings, like the commandments of charity and of divorce. Then there are commandments for which we do recite blessings, and they are not enumerated commandments, like commandments, which are rabbinic, according to Maimonides, and like the commandment of kosher slaughtering, according to the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot]. Nevertheless, since counting [the omer] is with a single blessing, not two blessings, it is a valid proof that it is a single commandment. And to send away the mother in the bird’s nest in the woods. The motivation for “in the woods” is that they said (Chullin 139a) that (this law does not apply) to domestically raised birds. They have already stated (Makkot 16a) that (the prohibition [Deut. 22:6] “You shall not take the mother bird with its children”) is attached to the positive commandment, “You shall certainly send away the mother bird (ibid., 22:7).” 68. And separate from any impurity, crawling creatures and carcasses, — 190 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

People and containers and flowing drinks. Maimonides counts each one of the types of impurity as a commandment. He explained that he did not mean to say that it is a commandment that we are obligated to be unclean for them [the source of uncleanness], nor that we are forbidden to become impure. But the statement of the Torah that a certain thing [or person)] becomes unclean in a certain way, this law is a commandment. Nachmanides disagrees about this, since there is not in the laws of uncleanness any commandment, and it is completely optional. The language of the Sifre (Shemini 2:74) proves this, since it is taught there concerning the verse (Lev. 11:8) “You shall not touch their carcass” that one might infer that if someone touched a carcass, then it would be punishable by forty lashes. However, the Torah says (ibid., v. 24), “By these you will become unclean.” [The Sifre continues] that one might think that if a person sees a carcass, he should go and make himself unclean. Therefore, the Torah says, “You shall not touch their carcass.” How is this [to be reconciled]? [The Sifre concludes] that one must say that it is optional. Since the Almighty forbade us to enter the sanctuary while unclean, he explains to us what makes a person unclean and what the nature of the uncleanness is. Nachmanides [furthermore] draws an analogy with the subject of blemished animals, in which we do not enumerate each typed of blemish as a separate commandment; but since we are forbidden to sacrifice blemished animals, it is explained for us what constitutes a blemish, as Maimonides wrote on the seventh principle. As a result [Nachmanides], removed thirteen commandments from [Maimonides’s] enumeration: (1) uncleanness of a carcass; (2) uncleanness of creeping things; (3) uncleanness of food and drink; (4) menstrual uncleanness; (5) uncleanness after childbirth; (6) uncleanness of human “leprosy”; (7) clothing afflicted with “leprosy”; (8) houses afflicted with “leprosy”; (9) uncleanness of a zav; (10) uncleanness of seminal emission; (11) uncleanness of a zavah; (12) uncleanness due to contact with a corpse and its purification, but regarding the purification after contact with a corpse, I wonder why he [Nachmanides] discarded this, since, just as we count the purification of a “leper,” so it is proper to count [that of] the person who is unclean due to a corpse; (13) uncleanness [engendered by preparation] of the waters of sprinkling (Num. 19). The meaning of the poet’s expression l’haflot is “to separate.” It is similar to (Exod. 9:4) “The Lord will make a distinction (yafleh) between — 191 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

the cattle of Israel.” He [the poet] lists [in particular] uncleanness of a creeping thing and that due to a carcass from the [various] uncleanness [as representing all of them]. People and containers. If they received uncleanness from a “father” of uncleanness, they render food and drink unclean. So one should keep away from them in order that they should not defile one’s clean things. [The word] michlot (containers) is the same as kelim, usual word for containers]; both have the same root, kaph la’med heh. It is from the verse (2 Chron. 4:21) michlot zahav [the first part of the citation given as u’michlot shteim esreh seems to be erroneous]. And flowing drinks. Also drinks contract uncleanness, and they are likely to become unclean, since they do not require pretreatment to becoming susceptible to contracting uncleanness [as in the case of food, which requires wetting]. This is why a rabbinic ordinance was made that, if even a second-degree unclean thing touched them, it renders them [rabbinically] unclean in the first degree. Also, a rabbinic decree makes them capable of rendering containers unclean [although in Torah law containers become unclean only by contact with primary sources of uncleanness]. This is a rabbinic extension of the fact that liquids from a zav or zavah, which are primary sources of uncleanness, can defile persons or containers. He says “flowing,” since, if the drinks congealed, they are not legally drinks, as it is stated (Tosefta Toharot 2:2) that oil that congeals is considered neither food nor drink. 69. Causing movement, and [a woman] lying, and emission due to thoughts; And the levirate marriage for the bereaved [woman], and the Purim scroll. Causing [uncleanness] by moving is [for example] when a Zav is on a pan of a balance scale, and there are utensils on the other pan, and he caused them to move [although he did not touch them], they become unclean. [A woman] lying means that a woman with whom a man had intercourse become unclean by the law of the Torah (Lev. 15:18), even though uncleanness internal to the body is not considered an uncleanness; it is an exception that she becomes thus unclean, even though she does not discharge any semen. — 192 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

And emission due to thoughts. Also, a man who experiences an emission becomes unclean. He says “due to thoughts,” since by sexual thoughts a man may become defiled. This is like the statement (Avodah Zarah 20b) that the verse (Deut. 23:10) “Be on your guard against anything untoward” implies that one should not have lustful thoughts by day and thereby become unclean at night. The semen itself is a source of uncleanness. The levirate marriage for the bereaved [woman]. It is a positive commandment to perform the levirate marriage with the wife of one’s brother who died without children, as it is said (Deut. 25:6), “Her brother-in-law shall come to her.” They have indeed stated (Yevamot 39b) that the verse “her brother-in-law shall come to her” is a commandment. I have an additional positive commandment, which is recorded in chapter 1 of Yevamot (11a) that if one had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he is forbidden to have her sister on the basis of a positive commandment. This positive commandment constitutes a prohibition based on a positive statement; i.e., “her brother-in-law shall come to her,” which implies to her alone and not to her and her sister. Maimonides recorded this in his great work (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Levirate Marriage, 1:12). This is similar to the law prohibiting eating the roasted paschal lamb while it is yet daytime [on the basis of a positive statement, which was enumerated by Nachmanides’s Additional Commandment No. 12]. Others explain that this positive commandment [prohibiting the sister] is derived from what is written (Deut. 25:9), “Who would not build the household of his brother,” i.e., he should build one household, not two households. Therefore, it is clear that this should be counted among the commandments, just as other prohibitions derived from positive statements are. He says “bereaved [woman],” having neither children nor husband, for she would not be called “bereaved” otherwise. And the Purim scroll is a rabbinic law, and it is listed in Halachot Gedolot, but Maimonides disagrees with him, and I recorded this previously (principle 1). 70. And removal and spitting for the woman cut off; And cutting off the hand that seized the male genitals. They have already said (Yevamot 39a) that the commandment of levirate marriage takes precedence over the commandment of chalitzah — 193 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

[the procedure of avoiding the levirate marriage]. So just as the law of the levirate marriage is an enumerated commandment, so is the commandment of chalitzah. Removal and spitting (Heb. v’chalotz v’reket; removal of the shoe and spitting in chalitzah) are both infinitives. Chalotz is the same form as zachor (remembering) and shamor (keeping), and the vav [in v’chalotz] is voweled with a sh’va. The root of v’reket is yarok (to spit) from (Deut. 25:9) “and she shall spit in his face.” This form is similar to redet from yarod (to go down). When it says “cut off” (niteket), this is the same idea as “bereaved” (in Stanza 69), in that she has no bond with her husband by children. And cutting off the hand that seized the male genitals. This commandment is explained in the Sifre, that one should save the person attacked from the attacker. Thus, it is taught there that (Sifre, Tetze 160:11) that just as the word mevushav, i.e., his genitals (Deut. 25:11), is a particular case of mortal danger and is punishable by “and you shall cut off her hand” (ibid., 25:12), so every case where there is mortal danger is punishable by “and you shall cut off her hand.” It also states there (Sifre, Tetze 161:12) that “and you shall cut off her hand” means that you must save him at the expense of her hand. How is it known that if one cannot save him by cutting off her hand, that you must save him at the expense of her life? It is from the words your eye shall not have pity. V’kotz (translated here as “and cutting off”) is imperative [i.e., “cut off” instead of “cutting off”], like [the form sov] in (Song of Songs 2:17) “return, my beloved and be like . . .”; or it could be infinitive like [the form sov] in (Deut. 2:3) “you have been long enough going around this mountain” [which corresponds to the translation “cutting off”]. 71. And the law of the captured woman, and the law of being fruitful and increasing; And clothing for nakedness, and pouring waters of cold. It is a single commandment to do to the good-looking woman [captured in war] whatever is indicated in that section [of the Torah], and one does not enumerate every action as a separate commandment, as is known from the principles (No. 7). And the law of being fruitful and increasing. It is a positive commandment to be fruitful and to increase, as it is said (Gen. 9:7), “And you, be fruitful and increase.” This is part of the enumeration, for in Sanhedrin — 194 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

(59b), they inquire why this is not counted as one of the [seven] laws of the descendants of Noah. They stated that any commandment, which was spoken to the descendents of Noah and was not repeated to Israel at Sinai, applies just to Israel and not to the descendents of Noah. It is evident from this that for Israel, it is counted as a commandment. Also, they said (Berachot 16b) that a bridegroom is exempt from reciting the Shema, since he is occupied with a commandment [of reproducing]. And they said (Yevamot 65) that men are commanded regarding being fruitful and increasing, but women are not. I saw in the Jerusalem Talmud, Gittin, chapter “Hashole’ach” (4:5) and in “Mo’ed Katan” (1:7), that if one is half slave and half free [in this intermediate state not being allowed to marry either a free woman or a slave woman], the master is compelled to set him free [allowing him to marry a free woman], because of (the verse, Isa. 45:18) “He created it not a waste; He formed it to be inhabited.” Even though slaves are only supposed to do commandments that are incumbent on a woman, they are responsible for this commandment [of procreation, though it is not incumbent on women] because of “He created it not a waste.” But there is a commandment from the Torah that precedes this, which is the commandment of marrying (kiddushin). In the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9:3) that for all commandments one recites a blessing prior to doing them, except kiddushin by intercourse. Certainly, the commandment of kiddushin is from the Torah, since they state (Sanhedrin 66b) that a woman who has undergone kiddushin is to be stoned [if she commits adultery]. Now, if kiddushin were not a Torah law, she would not be stoned.58 Maimonides wrote that kiddushin by money is rabbinic, while kiddushin by document or by intercourse is from the Torah. Difficult objections have been raised against this. But I have humbly defended him in a responsum, which I have written in the principles (No. 2). Now, just as a woman is acquired by her husband through kiddushin, so she regains her independence through divorce, as it is said (Deut. 24:1), “And he shall write her a writ of separation.” This is also an enumerated commandment. And clothing for nakedness, which is to give clothes to those who are naked. This is part of the general commandment of charity, “. . . sufficient for his need in which he is lacking” (Deut. 15:18). However, the 58

The latter argument is weak, since being a Torah law does not guarantee that it is to be enumerated. — 195 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

Halachot Gedolot counts this [separately], and Maimonides criticizes him. Nachmanides defends Halachot Gedolot, in that he meant to derive this [law of clothing the naked, not from the law of giving charity, but] from what is stated (Sotah 14a) that the verse “After the Lord your God you shall walk” (Deut. 13:5) means that just as He clothes the naked, so shall you clothe the naked. This is the meaning of Halachot Gedolot, and he did not mean to derive it from the verse (Isa. 58:7) “When you see the naked, that you shall cover him,” as Maimonides had thought [was the intention of Halachot Gedolot]. Even so, this still would not be an extra counted commandment, because the commandment of “walking in His ways” was previously counted (Stanza 13). V’tilboshet (and clothing) has a chirik under the tav, in accord with the verse (Isa. 59:17) “Garments of vengeance for clothing (tilboshet).” Eryah (nakedness), with a resh (meaning uncertain), meaning “uncovered,” from “in nakedness (eryah) and shame” (Mic. 1:11), and “naked and bare (eryah)” (Ezek. 16:7). And pouring waters of cold. This is the water libation that was poured all the seven days of the Sukkot festival. It is a law [orally] given to Moses at Sinai, and it forms part of the holiday sacrifice. So it is not an additional enumerated commandment, even though everything that is a law given [orally] to Moses at Sinai is considered a Torah law. This, however, is not Maimonides’s opinion, since he considers a law [orally] given to Moses at Sinai as equivalent to the “words of the scribes” [rather than being a Torah law]. And so it is in Tractate Kiddushin.59 Nachmanides brings other proofs [that orally given laws are equivalent to Torah law]. In the phrase “waters of cold,” the attached noun [i.e., there should be an object following “waters of”] is missing. This is like (Ps. 73:10) “waters of full are drained out by them,” meaning waters of a full cup. Thus, here it is saying “waters of cold springs,” that they should be in their pristine state in the container. For just as spring water is warm in Nisan, as they said (Pesachim 45a) that a woman should not knead unless the water stayed overnight, so it is cold in Tishrei, which is the opposite season. 59 The citation Kiddushin 9b is given in Ziv Hazohar ; however, it seems to me that this reference bears on the status of laws derived by rabbinic exegesis, rather than laws given orally to Moses at Sinai. — 196 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

72. Orlah [fruit] and hillulim [fruit], and the king’s copy; And to pay on the [same] day, the wages of hired workers. Orlah [fruit from a tree that is three years old or less] is not a positive commandment, but a prohibition, and it is written here only to lead up to hillulim [fruit of the fourth year], for it is a positive commandment that [fruit of] a four-year tree should be sanctified for bringing it up from Jerusalem and eating it there in the same way as second tithe (Lev. 19:23–25). And the king’s copy. It is a positive commandment to make for the king two Torahs, one to take in and out with him, and one to have in his archives. For it says (Deut. 17:18), “And he shall write for himself a second copy (Heb. mishneh) of this law in a book.” I previously recorded a commandment for each Israelite to write a Torah scroll, as it is said (Deut. 31:19), “Now write you this song for yourselves.” This commandment is preceded by another commandment applicable to all Israel, which is to appoint a king over themselves. They have said (Sanhedrin 20b) that three commandments were commanded to Israel [to be effective] upon their entry into the land, and one of them is to appoint a king over themselves. They also said in the Sifre (Shoftim 30) that the verse (Deut. 17:15) “You shall set him over you as a king” is a positive commandment. Now Nachmanides (at end of the negative commandments) is in doubt regarding a certain commandment, namely, the commandment that the king should call out the people to the army, and to inquire of the urim and tumim. For it says (Num. 27:21), “And he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the urim before the L; at his word shall they go out, and at his word shall they come in, etc.” Concerning this, they said (Yoma 73b) that [the urim] are not asked except by the king or the court or by someone on whom the congregation depends. From here, it appears that this commandment applies for all generations, and so it seems from chapter 1 of Sanhedrin (16a) where they say that the Torah bade the Sanhedrin to ask of the urim and tumim. And to pay on the [same] day the wages of hired workers. It is a positive commandment to pay the wage of a hired man on the same day, as it is said (Deut. 24:15), “On the same day you shall give him his hire.” Maimonides put together with this commandment another one (Positive Commandment 201), which is that a worker can eat from what — 197 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

he is working on. For it says (Deut. 23:25–26), “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat grapes, etc.; when you come into your neighbor’s standing corn, etc.” Even though they are two verses, they count as a single commandment. For from the both of them we learn (Bava Metzia 87b) that a person may eat unharvested crops at the time of their final tending, and neither verse is adequate without the other. It is stated in Bava Metzia (87), “The following may eat [of the produce] according to Torah law.” Thus, Maimonides wrote, and we could accept this, the commandment here being that the owner should not prevent him [the worker from eating]; and if he did restrain him, he would be violating a positive commandment, just like what is said (Deut. 25:4), “You shall not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” And so Maimonides wrote in his major work (Laws of Hiring 12:1). But this is a difficult thing, for Scripture is only speaking about the worker, that it [i.e., eating the crops] is permissible and is not considered like robbing the owner. This is seen from what they say in Gemara Bava Metzia chapter “Hasocher et Hapo’alim” (87b) about the expression “your neighbor” [in Deut. 23:25 the word re’acha is understood as meaning a fellow Jew] that it implies [that the law forbidding the worker to put the food in his vessel] does not apply to a gentile owner [but only to a Jewish owner]. [The Gemara continues that] this is according to the opinion that robbing a gentile is forbidden [and consequently one would need this interpretation that the worker may fill his vessel with the crops]. But according to the conflicting opinion that robbing a gentile is permissible, what can be said? [Why do we need this interpretation that the worker may fill his vessel with the gentile owner’s crops, since he is even allowed to outright rob him?] In cases of this sort [where permission is expressed, rather than obligation], they are not counted among the commandments. For in three such commandments that were counted in Gemara Sotah (3a), “For he may/must defile himself” (Lev. 21:3), “You may/should take bondmen forever” (Lev. 25:46), and “He is/should be jealous of his wife” (Num. 5:14), the Gemara had to say that they did not just come to permit something that [was normally] forbidden, but they had to say that they were obligations, otherwise being unnecessary. And in [our case of] permitting the worker to eat, how could we construe this to be an obligation, otherwise being unnecessary? When they say in the Gemara that “they may eat according to Torah law,” it is true that they are permitted, but — 198 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

they are not included among the enumerated commandments, as I have written (Stanza 52) concerning their statement (Bava Batra 23b) that majority rule is a Torah law. 73. Blessings and curses, and levy and inheritance; And the plastered great stones, and the jubilee of freedom. The Halachot Gedolot counted blessings and curses pronounced at Mt. Gerizim [as commandments]. Maimonides criticized him, since these commandments were not applicable to future generations, and one of the principles is that a commandment that is for [only] a particular time should not be enumerated, and this is certainly true, as I wrote in the principles. But Nachmanides defended the Gaon in that, although it is a onetime commandment, its significance is eternal, since it is the acceptance by which our ancestors took upon themselves and their descendants the entire Torah in its details and in its totality, with sanctions and with an oath. The words of Maimonides are correct in not bringing this commandment into the enumeration, and Nachmanides also agreed in his enumeration of the commandments. And levy. Maimonides criticized the Gaon in this case also in that he counted the section concerning the contribution of levy (Num. 31:25ff), because it was just a onetime commandment in the war with Midian. Nachmanides defended him (principle 3), saying that the contribution of levy applies throughout the generations, that in any optional war, a contribution should be offered from whatever falls into their hand. This is like what was said concerning David (1 Chron. 18:8), “And from Tibhath and Cun, cities of Hadarezer, David took much brass, with which Solomon made the brazen sea.” It is further written (ibid., v. 11), “Thus also did King David dedicate unto the Lord with the silver and the gold that he carried away from all the nations.” And he [Nachamanides] strengthened [his argument] from what is stated in the Torah (Num. 31:54), “So Moses and Elazar the priest accepted gold from the officers of thousands and the officers of hundreds and brought it to the Tent of Meeting as a reminder on behalf of the Israelites before the Lord” And if this was a voluntary contribution at that time from these individuals, it would not have been “a reminder on behalf of the children of Israel.” But in my humble opinion, I would say that this is not true, for they said expressly (Menachot 77b) that the contribution of levy does not apply for future generations. For in Menachot, chapter “Hatodah” (77b), — 199 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

we read in the Mishnah that from each of them [thank offerings and Nazir loaves], they would take one part in ten [as a terumah offering), as it is said (Lev. 7:14), “And he shall offer one from each offering as a gift (terumah) to the Lord” Now in the baraita in the Gemara, this law [that it is actually one part in ten] is derived from the terumah of tithe (the one-tenth of the Levite tithe that goes to the kohen). Then the question is raised as to [why the ratio of one-tenth is derived from the expression terumah being used both for the terumah of tithe and for the portion of the thank offering]; one might derive it from the portion (terumah) of Midian [i.e., the contribution of levy]), and that was in the ratio of one part in five hundred. But this [latter possibility] was rejected, since one should learn about a case applying throughout the generations from another applying throughout the generations, rather than utilizing the terumah of Midian, which is not applicable throughout the generations. And you cannot argue about this proof [that the Talmud meant] that its measure [i.e., 1/500] does not apply throughout the generations, but the thing itself [setting apart some of the booty for holy purposes] does apply. This would be like Nachmanides’s argument about the inaugural offering of the altar about which I wrote previously (Stanza 50) [where he said that it was plausible that this inaugural practice might be construed as a permanent commandment, and the Talmud’s use of the expression “not for all generations” referred to the particular amounts specified in the desert]. If this were the case, it would be proper to learn from it the aspect that does apply at later times, which is that it has no specific measure. This is similar to what the Baraita wanted to [possibly] learn from the case of the First Fruits [which is also described as a terumah] that there is no specific proportion [for the thank offering terumah]. For it is stated in the Baraita that here [concerning the thank offering loaves], the word terumah is used, and terumah is also used for first fruits; so just as the latter has no specified amount, similarly the former would have had no specified amount. So since they rejected learning from the case of the terumah of Midian, neither the indicated ratio nor that there is no specific amount, on account of its not being a commandment applying throughout the generations, we may conclude that the contribution of levy does not constitute a positive commandment at all, and it is not part of the enumeration. I am also surprised that Nachmanides brings a proof that the contribution of levy is for all generations from what is written (Num. 31:54), — 200 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

“So Moses and Elazar the priest accepted the gold from, etc.” But this was not stated about the gift of levy, but about the offering brought by the officers of the army from the gold objects, which they each found. The gold was the “memorial,” and the offering was to atone for sinful thoughts, as mentioned in Tractate Shabbat, chapter “Bameh Ishah Yotz’ah” (64a), and in Tractate Kallah (chap. 1). But the gift of levy was for Elazar [not for the sanctuary], similar to other priestly portions. From this point, we are led to an objection against the Gaon, who enumerated the gift of levy. For the sages did not count the gift of levy among the priestly portions. If they had, there would have been twentyfive priestly portions [rather than twenty-four]. And they should have counted it, being so much greater than the log of oil of the “leper” [which was counted]. Since they did not count it, [it is proved that] it is not at all an ongoing practice, and it does not belong in the enumeration. And Nachmanides also decided not to enumerate it. And inheritances. It is a single commandment to administer the laws of inheritances, aside from the law of the firstborn. But Maimonides made the two of them into one. Nachmanides (in his twelfth additional prohibition) supported the Gaon who makes them two, and I wrote about this previously (Stanza 58). And the plastered great stones. These are the great stones, which were erected to write the Torah on them (Deut. 27:1–8). The Gaon counted this, but Maimonides criticized this, since this was a onetime commandment. I humbly state that I found a proof for him in chapter “Hakometz Rabba” (Menachot 34a), where they state that writing on the stones does not extend to future generations. Nachmanides (principle 3) exerted himself to support the words of the Gaon, since the content [of the commandment] is everlasting, for we were commanded to write upon them the Torah most distinctly, to be a memorial through the generations. But the words of Maimonides not to count this are more correct, and Nachmanides in his enumeration agreed. And the jubilee of freedom. It is a positive commandment to sanctify the jubilee, as it is said (Lev. 25:10), “And you shall hallow the fiftieth year.” There is also another commandment to be counted here, which is to sound the shofar on the tenth of Tishrei and to proclaim freedom throughout the land, as it is said (ibid., v. 9), “And you shall make proclamation with the blast of the shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month, etc.” There is also another commandment here, which — 201 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

is to return land to the original owners in this year, as it is said (ibid., v. 24), “And in all the land of your possession you shall grant a redemption for the land.” In my view, another commandment should be added, i.e., that if one sells his field to someone, he must leave it in the possession of the purchaser for two years. Thus is it stated in Arachin, chapter “Hamocher et Sadehu” (29b), that while the jubilee is in force, it is not permissible [for the original owner] to redeem [his field] before two years. In the Gemara, they said that since the Mishnah says that “it is not possible to redeem” [rather than “it is not redeemable”], it shows that this is actually a prohibition, and that [the original owner] is forbidden to display money [to induce the buyer to sell back]. Not only is the seller [forbidden with a prohibition derived from] a positive statement that is written (ibid., v. 15), “According to the number of years [plural indicating a minimum of two years] of the crops he shall sell to you,” but also the purchaser is subject [to a prohibition implied by] a positive statement that it is required that (ibid.) “years . . . you shall buy,” and this would not be so [if it were to revert in less than two years].60 Now, Maimonides wrote this prohibition in his work (Hilchot Shemitta V’yovel 11:9), but he does not have it enumerated, and this needs investigation. There is yet another commandment here, which is to count (Lev. 25L8) “seven sabbatical years, seven times seven years.” And it is expressed in the Sifra (Behar 2:13) that one might think that it suffices to count off the seven consecutive sabbatical years and then have the jubilee year. Therefore, Scripture says (Lev. 25:8), “Seven times seven years.” So [we only understand the law] by referring to both expressions [“seven sabbatical years” and “seven times seven years”], and without that, we would not understand this [this concludes the Sifra citation]. This means that performance of this commandment requires two scriptural expressions as to how it is done. We must count the seven years, and we must count the seven sabbatical years. Maimonides derived from this citation that both [expressions] constitute only one commandment in the enumeration, not two commandments, counting each year as one commandment and counting each sabbatical year as another. For if they were two separate commandments, the teacher [in the Sifre] would not 60 In his final counting at the end of the book, the author does not enumerate an injunction for the purchaser. — 202 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

have said, “If it were not for both scriptural expressions, we would not have understood properly; since it would be normal for every specific commandment to have a specific scriptural expression.” But since it is just one commandment emerging from two scriptural expressions, the language [of the Sifre] is appropriately stated. [Maimonides cites an analogous case regarding firstlings, but our author brings another case, as follows]. So it is that a worker eating in the vineyard or in the grain field is counted as only a single commandment, for the two verses are necessary to clarify the commandment, as I have written (Stanza 72) concerning his opinion, and I previously wrote about this in the principles (No. 9). 74. The trumpets of the congregation, and the portion separated from a thank-offering; And the immersion from childbirth, and from menstrual blood. It is a commandment to blow the trumpets with the sacrifices, as it is written (Num. 10:10), “And on the day of your rejoicing and at your fixed festivals and new moon days, you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices of well-being.” And similarly in war time, as it is said (ibid., v. 9), “When you are at war in your land against an aggressor who is attacking you, then you shall sound short blasts on the trumpets.” The same applies to any misfortune [may it not happen!] for the community. They have already stated (Rosh Hashanah 26b) concerning fast days that the commandment for such a day is blowing trumpets [not a shofar]. This statement shows that this is actually a commandment. Rabbi Levi ben Gershon in his Torah commentary makes these into two commandments, sounding [trumpets] over the sacrifices and blowing short blasts for the enemy. But it seems that all regulations about the trumpets should be counted as only a single commandment, as is apparent in the Sifre.61 The portion separated from a thank-offering means the chest, shoulder, and that which is taken from the loaves. This was previously counted among the priestly portions (Stanza 54), so there is no addition to the enumeration. There I explained how priestly portions should properly enter into the enumeration of the commandments, but the 61 It is not clear to me which statement in the Sifre is meant here. — 203 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

poet made the removal [of the portion] a commandment, and giving it [to the kohen] another commandment. Likewise, the immersion of a mother after childbirth was already mentioned above (stanzas 65 and 68) among other immersions. 75. The heifer for burning, and the chest for waving And the tenth of an ephah, and to set apart terumah. The entire procedure of the [red] heifer is a single commandment, as it is said (Num. 19:9), “It shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for water of sprinkling; it is a cleansing from sin.” I have already explained in the previous stanza the matter of the “chest for waving,” that it belongs to the kohanim. I have already written above (Stanza 54) about the waving, as to whether it comes into the enumeration or not. And the tenth of an ephah refers to the griddle cakes, which the high priest must sacrifice every day, half in the morning and half in the evening (Lev. 6:12–16). And to set apart terumah is an enumerated commandment. No one contests this, for we recite a blessing upon separating it. The only argument is whether we count the giving as well as the separation as two separate commandments. I have already written this above (Stanza 54). 76. A city which stretches out its hand, to spare from the grave, And to destroy and lay waste the apostate city. In either an obligatory war or an optional war, we must call to the enemy to make peace. If they respond with peace, it is forbidden to kill them, but they would become a tributary. This is so, with no difference between an obligatory and an optional war. There is a difference if they do not make peace, where for an optional war, we should kill males only; while for an obligatory war, it is written (Deut. 20:16), “You shall not let any soul remain alive.” Now Nachmanides wrote (Additional Positive Commandment No. 4) that that it is a positive commandment, which should be among the enumerated commandments, to take possession of the land, and we must not let it remain in the hands of the nations. He brings proof for this from the statement (Deut. 1:21) “Go up, take possession of the land which I have given you.” And when they did not accede, it is written (ibid.), “Then you rebelled against the commandment of the Lord your — 204 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

God, and you did not trust Him, and you did not hearken to His voice.” And it is said in Tractate Sotah (44b) concerning Joshua’s war of conquest that everyone agrees that this was obligatory, while all agree that David’s war of expansion was optional. The Sifre (Shofetim 27:14) says that the verse (Deut. 17:14) “And you shall possess it and dwell in it” means that as a result of your taking possession, you shall merit dwelling there. Nachmanides said that the commandment is not destroying the seven nations [of Canaan], but that it is taking possession of the land even after they are destroyed or after they abandon the land; as they said (Devarim Rabba, Shofetim 5:13) that the Girgashites evacuated [from Canaan]. The Sifre (Ekev 24) also says that the verse (Deut. 11:24) “Everywhere where the sole of your foot treads will be yours” is saying to them that all places that you conquer outside from these places [in Canaan] will be yours. Or [continues the Sifre, does it mean] that they are permitted to conquer outside the land before conquering the land of Israel? [To negate the latter] the Torah states (ibid., v. 23) “You shall dispossess the nations [of Canaan] greater and stronger than you,” and only then “Everywhere, etc. (v. 24). Since this is a commandment, the sages emphasize it, saying (Ketubot 110b) that one who dwells outside the land is like an idol worshipper. And it is said in the Sifre (Re’eh 53:29) that the verse (Deut. 11:29) “And you shall possess it and dwell therein” (followed by v. 31 “and you shall observe all the statutes, etc.”) means that dwelling in the land of Israel is equivalent to all the commandments. The meaning of “A city which stretches out its hand” is that it extends its hand to pay taxes. In that case, we must spare their lives from the grave. But killing the seven nations [of Canaan, of whom] it is said (Deut. 20:17), “You shall utterly destroy them,” is a positive commandment for all generations, and it is included in the enumeration. For one should not imagine that, since they have perished, this should not be included as a commandment in the enumeration; since even if there would remain only one of them at the end of the earth, we would be obligated to destroy him. Maimonides explained this, i.e., that any commandment that is not connected with a specific time constitutes a commandment for the generations, even though that thing [i.e., the object of the commandment] is absent; for if it were in existence, we would be obligated concerning it. He says this also concerning destroying the descendants of Amalek, as I wrote in the principles (No. 3). — 205 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

And to destroy and lay waste the apostate city is a positive commandment, which is an exception from the general law of capital punishment exercised by the courts; for those executions are enumerated in a general way, while this is enumerated as a special ordinance. That is to burn the city and to leave it destroyed, according to the statement (Deut. 13:17) “You shall burn with fire the town and all its spoil totally unto the Lord your God, and it shall be a mound, etc.” 77. And a city which is closed in, you shall pour down its stones; And give carrion to the ger, or sell it to gentiles. In an optional war, if it [the city] does not make peace but closes itself before us to come under siege, we are commanded to slay the males and allow the women and children to live, as it is said (Deut. 20:13), “And you shall strike down all its males with the edge of the sword.” And he says that you shall pour down its stones, similar to the meaning of (Mic. 1:6) “And I will pour down the stones into the valley.” The poet does not express “into the valley” nor into any other place, so as not to squeeze [too many syllables into] his poem. Now Nachmanides has in this context two more commandments that are included in his enumeration of the commandments. One commandment is that we are commanded that when we lay siege on a city, we should allow one direction so that if the inhabitants wish to flee they will find a route to escape. He derives this from what is written (Num. 31:7), “They took the field against Midian as the Lord commanded Moses.” [And the Sifre states that this means that] they surrounded it on three sides [in other versions, four sides], and Rabbi Nathan states that he gave them [another version has the imperative, give them!] the fourth side [for escape]. Maimonides acknowledges this commandment in his great work in Hilchot M’lachim Umilchamoteihem (6:7), but he did not write it in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Also there (Hilchot M’lachim), he did not make it [optional wars] into a separate commandment, nor does he include it under a more general commandment of war. The second [additional commandment proposed by Nachmanides] is that we are commanded that, while besieging a city, we may eat from the trees in its territory during all the days of the siege. And if we cut them down needlessly in a destructive manner, we transgress a positive commandment in addition to the explicit prohibition for this. Thus did they say in the Sifre (Shofetim 127) that the words (Deut. 20:19) for you — 206 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

will eat from it is a positive commandment, and you shall not cut it down (ibid.) is a prohibition. But Maimonides did not enumerate this either. And give carrion to the ger, or sell it to the gentile (Deut. 14:21). There is no commandment here at all; it just gives precedence to giving to the ger (resident gentile) over selling to a [nonresident] gentile. 78. Collect the money of atonement, and you shall stone the beguiler, Since he raised his voice to worship other (deities). It is a positive commandment throughout the generations to contribute a half shekel every year, as it is said (Exod. 20:12), “And each shall pay the Lord a ransom for himself.” That this commandment applies throughout the generations is clearly stated in 2 Chronicles (24:6) concerning Joash, King of Judah. There it is written, “Why did you not require of the Levites to bring in from Judah and Jerusalem the tax of Moses, the servant of the L?” It is also stated (ibid., v. 9), “They made a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to bring for the Lord the tax that Moses, the servant of God had set upon Israel in the wilderness.” That which it says in Ezra (Neh. 10:33), “Also, we made ordinances for us to charge ourselves yearly a third of a shekel,” has already been explained in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 2:3), that the shekel in Ezra’s time was worth thirty gerahs; so a third of that is ten gerahs, which is half the shekel value in Moses’s time. And in the final chapter of Bava Batra (9a), they said that in the time of the temple, a person could pay his annual shekel dues and obtain atonement. [That this is a commandment for all time] is also explicit in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim ibid.). As to the poet’s mentioning “you shall stone the beguiler [to idol worship],” the commentator on the Azharot has already labored to give a reason why he singled out this case [of the beguiler] over the others executed by the court, and he could not find a cogent reason. Maimonides [in fact] did not include it in the enumeration. But from the expression (Deut. 13:7) “If your brother, the son of your mother entices you,” it is interpreted in the last chapter of Kiddushin (80b) as a hint that one may not be alone with a relative [with whom sexual relationship is] incestuous [although this interpretation appears farfetched]. It is further said in chapter 2 of Avodah Zarah (36b) that this prohibition [based on the above verse] is a Torah law. If so, this is a positive commandment — 207 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

[stoning] together with a prohibition [against being alone with female relatives] derived from a positive statement. And the beguiler (hamasit). The samech has a dagesh as is written (Jer. 43:3), “Baruch son of Neriya who is beguiling (hamasit) you.” [This would mean that the common vocalization hamesit is wrong.] To worship (Heb. l’ovdah) is an infinitive as in the verse (Exod. 36:2) “To come unto (l’korvah) the work.” 79. A dreamer and a false witness you shall equally destroy, That he should not haughtily prophesy lies. Also the reason for [specifically listing the execution of] the prophet who dreams (Deut. 13:2) is unknown, as was the reason for [listing] the beguiler. And the false witness. It is a positive commandment to do to him as he had intended [to do to his brother, Deut. 19:19], whether it involves monetary guilt or being subject to whipping or being subject to the death penalty. If he testified in a case that the intended punishment is impossible to do to him, like testifying that someone is the son of a divorcee or a mamzer, he would be just whipped., for it is stated (Deut. 25:25), “If the guilty one is to be flogged.” [The Gemara in Makkot 2b applies this verse to our particular case, explaining that] he has transgressed (Exod. 20:13), “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Since a false witness may be executed, it is joined with a false prophet, stating, “You shall equally destroy.” The end of the stanza, which says, “That he not haughtily prophesy lies,” is connected to the beginning concerning the one who dreams, even though the “false witness” intervenes.62 80. And you shall punish with vengeance the defamer, And one who is a zav or a metzora is purified by sprinkling. The defamer has to keep his wife. Since he was trying to divorce her without payment, the poet employs an expression of vengeance, doing to him as he intended to do, so he himself should paid back. Thus, he cannot divorce her, and he must pay her double the dowry due to virgins of fifty shekels (as in Deut. 22:29), and he must give her a hundred. [Our translation of p’raot as vengeance] is based on the Targum. This 62 Perlow notes that the verse “who dreams” is not part of the section dealing with false prophesy in Deut. 18:20. — 208 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

is like bifroa p’ra’ot [understood as “when vengeance was being wreaked” in Judges (5:2)]. In the Gemara Makkot (15a), they state that this prohibition concerning the defamer [not to divorce her] can be rectified by a positive action [taking her back]. Also, one who rapes a woman [not married] is subject to a positive enumerated commandment (Deut. 22:24), “She shall become his wife.” They likewise stated in Gemara Makkot (ibid.) that the prohibition concerning the rapist is attached to a positive commandment [which rectifies the prohibited action]. There is also a positive commandment that is enumerated, i.e., to administer the law of a seducer properly, and the poet was too brief regarding these laws. And one who is a zav or a metzora is purified by sprinkling. I have written previously (Stanza 68) about the argument concerning enumeration of impurities. The purification for the zav does not have a special content to be counted as a [separate] commandment. For his immersion is included in the immersion for other cases of impurity. I have written previously (Stanza 65) that this is one of the four instances of those whose atonement is incomplete [without a sacrifice], each of which constitutes a commandment. When he says “is purified by sprinkling,” it refers to sprinkling with blood. [This comment is true for the metzora, but not the zav.] Concerning the purification of the metzora, there are special commandments, which are enumerated. One is to shave all his hair, and I have already written (Stanza 59) why this is separate from bringing his sacrifice, while for the Nazir it is counted together with the sacrifice. The second one is that his purification requires cedar wood and ezov herb and two birds and running water. There is also a particular commandment during his [the metzora’s] time of impurity, i.e., that his head should be left disheveled, and his clothes should be rent, and he should cover over his upper lip. Maimonides brings a proof that this is a commandment from what they said in the Sifra (Tazria 152:5) that from the verse (Lev. 21:10) “He shall not let his hair be disheveled, nor rend his clothes,” one might think that this applies when he [the high priest] is afflicted with tzora’at, and that the verse (Lev. 13:45) “His clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head should be left disheveled” applies only to every person other than the high priest. But Scripture states (ibid.), “Asher lo hanega, (who has the affliction)” [this seemingly unnecessary phrase — 209 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

implying] that this even includes the high priest. This shows [according to Maimonides] that it is a positive commandment, for if it were not a positive commandment for the afflicted person [to have his hair disheveled], it could not [have been thought to] override the prohibition of the high priest that (Lev. 21:10) “he shall not let the hair of his head be disheveled, etc.” Now he [Maimonides] did not really need all this (reasoning), for undoubtedly there is an enumerated positive commandment concerning the metzora, i.e. (Lev. 13:46), “He shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.”* Indeed, they said in Pesachim, chapter “Elu Devarim” (67a) that Rav Hisda stated that a *Maimonides, in his metzora who had entered within his forbidden commandment no. 112, includes everything to the boundary is not punishable, for Scripture said metzora’s isolation; i.e., his (ibid.), “He shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall clothes being rent, his hair disheveled, his dwelling being be outside the camp,” and thus, Scripture has away from the camp, and joined [the prohibition against entering the proclaiming his impurity. Thus camp] to a [corrective] positive commandthis would still be eligible for enumeration, even if the parts ment [in such a situation the violator is not about the clothing and the punished with whipping]. [On the other hand] hair were not substantiated by the Sifra citation. it is possible that this [dwelling apart] is a separate enumerable positive commandment [not combined with disheveled hair and rent clothing], although I have not seen any of the enumerators of the commandments who have included this separately. And in chapter “R. Eliezer d’Milah” (Sabbath 132b), Rava said that if one cuts away his bright white spot [an indicator of tzora’at], he has transgressed a specific positive commandment besides the prohibition of (Devarim 24:8) “Be heedful concerning the plague of tzora’at.” This is “to carefully observe to do” (ibid).63 Now, I have not seen anyone who has taken heed of this positive commandment, so it would seem that everything [i.e., all the positive ramifications concerning tzora’at] are included in this positive commandment that the metzora must do all that is required of him during his illness. 81. And with this will be healed one who is unclean because of a corpse or an exterminated person, 63 See Rashi, Sabbath 132b, on the words hai aseh v’lo ta’aseh hu, which identifies this scriptural phrase as being the positive commandment. — 210 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

And you shall destroy the one who leads astray, and those who remain will fear. [The meaning of this is that] by the aforementioned sprinkling, there is remedy for one who is unclean by [contact with] a [regular] corpse or one who is slain by sword, i.e., exterminated without judicial process [the two cases reflecting Num. 19:16, “One slain by a sword or who died naturally”]. One who is unclean due to a corpse does not have sprinkling with blood like a zav or metzora, but he does need sprinkling [with water containing] ashes of the red heifer. There is here an enumerated commandment, which is to sprinkle those who are unclean with corpse impurity, and this is one of the impurity laws that Maimonides counted (Positive Commandment 108, which includes the ability of the waters of the red heifer to purify as well as to defile). Nachmanides disagreed with him, and I am perplexed by this, for the purification should be counted, as I wrote above (Stanza 68). The reason for what he wrote “you shall destroy the one who leads astray” (see Deut. 13:14) is hidden, just as is the reason for the enticer (Deut. 13:8) and the false prophet (see Stanza 78). Tispeh (you shall destroy) is transitive as in ha’af tispeh (Gen. 18:24). And those who remain will fear. The one who leads astray is not one of the four crimes requiring public announcement, as it is said (Deut. 19:20), “And those who remain shall hear and fear.” These are [the rebellious son who is] a glutton and drunkard, the rebellious elder, false witnesses, and one who beguiles [family or friends to idolatry]. So the poet was incorrect about this.64 82. And one who injures fivefold, shame will cover him; And blood on the earth you shall cover with dust. One who injures his fellow has to pay for five things: damage [decrease in his value], pain, medical expense, unemployment, and shame [if disfigured]. This is an enumerated commandment. I have already written (Stanza 15) that Nachmanides includes all civil laws under one commandment, i.e. (Deut. 1:16), “And you shall judge righteously.” But in his enumeration, he agrees with Maimonides to count it as a separate commandment, as I have written, though I include it in the law of righteous judgment. 64 The Tzofnat Pane’ach notes that according to the Tosefta, the one who leads astray also requires announcement, so it was the author of Zohar Harakia who was incorrect. — 211 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

He says that “shame will cover him” concerning the one who has caused the injury, since he is guilty for these five things, and there is no greater shame than this. And blood on the earth you shall cover with dust. The poet follows in the footsteps of the Gaon, who counts covering [an animal’s blood] as a commandment and does not count slaughtering as a commandment. The reasoning of the Gaon about this is that shechitah (ritual slaughter) is not a commandment like other commandments. For even though we pronounce a blessing [“He has commanded us”] concerning shechitah, [it is not a normal commandment], since if one stays his whole life without slaughtering, he has not deprived himself of any merit. And if one slaughters all the sheep of Kedar, he does not gain any merit, for the purpose of shechita is only that a person should not eat a limb from a live animal. And so do we say in the Gemara Pesachim (7b) [that one recites the blessing that “He commanded us concerning shechitah”] and does not phrase it “to perform shechitah,” since one is not obligated to slaughter.65 [Now, I will explain the fact the Halachot Gedolot] includes among the tasks for kohanim, pouring [oil], mixing the flour, etc.; and among these things, he wrote “slaughtering.” He wrote this with reference to slaughtering of sacrifices, which are fixed obligatory commandments. They are included in the duties of the sacrifice, because part of the obligation of bringing a sacrifice is that it must be slaughtered, as it is said (Lev. 1:5), “And he shall slaughter the bullock,” and (Exod. 12:21) “Slaughter the paschal lamb.” In his [Halachot Gedolot] opinion in which he enumerates the tasks assigned to the descendants of Aaron, and I agree with him on this (see Stanza 45), shechitah would properly be included in the enumeration of the commandments. Now in my humble opinion, I have found a proof that shechitah is not among the [enumerated] commandments, from what they said in the Yelamdenu (Tanchuma, Sh’lach 15) that there is nothing in the world that was not the subject of a commandment to Israel. So if one goes out to plow, [he must observe] “you shall not plow with an ox and ass together” (Deut. 22:10). For sowing, there is (ibid., v. 9) “you shall not 65 This proof, however, does not hold up for the version in the Gemara that says the he, i.e., the owner, does not have to do the slaughtering, implying that someone else can do the slaughtering for him. — 212 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

sow your vineyard with diverse kinds.” For harvesting, there is (Deut. 24:19) “When you gather your harvest in your field and you forget a sheaf in the field.” For [baking] loaves [you shall set apart] “the first of your dough” (Num. 15:20). When one slaughters, there is (Deut. 18:3) “he must give the kohen the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach.” Concerning wild animals and birds, there is (Lev. 17:13) “he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.” When one plants, there is (Lev. 19:23) “you shall consider its fruit forbidden.” So this Midrash reviews all the commandments, but it does not find any general commandment covering domestic animals, wild animals, and fowl, except the priestly portions and covering the blood for wild animals and fowl. So if shechitah were a commandment, it would have listed that for eating meat, there is (Deut. 12:21) “and you shall slaughter your cattle and sheep.” And there is certainly here another prohibition, which is derived from a positive statement. This is to forbid slaughter of ordinary [nonsacrificial] animals in the courtyard [of the temple], as they stated in Kiddushin (57b) that the verse (Deut. 12:21) “If the place [of the temple] is too far from you, then you shall slaughter (. . . and you shall eat).” [This implies that] at a distance, you may slaughter [and eat at the same place], but you may not slaughter [and then eat] at the site [of the temple]. This is a prohibition derived from a positive statement, as Rashi wrote in chapter “Oto V’et B’no” (Chullin 78a). Similarly, there is disagreement among the early scholars about other prohibitions inferred from positive statements, as to whether they should be enumerated among the positive commandments or not. An example is (Deut. 14:4) “These are the animals that you may eat,” which is interpreted (Sifra Sh’mini 69) as a positive commandment. And he [Maimonides] made (Deut. 14:11) “You may eat any clean bird” a positive commandment (No. 150), and likewise (Deut. 14:9) “These you may eat of all that live in the water.” The meaning of all these as positive commandments is to say that if one eats any unclean animal, he transgresses a prohibition derived from a positive statement in addition to the explicitly written prohibition. Maimonides counted them as positive commandments (No. 149 ff), saying that it is a positive commandment to examine the characteristic features of an animal, and similarly for the others. The Gaon, however, did not count them. Nachmanides added to the number of prohibitions the slaughtered — 213 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

bird brought by a metzora [for purification]. He brought proof from what they said in the last chapter of Chullin (140a) that the verse (Deut. 14:11) “You may eat every clean bird” implies that there is a clean bird, which is forbidden to eat, and this is the slaughtered bird of the metzora. [The Hebrew tzippor (bird) is said to refer only to clean fowl. Thus, the limiting word clean in the above verse is redundant, and it is interpreted as forbidding the eating of the slaughtered bird of the metzora, even though it is intrinsically a clean bird.] The objection is raised that this law [prohibiting eating the metzora’s bird] is already extracted from the following passage (ibid., v. 12): “And these which are among them you shall not eat” [the word asher, “which are,” being unnecessary, is interpreted as a specific inclusion]. They replied that indeed Scripture indicates that [one who eats the metzora’s slaughtered bird] transgresses both a positive and a negative statement. This is what Nachmanides wrote. Now, according to his view [that the metzora’s bird is a separate commandment], I wonder why he did not add the positive form to his list of positive commandments. But this would not be a question for Maimonides who includes both the negative and positive formulations as part of the commandment regarding unclean fowl. And according to his [Maimonides’s] view (in Prohibition No. 73)[ that drunkenness of officiating kohanim or of judges in court are covered in this single commandment], Nachmanides wrote (in his critique on No. 73) that the law of judging while drunk is a prohibition arising from a positive statement [and thus is not properly counted among the negative commandments]. For after the verse that states (Lev. 10:9), “You shall not drink wine or strong drink,” it says (ibid., v. 11), “And to instruct the children of Israel all the statutes,” which implies that this should not be done when they are drunk; and a prohibition implied by a positive statement is considered a positive commandment. This is the meaning of the statement in the Sifra (Shemini 38) that “you and your sons” (Lev. 10:9) incur the punishment of death [“that you die not”]; but sages in their judging do not incur death [if drunk]. Since the Sifra did not state “the sages in their judging do not incur death, but are guilty of violating a prohibition,” it would seem that *This concludes this is not a negative commandment, but a positive one Nachmanides’s [with negative implication].* discussion of I have already written above (Stanza 37) that (Deut. the law of the drunken judge. 23:21) “you may/shall take interest from the foreigner” — 214 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

and (Deut. 15:3) “you may/shall demand [an unpaid loan in the sh’mittah year] from a foreigner” are of this type [i.e., positive statements implying prohibitions]. But Maimonides counts them as active commandments, that one must take interest from the foreigner and that one must collect the unpaid loan. Nachmanides wrote that the Midrash validates the words of the Gaon that a prohibition implied by a positive statement should not be counted. This is what they said (Tanchuma, Tetze 2) that every limb in a person is saying to him, “Perform a commandment with me [thus accounting for the number of commandments being equal to the number of limbs].” From this expression, it is seen that one should only enumerate those commandments whose performance is obligatory, not those expressing passively refraining from an action. For in the latter type of commandment, the [actual] prohibition would be enumerated among the prohibitions, and the prohibitions implied by the positive statements are not [counted at all]. But in the Yerushalmi Pesachim (1:4), I found support for the words of Maimonides. For there they said concerning the eating of chametz [on Passover] that it has a prohibition and a positive commandment, and concerning its destruction, there is a prohibition and a positive commandment. Concerning eating it, there is (Deut. 16:3) “You shall not eat chametz during it” [as well as] “You shall eat matzot during it for seven days,” [implying] however that [you may] not eat chametz, and a prohibition implied by a positive statement is [considered] a positive commandment. Regarding its destruction, there is (Exod. 12:15) “You shall eliminate leaven,” which is positive, [as well as] “[leaven] shall not be seen nor be found.” (Exod. 13:7) So in the Yerushalmi, they equate the prohibition derived from a positive statement of “you shall eat matzot during it for seven days” and the positive obligatory statement of “you shall eliminate.”* *Thus, according to the Yerushalmi, The words of Nachmanides on this matter are when we speak perplexing in view of what has been said, for I do of a prohibition not see consistency in his words. For Nachmanides, derived from a positive statement in one instance, has decided to enumerate all except being a positive a few, claiming about them that Maimonides had commandment, it means exactly that, neglected them. These are eating unclean terumah and we should include (Nachmanides’s Additional Positive Commandment it among the positive No. 2), doing business with fruits of the Sabbatical commandments. — 215 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

year (No. 3), eating the paschal lamb while it is yet daytime (No. 12), destroying fruits during a siege (No. 6), sacrificing limbs of a wild animal (No. 10), and rendering a legal decision while drunk (Nachmanides’s critique to Prohibition No. 73). Then there are certain ones [of this type] that I [Duran] added on that Nachmanides had neglected, although he did enumerate other prohibitions derived from positive statements. So he counts some of them and omits others. For he counts the aforementioned commandments that Maimonides had neglected, but he agrees with Maimonides in enumerating [the sacrificing of a newborn animal] that is too young (Positive Commandment No. 60), [a nazirite] letting his hair grow long (No. 92), as well as the law of proper slaughtering. But he disagreed with Maimonides on certain ones that he [Maimonides] counts, such as swearing in His name (Positive Commandment No. 7), demanding payment for a loan to a gentile (No. 142), and charging interest on his [the gentile’s] debt. Nachmanides did not agree to enumerate the above instances even as prohibitions derived from positive statements. Also he differed with him regarding the positive commandments (nos. 149ff) of examining domestic and wild animals, fowl, fish, and locusts [to ascertain whether they are kosher], which Maimonides counted as prohibitions derived from positive statements, but Nachmanides did not count them. Likewise, following his viewpoint, he should have enumerated [the prohibition of eating] the slaughtered bird of a metzora, but he did not do so. And it cannot be claimed that some of these he did not enumerate because they have been expressly prohibited; and as a result of their being thus prohibited, a positive expression in addition would not be included in the enumeration. For he does [in fact] count the destruction of fruits during a siege, even though it has a [direct] prohibition, and he counted the [direct] prohibition among the prohibitions, and the positive [expression] among the positive commandments. As to the poet saying “dusts” [plural], it is because it is required to have dust beneath and above [the blood]; indeed the word afarim [dusts] occurs many times. 83. You shall have the sotah drink, that she may be cleared; And you shall make a fence, to remove dangers. It is a positive commandment to do to the sotah [suspected adulter— 216 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

ess] in accord with the law written in the Torah. This comes into the enumeration as a single commandment. But I wonder why they did not count as a separate commandment being jealous of one’s wife, as it is said (Num. 5:14), “And he shall become jealous of his wife.” Indeed, the sages of Israel were divided (Sotah 3a) as to whether it [being jealous] expresses permission or obligation. This is similar to their arguing about the verses (Lev. 21:3) “For he may/shall become impure” and (Lev. 25:46) “You may/shall hold them as slaves forever.” Now, just as they counted “for her he shall become impure” as a commandment (Maimonides’s Positive Commandment No. 37), it would be right to count “and he shall be jealous of his wife” as a commandment, for these three cases were treated in the same manner in the Gemara. I saw that Maimonides in his great Code (Hilchot Sotah 4:18) wrote that it [the law of being jealous] is from the words of the scribes [rather than Torah law], but this does not seem so from the Talmud. And you shall make a fence. Making the fence is in order to remove blood and traps [accidents], as it is said (Deut. 22:8), “You shall make a fence on your roof, so that you do not cause blood, etc.” 84. And a bridegroom during his whole [first] year, shall be free for his household; He shall be exempt from going out [to war], and should not be enlisted for any thing. A bridegroom has to be together with his wife for one year, not leaving the city, as it is said (Deut. 24:5), “He shall be exempt for the sake of his household.” For poetic completeness, he says, “And he should not be enlisted for any thing,” although [this part of the law] should be counted among the prohibitions. 85. And the kohen anointed for war should wave his hand aloft, So that fear should not fall upon the heart of the girded (warriors). It is a positive commandment to appoint a kohen and to anoint him that he should be ready to go out to the war front to strengthen the hands and hearts of those going to war. That entire matter comes into the counting of the commandments as a single commandment, and all of them [who enumerated the commandments] wrote it as such. At this point, the poet has finished the counting of the [positive] command— 217 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

ments, and he concludes his poem in praise of those who fulfill them, and the reward due them. Now, just as we do not find in the enumeration of the commandments those that were enacted by the prophets, since they were not spoken expressly to Moses at Sinai, it is also not right to count what was said before the giving of the Torah, since it was not spoken at Sinai. Therefore, we do not include in the enumeration of the commandments what they said in the first chapter of Berachot (13a) that anyone who calls Abraham by [his original name] Abram transgresses a positive commandment, as it is said (Gen. 17:5), “Your name shall be Abraham,” for He was speaking to Abraham, and undoubtedly this was not uttered at Sinai. It is not like the commandment to be fruitful and increase, which was stated to the sons of Noah and which was not repeated at Sinai; it was nevertheless directed to Israel and not to the sons of Noah (cf. Sanhedrin 59a). For the manner of ex*The cases of Abraham’s name pression [about Abraham’s name] indicates and of dwelling in Babylonia are similar in that neither is that He was addressing Abraham [and not enumerated, since neither is part the people of Israel as a whole]. Likewise in of the Sinaitic legislation, the former being pre-Sinaitic and the chapter “Mi Shemeto” (Berachot 24b), [it latter being post-Sinaitic. The says] that anyone emigrating from Babylon fact that both are referred to as to the land of Israel transgresses a positive positive commandments is thus irrelevant. It is also noteworthy commandment, as it is said (Jer. 27:10), that the portion about dwelling “They shall come to Babylonia and they shall in Babylonia is absent in our manuscript version. be there,” and this is a prophetic law.* 86. These are My commandments, and these are My statutes, And these are My laws, perfect and righteous. Commandments (mitzvot) are matters that would have to be said [naturally] even if they were not stated [in the Torah], like love of neighbor, charity to the poor, and the like. Statutes (chukkim) are matters whose reason is unknown, like the red heifer, the goat who is sent away [on Yom Kippur], and the calf whose neck is broken [when a murderer cannot be found]. Laws (torot, from a verb meaning to guide or direct) that guide one directly to these things, like making a fence [presumably directed toward being concerned with the welfare of fellow human beings] and similar things. [Torot can also be understood as] leading a man straight, i.e., teaching him to imitate God’s ways, exalted be He. Also included in this — 218 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

[the plural form torot] are both Torahs, the written Torah and the oral Torah, and the teaching regarding all the sacrifices.66 Perfect and righteous (temimim vi’ sharim) is not grammatical; it should read “temimot vishharot,” for masculine form adjectives should not modify feminine nouns, but this was done carelessly.67 87. They enliven the swift, but they destroy the haughty; And he who instructs will shine like the brightness of the luminaries. The commandments are a life-giving potion to one who is swift and careful about them, as the wise one said (Prov. 4:22), “They are life to those that find them,” on which the comment is made (Eruvin 54a) [that instead of] “those that find them (l’motz’eihem),” [one should read] “those who bring them out (l’motzi’eihem)” [which implies that verbal repetition of studies makes them last a long time]. But to a person who is haughty and arrogant and does not do these commandments, they are a poison which will destroy him.68 But they destroy (tispenah) is an active transitive verb, as in (Gen. 18:24) “will you indeed destroy (tispeh)?” And he who instructs (hamazhir) the people to go in the way of the Torah will shine like the brightness (yazhir k’zohar) of the sky. There is a poetic use of the word mazhir, which has the meaning of instruction and commandment, along with yazhir, which is about shining and light. 88. And to the one who is instructed and observes them, a good reward will come, And with the foreordained light the righteous will be crowned. Just as the one who instructs has good reward for his effort, so as good result comes to the one who follows the instruction, and he is re-

66 The ideas and expressions in this paragraph seem to me somewhat awkward and disjointed. But the sequence of “My commandments, My statues, and My laws” is found in Gen. 26:5. 67 The author of Tzofnat Pane’ach points out that this criticism assumes that “perfect and righteous” describes the commandments. In fact. it should be read as “O you perfect and righteous people.” 68 The section that refers to Eruvin [54a] is absent in our MS. Indeed, this reference does not seem apt to the thought of this stanza. It seems that a better scriptural reference for this stanza would be the verse, [Mic. 6:10] “The righteous will walk in them [the ways of the Lord], but transgressors stumble in them.” — 219 —

———————————————— The Positive Commandments ————————————————

warded for observing it (Ps. 19:12).69 And with the foreordained light of the Shechina, the righteous will be crowned, and this is the ultimate victory for which man can strive, the crown on the heads of the righteous.70 The positive commandments are thus completed due to the strength of the Rock and Shelter. ***

69

Note: This explanation understands mazhir as a teacher/preacher, and nizhar as a disciple. Because of the multiple shades of meaning for zohar, I believe that other renderings are possible. One is that the mazhir is the Lord, who gives teaching and light to the world, and the nizhar would be a person who carefully practices the teaching. With this version, the subject of yikrav would not be ekev but the Lord, i.e., “He will be near to the one who carefully practices.” A second variation is based on the fact that this poetic rendition of the 613 commandments is known as Azharot. The meaning would then be a petition that the work of the poet will be a source of enlightenment and also that the reader will reap the rewards of observing this teaching. It is also noteworthy that in the Shabbat song “D’ror Yikra,” we also have the simultaneous usage of mazhir with nizhar. This poem is attributed to Dunash, who is earlier than ibn Gabirol. Is it possible that there exists an even earlier source? 70 It would be good to compare these closing stanzas with the content and style of the introductory stanzas at the beginning of the positive commandments. — 220 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

The Negative Commandments

1. I will take refuge in the shadow of the Almighty, and I will not cover up His righteousness, With the negative commandments, and I will tell His righteous (ways). The poet alludes to the scriptural expression (Ps. 91:1) “He dwells in the shadow of the Almighty.” He means that he takes refuge in the name “Almighty,” who overthrows the order of nature [from the verb shadad, to destroy or overthrow]. For he intends to list the prohibitory commandments, which suggests the quality of divine justice, and he does not cover up the justice of the Almighty, as was stated, for (Hosea 14:10) “the ways of the Lord are righteous” [divine retribution for transgression is just]. 2. They are written with trustworthiness, with reliable testimony, And according to the days of the year their number is sought. He says that the aforementioned commandments are written with trustworthiness, that there is nothing twisted or perverse in them. With reliable testimony, by Moses, who was the reliable [servant] in his house, as it is said (Ps. 19:8), “The testimony of the Lord is trustworthy.” He then says that there are 365 prohibitions corresponding to the days of the solar year, as was explained in the introduction. 3. They are more precious than rubies, they were destined and hidden, For the daughter of the mighty ones, like decorations to be attached. The poet takes the expression in Scripture (Prov. 3:15), “It is more precious than rubies,” and he continues that the Torah was hidden, des— 221 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

tined to be given to the daughter of the mighty ones, i.e., the congregation of Israel, which is the daughter of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Torah was secreted with Him for two thousand years before the world was created, as it is said (Prov. 8:30), “Then I was with Him as a nurseling, and I was day by day a delight,” and a day for the Holy One is a thousand years. [The repeated word yom yom thus indicates two thousand years.] These commandments are magnificent like the ornaments of bridal attire. It is possible that the poet is alluding to the rabbinic saying [see note at the end of this paragraph] that the verse (Num. 7:1) “And it was on the day that Moses completed (kallot)” implies that [the people of] Israel were like a bride entering the wedding canopy (kallot also means brides). Just as a bride adorns herself with twenty-four ornaments, so did Israel, etc.71 4. Come out toward Me, My sister My beloved, And obey My Torah, and take My instruction. Concerning [Israel’s] standing at Mt. Sinai, it is written (Exod. 19:17), “Moses led the people toward God” He calls the congregation of Israel sister and beloved, as was expressed by King Solomon (Song of Songs 5:2). He tells her that she should obey His Torah, and this is worthwhile, for “from it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23).72 And from the words of Torah, ethical behaviors are truthfully given. In the initial letters of these four stanzas, the poet has sealed his name in the aleph tav, bet shin code [i.e., bet kaph yod tzadi transforms to shin lamed mem he]. 5. I desired you and loved you, I redeemed you from rahav, With chains of gold, fine and pure. When He sent Moses, His prophet, to bring them toward God, He let them know that He chose them from all the nations, as it is said (Exod. 19:5), “And you shall be My treasured possession among all the nations,” and (Deut. 7:7) “The Lord desired (chashak) you.” When it says, “I desired you and loved you,” it means that I loved you while you were in Egypt, 71 This precise reading of the midrashic text was not found by the author of Ziv Hazohar. Partial texts are found in Shemot Rabba, Bamidbar Rabba, and Tanchuma, as well as in Rashi on Num. 7:1. This entire section of Zohar Harakia on the midrashic interpretation of Num. 7:1 is absent in our manuscript version of Zohar Harakia. 72 I am at a loss to explain the aptness of this quotation here. These past few lines are not in our manuscript text. — 222 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

and now I have additional love for you, which is chashak (desired). So the meaning is that I desired you, having already loved you, for desiring (cheshek) exceeds love. And I redeemed you from rahav [a designation of Egypt or of the Red Sea], for thus He said to them (Exod. 19:6) “You have seen what I have done to Egypt,” for I gave you spoils in Egypt and at the Red Sea, and this is what is meant by with73 chains of gold (torei zahav), which were fine and pure.74 6. Then I came out and stood, in my thousands and myriads, As the sound of my beloved approached, leaping over the hills. The congregation of Israel [in turn] says, “And I indeed came out and stood,” as it is said (Exod. 19:17), “And they stood at the foot of the mountain.” In my thousands and myriads, when Israel came out in its thousands and myriads, then there came the sound of her beloved over the mountains, as mentioned in the positive commandment section (Stanza 8). 7. I am the Lord, I called out to you at Sinai; And there shall not be before Me other gods. This is the expression of the beloved whose voice we heard. It is consistent with the approach of the sages who said (Makkot 23b) that the verses (Exod. 20:2) “I am the Lord” and (ibid., v. 3) “You shall have no——” we heard from His powerful mouth. The poet follows the opinion of the Gaon, who does not count “I am——” in the list of positive commandments, but regards it as a proclamation leading to “You shall not have——” and I have already noted this in the section on the positive commandments. The enumerated commandment is thus “You shall not have other gods before me.” 73 Note: The words torei zahav are from Song of Songs 1:11. The Midrash (Shir Hashirim Rabba on this verse) explains this term as symbolizing the spoils washed up from the Red Sea after the Egyptians were overthrown into the sea. In accordance with this meaning, the Zohar Harakia takes the meaning of this stanza as God showing special love by the spoils at the sea. The Midrash, however, gives alternate meanings to torei zahav, which allude to the Torah (the word torei being suggestive) or to the ark (the word zahav being suggestive). So the stanza could be construed as meaning that God showed his love by taking Israel out of Egypt and giving them the Torah. In this meaning, the words fine and pure would be descriptive not so much of the gold but of the words of Torah, as in Ps. 18:31, where “the word of the Lord is refined” (ts’rufah). This interpretation of our stanza makes it fit better between stanzas 4 and 6. 74 The translation of this verse is based on the MS reading of b’mo instead of k’mo. — 223 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

The content of this prohibition is that one must not affirm any other deity than Him, blessed is He, i.e., you should not accept anyone as a divinity other than God This is similar to (Jer. 11:4) “And I will be your God” and (Deut. 26:7) “You have affirmed this day that the Lord is your God” There is a dispute about this among the sages, for some claim that this is a prohibition against making idols. This is like what is taught in the Sifra (K’doshim 9:12), where they say that the verse (Lev. 19:4) “You shall not make for yourselves molten gods” might be taken to imply that other persons might make them for you, so the verse specifies [the otherwise unnecessary word] “for yourselves.” One might also think that one is permitted to make [idols] for other people, so the verse says, “You shall not make” [rather than just saying that these idols shall not be for you]. From this verse, they concluded that if one makes an idol for himself, he transgresses two prohibitions, one of not making, and another of not being for you. Rabbi Yose says that he transgresses three prohibitions, not making, not [having one made] for yourself, and also “you should not have.” So Rabbi Yose’s opinion is that the prohibition “you shall not have” concerns the making of idols. The opinion of the Halachot Gedolot is similar, as I have written in the section on the positive commandments. And the asmachta proof of (Deut. 33:4) “Moses gave us the Torah,” indicating 613 commandments by its gematria value, would apply to the view of Rabbi Yose just as it applies to the view of the Gaon, who holds that the statement “I am the Lord etc.” is not one of the 613 commandments [and the two commandments give to Israel without intermediary are the prohibitions against images and against worshipping them]. But in the opinion of Maimonides (Sefer Hamitzvot Prohibitions No. 2ff) and that of Nachmanides (critique on Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 5) who agrees with him, the law follows the first teacher [in the Sifra], that the expression “you shall not have, etc.” does not contain any prohibition against making idols, but it is about accepting them as divinities. Also, the translation of Onkelos also agrees, for he translates this verse as “you shall have no other gods except me.” The language of Scripture indicates this, since it says “other gods” that [people] serve in the same way as Him, exalted is He, and serving or accepting as divinity applies equally to Him and to others. However, the idea of making is inapplicable to Him, although it is to “others.” And from the agada [telling the story of the martyrdom of the seven — 224 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

sons] in chapter “Hanizakin” (Gittin 57b), it appears to me that the prohibition of “you shall not have” is not a prohibition against making idols. It says that they brought another son in front [of the emperor], and he told him to worship the idol. He replied that it is written in the Torah, “You shall not have other gods” [the context of this story is accepting and worshipping idols, not making them]. Likewise, it says in Horayot (8b) where [the question is raised as to] which commandment is mentioned first in the Torah, and it is identified as idol worship [being mentioned at the beginning of the Decalogue]. Now it is [also] a proof for this matter that the prohibition of “you shall not have, etc.” is not a prohibition against making idols, for making idols is not punishable by cutting off [if done intentionally] and for which a sin offering would be brought [if done in error], [the latter type] being mentioned there.75 8. And you shall make no idol, wickedly or foolishly; And you shall put no trust (in them) to make Him jealous with strange deities. Making an idol that is worshipped is forbidden by the Torah, and this prohibition is punishable by whipping. Maimonides wrote that the prohibition [in the Torah] is (Exod. 20:4) “You shall not make an idol or any image,” and this is the opinion of the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot], as I wrote in the positive commandments (Stanza 11). Nachmanides objected to this from what is stated in the Gemara Avodah Zarah (43b) and in Gemara Rosh Hashanah (24b) [concerning what types of objects are forbidden to imitate in images]. Is it permissible [asks the Gemara, to make images of things] in the lower regions [i.e., the heavenly bodies, since the original impression was that the prohibition only encompassed angelic beings, whose abode is in the upper region)? [This cannot be so] since it was taught in a baraita that the expression (Exod. 20:4) “in the heavens above” includes sun, moon, stars, and planets. [Duran explains] that the teacher who raised this difficulty thought that this prohibition (Exod. 20:4) was about making images. But [in the Talmud] they rejected this opinion of his and asserted that the verse is about worshipping images [not making them], which applies even to a small snail in the 75 The Talmudic discussion here concerns only sins, which are punishable by cutting off; and since it includes specifically the case of the first prohibition, it must be thus punishable, and thus it excludes identifying it with making idols, which is not punishable by cutting off. — 225 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

sea. That is derived from the latter part of the verse (Exod. 20:4) “which is in the earth beneath,” which includes oceans, mountains, and hills, the word beneath including the small snail in the sea. And [when the Talmud says that the verse is about] worshipping them, it means that Scripture is forbidding the worshipping [of the images] and accepting their divinity, since they did not answer the difficulty by saying that the baraita dealt with the situation where one made images for the purpose of worshipping them. So the meaning of Scripture according to this is that you shall not have any other gods from the host of the heaven to accept them as divine and saying to any of them “you are my god.” And attached to this prohibition is (v. 4) “you shall not make an idol or any image, etc.” and (v. 5) “you shall not bow to them or worship them,” all of this being a single prohibition against idolatrous worship. For Scripture uses all over this expression [of making] about idolatrous worship, e.g. (Deut. 4:16), “Lest you become corrupt and make for you a graven image, the likeness of any figure,” and (ibid., v. 25) “and you become corrupt and you make, etc.” And the intent in all these is the worship, not the making. One is perplexed by Maimonides, who decided to enumerate (Exod. 20:2) “I am . . .” as a separate commandment, since, if in the paragraph of “You shall not have . . .” there is more than a single commandment [Maimonides actually counts four], we would have then heard directly from the powerful mouth more than two commandments. However, it comes out from the Talmud at the end of Makkot (23b) that we only heard two commandments from the powerful mouth, and from Moses [we heard] 611, according to the numerical value of (Deut. 33:4) “Moses commanded us Torah” (gematria value 611). But the prohibition against making an image, which is worshipped, and having it is from the verse (Lev. 19:4) “Do not turn to idols or make molten gods for yourselves,” as they noted in the Sifra (Kedoshim 9:12), which I noted above (Stanza 7). It is also from the verse (Lev. 26:1) “You shall not set up for yourselves carved images or pillars,” where the Sifra states (Behar 105:5) concerning “carved images or pillars” that just as when you make a carved image, you have caused it to be forbidden for any user, so when you make a pillar [for idolatrous purposes], you have rendered it forbidden. And just as you are forbidden to keep [the verb takimu translated above as “set up” can also be rendered as “keep,” t’kaimu] a pillar, so you are forbidden to keep idols, i.e., one transgresses keeping — 226 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

it, even if someone else made it. So there are two prohibitions about worshipped images. One is making them, even for others, and the other is to have them, even if others made them, as is mentioned in the Sifra that I quoted above. And if one made them for himself, he is guilty on two counts, i.e., on account of “you shall not make” and on account of “for yourselves”; and he is punished with two whippings. And so did they say there (ibid.) that if one made an idol for himself, he transgresses two prohibitions. And if the image is not one that is worshipped, but is for decoration, there is a specific prohibition from the verse (Exod. 20:20) “With Me, therefore, you shall not make any gods of silver, nor shall you make for yourselves any gods of gold.” [This means that] you should not say, “I am making it as a decoration as they do in society,” since Scripture says (ibid.), “You shall not make for yourselves.” It seems that the poet uses here the general phrase “And you shall make no idol” followed by “wickedly or foolishly” to indicate its two aspects. The one is for the purpose of worship, which is wickedly, and the other is for decoration, which is foolishly. For the one who does thus [the latter] is foolish, not wicked, like the one who does so for worship. And the phrase “And you shall put no trust” includes keeping it [an idol] made by others, since if he did not have faith in them, he would not keep them. And the meaning of “And you shall put no trust [in them] to make [your creator] jealous with strange gods” is reminiscent of (Deut. 32:21) “They provoked me with non-gods.”76 The word kesel means trust, as in (Job 31:24) “If I have made gold my trust (kisli),” where [its meaning] is told by the parallel77 phrase “I called fine gold my trust (mivtachi).” 9. And be fearful of the flame, for one who brings in an abomination, Or builds a pillar [for idolatry], or plants an asherah. The verse (Deut. 7:26) “You shall not bring an abomination into your house” is a prohibition against having benefit from idolatrous things, and one who does benefit from that is punished by whipping. And so it says at the end of Makkot (22a) that if one uses asherah wood for cooking, he is punished twice, once for transgressing “You shall not bring an 76 A more apt reference would be verse 16, “They provoked Him with strange things.” 77 The phrase “v’yaged alav re’o” is adapted from Job 36:33. — 227 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

abomination,” and second for (Deut. 13:18) “And nothing of the condemned thing shall stick to your hand.” Later the poet will mention this [latter] prohibition (No. 220). What he says, “And be fearful of the flame,” reflects the content of the verse that says, “And you will be condemned like it.” It warns that one should fear and dread from the flame that burns the wicked, both idols and idolaters. Also, “You shall not set up a pillar” (Deut. 16:22) is a prohibition against making a pillar as a demonstration of honor, even for the purpose of worshipping God, exalted be He, upon it, for this is the way of the idolaters. And the scriptural expression is “You shall not set up a pillar.” [This seems redundant.] Also, “You shall not plant for you an asherah, any kind of tree” (ibid., v. 21) is a prohibition against planting any tree near the altar, as is the practice of idolaters. According to what Rashi wrote in his Torah commentary, there are two prohibitions involved. One is about planting an asherah for idol worship, making the perpetrator guilty from the time of planting. The other is planting a tree near the altar. And this is taught in the Sifre that “you shall not plant for you an asherah (ibid.) [means that the perpetrator] transgresses a prohibition. And [continues the Sifre] how is it known that if one plants a tree or builds a house on the temple mount, he transgresses a prohibition? It is from the expression (ibid.) “any kind of tree near the altar of the Lord your God” So the meaning of the verse would be “You shall not plant for you an asherah or any kind of tree near the altar of the Lord your God” This is like the interpretation that “you shall not make” (Lev. 19:4) and (ibid.) “not for you” are two prohibitions contained in one negative statement, as we wrote above (Stanza 7). But the later scholars (e.g. Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 13) considered it a single commandment, since it is a lav shebichlalut [a single prohibitive statement encompassing more than one action.]78 This is counted as a single commandment unless there is another verse, which applies specifically [to one of the several actions encompassed in the lav shebichlalut verse). [An example is] the prohibition of (Lev. 26:1) “And you shall not keep [takimu being understood as t’kaimu, keep] an idol or pillar for you,” which is specific to keeping [idols] made by others, 78 This is taken up in depth in Maimonides’s ninth principle, and it is treated in The Puzzle of the 613 Commandments and Why Bother, chap. 27. — 228 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

so that the other prohibition [“you shall not make molten gods for you” (Lev. 19:4)], which is interpreted as being a lav shebichlalut prohibiting both having idols made by others and making idols that others will have] can remain as another [enumerated] commandment pertaining to making [idols] for others.79 [This theory] is according to what was made known in the principles and follows Maimonides. However, in Nachmanides’s opinion, they would be counted as two commandments [since he counts separately things that differ in nature, even if expressed in as a single negative statement]. 10. Turn away from a false report, or *The source for v’ha’amen bashav in this stanza is Job believing nonsense*; 15:31, which reads “al ya’amen And do not take in vain His precious bashav,” and this is translated as “let him not trust in vanity.” names. In line with this meaning, I “You shall not carry a false report” (Exod. have translated our stanza 23:1) is explained in the Mechilta (Mishpatim v’ha’amen bashav as “or believing nonsense.” However, 20:196) as being a prohibition that a judge Duran understands these should not hear one of the litigants until his words in a positive sense, by taking ha’amen as imperative opponent is present. It is also a prohibition rather than infinitive. He that the litigant should not tell his words to also gives the word shav the the judge unless his opponent is present. This meaning of equality or fairness, is so that they should not present false claims rather than meaning nonsense. In fact, the normal spelling to the judges. And in chapter 4 of Shevuot of shav is with an aleph at the end, whereas the passage in (31a), this is derived from (Exod. 23:7) “Keep Job spells it without the aleph, far from a false charge.” Therefore, I wrote this and Duran understands this as among the positive commandments (Stanza meaning equality or justice. 59) that this verse is an enumerated positive commandment, and this is enjoined by both negative and positive statements. Also included in this negative commandment is a prohibition against telling malicious gossip and against receiving malicious gossip and against testifying falsely, as is explained in Makkot (23a). To this idea [expressed in the first paragraph], he attaches the words v’haa’men bashav, i.e., when you turn away from a false report, you will become trustworthy (ha’amen) and strong in fairness [taking shav to mean equality, like shaveh] and in truthfulness. Because of this, he states 79 It seems that Perlow, in his notes, wants to say that the last sentence belongs in stanza 8. But I believe that it makes sense right here as I have translated. — 229 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

this in the imperative form (ha’amen), although there is a negative about keeping far from lying, since it gives a reason for the prohibition. The poet follows the intent of the Torah, which emphasizes this prohibition by the positive commandment, which says (Exod. 23:7), “Keep far from a false charge.” And do not take in vain, etc. The meaning of “taking in vain” is swearing the opposite of what is known to everybody. For example, [if one says] about a pillar of stone that it is wooden; or if one swears truthfully about what is known, e.g., about a pillar of stone that it is of stone, etc; or also if one swears to invalidate a commandment, or swears to do the impossible. In all these cases, as soon as [the words] come out of his mouth, a “vain oath” has been expressed. 11. And the commandment against adultery, guard against it, lest He be angered; And do not strive to steal, and do not covet your neighbor. All the forbidden sexual unions [including adultery] are brought by the poet later (Stanza 135, etc.). The reason why he writes here the commandment of “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod. 20:13), which seems to be a general statement about all forbidden sexual relations, is that the poet in his verses is adhering to the order of the Decalogue. He starts counting from “You shall not have, etc.” to which is attached making idols, deriving benefit from idolatrous objects, putting up pillars, and planting asherahs. Then he wrote “You shall not take the . . .” which comes after “You shall not have, etc.,” and then he wrote “You shall not commit adultery” and “You shall not steal” and “You shall not murder” and “You shall not bear false witness” and “You shall not covet,” and other commandments and prohibitions are interspersed for poetic reasons. But the commentator on the Azharot [Moses ibn Tibbon] inserted here the prohibition (Lev. 18:6) “You shall not come near to uncover nakedness.” Maimonides explained (Sefer Hamitzvot Prohibition No. 353) that [this means that] one should not come near to any of these sexually forbidden relations, even without intercourse, as in hugging and kissing. He brings proof from the Sifra (Acharei 146:15) that states that “you shall not come near to uncover nakedness” might be construed to mean not having intercourse. Whence does one know that it means coming near [otherwise as well]? Scripture says (ibid., v. 19) “To — 230 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

a woman in her niddah period you shall not come near.”80 Now, Maimonides differs with him and said that “you shall not come near” just means actual intercourse. He brings proof from what is said in the first chapter of Shabbat (13a) that Rabbi Pedat claimed that the Torah is only prohibiting the “coming near,” which is actual incestuous intercourse. He brings another proof [from the law] that it is forbidden for a woman in her niddah period to be with her husband even if he is covered with his garment and she with her garment. [To derive this in Shabbat 13a] they had to use a hekesh analogy with the case of being with another man’s wife. This is based on the verse in Ezekiel (18:6), “He has not defiled his neighbor’s wife, and he has not come near to a woman while she is niddah.” This juxtaposes one’s wife who is niddah to another man’s wife, which implies that just as it is forbidden to be together with another man’s wife, although each is separately clothed, so is it with one’s own wife who is niddah. Now, certainly, the prohibition regarding another man’s wife does not derive from the verse saying (Lev. 18:6), “You shall not come near to uncover nakedness,” for a similar expression of “coming near” is written regarding a niddah, as it is said (Lev. 18:19), “To a woman in her niddah period you shall not come near,” while regarding another man’s wife (Lev. 18:20), there is no special mention of “coming near.” But if this “coming near” meant to come near for any kind of enjoyment, the hekesh argument referring to another man’s wife would be unnecessary. In fact, the prohibition concerning another man’s wife comes from the statement of Solomon (Prov. 5:8), “Keep your way far from her and come not near to the door of her house.” And we apply this to his wife when she is niddah by means of the hekesh. Thus, it is clear that the verse about “coming near to uncover nakedness” is not about prohibiting hugging, kissing, or other nearness except intercourse. He [Nachmanides] brings another proof from what is stated in the Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 7:9) about the verse, “To a woman in her niddah period you shall not come near,” for Rabbi Yose bar Bun said that “you shall not come near” means the same as “you shall not uncover.” He also brings proof from what it says in the Gemara Yevamot, chapter “Haba al 80 I don’t know why v. 19 is more instructive than v. 15 itself, since both verses mention “coming near” as well as “uncovering nakedness.” Indeed, the text, as it appears in the Sifra, is worded differently than that quoted by Maimonides and Zohar Harakia. — 231 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Yevimto” (55b) that ha’ara’ah [the initial stage of intercourse] means entry of the corona into the penis, while gemar bi’ah [completion of intercourse] means the actual intercourse. Anything other than this [states the Gemara] is considered kissing and is not punishable [according to Torah law]. Now, since it says “is not punishable,” it is seen that there is no whipping administered on the basis of this prohibition of “coming near,” [while Maimonides’s view is that it is punishable]. In my humble opinion, I found a clear proof of this, which Nachmanides did not mention, which is in Gemara Sotah, chapter “Arusah” (26b). [It speaks of a married woman with another man, lying together] with limbs touching, [and calls this] lewd behavior, but this is not actually forbidden in the Torah. It likewise says in chapter “He’arel” (Yevamot 76a) that a woman having lesbian intercourse is considered as just lewd behavior [i.e., not forbidden by Torah prohibition]. So it is apparent that there is no prohibition about “coming near” from the Torah.81 But the baraita (the Sifra quotation) on which Maimonides based his opinion is only of an asmachta nature [not to be understood as the actual meaning of the Torah], and the only prohibition against it [“coming near”] is rabbinic. Or it might be in the category of being below the minimum prohibited amount, which is prohibited by the Torah [though not punishable as the minimum is]. Nevertheless, having this [i.e., the subminimum case] as an enumerated prohibition would not be in accord with Maimonides’s words. What he says “Guard against it lest He be angered” is an extra caution, for on account of sexual misbehavior [divine] anger comes to the world. This is what they said (Yerushalmi Sota 1:5) that every place that you find sexual misbehavior, androlamusia [sometimes understood as severe retribution] comes to the world. The meaning of androlamusia is a government fighting force, as is mentioned in Yelamdenu (Tanchuma in the portion Korach).82 But it is possible that he refers [by understanding the word af in this stanza as connoting “nose” rather than “anger”] to the interpretation of the sages that “do not commit adultery” (lo tinaf) [sounds like] lo te81 The last quotation from Yevamot does not seem relevant here, since there is no Torah verse specifically prohibiting any aspect of lesbian sexuality. 82 The author of Ziv Hazohar says that he did not locate this source. See, however, Tanchuma, Korach 7, “v’oseh mimenu androlamusia.” This has nothing to do with sexual sinning, but this citation is apparently only meant to support the idea that androlamusia means a military force. — 232 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

haneh l’af [do not please your nose], meaning that one should not make it possible for his nose to enjoy this. This has been explained as meaning that one should not smell perfume of a married woman (see Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Yitro 14). The sages have also attached to this that one should not become a broker for sexual immorality. For they said in chapter “Kol Hanishba’im” (Shevuot 47b) that Shimon, son of Rabbi Tarfon, said that there is a prohibition against one who induces another to commit adultery; it is from lo tinaf (which can be vocalized as) lo tanef [causative form]. Also, one must raise a question concerning the prohibition of being alone with any of one’s sexually forbidden relatives, which is a Torah law, as is stated in the second chapter of Avodah Zarah (36b) and in the last chapter of Kiddushin (82b). [The question is] whether this is a separate commandment, a prohibition derived from a positive statement, i.e., from the interpretation that a man is allowed to be alone with his mother, but not with any of the other forbidden relations in the Torah, based on the verse (Deut. 13:7) “If your brother the son of your mother entices you.” Or is it just a part of the regulations of the commandment forbidding incestuous relations? And you shall not strive to steal. Even though “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:13) mentioned in the Decalogue refers to kidnapping, as is derived from the context [of other capital offenses, see Sanhedrin 86a], the poet83 leaves kidnapping for later (Stanza 99) with capital offenses. But here he records stealing property, which is actually forbidden by “lo tignovu” (you shall not steal, Lev. 19:11), about which they said in the Mechilta (Yitro 8) that it is the prohibition against stealing property. Also, it is said in the Sifra (Kedoshim 2:23) that from the verse that says “he shall pay double” [for a stolen animal] (Exod. 22:3), we have the punishment specified, but the prohibition is from lo tignovu (Lev. 19:11). His use of the expression lo tishaf (you shall not strive) expresses desire. A similar usage is (Job 7:2) “As a slave is eager (yishaf) for the shade.” This is because a person’s soul yearns for robbery and illicit sexual relations. And do not covet your neighbors. The Torah talks about desiring (ta’avah) (Deut. 5:18) and about coveting (chemdah) (Exod. 20:14), and these are two individual prohibitions. And thus is it stated in the Mechilta (Yitro 8) that Scripture says (Exod. 20:14), “You shall not 83 Instead of “and the poet” in the printed edition, I here follow the MS “the poet.” — 233 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

covet,” and later on it says (Deut. 5:18), “You shall not desire,” indicating that one is separately guilty for desiring and separately guilty for coveting. It also says that if a person desires, he will be led to covet, since the Torah says, “You shall not desire” and “you shall not covet.” And how do we know that if one covets, he is led to robbing? That is indicated by (Mic. 2:2) “And they covet fields and seize them.” The meaning of ta’avah is desiring in one’s heart, while the meaning of chemdah is trying by whatever [nonviolent] means to bring the thought to action. And so they said in the Mechilta (Yitro 8) about the verse (Deut. 7:25) “You shall not covet (tachmod) silver and gold that is on them and take it for yourself”; just as that verse means [that one has sinned] only when he performed an action [“and take it for yourself”], so here [“you shall covet” in the Decalogue] it is only when one takes action [that one bears the guilt of coveting]. And if one’s [nonviolent] efforts do not succeed, and one resorts to seizing forcibly, this is robbery. The expression [do not covet your neighbors] is abbreviated; it would have been correct to say, “Do not covet that which belongs to your neighbors.” 12. You shall not crush a person, whose blood I will seek out; And you shall not set a trap to cause the blind to stumble. I have already written that the poet organized his poem according to the Decalogue; so here he wrote about “you shall not murder.” The meaning of lo tenakesh is “you shall not crush,” like (Ps. 109:11) “Let the creditor crush (y’nakesh) everything he has,” and the meaning is “you shall not murder a human being.” When he says “whose blood I will seek out,” its meaning appears to be like (Ezek. 3:18) “I will require his blood from your hand [i.e., I will punish the one who caused death]. It is similar to (Gen. 9:5) “I will require a reckoning of human life, of every man for that of his fellow man.” But the commentator [ibn Tibbon] on the Azharot gave this plausible interpretation that it means not to kill even one who deserves to die. It, so to speak, means “You shall not crush, i.e., execute, a person whom I want to kill, and whose blood I am seeking,” for [execution] is permitted only to the court after witnesses testify before them. Even if the high court witnessed the transgression, they are not allowed to put him [the transgressor] to death; but they must bring him before [another] court, and they must give their testimony, and the other court may put him to death. This is included in the verse (Num. 35:12) “The manslayer shall — 234 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment.” And the Mechilta says that one might have thought that they could execute a person who murdered or committed adultery; therefore, Scripture says, “The manslayer shall not die until he stands, etc.” Also, it says that one might have thought that if the congregation saw a person committing murder, they could kill him without having him stand before the court; therefore, it states, “The manslayer shall not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment.” And you shall not set a trap to cause the blind to stumble. The prohibition (Lev. 19:14) “You shall not put a stumbling-block before the blind,” includes many things. They said in the Sifra (K’doshim 35:14) in explaining this prohibition that [it means] that if a person is blind concerning some matter and wants to get your advice, do not give him advice that is not appropriate. Also, it states that if one causes another person to sin with something that he knows is forbidden, but gives it to him as if it were permissible, he violates “You shall not put a stumblingblock before the blind.” Concerning this, they stated (Niddah 57a) that the Samaritans do not observe the law, “You shall not put a stumblingblock before the blind [in the sense of giving misinformation leading people to sin].” Also, it is forbidden to assist someone who is transgressing against the words of the Torah by providing him with a forbidden thing. Concerning this, it says (Pesachim 22b) that if a person gives a cup of wine to a Nazirite or a limb from a live animal to a descendant of Noah, transgresses “You  .  .  . before the blind.” Also, if one strikes his grown son, he transgresses this law [since the son might strike him back, which is forbidden], as is found in Moed Katan (17a) in the happening concerning the servant woman of Rabbi Judah the Prince [who excommunicated a man who was beating his grown son]. Also, both a lender and a borrower, who are involved with interest, transgress this law (Bava Metzia 75b), since they are abetting each other. 13. You shall not testify falsely, and do not oppress an orphan; And your land shall not fall into harlotry, as in foreign countries. The prohibition against false testimony is among the words of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:13), and this is the prohibition corresponding to

— 235 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

edim zomemin.84 So is it stated in the Mechilta (Yitro 8:13) and in the Gemara Makkot (4b). There is another prohibition85 about a witness, based on the verse (Num. 35:30) “One witness shall not testify against any person that he die,” which the rabbis (Sanhedrin 33b) interpreted as meaning that a witness should not also act as judge [understanding ya’aneh not as testify but as answering or expressing himself about the guilt of the accused]. For this is what they said in Sanhedrin (ibid.) that a witness should not “answer” [express his opinion in court] either to acquit or to find guilty. And they give the rationale that this has the appearance of his having a personal interest in his testimony. And do not oppress an orphan. Now Maimonides (Prohibition No. 256) included the orphan and widow as a single commandment, for he considered them a lav shebichlalut [a single prohibition involving more than one case], where the particular cases should not be separately counted, since Scripture has included them under a single prohibition, saying (Exod. 22:21) “You shall not oppress any widow or orphan.” But Nachmanides differs, saying that even if his words are correct, that [normally] you only count the general statement, not the particular cases; in this instance, however, the Torah separated them and said, “If you will indeed oppress him [singular].” And since Scripture separated them, he should count each case as a separate prohibition. And Nachmanides said that this is how the rabbis interpret every similar case, and so it seems from what I wrote in the principles (principle 9). But in this particular instance, I do not agree with his words, for it is said in Sanhedrin (65a) and Keritot (3b) that the ov and the yidoni [sorcerers] are separated regarding [punishing them] with death (Lev. 20:27), but are not separated in the prohibition (Deut. 18:11), for a true separation is where there is a separation in the prohibition, while a separation regarding death is not a true separation. One learns from this that if they are not separated in the prohibition, this is not a separation, even if they are separated in the punishment. In fact, Nachmanides himself wrote this in order to refute 84 These are witnesses whose testimony is shown to be false, and who are subject to the same punishment that their testimony would have caused to the accused. The punishment is stated in Deut. 19:19, but every punishment must be related to an express prohibition. In this case, the expression is in Exod. 20:13. 85 It seems that he meant to insert this as one of the 365 prohibitions. It indeed appears as a commandment (no. 18) in the list preceding the text. However, in the account at the end of the book, where Duran discusses his enumeration, I do not find this commandment mentioned. — 236 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Maimonides for separating the ov and yidoni into two prohibitions, on account of their being separated in the [punishment of) death]. And your land shall not fall into harlotry. Scripture says (Lev. 19:29), “Profane not your daughter to make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry [alternatively, and the land shall not fall into harlotry].” The Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] counted this as a prohibition [i.e., the land shall not fall into harlotry]. Maimonides (Principle No. 5) criticized him, saying that this is only expressing the reason for “Profane not . . .” i.e., in order that the land shall not fall into harlotry, and this is not another prohibition. Nachmanides supported the Gaon, saying that the first prohibition applies to the father, i.e., that he should not profane his daughter; and the second part applies to the man committing the lewdness, i.e., that he also transgresses a prohibition, and also the harlot herself is forbidden by this prohibition. So the latter prohibition includes both the lewd participants, and “Profane not . . .” applies to the father alone. He brings proof from what it says in the Sifra (Kedoshim chap.7; 77:1) and is quoted in the Gemara Yevamot (61b) and in Sanhedrin (76a) that “profane not your daughter . . .” refers to giving away his daughter not for marriage, and similarly to her giving herself away not for marriage. Nachmanides understands this [the prohibition to the daughter] not being derived from the father’s prohibition at all, but [independently] from “and the land shall not be given over to harlotry.” Therefore, he agrees with the opinion of the Gaon, who counts this as a prohibition, and this is likewise the opinion of the poet. 14. Do not wrong the stranger, and you shall not build of hewn stones; And you shall not bear witness in a dispute, inflaming the contenders. After completing [the commandments in] the Decalogue, the poet adheres to the order of the Torah portions [in a rough way]. So he said, “You shall not build of hewn stones” (at the end of Yitro), and thereafter [other commandments] in the Sedra of Mishpatim, as he encountered them, with exceptions as required by the rhyming.86 He begins, “Do not wrong the stranger.” Now, this wronging refers to wronging with words. So it is said in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 18, 178, 86 The first two commandments in the stanza are actually in reverse order in the Sedra. — 237 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

20) that “do not wrong the stranger” means with words. It explains in the Sifra (Kedoshim 82, 2) that you should not say to him “Last night, you were an idol worshipper, and now you have entered under the wings of the Shechinah.” Even as we are prohibited concerning wronging a converted stranger, similarly, there is another prohibition which is counted regarding a stranger who escaped [from outside Israel] to the Land of Israel, as it is said (Deut. 23:17), “With you, in your midst, he shall dwell . . . where it is good for him; you shall not wrong him” (Sifre, Tetze 125, 17). And you shall not build of hewn stones, i.e., one should not build an altar of hewn stones that were touched by iron, and so it was explained in the Mishnah, Tractate Middot (3, 4). The scriptural verse says (Exod. 20:22) “You shall not build them of hewn stones, for if you lift your tool on it, you have profaned it.” And you shall not bear witness in a dispute (Exod. 23:2). The intention of the poet is that this is similar in content to (Prov. 25:8) “Do not go forth quickly to a quarrel” and to “A person should be one who hears himself being verbally attacked and does not reply” (Gittin 36b); for if one does not answer back in a quarrel, [the result is that] “When there is no whisperer, contention ceases” (Prov. 26:20).87 If one does answer back, this “inflames the contenders,” i.e., the dispute between them will be aggravated. But the sages interpreted this (Exod. 23:2) as meaning that a judge should not tend toward the opinion of one of his colleagues and verbally express what he does not believe in his heart, veering toward the opinion of his colleague. And thus says the Mechilta (Mechilta of R. Shimon bar Yochai, Exodus 23) that “you shall not answer in a dispute to turn aside” means that you should not say at the time of voting “It is good enough if I would vote like such a one,” but say how it seems to you. Another thing learned from this verse is that if one expresses innocence [for the accused], he should not later express guilt. And also [it is learned that] it is permitted to reopen the case [if the accused was found guilty, and then new evidence was found] for exoneration, but not to reopen [from innocence to] guilt. Also, [it is learned, by reading the word riv, a quarrel, as rav, a chief] that one does not begin [in the order of voting by the 87 In this reading of Ex. 23:2, the word ta’aneh is taken to mean “answer back,” rather than “bear witness.” — 238 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

panel of judges] with the chief, since the word for quarrel, riv, according to its spelling [can be vocalized] as rav (chief). All of this has to do with capital cases, as is explained in Mishnah Sanhedrin (4, 1). 15. You should not curse elohim, and you shall not profane His name; And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor gather fallen fruit of the harvest. This is a prohibition against cursing judges, as mentioned in Sanhedrin (66a). There is in this verse (Exod. 22:27) another prohibition, about blaspheming His name, blessed is He. This is an enumerated prohibition according to what they stated in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 19, 188) that the punishment for this we hear from the verse (Lev. 24:16) “And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death.” Where [continues the Mechilta] is the prohibition expressed [since it is always assumed that if something is punishable, there must somewhere be a prohibitive statement]? It is from (Exod. 22:27) “You shall not curse elohim [that word means judges, but it can also refer to God].” It also states there (Sanhedrin 66a) that “you shall not curse elohim” is a prohibition against blaspheming His name, blessed is He. In the Sifra (Emor 19, 243) it is stated that [blaspheming] with the special name incurs the death penalty, but with other synonyms, it is just a transgression of a prohibition. Now, Maimonides did not consider it far-fetched to count this prohibition as two commandments, since Scripture separates them with respect to their punishments. So this is not a lav shebichlalut [a generalized prohibition which Maimonides usually counts as a single commandment]; since the punishment is explicit, the fact that the prohibition is combined with something else is only due to the principle that there is no punishment without a prohibition. It is not a lav shebichlalut unless there does not exist in any other place [a separate mention] besides in the combined prohibition, and thus have I written in the Principles. And you shall not profane His name. The prohibition (Lev. 22:32) “You shall not profane My holy name” means that a person should not perform a transgression nor do any act by which the divine name will be profaned. For instance, in a time of religious persecution, even one who is coerced [to sin] profanes the exalted name. Also, in a time when there is no persecution, if one publicly renounces divine authority, intending — 239 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

to rebel against the Holy One, blessed is He, [one violates this commandment]. Also, if a person who has a reputation for proper behavior does something unseemly [though not an actual transgression], he is guilty of profaning His name.88 And you shall not glean your vineyard. These are the small clusters that have no “shoulder” [grapes from side stems] and “dripping” [grapes from the central stem]. These must be left for the poor. They are called olelot (young children), as in (Lam. 2:11) “young children and sucklings,” since they are to full-grown clusters as small children are to adults.The fallen fruit of the harvest. This is a separated prohibition, i.e., that one should not pick up grapes that fall during the harvesting. 16. You shall not delay your taking your harvest fullness or your liquid; And do not oppress your neighbor, and do not postpone vows. The use of the expression “your taking” (b’vitzacha) means [taking] in the manner of robbery, as in (Ps. 10:3) “And the exploiter (botze’a) blesses.” This expression b’vitzacha is used for enhancing the poem [since it is used for rhyming]. But the prohibition m’le’atcha v’dimacha lo t’acher (Do not delay your fullness of harvest and the flow of your presses; Exod. 22:28) applies even when one does not intend to rob. The meaning of this prohibition is explained in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 19, 189, 28) that one should not remove terumah before first fruits from produce nor should one remove second tithe before the first tithe [altering the correct order of separation]. If one transgresses this prohibition, he is not punished by whipping, as is mentioned in the first chapter of Temurah (4a). It also states in the Mishnah, tractate Terumot (3, 6) that [although separating these portions in incorrect order is forbidden, if one did so], the separation is valid. And do not oppress your neighbor (Lev. 19:13) is when one withholds payment for a hired laborer. Thus is it explained in the Gemara Bava Metzia, Chapter Hamekabel (111a) and in Chapter Haparah (?) and in Chapter Oto V’et B’no (?). Furthermore, anyone holding on to money rightfully belonging to his fellow transgresses this prohibition (Sifre Tetze 145, 14). And do not postpone fulfilling vows (Deut. 23:22). One has 88 These various cases are not clearly delineated here. See Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 63. — 240 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

transgressed this vow only after three festivals have passed, as is stated in Rosh Hashanah (6a). 17. And do not curse the deaf, for the violence done to him will be sought; And the plowman shall not hitch oxen with donkeys. This prohibition is against cursing anyone in Israel. But Scripture (Lev. 19:14) mentions the deaf in particular, since [this is forbidden] even though [the deaf person] is not pained by the curse since he does not hear it; so much more [is it forbidden to curse] one who hears and is pained. But since a transgression from a kal v’chomer is not a valid basis for punishment, the rabbis (Mechilta Mishpatim 19, 188) had to include [this prohibition of cursing] any Israelite from the word “of your people” (Exod. 22:27, “And you shall not curse a ruler of your people”). As it is said in the Sifra (Kedoshim 34, 13) that [from Lev. 19:14] one would think that it applies only to the deaf, and [its applicability] to other people is from “You shall not curse . . . of your people.” Then why [continues the Sifra] does Scripture (Lev. 19:4) state [particularly] the deaf person? [It is to imply] that the law applies to a deaf person who is alive, but excludes cursing a corpse, who is not alive. [Note that] one is not punishable for cursing unless he uses the divine name. The expression “The violence done to him will be sought” means that you should not think that, since he does not hear, “What can he do to me?” For the Holy One hears and exacts retribution for his injury and will take vengeance from the one who curses. This is why it says (Lev. 19:14) “And you shall fear your God” And the plowman should not hitch oxen with donkeys. One should not combine two species of animal for any kind of work: plowing, threshing, hauling wagons, and similar things. Now, Maimonides wrote (Sefer Hamitzvot, Prohibition No. 218) that one is punishable by whipping only if one [of the two animals] is a clean animal and the other is an unclean animal. But I have not seen such a thing anywhere. Rather in chapter five of Bava Kamma (55a) and in Chapter Oto V’et B’no (Hullin 79a), they clearly stated that it is forbidden to use any two species, even if both are unclean or both are clean animals. Also in the Mishnah, Tractate Kila’im (8, 2), we learned that unclean with unclean and clean with clean [are forbidden to work together]. Maimonides explains this Mishnah that it means forbidden by rabbinic law [but not punishable as — 241 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

a Torah law]. Just as it is forbidden to use two species, so it is forbidden to mate them, as it is said (Lev. 19:19) “You shall not have your cattle breed with a different kind.” [The Torah forbids] inserting “the paint stick into the tube [i.e., manually causing copulation].” 18. Do not oppress your hired worker, and do not glean your harvest; Do not muzzle your ox while he threshes the sheaves. Even though two prohibitions are written regarding oppression, “You shall not oppress your neighbor” (Lev. 19:13) and “You shall not oppress your hired laborer” (Deut. 24:14), they are enumerated as only one prohibition, as is known from the Principles (No. 9), and I have already explained above (Stanza 16) the meaning of “oppression.” And do not glean your harvest (Lev. 19:9 and 23:22) is a prohibition that one should not pick up the ears of grain that fall at harvest time but should leave them for the poor. Do not muzzle your ox while he threshes the sheaves (Deut. 25:4). They have already said in Chapter Haparah (Bava Kamma 54b) and in Bava Metzia (89a) that this applies to an ox and other animals as well, and to threshing and other work as well, but Scripture speaks in terms of the usual case. Muzzling means preventing its eating, and even if one verbally muzzles it, he transgresses this prohibition. 19. Do not completely harvest your olive branches, and do not finish off your edge; And do not wrong your comrade with purchase or selling. Do not completely harvest your olive branches (Deut. 24:20) means that one must leave a portion on the tree so that he should not totally finish it. Also included here is that one should not take what he has forgotten from the olive tree branches, and this applies to other trees as well. This is derived from the verse (Deut. 24:20–21) “You shall not completely harvest the branches after you” and “You shall not glean the young [grapes] after you” [the expression “after you” implying going back after forgetting]. It is said in the Sifre (Tetze 150, 2) that “you shall not completely harvest the branches” [lo t’fa’er] means that the law of leaving a portion applies, and “after you” means that the law of forgotten produce applies. The meaning of lo t’fa’er is “You shall not take its branches” [pe’erot — 242 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

means branches, and the verb form indicates removal or harvesting]. This is similar [but not exactly] to a person who removes branches (se’ifot) being called mesa’ef (Isa. 10:33). And the law about leaving a portion and that of the forgotten produce apply to both field crops and trees, and they constitute two prohibitions. Therefore, he continues after this, “And do not finish off your edge,” in accord with the verse (Lev. 23:22) “And you shall not finish off the edge of your field.” And regarding what is forgotten in the field, it is written (Deut. 24:19) “If you forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not return to take it.” These are counted as two commandments [not harvesting a designated portion of the produce, and not harvesting forgotten produce], as is known from the Principles.89 And do not wrong your comrade with purchase or words [Duran has instead of mimkarim (selling) devarim (words)]. There are two prohibitions, one of which is about wronging monetarily, as it is stated (Lev. 25:14) “If you make a sale to your comrade, etc.” The content of this wronging is that one should not overcharge. The second kind is wronging with words, that one should not cause pain with words [derived from Lev. 25:17]. The meaning of “wronging” is like (Isa. 49:26) “I will feed those who wrong you with their own flesh.” 20. You shall not bear the guilt for one who intends to sin; And you shall not think hatefully of him, as for hatred of enemies. He says that if one’s heart intends to do evil [libo m’lao meaning determination to do evil is based on Esth. 7:5] and whose passion incites him to commit a transgression, “You shall not bear his guilt” (Lev. 19:17) by rebuking him in a way that shames him. Thus is it in the Gemara Arakhin (16b) and in the Sifra (Kedoshim 43). One might think that “you shall surely reprove your neighbor” (Lev. 19:17) applies, even if he reproves him so that his face is altered [by public embarrassment]; therefore, Scripture says, “You shall not bear his guilt.” From here, the rabbis said (Bava Metzia 59a and Avot 3:15), “He who publicly blanches the face of his fellow in shame has no share in the world to come.” 89 Maimonides in Principle 9 says that when Scripture has two prohibitory statements that concern essentially the same topic but which complement one another, they should not be counted separately. Thus, not harvesting a portion of a grain field and not harvesting a portion of the fruit of the tree are counted as one commandment, not two. — 243 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

And you shall not think hatefully of him. He says this since the Torah (Lev. 19:17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart”) only forbids hatred in one’s heart, as stated in the Sifre (Kedoshim 42) and Gemara Arachin (16b). As for hatred of enemies. The Torah only forbids hatred between enemies because of [personal feelings of] enmity. But if one is guilty of transgression, though there are no witnesses to bring him to court, then it is one’s duty to be hateful, as it is said (Prov. 8:13) “Fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” In this way, it says (Exod. 23:5) *There, it is supposed that when the Torah speaks “When you see the donkey of your enemy, etc.,” of “your enemy,” it must as is noted in the Gemara Pesachim (113b).* Arim refer to someone who is [the last word in the stanza] means enemies, as in guilty of transgressions, since otherwise, it is (1 Sam. 28:16) “And he became your ar,” i.e., your forbidden to be hateful. enemy. 21. Do not take vengeance on your people, so that I should not take vengeance on you; And the wages of your laborers shall not stay with you. The rabbis explained this in Gemara Yoma, Chapter Barishonah (23a) and also in the Sifra (Kedoshim 44). Suppose someone said to another, “Lend me your sickle,” and he did not lend it. Then, on another day, the latter said to him, “Lend me your spade,” and he replied, “I won’t lend it to you, just as you did not lend me your sickle.” In that case, he transgresses the prohibition [of “You shall not take vengeance,” Lev. 19:18]. The punishment for this is divinely administered, and there is no whipping [by the court], since there is no action involved. Therefore, he says so that I should not take vengeance on you. And the wages of your laborers shall not stay with you. There are two prohibited actions which comprise this enumerated commandment. The one is the wage of the hired worker, “The wage of a laborer shall not remain with you” (Lev. 19:13), which is a prohibition regarding a day laborer. The other one is (Deut. 24:15) “You must pay him his wages on the same day, that the sun shall not set on it [unpaid].” This is a prohibition regarding one hired for the night, and both of them are enumerated as a single commandment, as is know from the Principles (No. 9). For the intention in both of them is not to delay the payment of a laborer more than one 12-hour period [following the work], and so did they state in Gemara Bava Metzia (110b). We count “Should not — 244 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

remain . . .” as one commandment, and “You shall not wrong” (stanzas 16 and 18) as another, since one may transgress one without the other. Even though it is said in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 111a) that if one withholds payment of a laborer, he transgresses all of them [which includes these two], it does not mean that they are identical in content. For when the day has passed [without payment], he has transgressed the one prohibition, and if he fails to pay him altogether [even later], he has transgressed the other. 22. You shall not keep angry grudges, and you shall not consult ovot; And fathers shall not be put to death on account of their children, nor children on account of their parents. Also there (Yoma 23a, which was previously quoted regarding taking vengeance in Stanza 21), they spoke about one who says to a person, “Lend me your sickle,” and he did not lend it to him. Later, that person says, “Lend me your spade,” and he replies, “Here, take it, I am not like you.” One is forbidden (to act thus), since, although he did not take vengeance [by refusing to lend the spade], he nevertheless carried the anger in his heart. You shall not consult ovot. There are two enumerated prohibitions, i.e., not to consult an ov, and not to consult a yidoni. The verse that prohibits this is (Deut. 18:10–11) “Let no one be found among you who . . . consults an ov or yidoni.” A person who consults [an ov or yidoni] is not punishable by death, but he has transgressed a prohibition. The Sifre proclaims that that an ov is [a sorcerer] where speech comes from his armpit, and a yidoni has speech come from his mouth; these are punishable by death, [i.e., the practitioners]. But he who consults them transgresses a prohibition [which is punishable by whipping]. [The ov and yidoni] are counted as two [commandments], as is known from the Principles (No. 9). And fathers shall not be put to death on account of their children, nor children on account of parents. They explained in the Sifre (Tetze 147, 16) and in Sanhedrin (27b) that this is a prohibition against relatives testifying about each other, whether regarding guilt or innocence, and whether civil or criminal cases. Since “parents” (horim) refers to father and mother, the expression is abbreviated and inaccurate, for a woman’s testimony is invalid whether she is a relative or not. It would — 245 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

have been more proper to say that parent cannot be put to death [by their child’s testimony], nor can children be put to death by [testimony of] fathers. Even this would still be abbreviated because it still does not specify according to whose testimony parents are not to be put to death. It is possible to improve the sense of his words according to the statement in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 28a) that [one can include in the words parents shall not be put to death] that parents’ testimony against each other is invalid, i.e., testimony of brothers against each other is invalid, since they may be termed fathers. The meaning would be that a brother and his children could not be put to death by the testimony of the brother, or by the uncle, who is a different generation. The two prohibitions contained in this verse (Deut. 24:16) constitute a single [enumerated commandment], for they are complementary, as is known from the Principles (No. 9). 23. Do not hearken to the words of a prophet teaching falsehood; And you shall not follow behind stupid misleaders. The Torah says regarding a false prophet (Deut. 13:4) “You shall not hearken to the words of that prophet.” Maimonides (Prohibition No. 28) explained that this prohibition means that we should not inquire of the one who prophesies in the name of false gods as to what is the sign or miracle [which he predicts] as one does of one who prophesies in God’s name. Even if the sign that he gives occurs immediately, we should not pay attention to it, but we must execute him immediately. On this basis, the prohibition is counted among the commandments. However, Nachmanides (in his critique of Prohibition No. 28) wrote that this prohibition applies after the miracle occurs, as it says (Deut. 13:4) “For the Lord your God is testing you.” Thus, he explained that this prohibition is that we should not do according to his words, and worship the false deities, and that we should not be misled by the sign or miracle that he gave, and which happened. So did Onkelos translate, “You shall not accept the word of that prophet.” And this is also the meaning of “You shall not hearken to the word of that prophet,” since “listening” attached to the word to (el) signifies accepting words and acting on them, while if it were a prohibition just against hearing his words, it would say, “You shall not hear the words of that prophet.” [In other words, shmiah el means “listening to” in the sense of obeying, whereas shmiah without el means plain listening.] According to his [Nachmanides’s] words, — 246 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

it is not right to include this prohibition in the enumeration, since it would simply be a prohibition against idolatry. They have already stated (Tanchuma Lev. 2) that the Torah prohibits idolatry in forty-two places, but they are not all separately counted, as is known from the Principles (No. 9). But Nachmanides would haltingly admit this prohibition in the enumeration, since there is included herein something other than idolatry. This is that we must not follow the words of a prophet who proposes to revoke anything in the Torah, even if he performed a sign or miracle, as is explained in Sanhedrin (90a). [In fact, Nachmanides deletes this in his final count.] And you shall not follow behind stupid misleaders. When he says nivarim (stupid), this is like the biblical expression about idolatry (Jer. 10:8) “They are altogether stupid and foolish.” It is similarly written above (Stanza 8) “with wickedness and foolishness” [i.e., idolatry and foolishness are associated]. With regard to the misleader [who attempts to mislead someone into idolatry], there are numerous prohibitions. The first is a prohibition not to mislead, as it is said (Deut. 13:12) “And they shall no more do such an evil thing.” The second is a prohibition against loving, as it is said (Deut. 13:9), “You shall not consent to him” [the word toveh, consent, has the same letters as tohav, love.]. The third is an even stronger prohibition, which is not to let go of one’s hatred for him, but it is a duty to hate him. As it is said in the Sifre (Re’eh 67, 9), that from the verse (Lev. 19:18) “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you might think that it means such a person [the misleader] also; therefore, it is stated, “You shall not consent to [love] him.” [The Sifre continues that from the verse (Exod. 23:5)] “You shall surely release it with him,” you might think that it means such a person also; therefore, it is stated (Deut. 13:9), “You shall not listen to him.” The fourth one is that if the person who is being misled sees the misleader in a perilous condition, he is forbidden to rescue him, as it is said (ibid.) “Your eye shall not pity him.” The fifth is that the person who is being misled is forbidden to plead the cause of the misleader, even if he knows of a favorable argument for him, as it is said (ibid.) “You shall not spare him.” And yet a sixth prohibition is that if he has incriminating knowledge from another viewpoint, he must make it known and reveal it, as it is written (ibid.) “You shall not conceal for him.” Thus did the rabbis interpret in the Sifre, and Maimonides, basing him— 247 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

self on this, included all of them in the enumeration. But Nachmanides based himself on what they said in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 61b) that the words (Deut. 13:9) “You shall not consent to him and you shall not listen to him” mean that if he consented and listened, he is guilty. It looks like they interpreted the content as accepting the words he said, which would be [saying] “I will go and I will worship,” and he would be guilty of the death penalty as soon as he agrees. This is also the opinion of the Targum who translates it as “You shall not accept from Him,” which means accepting his words, not listening. Therefore, he invalidates these two commandments from the enumeration, since they are among the many prohibitions against idolatry; likewise, the Halachot Gedolot does not enumerate them. In my humble opinion, it is possible to maintain the [interpretation of the Baraita (i.e., the Sifre)] and to include everything here [i.e., the various prohibitions concerning the misleader mentioned in the Sifre], just as Nachmanides did concerning the prohibition (Deut. 13:4) “You shall not listen to the words of that prophet.”90 Since the Talmudic authorities were more proficient in the linguistic usage of “listening” (shemiah) than we are, one should not reject an explicit Baraita on account of our theorizing. Also, Nachmanides, at the end of his book, where he enumerates the commandments, does not eliminate from Maimonides’s list “You shall not consent to him” and “You shall not listen to him.” However, I noticed that he does eliminate “You shall not listen to the words of that prophet.” 24. Do not hand over a slave, and do not be partial to certain people; And do not mention verbally the names of false deities. It is a prohibition that one should not return a gentile slave who fled to the Land of Israel from a Jewish master residing outsode the Land of Israel, as it is said (Deut. 23:16) “You shall not hand over a slave to his master.” Thus, it is explained in Gittin (45a). The master is compelled to free him, and the slave writes for him a contract [of indebtedness] for his value [as a slave]. I have already written above (Stanza 4) that we are 90 In Nachmanides’s critique of Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 28, he again opposes the inclusion of a separate commandment based on the rendition of “listening” rather than “obeying”; however, he does find some justification for Maimonides’s inclusion. — 248 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

enjoined by a special prohibition not to oppress him [the freed slave] just as in the case of a convert. And do not mention verbally. This is a prohibition not to swear in the name of an idol as one swears in the name of Him whose name is exalted. Even mentioning it by name is forbidden, as it is said in Sanhedrin (63b) that one should not say to his friend, “Wait for me at a certain idol.” There (Sanhedrin 63b), where they speak of [various types of honor shown to an idol, which do not constitute actual worship, such as] hugging, kissing, sweeping around it, and sprinkling around it, [they comment that] they are not punishable by whipping. However, if one vows in the name of an idol or takes an oath in its name, [he is punishable by whipping, since this is a transgression of the verse (Exod. 23:13) “And make no mention of the name of other gods.” 25. Do not covet their silver, and you shall not stand idly by blood; And quit the habit of swearing falsely. The prohibition of “You shall not covet the silver or gold that is on them” (Deut. 7:25) means that one may not have any benefit from decorations on a heathen deity, as is made clear in Gemara Sanhedrin (source not identified) and likewise in the Sifre (Lev. 17:9) and in Avodah Zarah (51b). They said that “with them” (in Deut. 29:17) and “on them” (in Deut. 7:25) are comparable; just as the latter refers to forbidden decorative objects on them [idols], so the former forbids decorative objects. But Nachmanides (on Prohibition No. 194) holds otherwise, since the verse (Deut. 7:26) “You shall not bring an abomination into your house” [which follows “You shall not covet, etc.”] cannot include decorations on idols, [the word abomination here] meaning not the decorations, but the idol itself. However, this is not what Maimonides wrote. And you shall not stand idly by blood is a prohibition against being disinterested as to rescuing a person who needs our help. Also, it says in the Sifra (Kedoshim 41, 8), “Whence is it known that if you know testimony, you are not permitted to be silent? It is from the verse (Lev. 19:16) ‘You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.’ And whence is it that if you see someone drowning in a river, or being attacked by robbers or by a wild beast, that you have to save him? It is from ‘You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.’ And whence is it known that if a person is pursuing another to kill him, you — 249 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

must save him even at the cost of his [the attacker’s] life? It is from ‘You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.’” As to the matter of suppressing one’s testimony [the first case in the previous quotation] there is an additional prohibition, namely (Lev. 5:1), “If he does not tell it, he bears his iniquity.”91 And quit the habit. Scripture says (Lev. 19:12), “And you shall not swear in my name falsely.” It is explained in the Gemara Shevuot (21a) that there are two kinds [of oath] that [are further divided] into four: [I swear that] I will eat, I will not eat, I ate, I did not eat. The grammatical form of “quit” (hechadel) is imperative in the niphal (passive) structure. Therefore, the poet has been criticized about this, since this verb does not occur [in the Bible] in this structure. [The similar-looking word in Ezek. 3:27] “He who desists (hechadel) is a noun derived from the active verb form, the letter he [in hechadel] being the definite article. [The poet] is saying that one should not have the habit of false swearing, as expressed by the verse (Jer. 9:4) “They taught their tongues to speak lies.” 26. Keep my laws at the door, and do not show preference to the poor, And desist from taking interest with raising values. He alludes to the biblical expression (Ps. 141:3) “Keep watch at the door of my lips.” The phrase is abbreviated, since it should have said, “at the door of your lips” [not just “at the door”]. The word dal has the same meaning as delet (door), for the tav of delet is just a feminine ending. He [the poet] is urging that one should keep the law of God at the doorway of his lips, and one should be careful with his words, “lest from them the people would learn to lie” [this phrase from Avot 1:9 seems to be not apt here]. One should always remember not to show preference for a poor person in litigation, as it says (Exod. 23:3) “You shall not favor a poor man in his cause.” They explained in the Sifra (Kedoshim 37, 2) that you [the judge] should not say, “This man is poor, and since both I and the rich man are obliged to sustain him, I will decide in his favor, so that he can sustain himself readily,” since the Torah says (Lev. 19:15) “You shall not favor a poor man.” Similarly, they said in Gemara Ketubot (84a) that one does not show compassion in law. 91

Considering the latter as a prohibition is problematic, since it is expressed as a punishment, rather than a prohibition. — 250 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

And desist from taking interest with raising values. Regarding the prohibition of interest there are many commandments. Those that are enumerated are: not to lend with interest, and not to borrow with interest [text emended to agree with MS and first printed edition], and not to be a guarantor, or witness, or broker, or scribe between them. These prohibitions will be explained later on, God willing (stanzas 66, 78, and 116). The meaning of “with raising values” is that one should not lend something worth twenty units such that after a certain time something worth thirty units [would be returned]. The scriptural expression is from (Ps. 44:13) “And you have not set their prices high.” 27. And with the commandment of “do not subvert” take heed lest you go astray; And the law of the subverted orphan, or widow, or stranger. In the Mechilta (209, 6), it is explained that the needy person, of whom it is said (Exod. 23:6) “You shall not subvert the cause of your needy in his dispute,” means an Israelite who is sinful and is needy of merits. This is their statement there: “If a wicked person and a virtuous person are standing before you [a judge] in judgment, you should not say [to yourself)] ‘Since this person is wicked, I will turn the judgment against him.’ For the Torah says, ‘You shall not subvert the cause of your needy in his dispute.’” The poet addresses the *With regard to the remainder judge that he should observe this law and not of this section, there are disturbing difficulties. The deviate from it or go astray, for a pious judge Yad Halevi, in his commentary can think that he would be near to God’s intenon Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 280, says that the tion in this [by wrongly punishing the wicked words of the Zohar Harakia person], and therefore, he warns that the on this stanza are strange Blessed One does not want a wrongful deciand confused on account of editorial errors. One difficulty sion, even against a wicked person.* is that Deut. 24:17 does not The law of the subverted orphan is an- prohibit subverting judgment; it only states “convert and other commandment, which is not to subvert orphan”! Likewise, in the the judgment of an orphan, widow, or conZohar Harakia’s discussion verts. He refers to the orphan as subverted on Principle No. 9 (p. 29, col. 1), the verse is also wrongly (muteh), for he is heartbroken and depressed, quoted, although in the list and on that account, the Torah has an addiof commandments at the beginning, the widow is tional prohibition against wronging him, and omitted. likewise, the convert and the widow who are

— 251 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

similarly brokenhearted.92 The law about [subverting] the judgment of a convert, orphan, or widow is enumerated not as three prohibitions, but as a single one, as Maimonides has established it. Nachmanides agrees with him [on this point], since they occur in a single prohibitory statement, as it is said (Deut. 24:17) “You shall not subvert the judgment of a convert, orphan, or widow”; so they are counted as only a single commandment, even though they have a number or particular cases.93 There is also a prohibition [related to judicial decision] that the Sanhedrin should not decide for a death sentence on the basis of a majority of a single vote; it must be at least two votes. For it is said (Exod. 23:2) “You shall not follow a multitude to do evil,” which is interpreted in the Mechilta (Mechilta of R. Shimon bar Yochai on that verse) that deciding for good [finding one innocent] is possible with a majority of one, but deciding for evil [finding one guilty] requires a majority of two. There is also a prohibition against subverting the judgment of any Israelite, as it is said (Lev. 19:15) “You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment.” Regarding the convert, there is an additional prohibition, i.e. (Deut. 24:17), “You shall not subvert the judgment of a convert, etc.” [as previously mentioned]. Thus, they conclude in the Sifre (Tetze 148, 17) that “you shall not subvert the judgment of a convert” implies that if one has subverted the judgment of a convert, he has transgressed two prohibitions. Now, if the person on trial was a convert and an orphan, [the judge] transgressed three prohibitions, i.e., on account of being an Israelite, a convert, and an orphan. Although one transgresses two prohibitions [when the person tried] is a convert and an orphan, this does not mean [as stated earlier] that these should be enumerated as two. For this is similar to what they said (Bava Metzia 59b) that if one wrongs a convert [by saying derogatory words; see Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 252], he transgresses three prohibitions (Exod. 22:20, Lev. 19:33, and Lev. 25:17; the last verse referring to every Israelite),

92 It seems like the word muteh is assumed to have the nuance of dejected as well as subverted. The adjective muteh was applied specifically to the orphan, rather than the widow or converts, because in that masculine singular form it fits the rhyming requirements. 93 This is also a curious statement about Nachmanides’s view. In fact, Nachmanides on Principle No. 9 seems to have the idea that in such an instance the parts should counted as separate commandments. In fact, he does not divide the convert and the orphan in his version of the enumeration of the commandments, so this seems like an inconsistency in his methodology. — 252 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

and wronging a convert is not enumerated as three prohibitions.94 28. And do not take a bribe, and one person should not testify, And you shall not eat the life and the flesh together. The prohibition of bribery applies even though one did not subvert the judgment. Thus, they stated in the Sifre (Shofetim 3) that the verse (Deut. 16:19) “You shall not take a bribe” even to decide in favor of the innocent and against the guilty. And in Ketubot (105b), they say that even bribery [not in the form of a gift, but in the form of] service is forbidden [i.e., if a judge receives some favor or service from a person, and then he is informed that this man is going to appear in a court case, he should not try that case], but this is just by way of piety [i.e., not actually a Torah law]. Know that Maimonides includes in the enumeration of the commandments a prohibition (No. 294) that a judge should not punish a person who was forced to [transgress]. He brings proof from what is said in Sanhedrin [actually Nedarim 27a] that the Merciful One excuses one who is forced, as it is said (Deut. 22:26) “But you shall do nothing to the girl.” Nachmanides, however, disagrees with him. He claims that if this were a prohibition, it [the Talmud] would have said, “The Merciful One prohibits this” [rather than saying that the person is excused from punishment]. But this verse is not a prohibition, but a negative statement, namely that one who is forced is excused. And thus did they say in the Sifre (Tetze 106): “The words but you shall do nothing to the girl teaches us that Scripture makes her not subject to the death penalty. How is it known that she is even excused from a sin offering? It is from the words a sin worthy of death [the use of the word sin suggesting an allusion to a sin offering].” Thus, all who are forced are exempt [from any punishment], and since they are exempt, there is no need to prohibit [punishing] them with a specific negative commandment, for we are prohibited (Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 289) against spilling innocent blood. And one person should not testify. Maimonides (Prohibition No. 288) explained that this is a prohibition against a court deciding a case on the basis of one witness. The Prohibition is (Deut. 19:15) “A single 94 Perlow, in his notes on this stanza says that the two cases are not similar. For in our situation, we have two cases, i.e., convert and orphan combined in one statement, whereas in the situation of “wronging” there are two verses (Ex. 22:20 and Lev. 19:33) both of which apply just to the convert. — 253 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

witness may not validate against a person, etc.” Apparently, the witness is prohibited from this [i.e., the prohibition rests on the witness as well as on the court], as it states in Pesachim (113b), “Tuviah sinned and Zigud is punished!” [This was Zigud’s complaint to the court], since Rav Pappa had Zigud punished for having brought testimony as a lone witness against Tuviah. A lone witness is valid only in certain instances [where such a witness is sufficient] to require [the accused] to take an oath [of denial]. And it also applies to a suspected adulteress [Mishnah Sotah 6, 2 states that a single witness to a woman’s *The Mishnah (Sotah marital infidelity is valid to the extent that she is to 9, 8) states that if one witness says be divorced without receiving her Ketubah money], that he saw the and the case is not settled by having her drink [the murderer, this is valid to the extent sotah’s water]. And it also applies to the heifer whose that this is no neck is broken.* And it also applies to certain prolonger considered hibited things for which the Torah trusts him [the a case where (Deut. 21:1) “The identity lone witness who testifies as to the permissibility of the murderer of otherwise doubtful things]. The sages made him is not known” applies. Hence, this [the lone witness] valid to permit an agunah to marry witness prevents [e.g., he testifies that the agunah’s former husband this ceremony of died]. These laws are scattered in various places in the breaking the neck. Orders of Nashim and Nezikin. Nachmanides in his enumeration added the prohibition that is written (Deut. 17:6) “He shall not be put to death on the testimony of a single witness.” For it says in Chapter Keitzad Ha’eidim (Makkot 6b), “What is the meaning of ‘He shall not be put to death by a single witness’? If it should be construed as meaning actually just one person, [this is not reasonable, since] this has already been made clear by the first part of the verse. But it means to exclude [validating] two persons who witnessed [a crime], one from one window, and the other from another window, the two not seeing each other, for they cannot be joined [as a pair of witnesses].” But I think that in this matter there is no additional prohibition. From the Talmudic text, it appears that it only means to say that they cannot be joined in the same sense as (Lev. 19:20) “They shall not be put to death, for she has not been set free,” as we explained in the Eighth Principle [i.e., in both cases, “They shall not be put to death” is not a prohibition, but a negative statement, that under the specified circumstances, capital punishment does not apply]. Since [the two witnesses here] cannot be joined [into a pair], each one is considered a lone — 254 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

witness. And regarding a lone witness it was already stated (Deut. 19: 15) “A single witness may not validate,” which is a prohibition against any kind of lone witness. And you shall not eat the life and the flesh together is a prohibition against eating a limb from a live animal. And the expression in the Sifre (Re’eh 43) is “The verse (Deut. 12:23) is ‘You shall not eat the life with the flesh’ refers to a limb from a living animal.’” If it is not an entire limb, there is another prohibition that applies, i.e., it is included in the scope of (Exod. 22:30) “You shall not eat the meat of a beast that was torn in the field.” And likewise, they stated in Chapter Gid Hanasheh (Chullin 102b), “If one eats a limb from a live animal, he transgresses two prohibitions.” And I will later (Stanza 30) mention this prohibition. 29. And you shall not covet robbery, which darkness will seize; And do not eat a carcass, or idolatrous offerings. Since coveting leads to robbery, and a person’s soul attracts him to it [robbery], as I mentioned before (Stanza 11, Prohibitions), he speaks of coveting with regard to robbery. He says that one should not covet it, for in the end, “Darkness will seize it” (Job 3:6), “For in vanity it comes, and it goes away in darkness” (Eccl. 6:4). And the meaning of robbery is taking the property of one’s fellow in his presence by force, as the sages deduced (Bava Kamma 79b) from the Scripture (2 Sam. 23:21), “And he robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian.” This prohibition “You shall not rob” (Lev. 19:13) is included in the enumeration, even though it is only needed to cover the situation of one who wrongfully withholds payment due to a hired worker. For actual robbery is understood to be forbidden by its similarity in nature [binyan av] to [the prohibition of] exacting interest and wronging in business, and this is indicated in Chapter Eizehu Neshech (Bava Metzia 61b). Nevertheless, it [robbing] is counted as a separate commandment, not merely being included as part of the prohibition against oppression (Lev. 19:13), even though they say this in Chapter Ham’kabel (Bava Metzia 111a).95 For all oppression is considered robbery, but not all robbery is considered 95 In that reference, they discuss the overlapping as well as the difference between the prohibitions of not robbing (lo tigzol) and not oppressing (lo ta’ashok). One of the rabbis, Rava, claims that the two terms refer totally to the same actions, but are repeated owing to the gravity of these offenses. The Zohar Harakia appears not to follow this opinion, even though Rava’s opinions are usually considered authoritative, since he lived at the end of the Talmudic period. — 255 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

oppression. Indeed, they stated (Sifre Shoftim 86, 14) that one who displaces a boundary line marker outside the Land of Israel transgresses the prohibition against robbery.96 Regarding restitution [of wrongfully held property], Scripture counts both [robbing and oppressing as a single commandment from the verse (Lev. 5:23)] “And he shall give back the thing that he robbed or the thing obtained by oppression.”* There is within the topic of taking one’s neigh*This was previously stated in the Positive bor’s property without permission, a prohibition Commandments, Stanza to a worker [in his neighbor’s fields] not to eat 22. There, the Zohar [from the produce of the field] more than what Harakia clearly says that returning an article gotten the Torah allows him. Maimonides counts this by robbery and gotten by as two commandments (267 and 268). The one oppression is counted as one commandment. The is (Deut. 23:26) “You shall not put a sickle,” and words of the Hebrew text the second is (ibid., v. 25) “You shall not put any here are to be counted as into your vessel.” For each of these prohibitions two commandments. I conjecture that the text has a meaning distinct from the other. The one here is incorrect, and I prohibits harvesting with a sickle, and the other have translated according to this assumption. prohibits more than he can eat. And you shall not eat a carcass, i.e., if it died naturally or became unfit during the slaughtering process. Concerning this, Scripture says (Deut. 13:21) “You shall not eat any carcass.” And there is another prohibition, not mentioned by the poet, which is not to eat the meat of an ox condemned to be killed [for killing a person], even though he was properly slaughtered. For they said in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 10, 100) concerning the verse (Exod. 21:28) “And his flesh shall not be eaten,” that an ox who was about to be stoned, and his owner slaughtered him beforehand, is forbidden for eating. This is also mentioned in Bava Kamma (41a) and Kiddushin (56a). Or offerings unto demons. Idolatrous offerings are forbidden by the Torah, as is explained in Chapter Merubah (Bava Kamma 71a) and in Chapter Hashochet (Chullin 40a). The prohibition is from what is written (Exod. 34:15) “And he will call to you that you eat of his sacrifice.” And it is also written (Ps. 106:28) “And they joined themselves to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices of the dead.” And they interpreted [the phrase 96 The general question concerning the enumeration of redundant prohibitions is dealt with by Maimonides in his Ninth Principle. If two prohibitive statements have equal content, Maimonides would ordinarily reject counting them as two distinct commandments. He apparently does not think that “not robbing” and “not oppressing” have the same content. — 256 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

“sacrifices of the dead”] as teaching that just as it is forbidden to derive benefit from a corpse, so is it forbidden to derive benefit from idolatrous offerings. One who benefits from this transgresses “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deut. 7:26) as well as “Let nothing that has been condemned stick to your hand” (Deut. 13:18). Included in this prohibition is wine that has been used as a libation before an idol, which is forbidden by the Torah. Thus did Maimonides write in his large work (Mishneh Torah), where he lists the commandments (in his introduction). He wrote concerning the commandment about idol worship (Prohibition No. 25), “One must not derive benefit from an idol, or its accessories, or its offerings to it, or a wine libation that was poured for it, as it is said (Deut. 7:26) ‘You shall not bring an abomination to your house.’” This is true, as it is said in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 60b), “If one slaughtered a sacrifice [for an idol] or burned incense for it, or poured a libation for it, [this constitutes a capital offense of idolatry].” The question is raised why the act of sprinkling [sacrificial blood] is not also listed. The reply was that “sprinkling” is included in “pouring,” as it is said (Ps. 16:4) “I will not pour their libations of blood.” I have also found a proof that libation wine is forbidden by the Torah, and that even a gentile touching [wine makes it forbidden], from what is said in the last chapter of Avodah Zarah (72b) that [forbidding wine moved by] exertion of a gentile is a rabbinic law. One infers from this that actually touching wine [is forbidden] by the Torah. But there is something perplexing in Maimonides’s words, since in Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot [introductory list of commandments No. 28], he makes drinking libation wine into a sepa- *As to the following opinion of the Zohar Harakia that rate [prohibitive] commandment. His words do Maimonides did not mean to have an enumerated not seem correct, for we do not find Scripture commandment regarding expressing this as a prohibition. It is only that the prohibition of libation they [the rabbis] invoked the juxtaposition of wine, later commentators disagree strongly. For [libation wine] to sacrificial meat, as it is said, example, Yad Halevi states (Deut. 32:38) “Who eat the fat of their sacrificial that actually drinking libation wine is a separate meat, and drink the wine of their drink offerin addition ing.” And they made the inference that just as commandment, to having benefit from it. sacrificial meat [of idolaters] is forbidden, so is He states that the author of the Zohar Harakia did not their wine forbidden. Maimonides has been ununderstand Maimonides’s clear in his words about this matter.* It seems words, and therefore, wrote what he did. that Maimonides’s intention is that this should — 257 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

be a separate prohibition among the 613 commandments. For in his list of the commandments (Prohibition No. 25), he includes it together with other things pertaining to idolatry, under the prohibitions (Deut. 13:18) “Let nothing that has been condemned stick to your hand” and (Deut. 7:26) “You shall not bring an abomination.” But when in context of the particular laws of forbidden foods [in the Mishneh Torah], he wants to instruct us that it is forbidden, based on these [verses], and it is the same general prohibition that includes all the other types of idolatrous objects, for he does not mention another verse. Maimonides also wrote (Prohibition No. 194) that one who drinks libation wine is punished by whipping, and he says that this is known throughout the Talmud. Now, Nachmanides wrote about this (in his critique of Prohibition No. 194), that he did not see this in either of the two Talmuds. However, Nachmanides thought that one is punished for this on the basis of the verse (Exod. 34:15) “Lest you make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land . . . and they will call unto you, and you will eat of their sacrifice,” the prohibitive “lest” applying to the later clause “And you will eat of their sacrifice.” But this is missing in Maimonides’s enumeration, where he counts libation wine as a specific prohibition. As to the question of punishment, it seems to be an obvious fact that one is whipped on the basis of the verse (Deut. 7:26) “Let nothing that has been condemned stick to your hand.” 30. Do not eat terefah or a rejected abomination; And do not make the ephah small, nor charge higher than market price. Maimonides wrote in the Book of Commandments (Prohibition No. 181) that if a person ate any type of terefah listed by the rabbis [i.e., certain physical illnesses or injuries which render a live animal terefah, even though it was later properly slaughtered], he is not whipped [this being the punishment for transgressing a Torah prohibition]. But in the Gemara Chullin (49b), it is made clear that these are forbidden by the Torah. For it states in amazement concerning one of the [rabbinically listed terefahs], “Terefah is a Torah law, so how could you say [as one rabbi did] that [one could treat such a terefah leniently since] the Torah is concerned about the property of Israel.” Indeed, he [Maimonides] changed his mind in his large work (Mishneh Torah, Ma’achalot Asurot

— 258 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

4, 6) and wrote that one who eats them is whipped by Torah law.97 Even though the simple meaning of the verse concerns a terefah torn to death by a lion [this being the literal meaning of terefah], as stated in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 20, 194) that Scripture speaks in terms of the commonplace case, the rabbis nonetheless received the tradition that this verse includes any illness from which the animal would die. Also, they said concerning the phrase (Exod. 22:30) “Torn by beasts in the field” that included in this, according to the Gemara (Makkot 18a), is anything that has gone out of its proper boundary, e.g., sacrificial meat out of its proper boundary, or paschal meat that has gone out from its assigned group, or the limb of a fetus that extended its hand before slaughtering [its mother], and then retracted it, all these are forbidden. This is because of the verse (Exod. 22:30) “You shall not eat meat torn by beasts in the field,” as is mentioned in Chapter Behemah Hamakshah (Chullin 68a). The same applies to flesh detached from an animal during its life, as mentioned in Chapter Gid Hanasheh (Chullin 102b). And flesh hanging loosely from an animal is rabbinically forbidden for this reason, as mentioned in Chapter Ha’or V’harotev. Or a rejected abomination. This says that one may not eat a rejected abomination, which is from His word, exalted is He (Deut. 14:3), “You shall not eat any abomination.” They said in the Gemara Chullin (114), “Everything that I have made abominable to you is forbidden by ‘You shall not eat.’” This includes many things. In the Sifre (Re’eh 93, 3), they said that Scripture refers to blemished dedicated meat. [The Sifre continues that] Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said that if one slit the ear of a firstborn animal [thus making it unfit for sacrificial use], and he ate of it, he transgresses the prohibition “You shall not eat any abomination.” The explanation of this matter is that the Torah forbids making a blemish on a dedicated animal, as explained in Bechorot (33b) and 97

The actual wording in Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 181 is that one who eats a terefah listed by the rabbis is whipped by rabbinic law (lokeh mid’rabbanan), which implies that he is not punished with the whipping prescribed by the Torah, but with the rabbinic whipping, makkat mardut. Indeed, Nachmanides, in his critique of Maimonides’s Second Principle, also disagrees with Maimonides’s statement in Prohibition No. 181 that whipping by Torah law does not apply to the terefahs listed by the rabbis. He also says that Maimonides’s opinion in the Mishneh Torah is different. But the Megillat Esther on the Second Principle claims that Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah statement is in agreement with his words in Prohibition 181; for the words lokeh mid’rabbanan do not imply rabbinic whipping, but lokeh means whipping by Torah law, and the word mid’rabbanan here means that, although the prohibition has the full force of Torah law, its validity is made known by rabbinic tradition, rather than from the actual words of the Torah. — 259 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

in Gemara Yom Tov (Betzah 27b), as it is said (Lev. 22:21) “There shall be no blemish therein.” So if one transgresses that prohibition, he has done an abomination, and thus the poet adjures that one should not eat such an abomination. Since it is forbidden to offer this as a sacrifice, he calls it a “rejected abomination.” Since in all other cases where the Holy One, blessed is He, has considered something an abomination, there is a specific prohibition against eating it, this prohibition (Deut. 14:3) is only needed for dedicated things that have become unfit. Therefore, this is separately enumerated since there is no other prohibition for them [unfit dedicated things]. And you shall not make the ephah small. The poet uses the language of Scripture (Am. 8:5) “Making the ephah small and the shekel great.” And they said in Gemara Bava Batra (90b), “Those who corner the market on fruits [artificially forcing scarcity and high prices, the Gemara text here includes lending on interest], and those who charge higher than the market price, and those who make the ephah small, concerning them Scripture says (ibid.), ‘When will the new moon be over, so that we will be able to sell grain? When will the Sabbath be out, so that we open the grain, making the ephah small and the shekel large?’” This law [forbidding false weights and measures] is expressed by (Deut. 25:13) “You shall not have in your house diverse measures, large and small.” They said in Tractate Bava Batra (89b), “It is forbidden for a person to keep in his house an undersized measure or an oversized measure, even if it is a vessel for holding urine [which one would only use for measuring in an emergency].” Even though there are two separate verses here, one about an ephah [volume] and another about a stone [weight], it is only enumerated as a single commandment, for the idea is the same, that one should not have differing standards, whether in volume measurement or in weight. 31. Do not do anything wrongful in measurement of land, Or in weight of coins, or in volume. There is a prohibition here, which is His statement, exalted be He (Lev. 19:35), “You shall do nothing wrongful in judgment, in measurement, weight, or volume.” Included in this is that one should not do wrong in any type of measurement, whether liquid measure or dry measure. [Proper] measure of real estate (Bava Metzia 61b) means that one should not measure the portion of one of the brothers [dividing an — 260 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

inheritance] in the summer and for another during the rainy season, since the ground expands in the rainy season, and one would receive a smaller portion than one for whom the measurement would be made in the summer time. [I find this difficult to visualize.] And a wrong weight measure would be that one should not bury weights in salt to reduce them. And a wrong volume measure would be that one should not bubble the liquid, i.e., he should not fill the measuring vessel rapidly so that the measuring vessel would be filled by the vigorous bubbling. The Aramaic term for the Hebrew gerah (a coin) is ma’ah, whose plural is ma’ot [thus the word ma’ot in this stanza, meaning coins], and the plural of m’sorah (“volume” in Lev. 19:35) is m’sorim [thus the word m’sorim in this stanza means volume measurements]. 32. Do not give your food on interest, lest I destroy you; And your foot should not run, talebearing about secrets. The Torah said (Lev. 25:37) “You shall not give him your money on interest, nor give him your food for increase.” The meaning of interest (neshech) is giving someone ten zuzim, and then [the borrower] pays a zuz every month for every month that the [borrowed] money is in his hands. And increase (marbit) is giving a loan of two measures of wheat for a [repayment of] three measures at a certain future time. These are not two separate prohibitions, for in Chapter Eizehu Neshech (Bava Metzia 60b), they stated that you do not find any neshech without marbit, nor any marbit without neshech; and Scripture mentions them separately to make [the transgressor] guilty for two prohibitions. They also said there that neshech and tarbit (or marbit) are the same thing. But repeated prohibitions with the same content, do not increase the number of commandments, as is known from the Principles (No. 9), and the poet has already written [this prohibition] “And cease from interest, increasing the prices” (Stanza No. 26). When he says, “Lest I destroy you,” he refers to the statement (Bava Metzia 71a) that the possessions of lenders on interest are wobbly, as it is said (Ps. 15:5), [if a person] “Does not give his money on interest . . . he will not be moved.” [The scriptural source of “Lest I destroy you,” Exod. 33:3] “Lest I destroy you on the way,” [uses the unusual form achelcha, “I will destroy you”] as equivalent [to the conventional form] achalcha which has a dagesh [in the lamed]. And your foot should not run, talebearing about secrets. The — 261 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Torah said (Lev. 19:16), “You shall not go about talebearing among your people.” Now, the rabbis [explained lo telech rachil in various ways, e.g.], you shall not be soft-spoken to one and harsh-spoken to another (Ketubot 46a) [this remote interpretation being based on the similarity between rach (soft) and rachil, which would be a prohibition to a judge not to be more respectful to one claimant than another]. They also said (Yerushalmi Peah 1, 1) that [this verse means that] you should not be like a peddler [rochel, a peddler, associated with rachil], who loads up words, and goes about, and this would be the prohibition against talebearing, which is the intention of the poet. He adapts the scriptural expression (Ps. 101:5) “One who slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I destroy.” The word melashni (talebearing or slandering) is present tense masculine in the m’ruba construction [I would call this the pi’el construction, m’ruba having quite a different meaning], and the yod [at the end of m’loshni] is an added letter [which has no effect on the meaning]. He is, as it were, addressing the talebearer: “You, O’ talebearer, let your foot not run.” In this verse, there is also a prohibition against [a husband] who defames (his bride, Deut. 22:19), as is indicated in Chapter Na’arah Shenitpat’tah (Ketubot 46a). 33. You shall not put your hands with the wicked and evildoers; And do not demand payment from comrades and brethren, as is done from foreigners. This is a prohibition against accepting testimony of a wicked person, as it is said (Exod. 23:1) “Put your hand not with the wicked,” [which is interpreted in Bava Kamma as] “Do not put a wicked person as a witness.” And in Chapter Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin 27a), they explain that wicked people are invalid as witnesses. And do not demand payment from comrades. This is a prohibition against demanding payment of a debt after the year of release (Deut. 15:1–3). 34. Leave the sheaf you forget, and do not return to take it; You should give it to the widow, orphan, and stranger. This is a prohibition against taking forgotten sheaves in the field, and the law also applies to tree fruits, as I wrote above (Stanza 19), and it is all a single commandment. This is a prohibition linked to a positive commandment, for if one [unlawfully] took it [the forgotten sheaf], he — 262 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

may return it and be free from guilt; therefore, it says (Deut. 24:19) “It shall be for the widow.” 35. Keep the seventh year, and refrain during the jubilee year; Do not harvest the aftergrowth, nor gather fruit from untrimmed vines. Concerning the shemittah year (the seventh year of release) and the jubilee year there are seven prohibitions, four about the shemittah and three about the jubilee. Concerning shemittah, it is said (Lev. 25:4–5) “You shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. You shall not reap that which grows by itself from your harvest or gather the grapes of your untrimmed vines.” These are the prohibitions against work in the field, the prohibition against working on a tree, the prohibition against harvesting the aftergrowth, and the prohibition against harvesting grapes; but they must be made ownerless for the use of everyone. Concerning the jubilee year, all agricultural work is under a single [prohibition], whether on the field or the tree, as it is written (ibid., v. 11) “You shall not sow,” and no distinction is made between the field and vineyard. [The other two prohibitions are] “You shall not reap the aftergrowth, and you shall not harvest the untrimmed vines,” just as for shemittah. It seems that the reason why the Torah did not separately forbid orchard work separately on the jubilee year, as it had for the shemittah year, is that tree work was expressed by the term pruning. Now, since pruning was forbidden in the shemittah year, and the jubilee year follows right after the shemittah year, and the activity of pruning extends over a long time, therefore, the pruning in the jubilee year is included with the pruning during the previous shemittah year. All of the above is included by the poet in what he says, “Keep the seventh year, and refrain during the jubilee year,” and only harvesting and fruit-gathering are expressly said in this stanza. 36. Do not sow your furrow, so that it produces your food; And do not trim your vineyard, or it will produce briers. This stanza is a completion of the previous one, since it explains how one keeps the seventh year, and from what one ceases during the jubilee year. Do not sow your furrow. These [the furrows] are the grooves made by plowing. I have already explained this in the book Ohev Mishpat. He — 263 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

[the poet] is using exaggerated language, when he says that if one is not heedful about this, and does prune his vineyard, then it will turn to briers, which is the meaning of sirim. This is the opposite of other years, when an idle vineyard will become totally briers, as is mentioned in the Book of Proverbs (24:30–31). Likewise, the Torah said (Lev. 26:34–35) “Then the land shall make up for its Sabbath years . . . in which it had not rested.” 37. And you shall not eat parched grain, bread, or fresh grain, Before you bring to Me the first of the harvest. In the Gemara Keritot (5a), they say that if a person eats bread and parched grain and fresh grain [all three at the same time, during the forbidden period before the omer offering], he is punished three times by whipping. The objection was raised that one is not punished thus for an inclusive prohibition [the three categories of forbidden new grain being contained in a single clause]. The answer is given that [this rule does not apply] since it is different in our case in that we have an excessive scriptural verse [i.e., not all three categories had to be specified, since one could deduce part of the law by inference; the explicit mention of all three categories can, therefore, be taken as an implication that these are separately punishable]. At the end of the discussion, they concluded that the only category that did not need explicit mention was parched grain [since if a certain case not mentioned in Scripture differs substantially in character from the one mentioned, it cannot be inferred that it is also included in the law]. For bread has a property that does not apply to fresh grain, in that it is included for meal offerings. And fresh grain has a property not possessed by bread in that it is still in its original state, and it is recognizable. Now, parched grain resembles bread in that it is included for meal offerings, and it resembles fresh grain in that it is recognizable. So if the Torah had just mentioned fresh grain and bread, we could have derived the case of parched grain between the two of them according to Talmudic methodology. That it was expressly written only serves to imply that it is a separate cause of guilt on its own. Since parched grain is written between bread and fresh grain (Lev. 23:14), and thus separates them, we learn from this that just as one is guilty for parched grain on its own, so is he guilty for bread on its own and for fresh grain on its own. Therefore, these are counted as three prohibitions, and one is punished for each one separately, even — 264 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

though [usually] one is not punished for such inclusive prohibitions, as is known from the Principles (No. 9. See also my book The Puzzle of the 613 Commandments and Why Bother, chapter 27). This is Maimonides’s view, since he counts prohibitions separately if there is separate punishment. But in Nachmanides’s view, since he only counts the subject matter of prohibitions, and he pays no attention to separate punishment, the present prohibition enters into the enumeration as only a single one, which is that one may not eat of whatever kind it is. And this prohibition, which is the prohibition of using the “new grain” before the sixteenth of Nissan, which is the day of the waving of the Omer of the first of our harvest, applies according to the Torah both within the Land of Israel and outside it. [This is so] even though it is an agricultural commandment [most of which only apply inside the Land of Israel], as we learned from certain verses in the first chapter of Kiddushin (37a). 38. Do not eat uncircumcised fruit before the time of praise; And do not show deference to the great, while the poor are abashed. This prohibits eating the “uncircumcised” fruit for [the first] three years [after planting]. It is forbidden to benefit from it [even other than eating], and for that reason they [the sages, Yerushalmi Orlah 2, 1] were strict about its annulment, requiring a 1/200 dilution to annul it. Its prohibition applies even outside the Land of Israel, which is a tradition to Moses from Sinai, definitely known produce being forbidden and doubtful produce being permitted outside the Land of Israel, as mentioned in the Gemara Kiddushin (39a). Before the time of praise, i.e., before the fourth year, in which year all its fruit is dedicated for giving praise to the Lord (Lev. 19:24), and the latter is a positive commandment (Positive Commandment No. 72). And you shall not show deference to the great. It is said in the Sifra (Kedoshim 84, 38), “You shall not say that this person is from an important family, so how can I shame him and look at his embarrassment. Therefore, it says (Lev. 19:15) ‘You shall not show deference to a great person.’” While the poor are abashed, i.e., if you show deference to the rich, the poor will be abashed and their claim will be squelched. To me, the writer, it seems that the intention of the poet in “The poor are abashed” is that — 265 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

one should not show special deference to the poor, as it says (ibid.) “You shall not favor the poor.” Now, we have not found on this matter [i.e., the word abashed, nechparim] in the niphal (passive) form, [i.e., nechparim is a passive form], only the kal (active form) in (Isa. 24:23) “And the moon will be confounded (v’chafrah).” Or [one finds] the hiphil (causative form) in (Prov. 19:26) “That deals shamefully and reproachfully (umachpir).” Had he said muchparim [instead of nechparim], it would have been more plausible, since it is the passive form of the hiphil, of which an example exists. 39. You shall not be like a creditor to a poor, hard-pressed man; And you shall not give as a sacrifice the blind or broken. In the Gemara Bava Metzia (75b), [it says], “How is it known that if one is a creditor to a fellow-person, and he knows that the debtor does not have what is owed, he is forbidden to pass before him? [It is from] what is said (Exod. 22:24) “Do not act toward him as a creditor.” Likewise, they said in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 19, 185) “You should not appear to him continually.” Also, there is included in the scope of this negative commandment the prohibition against a lender taking interest, as mentioned in the Gemara Bava Metzia (75b). Hard-pressed (niksheh) means a person with bad luck, from the verse (Isa. 8:21), “And there shall pass through it the hard-pressed and the hungry.” And you shall not give as a burnt offering, etc. This is a prohibition against burning the sacrificial portions of blemished animals on the altar, as it is said (Lev. 22:22) “And you shall not make an offering by fire of them.” Concerning blemished animals, there are many prohibitions, aside from that about making a blemish, as it is said (ibid., v. 21) “There shall be no blemish therein,” [which implies] that you should not make a blemish on it, and one who inflicts a blemish is punished by whipping (Bechorot 33b); [this is mentioned above, Stanza 30]. There is another prohibition, and I am amazed why the early authorities do not enumerate it, which is applying unblemished animals toward upkeep of the sanctuary [rather than to sacrificial use]. This is prohibited, as they said in the first chapter of Temurah (6a), “But there is the case of applying unblemished animals to upkeep of the sanctuary, about which the Torah says (Lev. 22:23) ‘You may give a freewill offering [of animals with] a limb extended or contracted,’ [which implies] that you — 266 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

may dedicate it [that blemished animal] for the upkeep of the sanctuary, but you may not dedicate unblemished animals to the upkeep of the sanctuary; even though this is the subject of a prohibition, if one did so, it is nevertheless binding.” In the same chapter (Temurah 7b), it says, “We have only found it from a positive statement [i.e., this prohibition was only inferred above from a positive statement, which is weaker than a prohibition directly expressed as a negative commandment]. Where do we see a negative commandment? It is from the verse (Lev. 22:17) ‘The Lord spoke to Moses, saying.’ [This comes from the word leimor (saying) being understood as a compound lo and emor, i.e., ‘saying not.’] This teaches that a direct negative commandment applies to the entire section.” [This statement] is also quoted in Chapter Kol Sha’ah (Pesachim 42a). Even though this teaching, as found in the Sifra (Emor 119, 8), is only the opinion of an individual [Rabbi Judah], and the majority of rabbis differ with him, we should decide [like Rabbi Judah] in agreement with the unnamed source in the Mishnah, and according to the discussion in the Talmud [later scholars think that Zohar Harakia is way off here], and I must further examine this matter. As for the other prohibitions [concerning blemished animals], one is not to dedicate blemished animals for the altar, as it is said (Lev. 22:20) “You shall not bring near whatever has a blemish,” and the Sifra explains this as prohibiting its dedication. The second is not slaughtering a blemished animal for a sacrifice, as it is said in another verse (ibid., v. 22) “You shall not offer these,” and they said in the Sifra that this prohibits slaughtering it [even though the same Hebrew verb is used in verses 20 and 22]. The third is not to sprinkle the blood of blemished animals on the altar, as it is said in another verse (ibid., v. 24) “You shall not offer unto the Lord” And they said in the Sifra (Lev. 120:10) that Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah said that this refers to receiving the blood, but in the Gemara Temurah (7a), they said that the first Tanna requires that verse for sprinkling the blood [not receiving], which is the accepted ruling. The fourth is not to burn the sacrificial portions of blemished animals, as it is said (ibid., v. 22) “You shall not make a fire offering of them,” and they said in the Sifra (Lev. 116:4) that this refers to [burning] the fats [which is part of the sacrificial portion]. There, it is said, “One might think that only the entire [portion is forbidden to burn]. How is it known that even a part of it [is forbidden]? This is from the expression ‘of them,’ which means even a part of it.” According to this, there should — 267 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

be two [enumerated] prohibitions, not to burn all of it, and not to burn part of it. Likewise, it says in the Sifra (Lev. 108:5) that a person who dedicates a blemished animal for the altar may transgress five prohibitions, not dedicating, not slaughtering, not sprinkling the blood, not burning the fat [one author emends this to read “not burning all of it”], and not burning a portion of it. Now, Maimonides rejected this Baraita [in the Sifra] and said that not burning a portion of it is not a separate prohibition, since this teacher holds that one is punished [upon transgressing] an inclusive prohibition [a single statement containing more than one item], while the accepted law is that one is not punished for an inclusive prohibition. He brings proof from what is said in the Gemara Temurah (7a) that if one offers up the limbs of blemished animals on the altar, then Abbaye says that he is punished on account of the prohibition against sacrificing all of it, and also on account of sacrificing part of it, but Rava says that one is not punished for an inclusive prohibition. An objection was raised against Rava from this Baraita [in the Sifra], and they concluded that this objection was valid. Now, he [Maimonides] decided the law according to Rava, for it is concluded throughout the Talmud that one is not punished for an inclusive prohibition, as is known from the Principles (No. 9). Now, Nachmanides wondered about his [Maimonides’s] words that Rava’s words were here refuted, although this was not so in any other case where Rava and Abbaye differed about inclusive prohibitions. So he [Nachmanides] explained that the correct text here is Rabbah, not Rava, and this is a new argument, Abbaye disagreeing with Rabbah; for this inclusive prohibition is unlike other inclusive prohibitions, since here they are interpreting two prohibitions *The idea is that normally an concerning blemished animals, the one inclusive prohibition is where a single clause mentions two or more being (Lev. 21:22) “You shall not offer of separate nouns indicating what these to the Lord,” and the second one is forbidden. Here, there are two separate things, the whole of the being (ibid.) “And you shall not make a portion to be burnt, and a part fire offering of them.” That is what he of it, both of which, according to [Nachmanides] wrote.* Maimonides, are contained in the clause “You shall not make a fire But I do not see this as improving offering of them.” Nachmanides, anything, since we have five prohibitions however, says that that the two cases are derived from different clauses, only by enumerating both burning all of and they are considered as a case of the burnt portion and also burning part an inclusive prohibition only because of it. So one clause must necessarily be one is a special case of the other. — 268 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

an inclusive prohibition, for we have only four prohibitive clauses [so one must contain two prohibitions]. Had the Baraita only stated that one who offered up the limbs is guilty on account of the whole thing and also guilty for part of it, it could be claimed that there is no inclusive prohibition, since one prohibition would be given by “You shall not offer these,” and the second one by “You shall not make a fire offering of them (both in v. 22).” But since [the Sifra] states that one is guilty of five punishments, it is making one statement embodying guilt for two prohibited things, and thus it would be an inclusive prohibition, and thus it needs further clarification. I did not see that Nachmanides counted as any more than four prohibitions, in agreement with Maimonides’s enumeration. However, at the end of his book, because he was constrained by the [total] number, he wrote that dedicating blemished animals to the altar, slaughtering them, sprinkling their blood, and burning their fat all comprise a single commandment, even though one is punished for each action individually. For the intention in all of them is to forbid making a sacrifice from blemished animals. And the expression in the Torah [used repeatedly] is “You shall not bring an offering (lo takrivu),” whereby we should count the Torah’s expression as one of the commandments, even though [according to the Talmudic interpretation] several separate prohibited matters [are derived from repetitions] of a single term. That is what he [Nachmanides] said. As to why they did not count the clause (Lev. 22:23) “But for a vow it will not be accepted,” it is because it is not a prohibitive commandment, but a negative statement. It is similar to (ibid., v. 30) “It shall not be accepted for you,” or to (Lev. 19:7) “It is a *The above statement, which is vile thing; it will not be accepted.” The Sifra based on the Gemara Chullin, is full of perplexities. The (Emor 108, 5) says, “This teaches us that comments of Perlow on this they [blemished animals] do not bring about passage deal with its problems at length. divine favor.” And so does it say in Chapter Oto V’et B’no (Chullin 80b), where they said that this prohibition is not to be enumerated, **This translation assumes that the word rishon in the printed since it is a prohibition which can be coredition is clearly wrong, and is rected by a positive action.* based on the MS version, which Now, Maimonides counted a certain prodoes not have rishon, but an aleph as an abbreviation, which hibition** which is not to sacrifice an animal might stand for echad. with a temporary blemish. This is from the — 269 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

statement in Mishneh Torah (i.e., Deut. 17:1) “You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or sheep having a blemish on it, any evil thing,” and they explained in the Sifre [this reference is not found in our editions of the Sifre,but is found elsewhere] that this verse refers to animals with temporary blemishes. But Nachmanides thinks that it all belongs in one prohibition together with the permanent blemishes. He brings proof from what they said in the Sifra (Emor 7, 107), as well as in the Gemara Temurah (5b), that the expression (Lev. 22:20) “That which has a blemish” would imply just a permanent blemish. How do we derive the temporary blemish? It is from “everything which has a blemish (ibid.).” Whether it is a permanent or a temporary blemish, it is punishable on all these five counts. Also the verse in Mishneh Torah (Deut. 17:1) includes everything, for they said there (Sifre, Shoftim 8, 499), “One might think that only an animal that was unblemished and later became blemished [is meant here]. Whence is it known that an animal blemished when emerging from its mother’s belly [is also meant]? It is from (ibid.) ‘any evil thing.’ How [do we know to include] an animal with a boil scab or wen or scurvy? It is from the expression ‘a blemish any evil thing.’ How [do we know to include] one that is aged, sick, or smelly? It is from the expression ‘an ox or sheep . . . any evil thing.’ How [do we know to include] sacrifices that were slaughtered at an improper place or time, or that were sexually engaged with people, or that were designated for idolatrous use, or that were worshipped, or that was payment for a harlot, or that was acquired in exchange for a dog, or a terefah [injured or diseased that it could not live a year], or one that had a caesarean birth, etc.”98 So it is that all kinds of invalid animals are included in the prohibition of this verse. Nevertheless, his [Nachmanides’s] elimination of this [i.e., temporary blemishes] as a separate commandment does not diminish his total count. For he added another prohibition (Nachmanides’s Additional Prohibition No. 4), which is not to slaughter a sacrifice with the intention of eating it at a wrong time or place. This is from the quotation in the Sifre (Shofetim ibid.): “Regarding the verse (Deut. 17:1) ‘You shall not sacrifice unto the Lord your God . . . which has a blemish,’ how is it known [that this applies also] to sacrifices that one slaughtered with the 98

See this verse in Torah Temimah, where this verse reads somewhat differently, and where the logic for the inferences is explained. — 270 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

intention to eat them beyond their proper time or place? It is from davar [translated as ‘thing’ in ‘any evil thing,’ but which also means ‘word’ or ‘speech’], i.e., that which depends on speaking [speaking can also be internal].” Likewise, they included in this prohibition the case of a sacrifice slaughtered on the south [side of the altar, which is also wrong], and all other ways in which a sacrifice would become invalid. Maimonides [who does not count these as another commandment] must think that this is an inclusive prohibition (lav shebichlalut), and he only included the prohibition of [sacrificing a] blemished animal, which is explicitly written in this inclusive commandment. The above is what Nachmanides wrote. Still, this does not suffice to justify him [Maimonides], since in chapter 2 of Zebachim (29b) they give a specific prohibition [for animals invalidated by wrongful intentions]. They say there that according to Rabbi Yannai, if one thinks wrongful things while offering a sacrifice, he is punished by whipping, on the basis of the verse (Lev. 7:18) “It will not be counted (lo yechashev)” [which can be revocalized as] “He shall not think (lo yachashov).” They conclude there that one is not punished by whipping for this, since it is a prohibition which does not involve an action, and Maimonides wrote thus in his code (Mishneh Torah, Pesulei Hamukdashin 18, 2). But it appears that it should be an enumerated prohibition which is not included in [the prohibition of] a blemished animal. 40. My anointed one shall not ascend on steps to My altar; And do not slaughter My paschal offering in any of the gates. The poet includes all kohanim in the term my anointed one, for this prohibition is not limited to the High Priest. And they explain in the Mechilta (Yitro 11, 9) that the meaning of (Exod. 20:23) “That your nakedness should not be uncovered thereon” is that he should not take long strides, but should walk heel to big toe. When he says “Do not slaughter My paschal offering,” it applies also to other sacrifices, in that it is forbidden to slaughter them outside [the Sanctuary]. This is what Scripture says (Lev. 17:3–4), “Whoever slaughters an ox or sheep or goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Camp of Meeting to present an offering to the Lord before the Lord’s tabernacle, it will be considered blood-guilt for that man; he has shed blood, and that man will be cut off.” And in the Gemara Zevachim (107a), they derive the prohibition — 271 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

connected with this punishment [for slaughtering] from a hekesh (juxtaposition) analogy with offering the sacrifice outside the Sanctuary. [It is from the verse] “There you shall offer, and there you shall do” (Deut. 12:14). Just as “offering” is both punished and prohibited so is “doing” [e.g., slaughtering] both punished and prohibited. But what is written, (Deut. 16:5) “You may not sacrifice the paschal offering within any of your gates,” they explained in the Gemara Pesachim, Chapter Ha’isha (91a), that in the opinion of Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon it applies to the case of slaughtering a paschal lamb at a private altar at the time when private altars are forbidden. If so, it is included among other sacrifices generally [which are forbidden when slaughtered outside the Sanctuary]. But Maimonides wrote in his large work (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Korban Pesach 1, 3) that one is punished for this even at the time when it was permissible to offer even on private altars, and I do not know how he derives this. Now, according to his words, he should have counted this as a separate commandment. Perhaps he did not enumerate it because permission of private altars is not a situation that applies throughout the generations. Likewise, in the Laws of Sanhedrin he did not count this among the prohibitions that are punishable by whipping. But I finally I found in Chapter Parat Chatat (Zevachim 114b) [a quotation] in agreement with the words of Maimonides.* *The above discussion, which specifically considers slaughtering the paschal lamb outside the Temple, involves a number of difficulties. A fairly comprehensive discussion of the problem is found in Perlow’s treatise on Sefer Hamitzvot (of R. Sa’adya Gaon, Vol. II, p. 182).

41. And examine the vessels, and destroy the leavened bread; Burn it at the sixth hour, through the twenty-first (of Nisan). I do not know what is the sense of what he says “And examine the vessels [i.e., search for leaven before Passover; but the appendix note of Rabbi Yosef Rosen has a different interpretation].” This is a positive commandment, which does not belong with the prohibitions. Also, it is [only] a rabbinic enactment. And destroy the leavened bread, etc. is the commandment of burning the leaven, and he takes his view according to those authorities who follow Rabbi Judah (Pesachim 21a), who says that the only proper way to destroy leaven is by burning. But it should not be mentioned

— 272 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

among the prohibitive commandments, and also it is rabbinic.99 But perhaps he follows the opinion of Rabbi Judah (ibid., 28a) who says that leaven before the time [of the holiday], i.e., from midday of the day preceding Passover until the onset of the holiday is forbidden by a [Torah] prohibition. Therefore, he says, “You shall burn it by the [beginning of] the sixth hour,” which is one hour before the time it becomes forbidden, so as not to reach [the time of] the Torah prohibition. Thus did Maimonides decide (Hilchot Chametz Umatzah 1, 8), and he included it in his enumeration of prohibitions (No. 199). He brings proof from what they said in the first chapter of Pesachim (4b) that all the rabbis agree that leaven is forbidden by Torah law from [the end of] six hours [i.e., after midday] and thereafter. And the prohibition that concerns this is (Deut. 16:3) “You shall not eat leaven with it,” where the meaning of “with it” is at the time of slaughtering of the paschal lamb, which is between the darkenings (bein ha’arbayim), [understood traditionally as the period from noon to night]. But Nachmanides (Prohibition No. 199) disagrees. He says that the law is not according to Rabbi Judah, but according to Rabbi Shimon, who said that both before the time [at the beginning of the holiday] and after the time [the end of the holiday], one does not transgress [a Torah law] at all [by eating leaven]. As to what the Gemara says that it is forbidden from the end of the sixth hour [i.e., noon], and thereafter, it does not mean that one has transgressed a [direct] prohibition. It is just that [it is forbidden] on the basis of the [positive commandment] (Exod. 12:15), “You shall remove leaven”; since one must remove it from six hours and on, it is forbidden then. But in the verse [with the direct prohibition] (Deut. 16:3) “You shall not eat with it,” in Rabbi Shimon’s view [the expression] “with it” does not refer to the time of slaughtering the paschal lamb but of eating it. It is possible that the poet meant to include here one prohibition, which is (Exod. 12:19) “No leaven shall be found in your house.” For later on (Stanza 44), he only wrote the commandment (Exod. 13:7) “There shall not be seen,” and these are two separate prohibitions. And this is the expression in the Talmud (Pesachim 5b), “He transgresses on ‘not being seen’ and ‘not being found.’”

99 The clause “And also it is rabbinic” is found in the MS but not in printed versions. — 273 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

42. Do not bring outside the urgent paschal meat; And the alien and the uncircumcised are outside, and sojourners and hired servants. Urgent. He calls the paschal sacrifice “urgent,” following the expression (1 Sam. 21:9) “the king’s business is urgent.” If someone takes some paschal meat outside of the group, he transgresses a prohibition, as it is said (Exod. 12:46) “You shall not remove from the house any of the meat outside.” And they said in the Mechilta (Bo 15:94) that “outside” means outside of the place where it was to be eaten. One is not culpable unless he performs both the picking up [inside] and the setting down [outside], just like the case of taking something from one domain to another on the Sabbath [where one violates the Sabbath only if he both picks up and sets down]. There are three prohibitions concerning eating the paschal lamb. They are: (Exod. 12:43) “No alien shall eat of it,” translated by Onkelos as “No Jew who becomes an apostate,” and so it is explained in the Mechilta (Bo 15:88) that this means an apostate Jew who has done idolatrous worship. [The second is] “No one uncircumcised shall eat of it (Exod. 12:48),” which includes even a Jew who is not circumcised because his brothers died on account of circumcision. [The third is] “A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat of it (ibid., v. 45),” which precludes even one who converted and was circumcised, but had not yet immersed himself [which would complete the process]. Thus, it is explained in Yevamot, Chapter He’arel (71a), and that is what the poet wrote. The meaning of “are outside” is that such a person should remain outside and not come into the group to eat [the paschal lamb]. 43. Do not dishonor the blood of My sacrifice by offering it with leaven; And do not harden your heart concerning giving what is needed. This sacrifice means the paschal sacrifice, which is forbidden to be slaughtered if any member of the group possesses leavened bread, as it is said (Exod. 34:25) “You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with anything leavened,” and one who transgressed is punished with whipping. But the sacrifice does not become invalid; so when the poet says “Do not dishonor,” he means this as a poetic enhancement, but the dishonor does not mean invalidation. — 274 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

And do not harden your heart concerning giving what is needed is a prohibition against being hard-hearted so as not to give a person will suffice for his needs, as it is said (Deut. 15:7) “You shall not harden your heart.” Letiten (to give) is the same as latet (the usual word for “to give”). [The unusual form letiten, occurs] in 1 Kings 6:14, “To set (letiten) there the ark of God” 44. Do not curse the ruler, and no leaven shall be seen; And no meat of the night of watching shall be left over until [the morning] light. The “ruler” means the king and also the head of the academy [i.e., the leader of the Sanhedrin], and they are both encompassed in the same commandment. For the meaning of the commandment is that one must not curse any one who has nobody higher than himself in his domain, as they said (Horayot 10a) “It means one who has no one over himself except his God,” whether his rule is political rule or religious rule. And no leaven shall be seen (Exod. 13:7) is a single prohibition together with (ibid.) “No leavened bread shall be seen with you.” As they said (Betzah 7a), “[The verse] begins with unleavened bread (chametz) and finishes with leaven (se’or) in order to tell you that se’or and chametz are identically prohibited.” The only reason that both are written is that neither could be inferred from the other, as they mentioned in the first [chapter] of Betzah. And no meat of the night of watching shall be left over until the [morning] light. He mentioned in this stanza that it is forbidden to leave over the paschal meat until morning, as it is said (Exod. 12:10) “And you shall let nothing of it remain until morning, but whatever remains until morning you shall burn with fire.” They state in the Mechilta [actually not cited in our Mechilta, but occurs in other Midrashim] that Scripture comes here to put a positive commandment in addition to a prohibition which tells that one is not to be punished for leaving anything remain [since it can be remedied by burning]. Apparently, this stanza forbids leaving over meat, and the following stanza (No. 45) forbids allowing the fats to stay on the floor overnight [rather than burning them on the altar], since here (in Stanza 44) it speaks ofthe meat of the night of watching, which is forbidden to leave over (notar), but in the following stanza, it speaks of the “fats of the festival offerings,” which are forbidden to stay overnight (linah). But he — 275 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

[the poet] was not being strictly correct when he says here “to let stay overnight” (l’halin), and later “to leave over” (l’hotir), since the concepts are related, i.e., “letting stay overnight” and “leaving over,” and in the language of the Torah sometimes “staying overnight” (linah) is applied to “left over” (notar). [I don’t know which citation he has in mind; perhaps Deut. 16:4 quoted in Stanza 45.] But the strict distinction between the [sacrificial] fats and the [sacrificial] meat is that the fats are forbidden to “let stay overnight,” while the meat is forbidden “to leave over.” 45. And the fats of your sacrifices, and fats of your festival offerings, And the thank offerings of your peace offerings are forbidden to leave over. And the fats of your sacrifices, etc. Here, he records that it is forbidden to leave overnight the fats of the paschal sacrifice on the floor, as it is said (Exod. 23:18) “Neither shall the fats of my feast remain all night until morning.” And in another place (Exod. 34:25 it is written) “Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of Passover be left over until the morning.”100 The language of the Mechilta (Mishpatim 20, 228) is “Scripture comes to indicate that the fats become invalid [as a sacrifice] by lying all night on the floor.” Then he says, “And the thank offerings of your peace-sacrifices are forbidden to leave over.” There are many prohibitions enumerated regarding leftover [sacrificial meat]. One is the regular paschal lamb, as I mentioned in the preceding stanza. The second is for the second paschal lamb, as it is said (Num. 9:12) “They shall not leave any over till morning.” The third is the meat of the festival offering that goes with the paschal lamb, which may be eaten for two days and a night, as it is said (Deut. 16:4) “None of the meat which you sacrifice in the evening of the first day may stay overnight until the morning.”101 And they said (Sifre Re’eh 177 and Pesachim 70) that this verse refers to the festival offering that goes with the paschal lamb, which may be eaten for two days, [and although] one might [think that this means] for a single day, [it really means that] when it says “till morning,” [it refers] to the morning of 100 The above translation is based on the MS version, since the printed text seems redundant. 101 The two days and a night, which is not evident from plain reading of the text, is based on the rabbinic interpretation. — 276 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

the second day [of Pesach, i.e., the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan]. And the fourth prohibition is about the thank offering, as it is said (Lev. 22:30) “You shall not leave it over until morning,” from which we learn that all other sacrifices should not be left over after the time up to which they may be eaten. 46. When meat touches anything unclean, it is forbidden. And do not eat the tithe of your grain in your gates. When meat touches. I will explain later (end of Stanza 151) the topic of holy meat which has become unclean, which is prohibited. And do not eat tithe [is about what] the Torah says, “You shall not eat within your gates (Deut. 12:17).” 47. And [do not eat that of] your wine or your oil; and your firstborn cattle, And the contributions of your hand, and the choicest vows. The Torah said (Deut. 12:17) “You shall not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, wine, or oil, nor the first born of your cattle and your flocks, nor your vows that you vow, nor your free will offerings, nor the contributions of your hands.” They state in the Gemara Keritot (4b) that every specific item in this verse is a specific prohibition, and it is not a lav shebichlalot (inclusive prohibition).102 This is what they said there (Keritot ibid.): “If one ate the tithe of grain, wine, and oil [together], he is guilty for each one, i.e., if he ate them outside of Jerusalem.” This verse is talking about second tithe. Now, they raised the objection there (ibid.) as to how one can be punished for such a lav shebichlalut. [They replied that in this case the usual rules regarding lav shebichlalut do not apply, since] the verse is repeated redundantly. Since it is written (Deut. 14:23) “And you shall eat before the Lord your God the tithe of your grain, wine, and oil,” why is it necessary to write (in addition the verse) “You may not eat within your gates, etc.” (Deut. 12:17)? And should you say [that the latter verse is needed] for an [expressly stated] prohibition [this would not remove the redundancy], for the verse could have just stated “You may not eat them,” why does it again write all these things individually? It is to imply that these items are to be treated separately. In a similar vein, they said in the Gemara Makkot (18a): “Inasmuch as it 102 See chapter 27 of Caplan’s The Puzzle of the 613 Commandments. — 277 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

is written, ‘You shall eat before the Lord your God, etc. the tithe of your grain,’ the Torah could have written ‘You may not eat them within your gates (in 12, 17). So why does it repeat each one separately? It is so that one might deduce from there that there is a separate prohibition for each case.” Thus, we should enumerate grain, wine, and oil as separate prohibitions. This is how it is written in Maimonides’s reasoning about lav shebichlalut, since he enumerates according to the [number of] corporal punishments, which is known from the Principles (No. 9). But Nachmanides differs from him there (in Principle 9), saying that we are not to pay attention to the separate punishments, but to the forbidden topics. In his opinion, the tithe of grain, wine, and oil is all one topic, i.e., second tithe, regardless of what species it is, and it should be counted as one [topic]. And your firstborn cattle is one prohibition, and the content of this prohibition in its simple meaning is that it is forbidden to eat meat of firstborn cattle outside Jerusalem. But according to rabbinic exegesis another meaning is included in this, which is that a stranger (zar, not a kohen) is forbidden to eat a firstling. For thus do they say in the Sifre (Re’eh 34) concerning “the first born” (Deut. 12:17) that in this [mention of the] the first born, the scriptural verse is needed only [to forbid] a layman [not a kohen] from eating a first born either before or after sprinkling the blood [which is essential to the sanctity of the sacrifice].103 However, the law of firstborn [being forbidden to certain persons or in certain places] only applies to an unblemished animal [i.e., a blemished firstborn animal can be eaten as ordinary meat]. Your cattle and sheep constitutes a separate prohibition which is explained by the rabbis (Sifre, Re’eh 34), as follows. The verse “your cattle and sheep” is only needed to say that, if one has eaten the meat of a sin offering or a guilt offering [having nothing to do with firstborn] outside the curtains [of the Temple court], he has transgressed a prohibition. In the Gemara Makkot (18a), it is explained that the same law applies to eating minor sacrifices outside the wall [of Jerusalem]. 103 It should be noted that frequently the law expressed by the simple meaning of a passage is redundant, since it can be derived from inference. In such cases, the rabbis could attach to the verse a meaning which is related to the subject, but not in keeping with the plain meaning of Scripture. Thus, in our case the passage about the “firstborn” carries two messages. The first, according to the simple meaning, is that the firstborn may not be eaten outside of Jerusalem. Since this law can also be inferred from other laws, it was used also as a source for the prohibition against a layman eating firstborn flesh. — 278 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

And your vow is another prohibition, which is about eating meat of the burnt offering anywhere. The rabbis said thus (Sifre Re’eh 34) concerning “all your vows that you vow” that Scripture is only teaching that one who eats of the burnt offering, whether before the blood is sprinkled or afterward, whether within the sanctuary or outside, transgresses a prohibition. This prohibition includes that anyone who makes improper use of sacrifices is punished with whipping. Thus, they stated in Sanhedrin (83a) that if one intentionally made such use, he is subject to the death penalty according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince], while the other rabbis say that he has only transgressed a prohibition [punishable by whipping]. This is what Maimonides wrote (Prohibition 146). But in Sanhedrin (84a), they learn this by a gezerah shavah, the word chet (a sin), [occurring both in the verse regarding improper use of sacrifices, and in the verse regarding terumah, which implies that wrongful use of the former is prohibited, just like the improper use of terumah]. This [that the derivation is from terumah] is what Nachmanides wrote (Sefer Hamitzvot, Principle 2, 24a in the common edition). Your freewill offering is another prohibition. This is what they said (Sifre Re’eh 34) about “your freewill offerings,” that Scripture comes only to indicate that one who eats of the thank offering or peace offering before sprinkling of the blood transgresses a prohibition [and this is explained in the Gemara Makkot]. And the contributions of your hands is another prohibition. As the Sifre (Re’eh 34) says about the “contributions of your hands,” that Scripture comes only to indicate that one who eats the first fruits before [the owner’s] reciting over them [the words of Deut. 26:5–10] transgresses a prohibition. And in the Gemara Makkot (18a), they explain that this prohibition is addressed to a kohen, but a layman [who thus transgresses] incurs the death penalty [by divine retribution], the prohibition for that being (Lev. 22:10) “And no layman shall eat of the sacred things.” This prohibition is mentioned later (Stanza 53). When he says “the choicest of vows,” he is including that which he did not specify [i.e., it includes offerings other than vows, as well]. They explained (Tosefta Menachot 9, 1) that one must bring from the choicest [for offerings]. Nachmanides wrote (Supplementary Commandment No. 7) that if one did not bring the choicest, he transgresses a prohibition, and he includes this in his enumeration of the commandments. The verse that refers to this is (Num. 18:32) “And you shall bear no sin — 279 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

because of it, since you have set apart the choicest of it.” Nachmanides said that this is similar to (Lev. 22:9) “And they shall keep my charge, that they bear no sin for it,” which is a prohibition for a kohen who is defiled [from eating his holy food]. “You shall surely reprove your neighbor, that you bear no sin because of him” (Lev. 19:17) is similar. Maimonides indeed counts these two commandments (Prohibitions 136 and 303), and it would be proper for him to count this [prohibition for not bringing the choicest] as well. But he [Maimonides in Positive Commandment 129] had written that this verse (“And you shall bear no sin because of it” is a negation [not a prohibition], that if you set apart the choicest, you will bear no sin because of it. [However, even under the assumption that this is not a prohibition] the rabbi [Nachmanides] wondered about him [Maimonides], why he did not make a [separate] positive commandment that what is set apart should be from the choicest [as well as the commandment to set apart a tenth portion]. But the rabbi [Nachmanides himself] decided to make it a prohibition.104 48. And you shall not eat with the blood my daily offering, which is first; And the fat and the blood are both forbidden. This prohibition includes many things. Thus, they expounded in Tractate Sanhedrin (63a), “Whence is it that one who eats a [properly slaughtered] animal before it expires transgresses a prohibition? It is from the verse (Lev. 19:25) ‘You shall not eat with the blood.’ Another thing [forbidden by this verse] is eating sacrificial meat portions while the blood is still in the bowl [i.e., before performing the sprinkling of the blood]. Rabbi Dosa says that the verse that prohibits providing the mourner’s meal after one has been given capital punishment is ‘You shall not eat with the blood’ [by vocalizing tochlu as ta’achilu, so as to mean] ‘You shall not feed because of the blood.’” Rabbi Akiva says that the verse that prohibits a court that executes a person from tasting anything that entire day is “You shall not eat with the blood.” Rabbi Yose bar Chanina said that the verse prohibiting the actions of a rebellious son is “You shall not eat with the blood.” Also, in the first chapter of Berachot 104 The actual substance of this discussion is that the Levites, who receive a tithe of produce from the Israelites, must then take a tenth of this and give it to the kohanim. It is this contribution that that must be from the choicest portions. — 280 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

(10b), they said, “Whence is it that one should not taste anything before praying? It is from ‘You shall not eat with the blood’ [in the sense that] you shall not eat until your pray for your blood [i.e., your life].” Now, in the Gemara Sanhedrin (63a) they said that this is a lav shebichlalut [inclusive prohibition], for which [the transgressor] is not punished by whipping. So also it is stated in Tractate Pesachim (24a). As to the matter of enumerating the commandments, Maimonides wrote (Principle No. 9) that one should not enumerate each element within this prohibition separately, since Scripture does not treat them individually so as to make each of them punishable separately. Therefore, he decided to enumerate this, which would be, among other things, a prohibition for the rebellious son, that is to say that you shall not eat in a way that leads to death, for by the eating he would be stoned. But Nachmanides (on Principle 9) expresses the possibility of counting this as two separate commandments, since there are two punishments for the rebellious son. One is whipping for the first [gluttonous] eating, as is stated in Sanhedrin (71b), “Where is it written that the rebellious son is whipped? It is according to Rabbi Abbahu, since Rabbi Abbahu said [concerning the punishment for the falsely accusing husband] that we derive this [by a gezerah shavah] from the twice-used word v’yisru (“And they shall chastise” in Deut. 22:18 and in 21:18), [thus linking the rebellious son with the falsely accusing husband], the words v’yisru and ben [both applied to the rebellious son in 21:18], and [another gezerah shavah] from the twice-used ben (21:18 and 25:2), [and in the latter the corporal punishment is explicit] “And it shall be that if the wicked man deserves to be whipped.” For the second instance of rebellious eating, the death penalty is incurred. Since this prohibition has two punishments, it is possible to count them as two commandments. And since the first eating leads to death for the second eating, it is, therefore, included under the content of “You shall not eat with the blood.” And when it says (Sanhedrin 63a) “Where is the prohibition for the rebellious son?” it refers to both eatings, since it is both that lead to shedding his blood. Nachmanides further wrote that Maimonides did a similar thing regarding [eating)] leaven and mixtures of leaven [counting them separately in Prohibitions 197 and 198]. I am perplexed about this statement of his, since the cases are dissimilar; there [regarding leaven] two prohibitive statements are involved, while here [rebellious son] there — 281 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

is only one. However, he [Maimonides] did similarly concerning (Exod. 22:27) “You shall not curse elo-him,” where he enumerates two prohibitions (Nos. 60 and 315) on account of the difference in punishment. A similar instance is (Exod. 23:13) “You shall not mention the name of other gods (Maimonides’s prohibitions Nos. 14 and 26).” So I wonder why he [Maimonides] did not [in the case of the rebellious son] include two prohibitions in the enumeration. What the poet wrote “my daily offering, which is first” has no basis. Actually eating with [or before] the blood of the daily offering, which precedes other sacrifices, is not included in the verse “You shall not eat with the blood.” Also, there is nothing of the daily offering which is eaten, of which it would be forbidden to eat before the sprinkling. And as to the prohibition of eating sacrificial meat before the sprinkling, that is not due to this prohibition “Do not eat with the blood,” but it is from the prohibition “You may not eat within your gates, etc.” (Deut. 12:17), as I wrote in the preceding stanza. Perhaps he is alluding to the prohibition of eating before praying for one’s blood [i.e., life], since prayers were instituted in lieu of the daily offerings (Berachot 26b). And when he says, “My daily offering which is first,” he took this from what is said (Pesachim 58b) that the words (Lev. 6:2) “It is the burnt offering” means the first burnt offering, that nothing should precede the morning burnt offering.105 And the fat and the blood are two prohibitions, “You shall eat no blood” (Lev. 3:17 and 7:26) and the prohibition of fat, which is counted as one [even though the prohibition is repeated in Lev. 3:17 and 7:23], as is known from the Principles (No. 9). But I do wonder why there are not two prohibitions concerning blood, one being the blood of life [the spurting flow of blood as the animal is slaughtered], which is punishable by “cutting off” (karet), and the other being the blood of the organs [which is retained in the organs after the animal expires], which is only punishable as a prohibition [by whipping]. This is like Maimonides counting two prohibitions in (Exod. 22:27) “You shall not revile judges” [which also encompasses reviling God], because there is a difference in penalty. Also, Nachmanides dealt thus with “You shall not eat with the blood,” even though it is a single prohibition [see beginning of this 105 The Talmudic source actually refers to another proof text for this law, i.e., “And he shall put the burnt offering in order upon it” in v. 6. — 282 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

stanza]. It seems to me that so much more so this should be so for [the prohibition of] blood, where there are several prohibitions, and it resembles the prohibitions [on Passover] of leaven and mixtures of it, one of which is punishable as just a prohibition [by whipping], and the other is punishable by “cutting off.” Also, I wonder why they should [even] not be counted as three prohibitions, for [the various scriptural verses] are not a prohibition of the same thing. But one case is that blood from animals for ordinary consumption, and that from sacrificial animals, and blood that needs to be covered (Lev. 17:13), which is blood of life, and which is punishable by “cutting off.” A separate case is blood from organs which has separated [from the organ], which, if still in the organ, would have been permissible. And another case would be oozing blood [which comes out gradually after death]. Should all these be counted as only one commandment, just because they are all called “blood,” when they are different in their rules? It requires deliberation [to decide] if this is similar to the law of sh’atnez [see below, Stanza 68, where he states that it is a single commandment, even though the prohibition is repeated, since the repetition is done to clarify details of the commandment]. Nevertheless, when there is a difference in penalty between them, one being “cutting off,” and the other [just being whipped for] a prohibition, it seems obvious that they should be counted as two [prohibitions], and certainly, if [in addition] there is a multiplicity of prohibitive statements. 49. [Also forbidden are] both fish and beast, and varieties of birds, Unless they have the sign by which they are recognized [as permissible]. In this stanza, he includes unclean fish, both unclean domestic and wild animals, and unclean fowl, which are three prohibitions. And the signs of every one of the fish and animals [which indicate uncleanness] are written in the Torah, while the fowl [are indicated] by the words of the sages. 50. And one having a blemish may not come near to offer a pleasant gift, Whether he is hunchbacked, or scabbed, or lame, or blind. “But he shall not enter within the curtain, or come near the altar — 283 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

(Lev. 21:23).” [These two clauses] are only to be counted as a single commandment (Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 69), since each is needed to complete the content, since neither one could be inferred from the other, as explained in the Sifra (Emor 50, 10). The content of this prohibition is that it is forbidden [for a priest] with a blemish to enter from the altar and beyond through the whole sanctuary. But there is another prohibition (Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 70), that one who is blemished shall not perform the priestly service. This is what it says (Lev. 21:17) “Anyone of your descendants throughout their generations who has a blemish, shall not approach to offer [the words of the quotation as given in Zohar Harakia are incorrect, and 21:17 is here substituted in accordance with Maimonides].” When it says “He shall not approach,” it means for service. And thus does it say in the Sifra (Emor 3, 60) that a blemished kohen does not incur death but [whipping due to transgressing] a prohibition. The statement of the poet “One having a blemish shall not come near to offer a pleasant gift” is due to the fact that a sacrifice by an unblemished priest is pleasant to God, exalted is He, as it is said (Mal. 3:4) “The offering of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasant to the Lord” The word shai (gift) is applicable to a sacrifice, as in (Ps. 76:12) “They will bring gifts to the awesome One.” Now, Maimonides made a separate prohibition (No. 71) that one who has a temporary blemish may not perform service as long as this blemish persists. He brings a proof from the Sifra text (Emor 45) that the verse (Lev. 21:17) “Who has a blemish shall not approach” would only imply a permanent blemish, so where is it stated for a temporary blemish? It is from the verse (ibid., v. 18) “Any (kol = every or any) man who has a blemish.” But the poet includes both temporary and permanent blemishes as just one [prohibition], for being scabbed (garav) is a temporary blemish, while hunchbacked (gibbein), lame (pis’chim), and blind (ivrim) are permanent blemishes. But in Maimonides’s opinion there are three prohibitions here. The first is the prohibition against a blemished person entering [into the space] from the altar [and beyond]. It is counted as a single commandment, although there are two prohibitory statements, as is known from the Principles (No. 9). The second is the prohibition against a blemished person performing service, and the third is against one temporarily blemished [performing service]. But Nachmanides (on Prohibition 69) disagrees, and he says that — 284 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

there is no prohibition from the Torah against a blemished person [merely] entering. He brings proof from the Sifrei (Korach 15) speaking about (Num. 18:7) “And you and your sons with you shall be careful to perform your priestly duties in everything pertaining to the altar and to what is within the curtain . . . and a layman who approaches shall be put to death.” [The Sifrei continues] “Does this talk about [approaching] for performing service, or even without performing service as well? One can deduce from the case of one who is blemished, who is not punishable by death, and he is only subject to punishment for performing service. A layman, who is punishable by death, certainly should not be punished unless he performs service. So the words ‘And a layman who approaches shall be put to death’ means [approaching] to perform service.” And this is the meaning of the verse (Lev. 21:23) “He shall not approach the altar, and he shall not desecrate,” that if he did service, he has profaned it [i.e., he has rendered it invalid], and if he did not perform service, what kind of profanation is there [i.e., nothing has become invalid]. The expression “approaching” (gishah) always indicates that it is for the purpose of performing service, as (Exod. 30:20) “Or when they approach the altar to serve, to make smoking a fire offering to the Lord” And the prohibition about coming to the curtain (Lev. 21:23) is to forbid him [from performing] sprinklings, which are done at the curtain, while approaching the altar means prohibition of service on the altar: and both are needed, as expounded in the Sifra, and as I have written. And so did Rashi write in his Torah commentary. But entering without performing service is not forbidden by the Torah, for blemished kohanim can come between the porch (ulam) and the altar in order to perform the duty of the aravah [on Sukkot, see Sukkah 44a]. When we learn in Tractate Kelim (1, 9) that blemished kohanim should not enter there, it is a rabbinic extension, so that for performing the aravah commandment they [the rabbis] made it permissible. Also, for repairing the building they may enter, and even Levites and Israelites, as stated in Tractate Eruvin (105a). Also, Nachmanides differs with him (Maimonides, Prohibition 71) for considering the prohibition of service by blemished priests as two separate prohibitions, the one for having a permanent blemish, and the other for one having a temporary blemish. But he [Nachmanides] says that it is all a single prohibition, and both cases are indicated only for completeness of the law, i.e., one who is blemished, whether perma— 285 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

nently or temporarily, may not perform service with that. This is similar to what he wrote (Maimonides Prohibition No. 69 about entry into the Temple) when he talks about [coming to] the curtain and approaching the altar, that it is for the purpose of giving the law completely, not to make a separate commandment. 51. And from the hand of a foreigner you shall not offer a gift; And the farmer shall not do work with firstborn oxen. The poet connects with the preceding stanza, saying, as it were, that such blemishes, as mentioned, if they occur in a sacrificial animal, may not be accepted even from a gentile (Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 96). For the Torah forbade this, saying (Lev. 22:24–25) “[An animal whose testicle is] bruised, crushed, torn, or cut, etc., and anything from the hand of a foreigner you shall not offer as food of your God any of these.” [This means] that a person should not think that, since it is not forbidden to children of Noah [gentiles subscribing to the Noachide principles] to offer blemished animals on their own altars, except that which has a limb missing, he may also offer such on the altar of Israel; that is why the Torah says “And you shall not offer from the hand of a foreigner.” Nachmanides counts here a particular prohibition (Supplementary Prohibition No. 8) from what is stated in the Sifra (Emor 122, 12, as follows): “From where is it known that shekalim [the annual Temple tax] cannot accepted from gentiles? It is from the verse ‘And anything from the hand of a foreigner you shall not offer as food of the Lord your God any of these.’ I might suppose that this only means the daily offerings, since they are spoken of as food. How is [the prohibition known to include] other sacrifices [that gentiles may not participate in them]? It is from the words any of these (mikol eileh).” This is in accordance with his [Nachmanides’s] opinion about lav shebichlalut [a prohibition that includes in one statement a number of prohibited things, treated in Principle 9], that he enumerates each prohibition if their content is different, as I wrote in the Principles. Some are doubtful about two prohibitions regarding the law of shekalim, whether they should be enumerated or not, namely (Exod. 30:15) “The rich shall not give, nor should the poor give less.”106 106 The list at the beginning of Zohar Harakia lists only “the rich shall not give more,” but the discussion at the end of the book indicates that he is including both. — 286 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Gift (eshcar) refers to an offering, like (Ps. 72:10) “They will offer gifts.” And the farmer (ikar) shall not do work. Ikar means a tiller of the soil, as in (Isa. 6:15) “Your tillers of the soil and your dressers of vines.” What he says “with the firstborn oxen” refers to the scriptural passage (Deut. 15:19) “You shall do no work with your firstborn ox.” This law also applies to other holy offerings, for which [the transgressor] is punished, as mentioned in the Gemara Keritot (this citation not found). 52. And you cannot make an acceptable offering in any external place; And do not shear firstborn sheep at the watering trough of the flocks. There are two prohibitions concerning slaughtering [sacrifices] outside the Temple. The one has to do with slaughtering, and the other with offering it. So in the Mishnah Keritot (1, 1) slaughtering and offering outside the Temple are counted as two. The expression in the Torah about offering is what is said (Deut. 12:13) “Take heed lest you offer your burnt offerings in any place you may see,” and any place where the words take heed lest or not (al) are stated, it indicates a prohibition. And in the Sifre, they learned about other types of sacrifices from [the explicit example of] the burnt offering, since it says (Deut. 12:14) “And there you shall do everything which I command you.” Now, the burnt offering is included [in the positive commandment of v. 14], so why is it further stated separately [(ibid.) “There you shall offer your burnt offerings”]? It is to tell you that just as the burnt offering is specified with both a positive and a negative commandment, so all other cases which are included as a positive commandment are also included in the prohibitions.107 As to slaughtering outside [the Temple], it is written (Lev. 17:3–4), “If one slaughters an ox, or lamb, or goat in the camp, but did not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting . . . blood is imputed to that man; he has spilled blood, and he shall be cut off.” And in Gemara Zevachim (106a), they said that we hear about punishment in this verse, but we do not hear a prohibition. They conclude there that in the words (Deut. 12:14) “There you shall offer . . . and there you shall do” a relationship is made [by the word there used for both offering and doing, or because 107 Such a deduction is one of the accepted types of rabbinic exegesis. — 287 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

of the juxtaposition of offering and doing] between offering and doing [“doing” meaning performing the preparations like slaughtering and sprinkling the blood]. That is, just as offering is punishable, and is covered by a prohibition, so is “doing” punishable and is covered by a prohibition. Although there is an explicit prohibition about this [slaughtering] in the case of the Paschal sacrifice, as it is said (Deut. 16:5) “You may not slaughter the Passover sacrifice in any of your settlements,” still we need the gezerah shavah [ linking offering and slaughtering via the common word there, as described above] for all other sacrifices. But all types of sacrifice constitute a single prohibition [against slaughtering outside the Temple], for thus do they enumerate them in the Mishnah Keritot, as mentioned above (beginning of this stanza). And do not shear firstborn sheep. This prohibition is stated as (Deut. 15:19) “And you shall not shear the firstlings of your sheep.” This law applies likewise to other sacrificial animals, as mentioned in Keritot (page not found). At the watering troughs of the flocks. He derived this expression from “One lamb of the flock out of two hundred from the wateringplaces of Israel” in Ezekiel (45:15). He relates this to shearing, since it is similar to people customarily watering an animal before slaughtering to make it easy to skin, as indicated at the end of Tractate Yom Tov (Betzah 40a), “They may give drinks to domestic animals and slaughter them,” and in Tractate Tamid (3, 4), “They gave drink to the daily [lamb] offering.” Similarly, they would customarily wash them [the sheep] before shearing, and Scripture (Song 4:2) expresses this, “Like a flock of ewes all shaped alike, coming up from washing.” 53. Do not exchange an animal, sanctified and sealed, And they shall not eat terumah, if they are impure or laymen. The prohibition is that one should not exchange a holy sacrificial animal. Scripture says (Lev. 27:10) “He shall not alter it nor exchange it.” This prohibition is also counted for the tithe [of animals] (ibid., vv. 32–33), but it is not a separate prohibition, for it only comes for completeness of the law. This is as said in the Sifra (Bechukotai 9, 69, 4; it also occurs in the Mishnah, Temurah 1, 6), “The tithe is in the general statement (v. 10), so why is it separately stated (v. 33)? It is to infer from it that just as the tithe is a sacrifice for the altar and it is not permissible to exchange it, so it is with all other sacrifices that cannot be exchanged, — 288 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

that this applies only to animals that are sacrifices for the altar [excluding an animal dedicated to the Temple treasury]. Such a commandment is not separately counted, as is known from the Principles (No. 9). When he says “sanctified and sealed,” it refers to the tithed animal which was colored by a marker, i.e., every tenth animal that passes by is designated as the tithe offering (see Bechorot 9, 7). But [although it is forbidden to make substitution for the tithed animal], the clause (in v. 33) “He shall not take account as to whether it is a good or a bad animal” does not constitute a prohibition. As they said in the Yerushalmi, first chapter of Rosh Hashanah, that any statement that comes to make something permissible, cannot be considered a transgression, and what the Torah makes permissible here is sanctifying a blemished firstling as tithe. [That is, one considers the thrust of (v. 33) “He shall not take account as to whether it is a good or bad animal” is that one does not have to worry if the tenth turns out to be defective. Thus, it is a permissive statement, rather than a warning that one must not take into account the quality of the animal]. It seems that this law [being permitted to sanctify a blemished animal] applies only to a tithed animal, but this is forbidden for other holy sacrifices, as I wrote previously (Stanza 39). Another prohibition concerning sacrifices is not to change a sacrifice from one level of sanctity to another, like from a guilt offering to a peace offering, and the like. This is from the statement concerning a firstling (Lev. 27:26) “One may not dedicate it,” which the sages explained that one may not dedicate it as a sacrifice for the altar [since it bears from birth the sanctity of a firstling]. They state in the Sifra (Bechukotai 8, 107, 3), “This only deals with a firstling. How is it known that other sacrifices may not be changed from one sanctity to another? It is from the verse (Lev. 27: 6) ‘among beasts one may not dedicate it.’” [The expression “among beasts” is superfluous, and thus is interpreted as an extension of the law.] There is still another prohibition about this, which is not to redeem the firstling of a clean animal. This is expressed by (Num. 18:17) “But the firstlings of cattle, sheep, or goats you may not redeem.” And they said in the Sifra (Bechukotai 13, 108), “Concerning the firstling of cattle it says ‘You may not redeem.’ But it may be sold [by the kohen who receives it].” Yet another prohibition is not to sell the tithe of cattle, as it is said (Lev. 27:33) “It cannot be redeemed.” And they stated in the — 289 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Sifra (ibid.) that it may not be sold, neither alive, nor slaughtered, and neither unblemished, nor blemished. All this is explained in Temurah (5b), Bechorot (31b), and in Tractate Ma’aser Sheni (1, 2). And they shall not eat terumah. The prohibition against a kohen who is impure eating terumah is from what is said (Lev. 22:4) “No man of Aaron’s offspring who is ‘leprous’ or has a discharge shall eat of the holy things.” And they said in the Gemara Makkot (14b), “Where is there a prohibition against [Aaron’s offspring who is impure] eating terumah? It is from (Lev. 22:4) ‘No man, etc.’ What sort of thing is uniformly applicable to all of ‘Aaron’s offspring’? It is terumah.” That is, [all of Aaron’s offspring], male and female, may eat it. Also, one who is uncircumcised is forbidden by the Torah to eat terumah. Thus did they say in Yevamot (70a), “From where is it known that one who is uncircumcised may not eat terumah? The words a sojourner and a hired servant (Exod. 12:45) were said regarding the paschal sacrifice, and ‘a sojourner and a hired servant’ was [also] stated regarding terumah. Just as with the law of ‘a sojourner and a hired servant’ concerning the paschal sacrifice, there is a law that one who is uncircumcised is forbidden to eat [of] it, so also with the law of a ‘sojourner and a hired servant’ concerning terumah there is a law that one who is uncircumcised is forbidden [to eat] of it.” And in the Sifra (Emor 86, 18), they stated that Rabbi Akiva said that the words no man [the Hebrew is ish ish, literally “a man, a man,” whose redundancy] implies that also the uncircumcised one is included [in the prohibition]. Since they stated in Yevamot (70a) that a mashuch [one who was circumcised, but had his prepuce drawn forward to simulate being uncircumcised] is permitted to eat terumah by Torah law, but he is forbidden by rabbinic law, because he looks uncircumcised, it is evident that one who is uncircumcised is forbidden by the Torah, and [the prohibition] is not an asmachta; and this law applies, as well to [eating] all other holy things [besides terumah]. Also, lay persons [not kohanim] are forbidden to eat terumah or the first fruits, from the verse (Lev. 22:10) “No lay person shall eat holy things.” This transgression is punishable by whipping, and this applies to any improper use of dedicated things. And in Tractate Niddah (46b) they said about a minor who is close to manhood, that, if he dedicated something [dedication by an “actual” minor is invalid] and other [unauthorized people] ate it, they would be subject to whipping [which proves — 290 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

that this transgression is punishable by whipping]. 54. You shall not bring as a portion the price of a dog or a harlot; And you shall not put frankincense on the barley mealofffering. The price of a dog or [the payment for] a harlot. Even though these are two distinct types, they are counted only as one, since the two of them are stated in a single prohibition [“You shall not bring” (Deut. 23:19)], and Scripture does not separate them in any way. This is Maimonides’s opinion, but Nachmanides disagrees with him and counts them as two, as explained in the Principles (No. 9). Now, this poem [in the line “the price of a dog or a harlot”] has a flaw, since, according to the interpretation of the rabbis in Gemara Temurah (30a), the price of a harlot and the payment for a dog are not forbidden. He should have expressed this as “the price of a dog or a payment” [using the word etnah for “payment,” which would also preserve the rhyme scheme]. For etnah in itself indicates a payment for a harlot, since we find etnah in this sense in Hosea (2:14) “These are my presents [that my lovers have given me].”108 “As a portion” means “for a sacrifice,” which is the portion of the Most High. It is from the verse (Lev. 8:29) “It was Moses’s portion.” [This portion had the status of a sacrificial portion, since] the kohanim have rights [to sacrificial meat] from “the table of the Most High” (Kiddushin 52b), and Moses had the status of a kohen (Zevachim 101b). It is also written (2 Chr. 31:4), “To give the portion of the priests and the Levites that they may adhere firmly to the law of the Lord” And you shall not put frankincense on the barley meal offering. This is the meal offering of the suspected adulteress, which has the specific prohibition that one should not put frankincense on it, as is said (Num. 5:15) “He shall not put frankincense on it.” And they said in the Sifre (Naso 49) that this tells us that if one put on oil or frankincense, he transgresses a prohibition; the transgression is the same for the oil as for the frankincense. And in the Mechilta [actually Sifre Zuta], they said that “he shall not pour oil on it, and he shall not put frankincense on it” tells us that these are two separate prohibitions. 108 My translation of this last part about the flaw in ibn Gabirol’s poem is based on variations in the manuscript text of Zohar Harakia and on the first printed text. — 291 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Now, the poet omitted (the prohibition Num. 5:15) “He shall not pour oil on it.” And just as there are two prohibitions, “he shall not pour” and “he shall not put” regarding the meal offering of the suspected adulteress, so there should be two similar prohibitions regarding the meal offering of the sinner, as it is said (Lev. 5:11) “He shall put no oil on it, and he shall put no frankincense on it.” In the expression of the Mishnah, Tractate Menachot (5, 4), “A person is culpable because of the oil in itself and because of the frankincense in itself.” 55. And you shall not come near for anointing with anointing oil; And you shall not make baldness, or cutting in the flesh. “Anointing oil” is that which Moses prepared, and the only ones anointed with it are kings and High Priests. If anyone else is anointed with it, he transgresses a prohibition, as it is said (Exod. 30:32) “It shall not be rubbed on any person’s body.” And thus is it specified in the Gemara Keritot (5a). And you shall not make baldness. Scripture explained that this is only forbidden [when performed] for the dead, as it is written (Deut. 14:1) “You shall not make baldness between your eyes for the dead.” As to this prohibition being repeated for kohaim, as it is said (Lev. 21:5) “They shall make no baldness upon their head,” it is not an addition to the enumeration [of prohibitions], but is only to fill out [the provisions of] the law. And if two prohibitory statements are mutually necessary to complete the law, they are only counted as one commandment, as is known from the Principles (No. 9). In the Gemara Makkot (20a), it explains why both statements are needed. The baldness is only forbidden [if done] by hand, but not with an instrument [the latter statement is questionable]. One is also only culpable if [the area of baldness] is the size of a split bean, and he is guilty of this when done any place on the head. Or cutting in the flesh. This prohibition also was stated regarding kohanim, as it is said (Lev. 21:5) “Nor shall they make gashes in their flesh,” while regarding lay Israelites it is stated (Lev. 19:28) “And gashes for the dead, etc.” All of this is for completing this law, as is explained in the Principles (No. 9) and in Tractate Makkot (20a), and it all counts as a single prohibition. Now, there is concerning this prohibition another warning statement, i.e. (Deut. 14:1), “You shall not gash yourselves (lo titgodedu).” In — 292 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

the Gemara Makkot (21a), they said that s’ritah [the verb in Lev. 21:5] and g’didah [the verb in Deut. 14:1] mean the same thing. Indeed, in the Gemara Makkot (21a) and Yevamot (14a), they include in this (lo titgodedu) that you should not divide into many groups [based on the similarity in sound of gedidah and agudah meaning “group”], i.e., this prohibits dissension, so that the Torah should not become like two different Torahs. However, they do state there (Makkot 13b) that [in spite of this latter interpretation], the essential meaning is that you should not inflict bruises for one who has died. They further explain there (Makkot 21a) that one is culpable for gashing oneself for a dead person, whether one does this with his hand or with a tool, while [if one gashes oneself] in idol worship, he is culpable if done with a tool, but he is exempt from punishment if done by hand. These two prohibitory statements count only as a single prohibition in the enumeration. 56. Do not compound the incense, and let your eyes be open, And do not take a ransom for killing in secret. It is a prohibition to make incense with the same composition [as that used in the Sanctuary] to smell it, as it is said (Exod. 30:37) “And you shall not make it for yourselves with that composition.” But it is permitted in order to deliver it to the congregation, since it is only forbidden to smell it, and thus it is explained in the Gemara Keritot (5a). And let your eyes be open, and do not take a ransom, i.e., one should be wary against bribes, which blind the eyes of the clear-sighted (Exod. 23:8).109 But one should keep his eyes open and not take a ransom for the life of an intentional murderer, as it is said (Num. 35:31) “And you shall not take a ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of a capital crime.” Likewise, there is another prohibition concerning an intentional murderer, i.e., that one may not accept a ransom to excuse him from being exiled, as it is said (ibid., v. 32) “And you may not accept a ransom for one who must flee, etc.” 57. Be careful not to forget the law of the sinew of the thigh; And the commandment of “It should not seem hard” you shall raise in your eyes. 109 The law against taking bribes is explicitly counted in Stanza 28. Duran mentions it here only to explain the usage of the poet in using here the expression “Let your eyes be open.” — 293 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Since the commandment about the sinew of the thigh vein (Gen. 32:33) was written in the Torah before the other commandments spoken at Sinai, he [the poet] adjures that this commandment should not be forgotten by our people.* He [the poet] says tinasheh [which would rhyme exceptionally well with nasheh] in the passive form to mean that “you shall not be considered forgetful of this thing.” This is analogous to (Isa. 44:21) “And Israel lo tinasheni,” i.e., “You will not be forgotten by me.” But if the verb is meant to be in the active form [reading tinsheh, not tinasheh, thus losing a syllable], one must add a principal vowel for the meter, e.g., [by inserting lecha after sh’mor, meaning “be you heedful,” instead of just “be heedful”] which would mean “Be you heedful lest you forget.” Now, they have said (Sanhedrin 59a) that this prohibition was stated [again] at Sinai, although it was only written in its place [in Genesis]. Were it not for this [repetition at Sinai], it would not come into the enumeration of the commandments. Therefore [according to the idea that commandments not given at Sinai should not be in the enumeration], one does not count among the commandments what is said in Berachot (13a) that if one called Abraham “Abram,” he transgresses a prohibition, as it is said (Gen. 17:5) “Your name shall not be called Abram,” as I wrote at the end of the positive commandments (Stanza 85). And if one eats the whole sinew of the thigh bone, he is punishable by whipping, even if it does not have the bulk of an olive. For it is considered like a creature, and is similar to eating an ant or a hornet [which is subject to whipping, even if its bulk is less than the normally required olive volume], as explained in Chullin (96a). And the commandment of “It should not seem hard” you shall raise in your eyes, i.e., “You should set your eyes on this commandment and not hide your eyes from it.” This refers to [the commandment] that it should not seem hard in your eyes, when you set him [a Hebrew slave] free, as it is said (Deut. 15:18) “It shall not seem hard in your eyes when you set him free from you.” It might also be interpreted that the words in your eyes [in ibn Gabirol] should be joined to it should not seem hard [rather

*The text that follows is somewhat problematic, and the printed text and the MS diverge significantly. The word tinasheni in Isaiah has been interpreted by commentators in both the active and the passive sense, i.e., “You shall not forget me” or “You will not be forgotten by me.” My translation here is based partly on variant versions. Particularly, milah achat in the text is replaced by melech echad, where melech is used with the meaning of a principal vowel.

— 294 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

than joined with the following words you shall raise], and this is correct, since this is in accordance with the language of the Torah. It would thus mean that you should raise up the commandment of “It should not be hard in your eyes.” The Halachot Gedolot wrote this commandment, and Nachmanides agreed, but Maimonides neglected it. 58. The law of “him and his son” you shall hide in your heart; And do not give your son to Molech of the cruel ones. He [the poet] insists that we hide deeply in our heart, so that we do not forget it, the law of “Him and his son you shall not slaughter on the same day (Lev. 22:28).” Since there might between the first slaughtering and the [second forbidden] slaughtering close to twenty-four hours— such as slaughtering the first at the beginning of the night and the second toward the end of the following]day—he, therefore, warns not to forget [the time of] the first slaughtering. This law [which tradition applies mainly to the mother and its offspring] includes both the mother followed by the daughter [or son], or the daughter [or son] followed by the mother. Nevertheless, it is only a single commandment, for we learned (Mishnah Chullin 5, 3) that if one had slaughtered an animal and its granddaughter, and then the daughter, he is punished with forty lashes [prescribed for transgressing a prohibition]. Now, if these were two separate commandments, he would be punished with eighty lashes, forty for “him and his son” and forty for “his son and him.” These laws are explained in a particular chapter about this in Tractate Chullin. And do not give your son to Molech of the cruel ones. This prohibition is separate, and is not just included in the [general] prohibition against idolatry. For giving one’s child to Molech does not constitute worship for that deity, since if it were worship for him, Scripture would not need to prohibit it, because we are forbidden concerning any idolatrous act which is usual for it [that deity]. But this is a kind of witchcraft in which they would give their child to Molech. And the Torah warns against this with a prohibition, and with [punishment by] cutting off. It states (Lev. 18:21) “You shall not give of your offspring to offer them to Molech.” And it says elsewhere in the section about witchcraft (Deut. 18:10), “Let there not be found among you anyone who offers his son or daughter to the fire.” Some [e.g., Rashi] explain that they would do nothing more than the father handing it [the child] to the priest, and the priest would cause it to pass between two fiery torches. This is not — 295 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

correct, for why should the father be guilty because of the priest carrying the child through. It is definite from verses in Jeremiah (32:35) and other places that they would burn the child totally, as Ahaz did (2 Kings 16:3), and as Manasseh did (ibid., 21:6). And it seems so from the outcome in the Talmud Sanhedrin (64b) and in the Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 7, 10). And the expression “to offer (l’ha’avir, lit. to pass) to Molech” is similar to (Num. 31:23) “You shall pass (ta’aviru) through fire,” which means actual burning. Therefore, the poet says, “To Molech of the cruel ones.” 59. And to set aside all work, to bring completion to Sabbaths, And to the holidays of Matzot, and the day of first fruits. These prohibitions are evident by the scriptural language, i.e., the prohibition of work on the Sabbath; prohibition of work on the first day of Passover; prohibition of work on its seventh day; and prohibition of work on Shavuot, which is also called the Day of First Fruits, as well as the Feast of Weeks. “The holidays [of Matzot]” in the plural includes the first and the seventh day. “To set aside” means to remove [work] from your thought, as they said (Mechilta Yitro 7) “[Think of it] as if your work has been completed.” And so the word lirtzot (“bringing completion”) has the meaning of completion, i.e., as if your work was completed, from the expression (Isa. 40:2) “Her guilt is paid off,” and (Lev. 26:34) “Then shall the land be paid her Sabbaths.” Since we find the expression ritzui [completion, paying off] used in conjunction with Sabbaths (Lev. 26:34) in Scripture, one should not bother with any other interpretation, such as explaining it [lirtzot] as making one’s actions acceptable to His Name [reading l’ratzot , the pi’el form, rather than lirtzot], as the commentator on the Azharot explained. From the Principles, it is known that each of these days is counted as a separate prohibition. 60. And the holiday of remembrance, for righteousness and improvement And the holidays of joyful song, and the holiday of atonement. He completes here the prohibition of work on the remaining holidays. The holiday of remembrance is Rosh Hashanah, for it is the day when our actions are remembered. It is also the day of judgment, and of repairing our actions, so he says, “for righteousness and improvement.” — 296 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

The “holidays of joyful song” means the first day and the last day of Sukkot. Therefore, he says “holidays” in the plural, and these are days of song and the season of our rejoicing. “And the holiday of atonement” is self-explanatory. It would have been possible [to think that] the prohibition about resting during that night is one commandment, and that the prohibition about daytime is another, for they bring this up in Tractate Yoma (81a) [in explaining the several verses prohibiting work on Yom Kippur, they say that one prohibits work during the daytime, and another prohibits work during nighttime]. But these are to be counted as only a single prohibition, since in Tractate Keritot (2a), when they enumerate the thirty-six sins punishable by cutting off, they only enumerate eating and working as two prohibitions. 61. And do not break a bone on the night of your coming out of the pit, And a razor shall not pass over the head of Nazirites. The pit means the pit of exile, as in (Zech. 9:11) “I send forth your prisoners out of the pit, wherein there is no water.” This prohibition is not to break a bone of the paschal sacrifice, as it is stated (Exod. 12:46) “You shall not break a bone of it.” The sages have stated (Pesachim 84a) that if one broke of a clean paschal lamb, he is punished by whipping. The poem is abbreviated, since it does not specify “a bone of the paschal sacrifice.” Concerning Pesach Sheni [which is performed later by one who was unable to perform the paschal lamb observance at the normal time], there is a separate prohibition, i.e., “They shall not break a bone of it” (Num. 9:12). This is proved in Pesachim (85a), where it says about Pesach Sheni that the verse (ibid. Num. 9:12) was not necessary, since it is also stated [later, in the same verse, that the lamb of Pesach Sheni should be treated] in accord with all the laws of [the first] paschal lamb. It is concluded [in the Gemara, according to the principle that redundant verses can extend the scope of the law] that [the law against breaking bones applies] whether the bone has marrow or does not have marrow (end of Pesachim 85a citation). Now, had it said that the verse [about not breaking a bone for the Pesach Sheni] was unnecessary on account of that law having been stated for the regular paschal offering, then the two of them would be enumerated as only a single commandment, since [the two verses] would only be coming to complete the law, as is known from — 297 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

the Principles (No. 9). But since the law was only considered redundant on account of what was written about Pesach Sheni itself, i.e., “According to all the laws of the paschal lamb (Num. 9:12),” they are, therefore, two separate prohibitions. They also stated there (Pesachim 85a) that the verse “According to all the laws of the paschal lamb” sounds like it might only mean a positive commandment. How do we know that there is also an actual prohibition? It is from the words “And they shall not break a bone of it.” [This also implies that the latter clause is actually an independent prohibition.] And a razor shall not pass (Num. 6:5). Both one who shaves [the Nazirite] and the one who is shaved [i.e., the Nazirite] are punishable, even for [removing] one hair, as is mentioned in Tractate Nazir (41a). 62. And it shall not come out of his mouth that he should become unclean for his father, Nor for his sister, or brother, or any other [close relatives]. A Nazirite is forbidden to become unclean by means of a corpse, even if they are close relatives, and this is a single prohibition (Maimonides No. 207). He is also prohibited (No. 208) from entry into a tent with a corpse. Thus is it stated in the Gemara (Nazir 42b) that Scripture states fully in a verse (Num. 6:7) “He shall not let himself become unclean.” When it further says “He shall not enter,” this means that he is forbidden to let himself become unclean and he is also forbidden to enter.110 But if the entry and defilement occur simultaneously, e.g., if one entered the house of a sick person, who then died, this is a situation where entry and defilement occur simultaneously and he is punished [with whipping] twice. What he says “It shall not come out of his mouth” [this phrase is appropriate for a vow, as in Num. 30:3], it means that he should not vow to become a Nazirite on condition that he be allowed to defile himself by a corpse. For this is making a condition which uproots the words of the Torah, and if one does this, he would be punished, as explained in Nazir (11a).

110 Becoming unclean can happen by touching or by a part of the Nazirite’s body being within the same tent as the corpse. If the Nazirite enters partially, he immediately becomes unclean. The rabbis held that once he has thus defiled his Nazirite status, subsequent entry with his whole body does not make him guilty of “He shall not enter,” and he is not subject to another punishment. — 298 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

63. And he shall not drink wine, which reddens the eyes, Nor wine vinegar, nor the other things. As to why he wrote before (Stanza 62) “It shall not come out,”111 and here [he wrote] “He shall not drink,” which is [also] singular form, while it says (Stanza 61) “And a razor shall not pass over the heads of the Nazirites,” in the plural form, it is because the poetic form [requiring each stanza to end with the sound “rim”] forced it. And it [the plural] means to say every one of the Nazirites. Included in the prohibition of drinking wine is the prohibition against drinking vinegar, but there is no separate prohibition for vinegar. Maimonides (Sefer Hamitzvot, Prohibition No. 206) brings proof for this from what they said in the Gemara Nazir (38b) that if one ate fresh grapes and raisins, grape skins and grape seeds, and squeezes a bunch of grapes, he is punished with whipping five times. Now, in the Gemara, they looked for a separate commandment in addition to those, which had been omitted by the teacher. They said that he might have omitted the prohibition not to profane his word (Num. 30:3). But it does not say that he might have omitted the case of vinegar. It is thus evident that one is not punished for vinegar as an independent prohibition. When the Torah says (Num. 6:3) “The vinegar of old wine and the vinegar of new wine he shall not drink,” this is to say merely that it is forbidden to drink wine, even if it becomes vinegar, and it is all encompassed in a single prohibition.* The prohibition of drinking wine is (Num. 6:3) “He shall not drink any grape liq*The words v’lo shetiyat yayin, etc., as they stand uid.” From this verse they derived in the Gemara are incomprehensible to (Nazir 36a) that if something is flavored with a me. If v’lo were replaced forbidden substance, it is forbidden just as is the by v’lav, it would make sense as follows. original substance. Nor the other things are fresh grapes, raisins, seeds, and grape skins, thus making five prohibitions punishable by whipping, as we mentioned, and thus did they say in the Mishnah (Nazir 34b). Now, Maimonides counted them as five in his great code, but in the first version of his Sefer Hamitzvot that reached Nachmanides’s hands, they were counted as only one commandment. And this was also Maimonides’s opinion (Principle 9) to count them as a single commandment, i.e., to 111 Actually, the crucial thing that indicates a singular rather than a plural for the Nazirite is the word mipiv, “from his mouth.” — 299 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

forbid anything that comes from the grape vine (see Num. 6:4). But in the later versions of Sefer Hamitzvot that came to our hands, he [Maimonides] reversed himself and counted them as five separate prohibitions, as in his great code. This [disagreement between Nachmanides and Maimonides] is in accordance with their disagreement about lav shebichlalut, about which I wrote in the Principles (No. 9). 64. And do not spread into your body tattoo writing; And he who curses will be hanged and will be brought to the grave. This prohibition is that one may not make an incision in his flesh, and mark it with colored matter. This is meant by the statement (Makkot 21a) that if one wrote without incising or incised without writing, he is not punishable, unless he writes and incises, as in (Lev. 19:28) “And you shall not incise marks on your flesh,” for if he wrote without incising, it is not spread and dispersed into the body. He who curses [the prohibition for which is given above, No. 143] will be hanged112 and will be brought to the grave. This refers to hanging of the one who curses, which is indicated by hoka’ah, as it is said (2 Sam. 21:6), “And we shall hang them (v’hoka’anum) unto the Lord” This is included in a general positive commandment (No. 143 of Zohar Harakia which prescribes hanging following execution for certain crimes). Also, “And will be brought to the grave,” which is a positive commandment, has no connection with the prohibitions [as hanging is also out of place here]. But the poet wrote them here on account of a prohibition related to them, namely (Deut. 21:23) “You shall not let his corpse remain overnight on the stake.” Also, they stated in the Sifre (Tetze 40) that this is a prohibition. Nachmanides (in his final enumeration) additionally counted (Deuteronomy ibid.) “You shall not defile your land,” which is said regarding “You shall not leave overnight,” i.e., that there is an additional prohibition if committed in the Land of Israel, as is known from the Principles (end of Fifth Principle). 65. For a mishap [of “leprosy”] which is observed you shall place [the victim] on the edge of your camp, And your Rock shall not see among you any shameful thing. 112 Hoka’ah as hanging is much rarer than the more common t’liyah. — 300 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

For a mishap [of “leprosy”] which is observed. [This indicates] the four colors of “leprosy,” which are the bad [signs] in the body, with their diverse colors. And his expression place him on the edge of your camp means “Keep him far, toward one edge,” similar to (Deut. 32:26) “I would make an end of him,”113 according to the content of the verse (Lev. 13:46) “He shall dwell alone, his dwelling shall be outside the camp.” There are two commandments connected with this. The one is not to shave the hair of a scall, as it is said (ibid., v. 33) “And the scall he shall not shave.” The second is not to cut away signs of “leprosy” and not to burn them so that the kohen should not declare him unclean, as it is said (Deut. 24:8) “Take heed about the plague of ‘leprosy.’” And the statement of the Sifre (Tetze 140, 8) is that “take heed about the plague of ‘leprosy’” is a prohibition. Also, they said in the Mishnah (Negaim 7, 4) that if one plucks out the signs of uncleanness or cauterizes quick flesh, he transgresses a prohibition. So did Maimonides count them [as two]. But Nachmanides counted them as only a single prohibition, for they are a single subject, which is not to remove signs of uncleanness. For if they were two prohibitions, then one who would remove signs of uncleanness from a scall would be punished twice, and we do not find any of the sages who said this. Therefore, Nachmanides said that the first prohibition is a particular instance of the signs of uncleanness of a scall because of a hair, and the same applies to all signs of uncleanness of afflictions. The second prohibition [“take heed, etc.”] applies to all types of “leprosy” [not just that on the human body]. Thus, they expounded the verse in the Sifre (Tetze 140) as implying various types of “leprosy,” e.g., “leprosy” on people, “leprosy” on clothing, and “leprosy” on houses [and including such material as], laws prior to a sign being identified as unclean, and those after being identified as unclean (Nega’im 5, 4–5), laws after the signs are pronounced clean after being shut up, or after being certified unclean (Nega’im 7, 3). Thus, [this verse comes] to complete the matter, but it does not come [separately] in the enumeration, as is known from the Principles (No. 9). But the verse (Lev. 13:36) “The priest shall not look for,”114 and similar cases, evidently do not express prohibition, but negation. This is similar 113 Both hapheh, “place him on the edge” and aphehem “I will destroy him” being derived from pe’ah, an edge. 114 Which means that he need not examine further for a hair, since it is unclean regardless. — 301 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

to what I wrote previously (Stanza 53) about the verse (Lev. 27:33) “He shall not search whether it be good or bad.”115 These words [that verbs expressing negation are not to be construed as prohibitions] apply even more so in the present case (Lev. 13:36). But it is better to explain this stanza as being a prohibition for those unclean [not specifically from “leprosy”] not to enter the encampment of Levites [which requires a certain level of sanctity]. This is according to the verse (Deut. 23:11) “If there is a person among you who becomes unclean, etc., he must not enter the camp.” And in the Gemara Pesachim (68a) they said that “he must leave the camp” (ibid.) refers to the camp of the Shechinah [more holy than that of the Levites], and “he must not enter into the camp” refers to the camp of Levites.116 Ravina questioned this, since both clauses might refer to the camp of Shechinah, [and there would still not be a redundancy, the purpose being] to indicate that the transgression involves both a positive statement and a negative [prohibitory] statement. [The reply to this is that] for this purpose Scripture could say just “He must not enter into,” i.e., it could have just said, “He must not enter into it.” Why is the unnecessary word the camp added? It is to imply that another camp is meant. They also said in the Sifre (Tetze 120) that “he must not enter into the camp” is a prohibition [this again emphasizing that this verse constitutes a prohibition]. What verifies that this is the meaning of this stanza is that attached [to the law of not entering the camp] is the [clause] (Deut. 23:15) “That He shall not see any unseemly thing in you,” this verse appearing in the same portion [as the verse about an unclean person entering into the camp]. Now, Nachmanides did not count “He shall not see any unseemly thing in you” as a prohibition. But the Halachot Gedolot and the author of the S’mak do count it. And in Berachot , Chapter Mi Shemeto (25a), about the case of nakedness through a glass pane, that one is forbidden to recite the shema in its presence, and they say that this is from the Torah [i.e., they attributed this prohibition to “He shall not see any unseemly thing in you”]. Therefore, it is a full-fledged prohibition which belongs in the enumeration. Now, Nachmanides wrote that “and you shall be wary against any 115 Note that the Hebrew for “shall not search” is the same as that for “look for” in (Lev. 13:36), i.e., lo y’vaker. 116 The text in the Gemara is the reverse. — 302 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

untoward thing” (Deut. 23:10) is an enumerated commandment (his additional Prohibition No. 11). This prohibition is that when we are in the camp, we should be careful not to commit any transgression. He brings as proof the Baraita taught in the Sifre (Tetze 119), “One might think that the phrase ‘any untoward thing’ means that Scripture refers to uncleanness, cleanness, and tithes. That is why the Torah says ‘unseemly,’117 meaning that since sexual immorality is a particular prohibition for which the Canaanites were exiled, and which causes the Divine Presence to be removed, so any action for which the Canaanites were exiled and which causes the Divine Presence to be removed, is meant here. Since it also says ‘[any untoward] thing,’ it also means [to include] nasty speech [since ‘thing,’ expressed by davar, also means ‘speech’].”118 Although this only prohibits things that the Torah prohibits elsewhere, it is still to be separately enumerated; for it does not just reinforce [the prohibitions, which would not suffice to make it a separate commandment], but it specifically applies in the camp, [so that one who thus transgresses within the camp] would be culpable for two prohibitions. This is similar to the prohibition of misplacing [a boundary marker in the Land of Israel], which makes the transgressor in Israel culpable for it [misplacing a marker] as well as for [the general prohibition] not to rob. Included in this prohibition is that a man should not think lascivious thoughts during the day, so that he should not have an accidental emission at night, as is stated in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (20b) and the fourth chapter of Ketubot (46a). It may be that “he shall not see any unseemly thing in you” with “and you shall be wary” are two prohibitions with the same content and would thus be numbered as a single commandment. Or it [“He shall not see, etc.”] is the reason for “And you shall be wary,” i.e., “You shall be wary so that He would not see any unseemly thing,” [which would likewise be considered as a single commandment]. 66. And you shall not measure out interest to burden the poor; And the law that “you shall not do so” to the mightiest of the mighty. 117 The word ervah commonly means nakedness or sexual immorality. 118 The preceding section, as quoted by Duran, seems to have excessive verbiage. We have used a briefer version, which is found in our Sifre, and which is the version which was chosen by Chavell in his Sefer Hamitzvot L’harambam im Hasagot Haramban, Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, p. 204, notes 6 and 7. — 303 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

I have already written that one of the prohibitions about taking interest is not to be an intermediary between them [the borrower and the lender], as it is said (Exod. 22:24) “You shall not place interest upon him” [according to Talmudic exegesis]. This is indicated by “You shall not measure out,” which implies that the arrangement shall not be consummated in any way through you. And the law that “you shall not do so” is a prohibition not to detroy any things that are dedicated to God, exalted is He. Just as we are commanded to do so to idolatrous objects, as it is said (Deut. 12: 24), “You shall surely destroy all the places, etc.,” “and you shall break down their altars, etc.,” “and you shall obliterate their name,” and [conversely], “you shall not do so unto the Lord your God” At the end of Makkot (22a), they said that one who burns wood belonging to the Temple treasury is punishable by whipping, and also one who wipes out the Divine Name is punished by whipping on account of this prohibition. 67. Do not hide your eyes from the lost and fallen; And you shall not make gods like the vain things of foreigners. There are two separate prohibitions that deal with ignoring. One is concerning the ox or sheep who strayed, and also included is any lost thing, as is written in the Parashah Ki Tetze (Deut. 22:1–3), “You shall not see your brother’s ox or sheep gone astray [and just ignore it, etc.]; and so shall you do with anything of your brother that is lost, and that you find it, you must not ignore it.” Also they said in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 24) concerning a lost article, that we learn that one [who ignores a lost thing] transgresses both a positive and a negative commandment (the positive commandment is given in Stanza 24 of the Positive Commandments). Likewise, in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 32a), they said that returning a lost thing involves a positive commandment and a prohibition. And also they state in the in the Sifre that (Deut. 22:1) “You shall not see your brother’s ox, etc.” is a prohibition. Now, the second [prohibition] is about an animal who is fallen, lying under its burden, and this is said (in Deut. 22:4) “You shall not see your brother’s ass or ox fallen, in the road and ignore them.” In the Mechilta (Mishpatim ibid.), they explain that there is both a positive commandment and a prohibition about this. The poet chose here the expression in the Scripture “Your brother’s ox or his sheep gone astray” and “Your brother’s ass or ox fallen.” — 304 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

When it says “And you shall not make gods,” this is not to prohibit constructing them, for he [the poet] already wrote down “You shall not make an idol,” as I have written (Stanza No. 8). But it comes to forbid doing an action in order to turn one’s intention to it, and this is indicated by the concluding words “like the vain things of foreigners,” who do turn their attention to them.119 Turning to gods is an enumerated prohibition, and one is punished with whipping for this. Thus did they say in the first chapter of the Gemara Eruvin (17b) that one might have [mistakenly] thought that “you shall not turn to the gods” (Lev. 19:4) is also not punishable by whipping, which shows that one is punishable by whipping, even though the word al [the less common expression for “not”] is used, rather than lo [the common word for not]. There are some whose version (in Eruvin 17b) is “Do not turn to ghosts or familiar spirits” (Lev. 19:31) [instead of the “Do not turn” of verse 19:4]. But this is incorrect, since that prohibition does not entail whipping, but stoning, since a prohibition that results in capital punishment by the court is not punishable by whipping, as mentioned there, and the same applies in the last chapter of Shabbat (154a). The content of this prohibition [not turning to idols] is that it is forbidden to gaze at images. And so they said in Shabbat, Chapter Shoel (149a), that it forbidden to read on the Sabbath inscriptions that go under a picture or image [since it resembles reading contracts on the Sabbath, which is forbidden]; and it is forbidden on a weekday to look at the idolatrous image itself, as it is said, “You shall not turn unto the gods.” And the reason for this prohibition is obvious. 68. Do not wear wool mixed with linen; And do not cause date honey or leavening to smoke. The Torah says (Deut. 22:11) “You shall not wear mixed cloth, wool and linen together,” and that is the meaning of nechbash, which means tied and attached together, related to (Exod. 29:9) “And you shall bind turbans upon them.” Even though there are two prohibitions concerning cloth made of two kinds of material, one being “You shall not wear mixed cloth” and the second being (Lev. 19:9) “There shall not come on you cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material,” it still counts as 119 I here translate asiyatan as “doing an action,” since this is closer to the truth, since he just said that this is not about making an idol. — 305 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

only a single [commandment]. [This is] because both verses are needed to make the subject complete, as they said (Sifre Tetze 82), “Wearing is included in the general statement [‘There shall not come on you’], so why is it [actually wearing the mixed cloth, not just having it on you] mentioned specifically [in ‘You shall not wear’]? It is to deduce from it and conclude that just as wearing has the special character that it is for the enjoyment of the body, so anything that is for the enjoyment of the body is meant [e.g., a bed sheet], and it excludes [from the prohibition] anything that is not for bodily pleasure [e.g., a salesman draping goods over his arm to display it to a customer].” Since both verses are needed [to clarify the law], we only count them as a single commandment, as is known from the Principles. And do not cause date honey [or leavening] to smoke [by putting it into a burnt offering]. Maimonides counted [burning] leaven and honey as only a single prohibition because it is a Lav Shebichlalut. But Nachmanides counts them as two prohibitions (see his critique on Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 98), and he gives as a reason for his words that there is a separate prohibition for leaven, as it is said (Lev. 2:11) “No meal offering which you offer to the Lord shall be made with leaven.” Thus, when Scripture says (ibid.) “For you shall make no leaven or honey smoke as a burnt offering to the Lord,” this is a prohibition especially concerning honey, and one should be punished by whipping for that separately. He brings proof from what is said in Keritot (5a) that one who eats bread and parched corn and fresh grain [preceding the Omer], is subject to three whippings. They give the reason that parched grain is unnecessary [and thus its presence is understood as grounds for separate punishment]. They objected to this that one would say that parched grain, being redundant, is separately punished, while for transgressing all [three], one would be guilty of just one [extra] prohibition, i.e., one would be punished for all of them twice, not three times. They replied that in that case, Scripture would have said “bread, fresh grain, and parched grain,” or it could be written as “parched grain, bread, and fresh grain.” Why does it write parched grain in the middle [thus separating bread and fresh grain]? It is to imply that bread is separately punishable like parched grain, and fresh grain is separately punishable like parched grain (see above Stanza 37 in the Zohar Harakia). It is evident from this that it is only in instances where there is a — 306 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

specific prohibition [for one of two things combined in a lav shebichlalut] that [one can deduce that] just as one is punished separately for that thing, so he is punishable separately for the other thing which is combined with it in a single prohibition. Thus, if he [simultaneously] transgresses both of them he is punished with two whippings. This being the case, since leaven has its special prohibition, the prohibition of leaven and honey [together] is specifically for the honey, and there is no lav shebichlalut here [at all]. As to Rava’s statement in Menachot (58b) concerning one who makes an offering with leaven and honey, that one is not to be punished for [the individual components of] a lav shebichlalut, this is just to disagree with Abaye who says that one is culpable for four whippings, according to Maimonides’s version, for leaven, for honey, for a mixture of leaven, and for a mixture of honey. And [Rava’s statement merely] comes to say that one is not whipped for a mixture, which is a lav shebichlalut, but one is whipped for [both] leaven and honey. That version [of Menachot 58b, according to Maimonides] is: “Abaye said that one [who made a burnt offering with leaven and honey] is whipped for leaven and [whipped for] honey, and for a mixture of leaven and honey. Rava said that one is not whipped for a lav shebichlalut.” This version is more correct than that of Maimonides, which reads: “[Abaye says] that he is whipped for leaven and [whipped] for honey, and [whipped] for a mixture of leaven and [whipped] for a mixture of honey.” All of the above discussion [Nachmanides’s discussion that, in the case of leaven and honey, all of the rabbis in the Talmud agree that they are separately punishable] means that [they should be counted as separate prohibitions] even in Maimonides’s view about counting the commandments in a lav shebichlalut [i.e., that generally a lav shebichlalut is punished as a single transgression, and hence its components are enumerated as only one commandment]. But I have written (Zohar Harakia) in the Principles (No. 9) that Nachmanides himself does not count the commandments according to the [number of] punishments, but according to the subject matter. And according to his words, it is obvious that leaven and honey should be counted as two prohibitions. 69. And you shall not offer up My food, nor pour in My name On My inner altar, which is in front of the fawns. Maimonides counted as a single prohibition (Exod. 30:9) “You shall — 307 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

not offer alien incense on it, or a burnt offering or a meal offering, nor shall you pour a libation on it,” referring to the golden altar, which is called the inner altar, and that is the altar of incense. But I wonder why we do not count “You shall not offer” as one thing, and “Nor shall you pour” as another. For the meaning of “offering” is not the same as “pouring.” We have previously (Stanza 54) counted (Num. 5:15) “He shall not pour oil on it, and he shall not put frankincense on it” as two [prohibitions], so why should not count these as two? And Maimonides has brought no substantiation from the Talmud nor from other rabbinic sources for this prohibition [indicating it as a single commandment]. I have indeed seen that Rabbi Levi ben Gershon in his commentary on the Torah is of the opinion that these should be regarded as two prohibitions. It would seem [that they could properly be taken as just one prohibition], since both clauses are needed to make the law complete, like the prohibition regarding sha’atnez, and similar instances.120 When he writes “in front of the fawns,” he refers to the staves of the ark which protrude into the curtain like a woman’s nipples, as they describe in the Gemara Yoma (54a). They refer this to the verse (Song 4:5) “Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.” 70. Do not take refuge in the shadow of Nof, nor do like them; And do not test God, as the rebellious ones did. This is the prohibition that one may not reside in the land of Egypt. The poet bases his expression on the verse (Isa. 30:2) “To take shelter in the land of Egypt.” In the Torah, there are three prohibitions about this: (Exod. 14:13) “You shall never more see them,” (Deut. 17:16) “You shall not go back that way again,” and (Deut. 28:68) “Which I told you that you shall not see it again.”121 They indeed stated in the Gemara (Yerushalmi Sukkah 5, 1) that in three places the Holy One, blessed is He, commanded Israel not to return to Egypt, and in three instances they did return, and for all three they were punished. In the Gemara Sukkah (51b), it states that Alexandria, Egypt is part of the forbidden territory. Maimonides wrote (Sefer Hamitzvot, Prohibition 46) that from the sea of Alexandria the forbidden land of 120 The analogy between our case and sha’atnez has been questioned by Perlow. 121 Maimonides points out in Prohibition No. 46 that we take all three statements as prohibitions according to rabbinic tradition, although the simple meaning in some cases indicates a promise rather than a prohibition. — 308 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Egypt extends 400 parsas in width, for that dimension of Egypt is given in the Talmud (Ta’anit 10 b). He [Maimonides] is thus explaining that from there [Alexandria] that country [Egypt] begins. The reason why nowadays people consider it permissible [to go to Egypt] and even Maimonides dwelt there, is, in the opinion of some, that it was only forbidden so that we should not learn [wrongful behavior] from them; but nowadays they are not more evil than other peoples. But this does not seem correct to me, for they clearly stated (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 8) that you shall not go back to dwell, but you may go back for business, etc. Now, since it is permitted to enter it for business, if thereafter you settle there, you have not done a forbidden act, for you entered in a permissible way. And in the Sefer Hamitzvot Hagadol, it is written that the Torah only forbids leaving the Land of Israel for Egypt, which is implied by the expression of Scripture which says (Deut. 17:16) “And the Lord said to you ‘You shall not go back that way again.’” Nor do like them. This statement does not refer to what the Torah said (Lev. 18:3), “You shall not do according to the doings of the Land of Egypt where you dwelt.” For that prohibition, if it is a summary of the forbidden sexual relations (ibid., vv. 6 ff), it would not be proper to count it, only the particular [relations should be counted]. And if it is a particular [prohibition] about the ways of the Amorite [degrading heathenish practices], there is already another scriptural statement (Lev. 18:3), “And you shall not walk in their statutes,” which the poet wrote later on (Stanza 80), “You shall not walk in the statutes of their observance.” But the commentator on the Azharot [Rabbi Moses ibn Tibbon] introduced [as the meaning] here the prohibition against castration, as it is said (Lev. 22:24) “That with [its testicles] bruised or crushed or torn or cut . . . and you shall not do such things in your land.” Just as it is forbidden to castrate any cattle, or beast, or bird [which is the subject of v. 24], so it is forbidden to castrate a man [according to rabbinic interpretation]. And in Chapter Ein Dorshin (Chagigah 14b) it was asked if one may castrate a dog.122 [Its prohibition is included in] what is said 122 Rashi explains that the case of a dog was specifically asked, since the prohibition of castration is drawn from Lev. 22:24, which is in the context of animals being rendered invalid for sacrifice; and the dog is already totally invalid, since not only is a dog forbidden to sacrifice, as are other unclean animals, but also, according to Torah law, even a clean animal which is exchanged for a dog is invalid. — 309 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

(Lev. 22:24) “You shall not do this in your land.” And in Shabbat (110b) it says, “Where is castration among humans forbidden in the Torah? It says (Lev. 22:24) ‘You shall not do this in your land,’ [which implies that] you shall not do this to any amongst you.” And do not test God. This is a prohibition against testing God, exalted be He, saying “Let me test whether by being good it will go well with me, as God promised.” Such a thing is forbidden except in the matter of tithing, as expounded in the Gemara Ta’anit (9a) [about the words in Deut. 14:22 aser t’aser, that they should be interpreted not as “you shall surely tithe” but as“tithe (aser) in order that you will become rich,” by reading titasher or te’asher, rather than t’aser]. They bring as support for this [that one may “test” or expect that one should be rewarded for tithing] the verse (Mal. 3:10) “Bring all the tithe into the storehouse . . . and try me with this, etc.” And in the Yerushalmi, Tractate Yoma (1, 4), they said that they used to designate a substitute High Priest for Yom Kippur [who would perform the service in case the real High Priest became unclean], even though miraculously there never occurred an incident that would defile the High Priest on Yom Kippur. For one should not depend on a miracle [since expecting divine intervention is a kind of testing of God]. A similar case is (1 Sam. 16:2) “Take a heifer with you” [where Samuel is instructed to employ a stratagem so as not to be endangered by Saul’s wrath, even though God could intervene to save him]. They quote in this connection the verse which says (Deut. 6:16) “You shall not test the Lord your God.” As the rebellious ones did is like the expression in the Torah (ibid.) “As you tested in Massah.” 71. And [regarding] the law of “They shall not appear,” you shall fear his words, So that you find life and peace like rivers. One who goes as a pilgrim on a festival, but does not bring a sacrifice, transgresses a prohibition, as it is said (Exod. 23:15), “No one shall appear before Me empty,” as it is explained in the Gemara Chagiga (7a). When he says “You shall fear his words,” he is referring to this prohibition, that he should not transgress it. He is saying, in effect, “Regarding this statute, His fear shall be upon your face (Exod. 20:17).” This is similar to the saying (Chagiga 4b) that if a master looks forward to his slave coming to see him and eat at his table, [it would be a terrible — 310 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

thing] if he kept his distance [thus, if a pilgrim does not come with his sacrifice, it would be a terrible thing]. He [the poet] promises that if one fulfills this commandment, he will find life (see Prov. 4:22 and 8:35), and that his peace will be like a river (Isa. 66:12). And we found in place of “rivers” (neharim) “streams” (ye’orim).123 72. Regarding “You shall not make [yourselves] detestable,” be very strong and courageous; And do not oppress the stranger, for you were strangers. The verse (Lev. 11:43) “Do not make yourselves detestable” is a prohibition which includes: swarming things on land that reproduce from a male and female; swarming things that form without a male and female; winged swarming things; swarming things in the water; and worms that emerge from fruit. Each [of the above] has its specific prohibition [as well as the general prohibition above]. Concerning swarming fowl, it is written (Deut. 14:19) “All winged swarming things are unclean unto you, they shall not be eaten.” They state in the Sifre (not found in our Sifre edition) “all winged swarming things” is a prohibition. Concerning swarming things of the land, it is written (Lev. 11:41) “And every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is a detestable thing; it should not be eaten.” Concerning swarming things that form by themselves, it is written (ibid., v. 44) “You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that moves over the earth,” and the Sifra states (Shemini 169, 4) that this refers even [to creatures] that do not reproduce. Now, Maimonides thinks that it is from the word that moves (haromess) that they included this, since “moving” (remissah) only applies to [creatures] that develop from garbage, without male and female [forbears]. Nachmanides objected to this, since we find that even creatures born from male and female are included in the term remess (creeping or moving things). For it is a known fact that Noah brought into the ark species that reproduce from male and female (forbears), and there it is written (Gen. 7:14) “They, and every beast after its kind, and every cattle after its kind [text corrected according to MS], and every creeping thing that creeps (remess haromess) 123 If this is a different version, it does not seem well founded, in view of Isa. 66:12. If the text would read not “in place” but “place,” we would have simply a citation to Isa. 33:21, “A place of rivers and streams.” In this version, the citation would not add anything worthwhile. — 311 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

after its kind, and then (ibid., v. 16) ‘those that came in were male and female of all flesh.’” Also, when they left [the ark], it is written (Gen. 8:17), “Bring out with you every creeping thing that creeps on the earth; let them swarm on the earth and be fertile and increase on the earth.” And Nachmanides brings other verses as proof. Also, there is proof in the words of the sages who said (Shabbat 107 b), “The other rabbis only disagree with Rabbi Eliezer in the case of lice, which do not reproduce, but they agree with him concerning other detestable things and creeping things (remasim) that reproduce.”124 Therefore, Nachmanides explains that this Baraita (in the Sifra) did not deduce this [about non-reproducing species] from the term haromess, but from the inclusive term with all (in Lev. 11:44, “With all the swarming things that move”). Accordingly, Nachmanides deletes this prohibition [non-reproducing species as a distinct commandment] from the enumeration. For all swarming things on the earth, whether reproducing or not, are included in this verse, and it is a single prohibition on a single subject. Concerning swarming things in the water, it is written (Lev. 11:43) “Do not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them.” This prohibition does not specify land, or fowl, or water creatures. So if one ate a swarming thing from the water, he is punished by whipping because of this [prohibition]. But Nachmanides deletes this prohibition because it is included together with [the prohibition *In Principle 9, there is a sharp about] unclean fish, as is evident from the difference between Maimonides and Nachmanides about Abaye’s words of Abaye, as I wrote in the Principles.* statement that one who eats Concerning worms in fruit, it is written a putitha is punished four times. Nachmanides opposes (Lev. 11:42) “All swarming things that swarm Maimonides’s view that the upon the earth, them you shall not eat” putitha has characteristics of four [which is interpreted to imply that] if the types of forbidden creatures. Nachmanides’s view is that worms breed while it [the fruit] is attached, a putitha is a fish, and that it is forbidden, but if they breed after it is there are four different verses concerning such an unclean water cut off, it is not forbidden, unless it emerged creature, so that although the and crawled upon the earth, as is explained unclean fish is counted as a single in the Gemara Ela Terefot (Chullin 67a). prohibition, it is nevertheless punishable four times. Although Maimonides says (Prohibition No. 124 This clearly shows that “creeping things” can apply to either reproducing or non-reproducing species. — 312 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

178) that if it crawled over the surface of the fruit, it becomes forbidden, Nachmanides (in Principle No. 9) objects to him [Maimonides]. He thus deletes this prohibition from the enumeration, since it is included within the prohibition against creatures that swarm upon the earth. That which he says “Be very strong and courageous” comes from what the sages stated (Sifre Re’eh 42) about the topic of blood, as Scripture states (Deut. 12:23) “Be strong not to eat blood,” that this verse tells us how much one must be strong concerning the commandments. For blood is something by which the soul of man is disgusted (choteh), [that word choteh ] meaning katzah [a more common verb expressing disgust]. Nevertheless, the Torah gives warning about it [to be strong], so much more [one must be strong] concerning other prohibi*Our translation tions that a person’s soul desires.* Furthermore, the omits the next four Hebrew Torah states concerning them [the unclean swarming words V’hu hadin creatures] “For I am the Lord who brought you up from li’shekatzim ur’masim, which the Land of Egypt” to emphasize [the importance of] do not appear in the prohibition, as the sages stated in Eizehu Neshech the MS version. (Bava Metzia 61b), [where the words who brought you up are said to suggest spiritual ascension]. I previously wrote at the end of the positive commandments (Stanza 82) that Nachmanides (Additional Prohibition No. 6) added to the prohibitions that of [eating] the bird slaughtered for the “leper” [upon his purification]. Maimonides, however, includes this **Nachmanides among other unclean birds.** Also, it is forbidden to discusses other have benefit from the heifer whose neck was broken instances where a prohibition is not (Deut. 21:1 ff), although there is no specific prohibi- clearly expressed, tion. It is only that the [idea of] forgiveness is written but is inferred, as follows. there (v. 8), and just as it is in the case of sacrifices, so it [the heifer] is included with them [the sacrifices]. Also, it is forbidden to benefit from the firstborn of an ass, and this is derived by a gezerah shavah (Bechorot 10b). Nachmanides wrote (Additional Prohibition No. 6) that it would be proper to enumerate it, just as we count an uncircumcised man being forbidden to eat terumah (see Stanza 53), although it is only derived by a gezerah shavah from the case of a paschal lamb [being forbidden to one who is uncircumcised]. He indeed included the case of the heifer, since he needed it to complete his enumeration. But according to his way [of thinking], he should have added another prohibition, namely, that it is forbidden to benefit from — 313 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

a corpse. This is derived from a gezerah shavah based on the word there (shahm) occurring in verses pertaining to death (Num. 20:1) and the heifer whose neck was broken (Deut. 21:4), as mentioned in chapter 2 of Avodah Zarah (29b). And do not oppress the stranger [i.e., convert] is a prohibition concerning converts, and it is an enumerated commandment. For concerning verbal oppression, they stated in Gemara Bava Metezia (5b) that, if one verbally oppresses him [a convert], he has transgressed both on (Lev. 25:17) “You shall not oppress each other” and on (Lev. 19:33) “You shall not oppress him [the convert].” And it is likewise proper to enumerate as two separate prohibitions monetary oppression to a fellow Israelite (see above Stanza 17 in the Prohibitions) and that to a convert. 73. Regarding “You shall not deal deceitfully” search and investigate thoroughly, And regarding “You shall not practice divination,” like revolting deviants. The prohibition “You shall not deal deceitfully” (Lev. 19:11) means that one should not deny that he has money belonging to his fellow, either as a deposit or as a loan. It is stated in the Sifre that from the verse (Lev. 5:22) “If he deals deceitfully and swears falsely,” we learn that one is punished for this. Where is the prohibition stated? It is from the verse (Lev. 19:11) “You shall not deal deceitfully.” This prohibition means that one should not falsely deny in court. And even if one did not take an oath, he transgresses the prohibition. When he says “Search and investigate thoroughly,” this is alerting judges to be careful so that people should not deny and swear with deceit, as they mention in connection with the incident with the cane which happened to Rava (Nedarim 25a), [where a man’s oath concerning his returning a deposit to it rightful owner was technically correct, but still misleading]. Therefore, when we take oaths, we add “In accord with the understanding of the Omnipresent and in accord with the understanding of the Court.” And in the matter of “You shall not practice divination” (Lev. 19:26), the meaning of nachash (practicing divination) is that expressed in the Sifre (Shofetim 60), like saying “My bread fell from my mouth,” or “My cane fell from my hand,” or “A snake passed on my right side,” or “A fox passed on my left” [as portents of the future]. Also, in the Sifra it gives ex— 314 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

amples, like those who practice divination by a cat, or by birds, or by stars. There is, however, something of this sort that is permitted, as is stated in Chapter Gid Hanesheh (Chulin 95b) regarding [a period of good luck portended by] a [newly acquired] house, a [statement by a] child or a [newlywed] wife. These things may be looked upon as signs, but not divination. These [are considered substantive signs] if they have been confirmed in three cases. Also, they said (ibid.) that Rav would take as a sign a ferry boat [i.e., if on a journey one happened on a ferry boat with ease, this portended a successful journey], and Rabbi Yochanan would take as a sign a child, [how the child responded to a question would portend future events]. Also, in Megillah (32a) they said that a man’s voice in a city [concerning a problematic decision can be considered as a reliable portent], and a woman’s voice in the country, provided that the voice said “Yes, yes” or “No, no.” In all such situations, it is permissible to take things as a portent, as was done by Jonathan (1 Samuel 20) and Eliezer, the servant of Abraham (Gen. 24:14). It also says (2 Sam. 5:24) “It shall be, when you hear the sound of marching on the tops of the mulberry trees, then you shall bestir yourself.” But if one relies on such things and determines his actions by divination, this is forbidden. As to what it says “like revolting deviants,” it means that these actions are only for those who are impure, despicable, and foul, according the verse (Ps. 14:3) “They are all corrupt, they are together become impure.” Or it [the force of the word sarim, rendered here as “corrupt,” but which may commonly mean “turning aside”] is that they deviate and then turn away from the [proper] path. For it is written (Deut. 18:14) “For these nations whom you will dispossesses pay heed to soothsayers and diviners, but you not so, etc.” [Your path should be, according to 18:13] “You shall be wholehearted with the Lord your God” [That is relying only on God for your well-being in the future, rather than depending on magical practitioners]. In the same section, it is written (ibid., v. 10) “There shall not be found among you a diviner or soothsayer.” It is also written (Lev. 19:26) “You shall not practice soothsaying or divination.” 74. Concerning “You shall not cook,” refrain from stumbling; And do not eat cooked or half raw on the night of watching. In three places, it is written (Exod. 23:19, Exod. 34:26, Deut. 14:21) “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” They explained in chapter Basar B’chalav (Chullin 115b) that one refers to the prohibition of — 315 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

cooking, the next to the prohibition of eating, and the third to the prohibition of having benefit [other than eating]. So if one cooked it and ate it, he is punishable with two whippings. And they say there (ibid., 114a) that if one cooks an olive’s bulk of meat with milk and eats it, he is punished twice, once for cooking it and once for eating it. Also, they said in Tractate Makkot (21b) and in Tractate Betzah (12a) that if one cooks the sinew of the thigh vein in milk on a holiday and eats it, he is guilty for five whippings: for [eating] the sinew of the thigh vein; for cooking meat and milk; for cooking on a holiday [something that cannot be eaten]; for kindling a fire; and for the prohibition of benefiting [by eating the meat]. These are proofs that these two prohibitions should be counted as two separate commandments.125 Now, Maimonides decided not to count the prohibition of benefiting as a separate prohibition, since benefiting is part of eating, and it is not correct to [separately] enumerate eating and benefiting, since benefiting is part of eating. But I have my doubts about this matter because of what they state in Chapter Kol Sha’ah (Pesachim 25a) that the Torah’s reason for not speaking about eating itself [it only alludes to it by repetition of the cooking prohibition] is to indicate that one is punished for it [eating] even when done in such a way that he derives no enjoyment from it. Thus, it is proper to count the prohibition of eating without enjoyment, e.g., when one eats it so hot that it scalds his throat. Indeed, Maimonides explains thus another prohibition (Prohibition No. 193) regarding diverse mixtures of the vineyard [e.g., a vineyard sown with grape seeds together with other seeds]. In that case, eating is not mentioned, but it states (Deut. 22:9) “pen tikdash” [lit. “lest it be holy”] as [really meaning] “pen tukad esh” [“it must be destroyed by fire, since it is forbidden to eat or otherwise enjoy”]. The sages say (Pesachim 24b) that on account of this, if one ate them [mixed products of the vineyard] in a way that he derived no enjoyment, he would be punished with whipping, and the prohibition of enjoyment, whether by eating, selling, or another enjoyment would be a separate prohibition. So if a prohibition would be expressed in the language of “eating,” he [Maimonides] would be right [in insisting that eating and enjoying constitute a single prohibition]. But since [the prohibition about a mixture of milk and meat] is 125 One might think that the versions in the Gemara which have eating listed rather than benefitting, would be more appropriate here in view of the previous words in the paragraph. — 316 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

expressed in the language of “cooking,” it is possible to separate them, i.e., eating without enjoying is one commandment, and having enjoyment is a separate commandment, since Scripture separates them. This is in contrast to other instances where eating and otherwise enjoying are expressed as a single prohibition.126 Refrain from stumbling. This is to reinforce this [matter], for people commonly are neglectful about it, as mentioned in the Gemara (Chullin 110a) that Rav heard a woman saying to her neighbor, “How much milk is needed [to cook] a quarter pound of meat?” So [in order to emphasize the importance of the prohibition] he enacted that [even] a nipple of a [slaughtered] animal should be forbidden [even though it is permissible by Torah law. He did this, since] he found a valley [i.e., an area of law which was unprotected] and fenced it in [with a rabbinical prohibition]. And do not eat boiled or half raw on the night of watching. Maimonides enumerated incompletely roasted and boiled meat as only a single prohibition. He brings proof from what is stated in Chapter Kol Sha’ah (Pesachim 41b), “Abaye said that if one ate incompletely roasted meat, he is punished by whipping twice; if one ate boiled meat, he is punished twice; and if he ate incompletely roasted meat and boiled meat, he is to be punished three times.” For Abaye’s opinion is that one is punishable [separately for the parts] of a lav shebichlalut [a single prohibition with a number of components]. Thus, when he eats incompletely roasted meat, he is punished for (Exod. 12:9) “Do not eat of it incompletely roasted” and for “anything not roasted in fire (ibid.).” Likewise, if he eats both boiled and incompletely roasted meat, he is punished three times, for “incompletely roasted,” for “boiled,” and for “anything not roasted in fire.” However, [the Gemara continues] Rava said that one is not punished by a whipping for a lav shebichlalut, some interpreting this as meaning that one is, however, punished once, while others interpreting this as meaning that he is not punished even once, since this prohibitive statement is not specific, like the prohibition against muzzling [this prohibition being the standard model for punishment by whipping]. Now, Maimonides explained that if one eats both incompletely roasted meat and boiled meat that he is to be punished once, according to the 126 If this discussion of the Zohar Harakia seems incoherent to you, do not be dismayed, because Perlow in his treatise on Saadyah Gaon’s enumeration of the commandments [Vol. II, p. 60b] similarly found the reasoning jumbled. — 317 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

first interpretation [of Rava’s words], but according to the latter interpretation, he is not punished at all. And Maimonides rejected Abaye’s opinion, and he decided according to the first opinion of Rava’s words, and that he is punished once. Therefore, he counts incompletely roasted and boiled as a single commandment. But his words are really surprising, for, as the accepted rule is that you are not punished by a whipping for a lav shebichlalut, why did Maimonides decide in accordance with the first version that he is punished once? He should have decided the law that he is not to be whipped at all. Furthermore, this [is what is stated] in the latter version, and we have a rule that the law is in accord with latter versions. Also, in cases of doubt about bodily punishment one takes the lenient view [the latter version, that this transgressor is not to be whipped at all, is the more lenient alternative]. But the meaning of Rava’s words is not like Maimonides’s interpretation. For Rava does not disagree with Abaye about the [explicit] prohibitions against incompletely roasted meat and boiled meat; one is definitely punished for each of them [individually]. He only differs about the prohibition that encompasses both of them, i.e., “Do not . . . except what is roasted in fire (Exod. 12:9),” which includes incompletely roasted and boiled. It is about this that he [Rava] said that one is not punished by whipping. So if he ate incompletely roasted meat, he is punished once; if he ate boiled meat, he is punished once; and if he ate both incompletely roasted and boiled meat, he is punished twice; but he is not punished due to the general prohibition at all. There are many proofs for this from the Gemara, and this is how Nachmanides explained. Thus, they constitute two [enumerated] commandments. On account of this, there is no disagreement at all between Abaye and Rava according to the first version [of Rava’s words], everyone agreeing that one is punished once for the general prohibition.* *The difference is that Abaye holds that the However, some interpret it that if one was punishment for the warned [corporal punishment is administered general prohibition is only if someone had warned the transgressor in addition to that for the specific prohibition, that the action is forbidden by the Torah] that if while Rava would say one ate incompletely roasted meat, but the forethat, although a general prohibition is punishable warning was in terms of “Do not eat anything usually, it is not so in that is not roasted,” the transgressor is punished this case, because it is once according to the first version [about Rava’s redundant to the specific prohibition. words]. However, according to the second ver— 318 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

sion he is not punished at all, unless he is warned in terms of “Do not eat what is incompletely roasted.” But if he ate incompletely roasted and boiled, both the first version and the second version would agree that he would not be punished more than twice.127 75. Regarding “You shall not practice soothsaying,” establish your footsteps; And be gracious to slaves when they go free. In the Sifra (Kedoshim 72), they explain that “lo t’oneinu” (Lev. 19:26) refers to those who predict times, from the meaning of onah, i.e., a certain time is favorable to go forth, or a certain time is unfavorable to go forth. It would seem that on that account, he attaches to this prohibition “Establish your footsteps,” that one should not plan his going forth at one time rather than another, but one should trust in the Lord, and turn his path toward Him, and He will make his footsteps firm (ibid., v. 23). They also said in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 65b) [that lo t’oneinu not only prohibits forecasting favorable times by magical means, but also prohibits] “seizing the eyes,” which is any of several schemes where [a magician] makes it seem like something which is not so by deviousness and quickness. This [interpretation] would be that a me’onen [a noun from the verb t’oneinu] is derived from einayim (eyes). Or it is from anan (a cloud), since they make a kind of cloud in the air from powders and other substances to make things appear different to people from what they are. This is also how Rabbi Hai Gaon explained it. Now, later on, the poet wrote (Stanza 145) “And broken loins will be for one who seized the eyes,” this referring to one who is a sorcerer who performs an act [of sorcery with deceptive magic], which is punishable by execution [this is the punishment for sorcery], while the me’onen only transgresses a prohibition [punishable with whipping]. As to what he says “Be gracious to slaves,” this is a prologue to the following stanza. 76. Do not diminish their portion to fill their need; And do not send them away empty-handed, outcast and shaken out. 127 See additional discussion in chapter 27 in my book The Puzzle of the 613 Commandments and Why Bother. — 319 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

[This entire stanza] is enumerated as a single commandment, which is not to dismiss a Hebrew slave empty-handed when he leaves us, as it is said (Deut. 15:13) “When you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty.” This is explained in the first chapter of Kiddushin (17a ff). “Outcast” is in the sense of “the poor who are outcast” (Isa. 58:7). “Shaken out” is in the sense of (Neh. 5:13) “shaken out and empty.” 77. Do not make them serve with the servitude of their slaves, For they have been sold to Me as slaves. This is the prohibition of (Lev. 25:39) “Do not subject him to the service of a slave,” so it is appropriate to refer to this as “the servitude of their slaves.” The whole thing [i.e., the whole stanza] together is about “servitude of their slaves,” for they [your brothers] are princes, who deserve that others should serve them, not that they should be slaves. Scripture gives the reason as (v. 55), “For unto Me the children of Israel are slaves, etc.” The expression in the Sifra (Behar 80, 2) is that [your Hebrew servant] should not walk behind you with linta, while he takes along objects [for bathing use] before you to the bath house. The explanation given for linta is a mat that one sits on when tired, and this is how Maimonides explains it (Prohibition No. 257). But the exact meaning of linta is not a mat, but indicates a degrading function, as they said in Yelamdenu (I have not found this in the indicated citation, Tachuma, Noach 11), that Abraham originated linta, as it is said (Gen. 25:6) “And to the children of Abraham’s concubines Abraham gave gifts, etc.” And in Megillat Ta’anit (chapter 3) they explain that it is a present that a person gives to children of concubines.128 78. Do not tighten your hand, and do not stiffen your neck; And do not give your money [in interest], as the haughty do. Just as with the commandment of charity there come many [repeated] commandments, as we pointed out in the positive commandments, so there are many prohibitions against refraining from it, and they all constitute only a single item in the enumeration. He previously recorded 128 The citation in Megillat Ta’anit does not mention the word linta, but it does verify the idea that Abraham gave Ishmael and other sons of concubines inheritances during his lifetime. Also, see Appendix showing that Duran misquotes the Tanchuma. — 320 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

(Stanza 43) “You shall not harden your heart,” which also includes “You shall not tighten your hand,” which is written adjacent to it (Deut. 15:7). And do not stiffen your neck. The Halachot Gedolot counts this prohibition, but Maimonides deletes this from his enumeration, since it is a prohibition that encompasses the whole Torah, i.e., “You shall not stiffen your neck” (Deut. 10:16) in not obeying all that I have commanded you. And it is not right to count such all-encompassing prohibitions, as is known from the Principles (No. 4). Nachmanides, however, wrote that the prohibition is a specific one, the idea being that it is commanding the people to obey the prophets and not to stiffen their necks in demanding signs from them [to establish the authority of their pronouncements]. This is like what they did in the land of Egypt, according to the meaning of what is written (Ezek. 20:5) “And I made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt.” It then says (ibid., v. 7) “Let every man throw away the detestable things of his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt.” And then (ibid., v. 8) “They rebelled against Me, and would not obey Me.” Likewise, it is written (Ps. 106:7), “Our fathers in Egypt did not take note of your wonders,” and it is written (Ps. 95:8) “Do not harden your heart, as at Meribah, as at the day of Massah in the wilderness.”129 However, according to his [Nachmanides’s] words, he should have also enumerated among the positive commandments “You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart” (Deut. 10:15). But in his actual enumeration, he [Nachmanides] agrees with Maimonidesnides, and I have not seen him bringing the prohibition into his enumeration. And you shall not give your money [in a loan] with interest, as the haughty do. I have already explained previously the matter of the prohibitions of interest and how they are incorporated into the enumeration. 79. And your heart should not be grieved when you give to those who dwell with you; And there shall not be found among you those who practice divination or who are charmers. The commentator on the Azharot puts here the content of a single commandment, i.e. (Deut. 15:9), “Beware lest there be a base thought 129 These verses exemplify stiff-necked rebelliousness, although the idea of “not demanding signs from the prophets” is not directly supported. — 321 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

in your heart, saying ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is near.’” This is a prohibition against refraining from lending so that the seventh year would not release it [which would cause the lender to lose money]. This prohibition does come into the enumeration, but that is not what the poet meant. But [he refers] to what the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] thinks that there is an additional prohibition on top of others concerning charity. This is (ibid., v. 10) “Your heart should not grieve when you give to him,” although Maimonides did not record it. But Nachmanides’s opinion agrees with the Gaon that this is a prohibition in addition to the other prohibitions stated regarding the commandment of charity. He [Nachmanides] explains that the meaning of this prohibition is that we should give the poor person anything that we give him with a cheerful expression and with good will. [Furthermore,] we should not have this consideration about our money [as a loss], but [we should consider the charity] as a gain and a blessing. For some people, although not hardening their hearts and [although] they do give charity, they do not give to the poor with a good feeling. Because of this, he adds the prohibition, and accordingly it is proper to count this separately, for it is an aspect that is separate from “hardening the heart.” There shall not be found among you those who practice divination or who are charmers (Deut. 18:10–11). Every one mentioned in this verse is listed as a separate prohibition, as is known from the Principles (Principle 9). The meaning of “those who practice divination” (kosem) is one who holds a stick and says “I will go” or “I will not go.” The meaning of “charmer” (chover chaver) is one who whispers incantations against snakes and scorpions that they should not cause harm. 80. And you shall not have your son pass, and you shall not destroy your beard; And your eye shall not have pity regarding destroying enemies. I have already explained above (Stanza 58) what this “causing to pass” is, and there is no additional prohibition here. And you shall not destroy your beard. Because of the requirement of the meter, the poet omitted mentioning “the edge,” for the text of the verse is (Lev. 19:27) “You shall not destroy the edge of your beard.” It states in Tractate Makkot (20a) that one may incur five whippings, two for one [cheek], two for the other [cheek], and one at the bottom [chin]. For pe’ah means edge, and the cheeks have a width, so that each edge — 322 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

counts as a pe’ah. Therefore, there are two on one side, two on the other, and the [chin] crop of the beard below also has an edge. Even though there are five whippings [for the various edges], we do not count them as separate prohibitions. From this fact, Nachmanides brings proof that we should not count a lav shebichlalut [a single prohibitive statement covering several cases] according to the number of separate whippings, but according to the subjects contained in it. If they are separate, each subject should be separately enumerated; if they are not separate, only the one [general statement] should be enumerated. In this way, he differs with Maimonides, as I wrote in the Principles (No. 9). And your eye shall not have pity. Maimonides (Prohibition No. 293) counted the prohibition of not having mercy for a person who is pursuing [to kill someone]. He quotes the Baraita in the Sifre (Tetze 161, 12) that the verse (Deut. 25:12) “And you shall cut off her hand,” teaches that you must save him [the man she is attacking] even at the expense of her hand. And furthermore, if you cannot save him by cutting off her hand, you must save him even at the expense of saving her life, which is implied by “Your eye shall not have pity.” [The Sifre then generalizes this to any case where someone is being lethally attacked, since] just as an attack on the genitals may be lethal, and one must even cut off her hand [to prevent this, as stated in this verse, so is it for any potentially lethal attack]. Now, Nachmanides added the prohibition (Additional Prohibition 13) not to have pity on a murderer from the statement (Deut. 19:12–13) “They shall hand him over to the blood-avenger; you shall show him no pity.” It says in the Sifre (Shofetim 85, 12) that you might reason, “Since one person has already been killed, why should we have the guilt of this other person’s [the murderer’s] blood?” Therefore, Scripture says, “You shall show no pity” (Deut. 19:21). That verse is said concerning [the punishment of] false witnesses, but it is not different for other [crimes]. Maimonides wrote (Prohibition 279), “[A judge is forbidden] to take pity on one who has killed someone or caused him loss of a limb, with regard to executing him or with regard to paying a penalty, as it is said ‘you shall show [the word alav in the text is not translated] no pity’ (Deut. 19:21) and ‘[You shall show him no pity,] but you shall remove innocent blood [from Israel]’ (Deut. 19:13).130 130 The near similarity of verses 19, 13 and 19, 21, i.e., “You shall show him no pity” and “You shall — 323 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

It seems to me that this prohibition (No. 279) was not recorded in the text of Maimonides that came to Nachmanides’s hand, and that is why he had to append it. But I am perplexed why Maimonides included “You shall show no pity” as referring to false witnesses, which is a payment for a fine prescribed for them, namely the compensation for [destroyed limbs], together with the execution of a murderer. It [i.e., the case of false witnesses] should rather be counted separately like the other prohibitions [the lethal attacker and the intentional murderer]. In any case, one should investigate the words of the poet who did not specify any of these cases, but only that of idolaters [in this stanza] who are our enemies (tzorerim). For it is also written about them in the parshah of Ekev (Deut. 7:16) “You shall show no pity to them,” and the Halachot Gedolot also wrote thus [in his list of prohibitions punishable by whipping No. 173]. In keeping with this, he [the poet] follows it [in the next stanza] with “You shall not make a covenant with them and their gods.” But among the later enumerators of the commandments we find none who count this commandment [not to show pity], since it is included in (Deut. 20:16) “You shall not let a soul remain alive,” which is already mentioned below (Stanza 82). 81. You shall not make a covenant with them or their gods; And you shall not, like them, make broken cisterns. It is a prohibition not to make a covenant with the seven nations [original inhabitants of Canaan], and not to allow them to be with their idolatry, as it is said (Exod. 23:32), “You shall make no covenant with them and their gods.” This prohibition ought to be counted, just as other commandments dealing with the seven nations are, since they apply throughout all generations, as long as any one of them is still extant in the world, as is made clear in the Principles (No. 3) and in the positive and negative commandments [we here have combined the MS and the printed version, since examples of this type of commandment are found in all parts of the Book of Commandments]. And you shall not, like them, make broken cisterns. This is not a separately enumerated prohibition, but it covers all sorts of idolatry, as show no pity” has caused some discussion about the correct text in Maimonides’s Prohibition 279. We have followed Heller’s version and that of the MS version of Zohar Harakia. However, the Sifre version given by Nachmanides has him (alav), and furthermore, it appears that this Baraita is not found in our editions of Sifre. — 324 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

the matter is stated (Jer. 2:13), “They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and have hewed for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns.” 82. Do not go with them in the statutes of their observance; Do not let them live, and do not be gracious to the enemies. The expression in the Sifra (Acharei Mot 139, 8) is that the verse (Lev. 18:3) “You shall not go after their statutes” applies to their mores and established styles, like theaters, circuses, and arenas. [The Sifra continues that] Rabbi Meir said that these [statutes] apply to [the superstitious] “ways of the Amorite” which the sages listed (Sifra ibid.). Rabbi Judah says that [it means] that you should not . . . (the meaning of tinchor is uncertain), nor grow the fringe of your hair, nor shave the front of your hair. They say similarly that “be heedful not to be ensnared after them” (Deut. 12:30) means that you should not say, “Since they go about dressed in purple, so I will also go about dressed in purple,” or “Since they go about with telusin, I too will go about with telusin,” which is a certain kind of weapon. Do not let them live is an enumerated prohibition (see Deut. 20:16), as are other prohibitions concerning the seven nations [of Canaan], as was explained (Stanzas 80 and 81). And do not be gracious is a prohibition not to deal graciously with them by saying how comely this particular gentile is, as mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah (20a). In the Palestinian Talmud (Avodah Zarah 1, 9), they stated that “you shall not be gracious to them” (Deut. 7:2) is a prohibition, and there are other items included in this law. [The quotation from the Palestinian Talmud has a number of versions, and the intent is not clear.] 83. They may not dwell in your land, and you shall not marry with them; And you shall not put down figured stones like those who keep false vanities. It is a prohibition not to allow idol worshippers to settle in our land, as it is said (Exod. 23:33) “They shall not dwell in your land, lest they cause you to sin against Me.” They [also] support this by the verse “lo t’chonem” (Deut. 7:20), [whose plain meaning is “You shall not be gracious to them,” as above, but by taking t’chonem from the root chanah rather than chanan, this gives us the meaning] “You shall not let them encamp in the land,” — 325 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

neither by sale or renting, unless they agree not to engage in idolatry. For the Torah gave the reason for this prohibition, “Lest they cause you to sin against Me.” So if he took upon himself not to practice idolatry, and would not cause you to sin, then he would be a ger toshav (resident alien), to whom we are duty-bound to care for his sustenance. The prohibition of “You shall not marry with them” (Deut. 7:3) means that one cannot take anyone from the seven nations [of Canaan] in marriage.131 Thus, they say in the Gemara Avodah Zarah (36b) that the Torah forbids [intercourse] that is by way of marriage. The prohibition regarding a figured stone is that one should not prostrate himself on such a stone even in a synagogue. Therefore, it is customary to spread out mats or reeds in synagogues, and not to make stone floors. Thus, it is explained in the Gemara Megillah (22b). And in the Sifra (Behar 105, 5), they said that “you shall not put down figured stones in your land” implies that you shall not prostrate yourselves upon such stones in your land, but you may prostrate yourselves upon stones in the Temple. The [idolatrous] nations keep false vanities as in the expression (Ps. 31:7), “I hate those that keep false vanities”; and the kof of comparison refers to “those,” not to the “false vanities,” and it is as if stated kashomrim havlei shav [rather than the word order being k’havlei shav shomrim]. 84. And you shall not leave a responder in a city that has become a harlot; It shall not be rebuilt, but you shall utterly condemn it. It is a prohibition not to rebuild the condemned city that has played the harlot against God, exalted be He, and has worshipped foreign gods. And the poet says that one should not allow any one “who calls or responds” (Mal. 2:12) to survive there, but he should condemn it with all its men, women, and children. And the prohibition about this is (Deut. 13:17) “It shall be a heap forever; it shall never be built again.” 85. What is condemned from the empty people you shall not attach to your land; 131 Whether this prohibition is meant by the Torah to apply only to the seven nations or is meant for all gentiles is debated in the Talmud. Maimonides [in his Prohibition No. 52] says that all gentiles are included in the prohibition. — 326 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

It shall be a mound of dust, like what is overthrown by strangers.* The Torah has also prohibited having any benefit from the property of the condemned city, as it is said (Deut. 13:18) “Nothing which has been condemned shall stick to your hand.” And navak has the meaning of emptiness, from the verse (Isa. 19:3) “And the spirit of Egypt will become empty (v’navkah).” And [much of what] is contained in these two stanzas is only to complete the poetic form, for it was previously mentioned in the positive commandments (Stanza 76) where it was appropriate. Now, the poet forgot a particular prohibition which is similar to this concerning destruction and laying waste, which is not to work or sow in the rough valley [near the site of the unsolved murder, Deut. 21:1 ff], as it is said (ibid., v. 4) “which may not be worked nor sown.” Now, I wonder why we do not count them as two commandments, since these [working and sowing] are two distinct things. And, inasmuch as the two of them are not needed to complete the matter, it would be right to enumerate them as two things, as is known from the Principles (No. 9). But it is taught in the Sifre (Shofetim 142) that one might have thought that it is forbidden also to comb flax; therefore, Scripture (ibid., v. 4) says, “Which may not be worked nor sown.” [From this we argue] that, since “sowing” is included in “working,” then why is it [sowing] mentioned specifically? It is to deduce that, just as sowing is special in that it is a duty concerning the land, it also excludes any duty that is not concerning the land. From this it is seen [that the two verbs] are needed to complete the matter, [and thus they comprise only one commandment. This reasoning is an example of the eighth of Rabbi Ishmael’s thirteen rules of rabbinic interpretation]. *The above translation of ibn Gabirol’s Stanza 85 follows Bialik’s version ahm navak instead of lo navak.

*Before continuing the translation,

86. And you shall scatter the Ammonite and disperse the Moabite; And no momzer shall enter in the company of the chosen people.* Maimonides counted [the prohibition against marrying] an Ammonite or Moabite as a single prohibition. But Nachmanides disagreed with him, since this is not a lav shebichlalut [collective — 327 —

let us pause to review certain material on lav shebichlalut. This is a complicated and difficult topic, which is treated at length in chapter 27 of our book The Puzzle of the 613 Commandments and Why Bother. Let us consider a prohibition consisting of a single prohibitive statement consisting of a single verb and more than one object, or more than one subject. Examples are “You shall not A and B,” or “X and Y may not marry a Jew.”

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

prohibition] that is counted as only one, for they are distinct persons, and it is not possible for an Ammonite to be a Moabite nor for a Moabite to be an Ammonite. But in his critique, Nachmanides wrote something that is incomprehensible to me, and this is what he says. “If an Ammonite has had intercourse with a Jewess, and then a Moabite had intercourse with her, and there were separate warnings for each incident [which is required for punishment of prohibitions], the woman also is punished twice. For even regarding the same sin [repeated], we learned (Makkot 20b) that if [they warned a Nazirite], saying to him ‘Do not drink’ [and he did], and afterward repeated ‘Do not drink’ [and he drank more], he is punishable for each instance.” “But if they received warning at the outset about the prohibition for both Ammonite and Moabite, both of them [i.e., the man and the woman] would be exempt from punishment for the second intercourse. For the warning must be given immediately preceding the trespass, since otherwise we can say that the offender may have forgotten [the warning], as is stated in chapter 3 of Ketubot (33a). And it is not possible for one person to be both Ammonite and Moabite.” Up to here is the quotation from Nachmanides

Now, Maimonides claims the following. (1) Ordinarily, in such cases, such a statement constitutes a single commandment. (2) Also, if one transgresses by eating A and B simultaneously, he is only punishable once, since the number of punishments indicates the number of commandments. (3) If, however, there is a clear statement in the Talmud that A and B are separately punishable, then this means that A and B are enumerated separately, and if one has transgressed both at the same time, he is punished twice. Nachmanides, however, has a different view. He agrees with statement (2), that if one transgresses both A and B simultaneously, he is punished only once. However, the enumeration of A and B as one or two commandments is not related to the number of punishments. It is only determined by examining the nature of A and B, whether they are distinctly different in character, or are essentially similar in character. Here in Stanza 86, we are concerned with the prohibition against an Ammonite [male] or a Moabite [male] having marital relations with an Israelite woman. We do not find the Talmud stating that these are to be doubly punishable when done together. Thus, Maimonides regards them as only a single commandment. But Nachmanides claims that, even if one generally accepts Maimonides’s view linking the number of the commandments to the number of punishments when both parts are transgressed, in our case this is not at all applicable. This is due to the nature of the act, since simultaneous transgression of both parts is not possible. For an Ammonite and a Moabite cannot have marital relations with a woman simultaneously, and there is no such person who is considered both Ammonite and Moabite. Nachmanides regards this situation as requiring even Maimonides to list the Ammonite case and Moabite case as separate prohibitions. The exact flow of Nachmanides’s logic is not clear, and a number of later scholars have criticized him, including the Zohar Harakia. We will now continue with the translation of Zohar Harakia, bearing in mind that if you are somewhat puzzled here, it is with good reason.

— 328 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

(Critique to Maimonides’s Sefer Hamitzvot, end of Principle No. 9). But I do not know how this [reasoning] makes him conclude that the Ammonite and Moabite are to be counted as two prohibitions, since one can only find a situation where two punishments could be inflicted [for an Ammonite followed by an Ammonite], when the two acts follow each other, and there is a separate warning for each. Then what is the difference between the case of an Ammonite and a Moabite, and the case of two Ammonites [having successive intercourses with an Israelite woman]. In both cases, there are two punishments when there are two sexual acts with two separate forewarnings. But what Nachmanides should have said is that, if an Ammonite and Moabite would have had intercourse with an Israelite woman, with a single warning, and at the same time, e.g., one having regular intercourse and the other having anal intercourse, then she would be punished with two whippings, one for the Ammonite and one for the Moabite. This is like the case of fat and blood [which are included in a single prohibitory verse] with one warning immediately beforehand. This would not be like fat and then later more fat [punishable only once if there is only a single warning] for the reason that he wrote, i.e., that it is impossible for an Ammonite to be a Moabite or for a Moabite to be an Ammonite. And in (Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah) Laws of Sanhedrin (19, 4), when he counts the prohibitions punishable by whipping, he counts them as two prohibitions. But in that enumeration which he does there he does not have the same system as that by which he counts prohibitions in his Book of Commandments, as I wrote in the Principles (No. 9). Tevazer is similar in meaning to tefazer (scatter), as in “He has scattered nations (Ps. 68:31),” and “He will scatter property among them (Dan. 11:24).” Now, Nachmanides included in his enumeration of the commandments (Deut. 2:9) “Do not harass the Moabites, or engage them in war,” and regarding the Ammonites (ibid., v. 19) “Do not harass them nor be hostile to them,” and regarding Se’ir (ibid., v. 2) “Do not be hostile to them, for I will not give you of their land even the space of a footstep.” So these comprise three prohibitions, but the Halachot Gedolot does not enumerate them nor does Maimonides count them. He [Maimonides, Third Principle] gives as his reason that these were temporary commandments, not for all generations. But Nachmanides did include them in the enumeration. This is because the reason given in the Torah for these prohibitions is (Deut. 2:9) “For I have given Ar — 329 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

as an inheritance (yerushah) to the descendants of Lot,” and (ibid., v. 5) “For (I have given Mt. Se’ir) as an inheritance unto Esau.” Now, “inheritance” (yerushah) only applies to something that is valid throughout all generations. Just as we exclude from the enumeration of the commandments anything not applying to all generations on account of the expression in the Torah (Deut. 33:4) “a heritage (morashah) for the congregation of Jacob,” and something that is temporary is not an inheritance, so on account of the same reasoning, it is proper for us to include these prohibitions in the enumeration. And since these lands are an inheritance, we are warned against taking them away from them [these nations] throughout all generations, and they are not temporary commandments. He brings proof for his words from what is recounted in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabba 74, 13) that King David had to justify himself to the Sanhedrin for making war with them [Edom], since they had “broken the fence” [broken the nonaggression agreement] first. Also, in Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah (chapter 1, Halachah 1) it is mentioned that David was punished in that the six months during which Joab fought against Edom were not counted as part of the years of his reign. And when Scripture (Obadiah 19) states that “they will occupy the desert of Mt. Seir [which also seems to indicate that Israel were permitted to disposess Edom],” it is explained that Sancherib intermingled [the ethnic composition of] the world [and thus the occupants of Edom were not the original Edomites thereafter, and thus attacking and occupying Edom would no longer be forbidden]. But his words are not decisive for me, since the Holy One, blessed be He, gave our father Abraham ten nations at the covenant between the pieces (Genesis 15). The Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite [territories He gave initially] to Edom, Ammon, and Moab, but Israel will eventually inherit them, as it is written (Isa. 11:19) “Their power will be sent against Edom and Moab, and the children of Ammon will have to obey them.” Rashi also quotes this (Gen. 15:19) from the Midrash, in the parshah of Lech Lecha. It also says in the Yerushalmi, Chapter Ha’ishah Niknet (Kiddushin 1, 8), that Rabbi Chelbo said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, “Your fathers inherited the land of seven nations, but you will inherit ten, the three additional ones being the Kenite, the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite.” Also, Nachmanides in his commentary on the parshah Shofetim (Deut. 19:8) wrote that this section “If the Lord your God enlarges your — 330 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

territory, as He swore to your fathers, etc. . . . then you shall add three more cities” would be fulfilled by the promise to inherit (the lands of) the Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite. That is why it is written in that same parshah (ibid.) “And He will give you all the land which He promised to give your fathers.” If so, it is not a commandment for all generations, since it depends on time [i.e., the ownership changes eventually], as is made known in the Principles (No. 3). But [the above difficulty with considering “Do not oppress Moab,” etc. as part of the 613 commandments] is [only] according to the one who thinks that the Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite are, in fact, Seir, Ammon, and Moab, which is the opinion of Rabbi Judah. But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon do not say that, [as stated] in Chapter Chezkat Habatim (Bava Batra 56a). Also, in the Yerushalmi there is a disagreement between tannaim about this in Chapter Ha’ishah Niknet (Kiddushin 1, 8). Still [granted that the above objections to Nachmanides could be refuted], the matter has not been settled beyond doubt. For in the Midrash (Yalkut Deut. 807), they interpreted “For I will not give you of their land even a footstep” (Deut. 2:5) to mean “Until the time when the foot will tread on the Mount of Olives.”132 So this [annexation of Edom] would not be due to Sennacherib having obliterated the ethnic identity of nations, [but it would be permissible by our verse in Deut. 2:5 which is, in effect, saying that the prohibition itself is in force only until the time of the Messiah]. And no momzer shall enter. This refers to one born from any forbidden union punishable by “cutting off,” except that with a menstrually unclean woman. In the company (b’sod) is synonymous with bik’hal (as in Gen. 49:6), “Let my person not enter in their council (b’sodam).” Now, these three— the male Ammonite, the male Moabite, and the male momzer—are forbidden to be with an Israelite woman [either in marriage or as unmarried lovers]. However, they differ in that female Ammonites and Moabites are permitted [to Israelite men], while a female momzeret is forbidden.

132 In this interpretation, “ad” would not mean “even,” but “until,” and “midrach regel” would not mean “the space of a footstep,” but “ths stepping of the foot” in the times of the Messiah, which, according to Zech. 14:4 would take place on the Mount of Olives. — 331 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

87. Do not seek the welfare of cruel enemies, And do not bring blood by setting up nets. The reason for calling Ammon and Moab cruel enemies is because the prohibition regarding Ammon is on account of their not receiving you with bread and water (Deut. 23:5), which is great cruelty. But the reason for the prohibition against Moab is not about this, for they did welcome you, as it is written (Deut. 2:29) “You will sell me food for money that I may eat, as the children of Esau and the Moabites did,” but it is because he [Esau] hired Bilam the son of Be’or, as it is said (Deut. 23:5) “For he hired Bilam the son of Be’or against you.” So these two reasons that the Torah gave about them were [sequential], the first concerning the Ammonite, who is mentioned first, and the second concerning the Moabite, who is mentioned second. These are the enemies who rose up against us to destroy us, “Except that the Lord was with us” (Ps. 124:1–2) “who turned the blessing to a curse” (Deut. 23:6). And do not bring blood is a prohibition, as they expounded in the Sifre (Tetze 68) that “you shall make a parapet for your roof” (Deut. 22:8) is a positive commandment, and “You shall bring no blood” (ibid.) is a negative commandment. This prohibition is that one should not put up a faulty ladder, nor raise a vicious dog, as noted in Bava Kamma (15b) and Ketubot (41b), nor anything similar, as mentioned in Shekalim Yerushalmi (citation not known). Nets (Heb. michmorim). These are traps and nets, as (in Isa. 51:20) “k’to michmor,” which means “like an antelope in a net.” 88. Do not kill the innocents and poor righteous people; And do not abandon the Levites, and they should not inherit cities. If one committed a transgression incurring capital punishment, and there is no testimony valid by Torah law, even if it is evident that he did that transgression, this is termed innocent and righteous in the language of the Torah (Exod. 23:7). [This is so] even if by his actions it is possible that he deserves to die, but according to the law he is considered “innocent and righteous,” and for this we are warned against executing him (see Maimonides’s Sefer Hamitzvot, Prohibition No. 290). In the Mechilta, it is stated (Mishpatim 20, 211) that if they saw someone pursuing another to kill him, and they warned him saying, “He is an Israelite, a member of the covenant, and if you kill him, you will — 332 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

be killed,” and then they diverted their eyes, and then found him in his death throes, and the sword is dripping blood; then one might think that he is subject [to the death penalty]. But the Torah states [that this is not so, due to the verse], “You shall not kill the innocent and righteous.” The Mechilta states further that if one witness reported that a person was doing idolatrous service to the sun, and another saw him serving the moon, one might think that they might join [to comprise the required pair of witnesses for a crime to be punished]. But [this is also considered as not punishable, because of] the Torah verse “You shall not kill the innocent and righteous.” Now, Maimonides counted these things as a single commandment [even though two things are mentioned, i.e., “innocent” and “righteous”]. But Nachmanides counted them as two separate things, similar [to other such inclusive prohibitions, lav shebichlalut] as [not eating the paschal lamb] lightly roasted or boiled, [or not bringing as a sacrifice] the gift for a harlot or the price of a dog, [or prohibiting a Jewess to marry] an Amorite or a Moabite. For they [innocent and righteous] are two separate cases (according to Sanhedrin 33b) with different characteristics. The first [“innocent”] is about one who came out of his trial acquitted, and someone said, “I have [new] condemning evidence,” he is not tried again. [The other law, attached to the word righteous,] is about one who came out [from trial as] guilty, and someone said, “I have [new] evidence for acquittal,” then he is tried again. For thus, [this verse] was interpreted in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 33b). And do not abandon the Levites is an enumerated commandment (Sefer Hamitzvot, Prohibition 229). They have indeed stated in the Sifre (Re’eh 36, 19) that “be heedful” (Deut. 12:19) is a prohibition; “lest you forsake the Levite (ibid.) is a prohibition.” [Both the words be heedful and lest are recognized by the rabbis as indicating prohibitions, even though the word not (lo) is not used.] And they should not inherit cities is a prohibition that no one of the tribe of Levi should take a parcel of land, as it is said (Deut. 18:1) “The priests the Levites even all the tribe of Levi shall have no portion nor inheritance.” Now, Maimonides divided this prohibition into two prohibitions. The one is not to take a portion of the land, and the other is not to take a portion of spoils [of war]. For in the Sifre, they explain “portion” as referring to spoils and “inheritance” as referring to the land. [This division into two] is in spite of their coming as a single prohi— 333 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

bition, and in his [Maimonides’s] opinion such an inclusive prohibition (lav shebichlalut) should normally be counted as a single commandment (Principle No. 9). Maimonides gave as the reason [for considering them two commandments here] is that the Torah has separated them into two commandments. For in another place, it is written (ibid., v. 2) “And he shall have no inheritance.” Since this is specific to inheritance of the land, the first on (v. 1) remains for the spoils of the war. That is why he enumerates them as two prohibitions. He also wrote that even though in another verse there are two such prohibitions for the kohanim specifically, namely (Num. 18:20) “[And the Lord said] to Aaron, ‘You shall have no inheritance in the land, nor shall you have any portion among them,’” and it was explained (Sifre Korach 45) that “you shall have no inheritance” means at the time of division of the land, and “Nor shall you have any portion” refers to the spoils; nevertheless, these prohibitions should not be enumerated, since these prohibitions are included in the first-mentioned, for the kohanim are included in the tribe of Levi. And the prohibitions are not repeated for adding to the enumeration, but for emphasis. He brings proof from what they stated (Kiddushin 77a) that a High Priest who has taken a divorced woman is punished with only one whipping, and not twice, i.e., one because of [the prohibition of] ordinary priests [with respect to a divorcee], and another because of [the separate prohibition] for the High Priest. Just as we make the High Priest guilty on only one count regarding the divorcee, so we make the kohanim guilty on only one count with regard to taking inheritance or part of the spoils, for they are included in the tribe [of Levi]. 89. You shall not inquire from the dead, with whom there is no truth; And cut off the sorcerer, who is extremely devious. The Torah said (Deut. 18:10–11) “There shall not be found among you . . . nor a necromancer.” It is explained in Gemara Sanhedrin (65b) that this refers to one who starves himself and goes to spend the night in cemetaries so that an impure spirit [of witchcraft] should dwell in him. Since this action is just one of imagination, the poet says that it has no actuality at all. And cut off the sorcerer; this [execution of] a sorcerer is [expressed by] a prohibition, which is in addition to the [general] positive command— 334 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

ment [for the court to execute] those guilty of capital punishment by a court of law. It is expressed by (Exod. 22:17) “You shall not allow a sorceress to live.” So if the court did not have him executed, they would be transgressing this prohibition [which is more serious than if the Torah had only ordained that the court is required to execute him]. The Torah is more emphatic about this case than about other cases of capital punishment, since the sorcerer knows how to deceive in order to escape death. So the Torah warns that one must annul his deception in evey way possible. For the Sanhedrin are expert in [their knowledge] of witchcraft and how to combat it. Thus, [the poet] says “who is extremely devious.” 90. Do not set back your neighbor’s landmark, by the command of Him who dwells in His domain; And do not destroy a fruit tree, when you build siege works. The Torah stated (Deut. 19:14) “You shall not set back your neighbor’s landmark which has been set.” This means that when land has been divided with a marker, it is forbidden to change the marker, moving it to the neighbor’s property, in order to enlarge his own domain. Now, they said in the Sifre (Deut. 86:14) about “You shall not set back your nighbor’s landmark,” that, since it is already said (Lev. 19:13) “You shall not rob,” what is the need for “You shall not set back your neighbor’s landmark?” It is to teach that one who removes the boundary of his neighbor transgresses two prohibitions. [The Sifre says further] that one might think that this applies also to land outside of the Holy Land; but the Torah’s words “in the inheritance which you inherit in the land [which the Lord your God gives you]” show that in the Land of Israel one transgresses both prohibitions, but outside the Land, one transgresses only a single prohibition, i.e., “You shall not rob.” Thus, this prohibition is specific to the Land of Israel, and should be included in the enumeration. And do not destroy a fruit tree. This is the prohibition against cutting down a food-producing tree in a destructive way, as it is said (Deut. 20:19) “You may not destroy its trees.” This prohibition is repeated in the expression (ibid.) “For you may eat of it, but you shall not cut it down.” These are not two prohibitions for they are both the same in content. At the end of Makkot (22a), they state that one who cuts down valuable trees transgresses “You shall not cut it down.” When you build siege works. This is the language of the Torah (Deut. 20:20) “You may build siege works.” — 335 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

91. Do not degrade your daughter, giving her to harlotry with your knowledge; And you shall not take your wife back after she has gone to others. Maimonides included the prohibition (Lev. 19:29) “You shall not degrade your daughter by making her a harlot” with (Deut. 23:18) “There shall be no harlot (k’deshah).” Maimonides explained this prohibition as forbidding intercourse without ketubah and kiddushin. Now, Nachmanides criticized him for this, saying that there is no prohibition regarding this, for the ketubah is only a rabbinic law, while kiddushin is a Torah law regarding acquiring a wife. Therefore, he [Nachmanides] explains (Sefer Hamitzvot, Prohibition 355, and Principle No. 5) that this prohibition applies only to one for whom kiddushin is not [legally] binding.* Nachmanides furthermore wrote that a harlot (zonah), as concerns the law *For certain forbidden about the gift [of a harlot], or as concerns a kounions, e.g., those involving incest and adultery, if hen [who is forbidden to marry a zonah], refers the couple performs the only [to a woman who has had relations] with kiddushin ceremony, it is invalid and has no legal one whose kiddushin with her would be invalid, consequences. However, e.g., [sexual unions] punishable by “cutting off” for less serious cases, e.g., or by capital punishment, [or a kohen marrymarriage with a mamzer or an Egyptian, although ing] a gentile woman or a slave woman. But for the union is forbidden, if [sexual unions] punishable only by reason of a the couple performs the kiddushin, the marriage is prohibition or a positive statement, she would binding, and it requires a not be termed a zonah. And the same applies get to dissolve it. to the prohibition “You shall not degrade your daughter, giving her to harlotry.” Also, Ravad criticized Maimonides for writing in his work (Mishneh Torah, Issurei Bi’ah 18, 1) that a zonah is one who had intercourse with a man forbidden to her by a prohibition that applies to everyone equally [excluding, say, intercourse between a divorcee and a kohen, since she is not forbidden to Levites and Israelites]. This means even unions punishable just by a prohibition [not incurring cutting off or death penalty], and even [unions forbidden by implication] from a positive commandment. The Ravad wrote that this is a mistake [i.e., the zonah is punishable for a union with a kohen only if she had previously had intercourse with a man with whom kiddushin is not valid]. — 336 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

As for me, my understanding about this is unsettled. I could support Maimonides’s words, for in the Gemara (Yevamot 61b) the law is only decided according to Rabbi Eliezer that when an unmarried man has intercourse with an unamarried woman, she does not become a zonah. But as to whether [the forbidden union] must be such that kiddushin is invalid, we have found no decision. So we should investigate [various pertinent] discussions in the Talmud, and decide the law according to the Talmudic discussion. Now, in Chapter Asarah Yuchasin (Kiddushin 74b) they quote a baraita that a convert (ger) who is an Ammonite, Moabite, Egyptian, or Edomite, or a gentile, chalal (a degraded kohen), or a momzer who had relations with a kohenet (wife or daughter of a kohen) makes her ineligible for marriage to a kohen or to eat terumah [food permitted to a kohen and his immediate family]. This baraita is also brought in Chapter Almanah L’kohen Gadol (Yevamot 68a), where they say that we find the reason [for this law] regarding eating terumah, but how is it established that it also applies to marrying a kohen? [They reply that] it is inferred from minor to major. [The objection is raised,] “Is it allowable to forewarn [which is a reqirement for a transgressor to be punished] on the basis of an inference from minor to major?” [Generally, it is not! The answer is that this reason for extending the law from terumah to marriage is not an inference from minor to major, but is] a suggestive comparison [since the two aspects of marriage and eating terumah are of the same nature]. It remains to ask now [about this kohenet] who was in a forbidden union and became forbidden to marry a kohen) as to what would be be [the forbidden] category [literally “name”] on account of which a kohen would be punished [by whipping] if he had a sexual relation with her. Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishnah in Chapter He’arel (Yevamot 8, 11) about the statement that [a kohen] whose testes are crushed or whose member is cut off (Deut. 23:2), is [still entitled] to eat [terumah] as are his slaves, though his wife is not [if she had relations with him after his accident, which is forbidden], states that the reason [for the prohibition] is that he has made her a zonah [by this forbidden act]. But Rashi (Yevamot 70a) explained that he made her a chalalah [this term denotes a woman degraded by circumstances involving the priesthood, and is another category forbidden to a kohen, see Lev. 21:7]. But his explanation is not right, for we have the decision in Kiddushin (77a) that a chalalah refers only [to a woman born from a — 337 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

union] forbidden to a kohen. Thus, Maimonides’s opinion is correct. I also saw that Rashba agrees in his Novellae at the beginning of Chapter He’arel, as does Ran in Chapter Asarah Yuchasin (Kiddushin 74a), so apparently the consensus of the later rabbis is thus [in agreement with Maimonides]. Therefore, one may conclude that a woman can become a zonah even by [a union forbidden by a prohibition not punishable by cutting off or by execution] or by [a prohibition derived] from a positive commandment. Now, Nachmanides wrote (Principle 5) that one must decide the law in accord with the sages who said (Yevamot 61a) that a zonah consists only of the cases of a convert to Judaism [who is assumed to have had early sexual experience], or a freed slave, or a woman who has had an intercourse of z’nut [harlotry]. Nachmanides defined this [intercourse of z’nut] as including those unions for which kiddushin is not valid. And in Tosafot (ibid.) it also explains thus, and it brings proof from what is stated in Chapter Hacholetz (Yevamot 44b) concerning unions incurring the penalty of “cutting off,” that as soon as the man had relations with her, he has made her into a zonah. But this is no proof that the intercourse punishable by a prohibition [without “cutting off”] causes her to become a zonah. For this statement was only to say that just as a High Priest having relations with a widow makes her into a chalalah, so one who has relations with a forbidden relative makes her a zonah. Also in that discussion (ibid., 45a) they state that just as [a High Priest] who has relations with a widow disqualifies her, so does a gentile slave who has relations with an Israelite disqualify her [from marrying a kohen]. In fact, it states in the Gemara that he indeed makes her a zonah, so there is no proof from here that a zonah cannot come from unions forbidden only by a prohibition [without the penalty of “cutting off” or capital punishment]. Rashi, however, includes in this place (Hacholetz Yevamot 61a) unions forbidden by a prohibition [not punishable by cutting off or execution], in agreement with Maimonides, and so does the Halachot Gedolot, and he supports this by all the citations I have mentioned. And even if the explanation of Tosafot is correct [for the citation from Hacholetz], still we should decide the law according to those citations I mentioned, and [particularly] the unnamed Mishnah in the beginning of Chapter He’arel [a teaching in a Mishnah that is not attributed to any particular rabbi has high status]. And there, it is evident that a woman can become a zonah even if the union is forbidden only by a prohibi— 338 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

tion or [even by a prohibition] derived from a positive commandment. We find other expressions of z’nut concerning [cases which are punishable] just by prohibitons in discussions in the Talmud. For in Chapter Hazorek (Gittin 80a) and in Chapter He’arel (Yevamot 81a), they talk about a woman awaiting levirate marriage who committed the act of a zonah [by cohabiting with someone other than her brother-in-law, and this prohibition is not punishable by “cutting off” or execution]. Even though, regarding a woman who has lost her status with respect to priesthood, there is no difference for us whether she is a chalalah or a zonah, since in either case she is punishable by whipping, there is, however, a difference regarding the payment [of a zonah, which is forbidden as a Temple offering (Deut. 23:19)] and regarding “You shall not degrade your daughter, making her a harlot.” [It makes a difference in this context] if this [the term zonah] includes any wrongful intercourse, and even those derived from positive commandments. Now, in Temurah Chapter Kol Ha’asurin (29b) there is an argument between Abaye and Rava about a gentile zonah, as to whether her payment is forbidden, and whether a kohen who has relations with her is to be punished by whipping or not. Rava concludes there that we do not follow R. Eliezer who said that an unmarried man who had relations with an unmarried woman makes her a zonah. That is so, if she never had a previous z’nut experience, but if she were a zonah previously, her payment would undoubtedly be forbidden [to the Temple]. And if she were not a zonah, [the payment would be forbidden] only if he told her “This is your payment.” Surely, the law is according to Rava [when he argues with Abaye] except in [the six cases established according to Abaye, whose acronym is] ya’al k’gam. And in Chapter Ma’asar Behemah (Bechorot 56b), the fact that they quote Abaye, who says that the price of a Jewish zonah is permitted, and they do not quote Rava is due to their need to explain the teaching of a Tanna [here used to mean a scholar with an extensive memory of baraitot] in the presence of Rav.133 However, we do not accept the law according to him, but according to the conclusion of Rava. In fact, Abaye only differs with him about the price [of the Jewish zonah, Rava saying it is forbidden and Abaye saying that it is permissible as a Temple offering]. But he agrees that a kohen who has intercourse with her is punished by whipping. 133 “Rava” in the printed edition is wrong, and the correct reading “Rav” is in the MS. — 339 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

This is in accordance with the words of Maimonides (Hilchot Ishut 1, 4) that a woman who makes herself available for z’nut is the harlot (kedeshah) forbidden by the Torah. As we learned in the Sifre (Tetze 126, 18), “There shall be no harlot” (Deut. 23:18) is a prohibition to the man engaging in the z’nut, as it is said (Gen. 38:22) “No harlot (kedeshah) has been here [this quotation clarifying the meaning of kedeshah].” This only involves a [simple] prohibition, and the payment is forbidden to the Temple. The same [consequences] apply for other [sexual] prohibitions that apply generally [i.e., excluding prohibitions only involving kohanim], and all of them equally make her invalid for the priesthood [because of her being considered a zonah]. And since it is explicit for a harlot that her payment is forbidden, so does this apply to other forbidden unions [even if she is not a professional harlot], in that they disqualify her because of the stigma of the harlot. This same applies to the prohibiton “You shall not degrade your daughter, making her a harlot,” which is a prohibition to the father that he should not have her staying in a house of prostitutioh, nor should he give her for hire. For he should not err in thinking that, since the Torah assigns to him her fine [from a man who rapes a virgin (Deut. 22:29)], he can let her be promiscuous and take the payment from her, or he may forfeit this right, like other rights he has concerning her; therefore, this prohibition comes [to negate this thinking], as Maimonides explains in his great work (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Na’arah Betulah 2, 17) and in the Sefer Hamitzvot (Prohibition 355). I see all his words as coming out according to the accepted law, except what he wrote in his great work (Issurei Bi’ah 18, 1) that a chalal who has intercourse with an Israelite woman causes her to be a zonah. This is perplexing, since this intercourse is not a transgression, because women who are eligible [to marry kohanim] are not forbidden to marry degraded kohanim. When the Gemara134 says that he is to be whipped for this, it is only because [she thus becomes] a chalalah as a result of her intercourse with a degraded kohen. Nevertheless, it seems that this prohibition belongs in the enumeration [as it is indeed included in his Prohibition No. 20], and it is not part of “There shall be no kedeshah” [while Maimonides does consider the two as one], for that prohibition is [addressed] to a father who delivers his daughter to harlotry. 134 This source is identified by Ziv Hazohar as Yevamot 84b, but I do not find the desired statement made there. — 340 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

I see in this matter a perplexing thing regarding Nachmanides who wrote (Sefer Hamitzvot, Principle No. 5) that if one has relations with a woman in harlotry, he comes under the prohibition of (Lev. 19:29) “So that the land shall fall into harlotry.” This is based on what they said in the exegesis of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob (Yevamot 37b) that if a man cohabits with many women and does not remember with whom he had relations, and if similarly a woman received from many men, it will turn out that [inadvertently] a brother may marry a sister. [The Talmud states] that regarding this it is stated (Lev. 19:29) “And the land would become full of lewdness.” And Nachmanides explained that this is included under the prohibition “And the land shall not fall into harlotry” [which is the phrase just preceding “And the land would become full of lewdness”], since this is what casuses a brother and sister to be incestuous, although this is is attached to “And the land shall not fall into harlotry.” But this is impossible [to claim that sexual relations between any unmarried people are prohibited by Lev. 19:29). For in Chapter Almanah L’kohen Gadol (Yevamot 69a) it is stated that rape and seduction do not cause the woman to become unfit for [eating] terumah, and if this was a forbidden sexual act, this would invalidate [the woman for terumah]. As to what they say there that (ibid., 69b) that when a woman is raped, this is considered a forbidden union, Rashi has already explained there that [the prohibition] is not from the Torah, but it is a rabbinic ordinance, which decreed that [cohabitation] with an unmarried woman [is forbidden]. It appears from his comment there that it is not even a [Torah] prohibition derived from a positive statement, and the exegesis of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob was just an asmachta [a supporting statement, not having binding legal force]. Maimonides [actually] agrees (beginning of Principle 5) that we are prohibited by the Torah from this act, due to the words “And the land would become full of lewdness,” and this is possibly so, but nevertheless that does not disqualify [the woman] by Torah law, since it does not constitute [an explicit] prohibition, as the case of a widow with a High Priest [which is explicit]. As to what he says “giving her to harlotry with your knowledge,” this is to say that if you know something, you should not pretend that you do not know. And you shall not take your wife back after she has gone to others. If one divorced his wife, and she became engaged to another [by — 341 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

kiddushin], she is forbidden to return to the first [husband], according to the prohibition that says (Deut. 24:4) “Her husband who divorced her first shall not take her to wife again,” as mentioned in the first chapter of Yevamot (11b) and elsewhere. The Gaon (Halachot Gedolot) added (as a separate commandment) “You shall not bring sin on the land” (Deut. 24:4), and Nachmanides supports [the interpretation] that this prohibition refers to the courts [enforcing the law of not taking back the ex-wife], or [that it has the same meaning as the prohibition in the first clause of the verse, but] it is an additional prohibition applying in the land of Israel. This is like the law of moving a landmark [this specific law applies only in the Holy Land, but the general law of prohibition against robbing applies to moving a landmark either inside or outside Israel’s territory], as is known from Principle 9. There is involved in this prohibition the case of a man whose wife committed adultery whereby he is prohibited [thereafter] from having sexual relations with her, and if he did have intercourse with her, he is punishable by whipping. They derived this from the phrase that says (Deut. 24:4) “after she has been defiled,” and they clearly state in the first chapter of Yevamot (11b) that he is subject to a prohibition [for cohabitation with his wife after her adultery]. Maimonides considered them [the case of taking back after remarriage and the case of the adulterous wife] as a single enumerated prohibition, but Nachmanides considered them as two [separate prohibitions]. They are following their different theories in the matter of lav Shebichlalut [inclusive prohibitions], as explained in Principle 9.135 92. Do not lie with her in her separation of uncleanness, Nor uncover the fountains of a woman with her sister. [Having intercourse] with a woman during her menstrual uncleanness, or with his wife’s sister during her lifetime are both punishable by “cutting off.” Concerning the menstruating woman, they said in Keritot, Chapter Amru Lo (16a), that this is forbidden by two prohibitions, one for the man and one for the woman; still, in the enumeration it counts as only one. For in the first chapter of Keritot (2a), when they list the 135 Maimonides holds that if one prohibitive clause contains two separate items, they are generally counted as a single prohibition, while Nachmanides holds that if the two items are different, they are counted as two prohibitions. — 342 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

thirty-six sins punished by “cutting off,” they count the menstruating woman as only one. On the contrary, the cases of a man having connection with an animal, and a woman connecting with an animal are counted as two. [The prohibition of either] slaughtering [a sacrifice] and offering it [on an altar] outside [the Temple precincts] are likewise [separately enumerated]. And this is a proof that one should only count the prohibition of the menstruating woman as one, even though this case applies to the man and also to the woman. But it is not like the man lying with an animal and the woman lying with an animal; for [in the case of the menstruating woman] the substance of the prohibition is the same, and the action is the same event. Maimonides also took this path when he listed the prohibitions punishable by “cutting off” (Mishnah Sanhedrin, chapter 19). As to the fact that (in Keritot 16a) they considered two prohibitions [as applying to a menstruating woman], it is not meant that they should be enumerated as two [separate commandments], but it meant that the menstruating woman is not comparable to the Sabbath law so as to be able to derive [legal features] from one to the other. For it is possible to desecrate the Sabbath by a lone person, while sexual relations with a menstruating woman can only be forbildden to both parties. Nor uncover the fountains. This is in accordance with the Scriptural statement (Lev. 20:18) “He has uncovered her fountain.” 93. [A widow] who had intercourse with the dead brother may not marry a stranger; And a stranger (muzar) shall not eat holy sacrifices (which are) muzarim. And a stranger (muzar) shall not eat. Muzar has the same meaning as zar [the more usual word for a non-kohen]. Muzar is pronounced “weakly” (i.e., without a dagesh in the zayin, as befits this form derived from the root zur), as in (Ps. 69:9) “I have become a stranger (muzar) to my brothers.” Holy sacrifices (which are) muzarim. [Muzarim, the plural of Muzar] means “crowned,” as in (Exod. 29:6) “the holy crown (nezer).” Therefore, this is pronounced “strongly,” [that is, there is a dagesh in the zayin, as befits such a verb form, where the root has an initial nun, which drops out in certain forms of the verb to be replaced by a dagesh]. Therefore, there is a play of words, muzar and muzarim [having similar — 343 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

sounds]. This constitutes an enumerated prohibition, as it is said (Exod. 29:33) “But a stranger shall not eat thereof, for they are holy.” This is said about the most holy sacrifices, for which reason he refers to them as “crowned.” 94. There shall be no harlot in the assembly of the holy congregation, And there shall not be upon a woman men’s clothing. I have already explained the meaning of this prohibition above (Stanza 91). When he says “in the assembly of the holy congregation,” he refers to the fact that the verse (Deut. 23:18) “There shall be no harlot among the daughters of Israel” is explained in the Sifre (Tetze 126, 18) as implying that you are not prohibited about this for a gentile woman. It appears that according to this baraita, a kedeshah (harlot) means an unattached woman, who stands by the road, ready for harlotry with any man. This is like the situation recorded (Gen. 38:21) “Where is the harlot (kedeshah) that was at Enayim by the wayside?” Also, they taught there in the Sifre [in the common text of the Sifre this teaching is absent] that this is a prohibition for a single woman, as it is said (ibid., v. 22) “There was no harlot (kedeshah) here.” This prohibition means the the court should not allow this to be among us, although we are not commanded regarding [harlotry among] gentiles. The Targum (of Onkelos on Deut. 23:18) includes in this prohibition that a Jewish woman may not marry a slave, so that this could be separately enumerated [since it would have content different from harlotry]. Even if we should interpret this [kedeshah] as just an unmarried woman who is available for harlotry, we could count separately “You shall not profane your daughter” (Lev. 19:29) as addressed to the father, and “The land shall not fall into harlotry” as addressed to the man himself who has relations with the harlot, and this prohibition [“There shall be no harlot”] as addressed to the harlot. And there shall not be upon a woman. This prohibition means that a woman should not wear a garment which is specifically for men, since this fosters sexual misconduct, as it is said (Deut. 22:5) “A woman shall not wear men’s clothing.” 95. And men shall not put on women’s clothing, And there shall be no sodomite among the the righteous sons. — 344 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

This is a separate prohibition, which pertains to men, that they should not adorn themselves with women’s adornments; nor should they even pluck out white hairs from dark ones (see Shabbat 94b), as it is said (Deut. 22:5) “And a man shall not wear a woman’s garment.” And there shall be no sodomite. This is a prohibition against male homosexuality, but it [i.e., the words “There shall be no sodomite among the sons of Israel” (Deut. 23:18)] is not separately counted, since it is included in (Lev. 18:22) “You shall not lie with a male as you do wilth a female.” The latter is a prohibition to the male who lies, and to the one with whom he lies, for the words lo tishkav (you shall not lie) can be vocalized lo tishakev (you shall not be caused to lie), according to the interpretation of Rabbi Akiva in Sanhedrin (54b). Thus, the one who comes onto a male, and then lets a male come onto him, during a time when he was not aware of the prohibition, only brings a single sin offering. The accepted rule is not according to [the opposing opinion of] Rabbi Ishmael (ibid.) who said that such a person is required to bring two sin offerings, the second one being for [transgressing] “There shall be no sodomite among the sons of Israel.” It is also stated in the Sifre (Tetze 126, 18) that you are forbidden [to tolerate sodomy] among the sons of Israel, but you are not forbidden [to tolerate it] among other nations. [This statement implies] that this (Deut. 23:18) is a prohibition by which the Jewish court is instructed to prevent [Israelite men] from being male prostitutes, and this prohibition applies only to sons of Israel, but we are not bound to [enforce this prohibition] upon other peoples [living under Jewish jurisdiction], for we are only enjoined to prohibit them from idolatry. According to the baraita (in the Sifre), it would be proper to include both of these (in Deut. 23:18), i.e., “There shall be no harlot” [that the court should not allow harlotry], and “There shall be no sodomite” [that the court should not allow sodomy]. It is even more so according to the opinion that includes here [in “There shall be no harlot”] the prohibition of [an Israelite having relations with] a slave girl [which is distinctly different from the matter of harlotry]. But we are relying here rather on the Talmudic explanation [in Sanhedrin that makes it a separate commandment in that the court is forbidden to allow harlotry]. Likewise, if a person has intercourse with his father or uncle, he has transgressed other specific [enumerated] prohibitions and is not just included in the general prohibition “You shall not lie with a male,” — 345 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

as I will write below (Stanza 135). 96. You shall not rule with fury over your Hebres slave, And you shall not appoint a foreigner as king, but rather a free citizen. It is a prohibition not to rule over a Hebrew slave with fury and vengefully, by employing him for unnecessary things, just in order to weary him, or in order that he should never have respite for his soul. This is the (Lev. 25:46) “You shall not rule over another ruthlessly.”136 They state in the Sifra (Behar 86, 2) “That you shall not tell him to heat up this cup when he doesn’t need it (thus far is the quotation),” which applies even more so to work harder than this. And if someone [Jewish] sold himself to a gentile and we have jurisdiction over hime [the gentile], we must forbid him from such actions, as it is said (ibid., v. 53) “He shall not rule over him with cruelty in your sight.” And it says in the Sifra (Behar 101, 8) that you are not commanded [to intervene] for him unless [the cruelty is] in your sight [i.e., you do not have to go inside the house to determine whether he is being abused]. This is a separate prohibition, besides the first one [dealing with cruel behavior toward a Hebrew slave owned by a fellow Jew]. And you shall not appoint a foreigner as king. This is a prohibition against appointing a king over us one who is not of Israelite descent, even if he is a convert or [a gentile who] was freed [from slavery, who became Jewish], as it is said (Deut. 17:15) “You may not set over yourself a foreigner.” And it is stated in the Sifre (Shofetim 31), “This is a prohibition.” And David was privileged to have the royal crown.137 97. He shall not have many wives, horses, or horsemen; And he should not send free men back to the Egyptians. The king is prohibited from taking excessive wives, as it is said (Deut. 17:17) “And he shall not have many wives.” And they [the sages] explained (Sanhedrin 21a) that the excess prohibited is more than eighteen; for King David had six wives, and God said to him (2 Sam. 12:8) “And if that were too little, I would add unto you that many and that 136 The Ziv Hazohar discusses why this verse is quoted rather than v. 43. 137 The word chorim is found several times in the Bible and is translated either as freemen or nobles. The expression ben chorim is found once (Eccl. 10:17). In postbiblical Hebrew, the common term for a freeman is ben chorin. — 346 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

many more.” But concubines are not included in this total.138 He is also forbidden to have excessive horses, as it is said (ibid., v. 16) “He shall not keep many horses.” Even one horse to run in front of him or one spare horse is forbidden to him, aside from his personal horse and horses for his horsemen. When the poet says “horses or horsemen,” this is not precise, for he is not forbidden to have many horsemen, and this prohibition only concerns horses. Ibn Ganach used to say that horses are also called “parashim” [which we translated here as “horsemen”], but [the other lexicographers] did not agree with him. When he says “And he shall not send free men back,” this is a prohibition to the people not to return to Egypt. He has [already] written (Stanza 70) “You shall not take refuge in the shadow of Noph [a synonym for Egypt],” and he repeats this here to give the reason for the prohibition of many horses, which is forbidden so that the Israelites, who are free, should not return to the place of their slavery. 98. That his heart should not turn aside because of the horses of his chariot, His silver and his gold and precious treasures. The Torah gave the reason (Deut. 17:17) “That his heart should not turn aside” only with regard to having many wives. But the poet was not accurate about this, and he applied this reason [also] to having silver and gold, which is the third prohibition for the king, i.e., he should not have more silver and gold and precious treasures than what he needs to give to his horsemen and his soldiers. The reason for this commandmnent is that his heart should not be exalted and he should not become proud. And if the king is warned against pride, so much more the rest of the nation. Thus from here is a hint regarding the prohibition of pride. 99. You shall not sell a Hebrew slave as one sells a gentile; And do not despise a gentile when he comes to [your] dwellings. It is a prohibition that one should not sell a Hebrew slave in an embarrassing way, as it is said (Lev. 25:42) “They should not be sold as bondsmen.” They state in the Sifre that [this means that] one should 138 The king can thus have many concubines in addition to the eighteen wives. Whether this statement is true or not has been the subject of controversy, as noted in the comment of Ziv Hazohar, No. 312. — 347 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

not set up a stand and put them [the slaves] upon the purchase stone. Included in this [commandment] is a prohibition concerning one who kidnaps an Israelite, and is subject to execution, if he sold him. I am surprised that this prohibition was not divided into two [distinct] commandments [one regarding a regular Hebrew slave, and the other a kidnapped Hebrew slave], since there is a difference for the perpetrators, one being punished as a [usual] prohibition [i.e., with whipping] and the other with strangulation. This is like [the prohibition] “You shall not curse judges (Exod. 22:27).”* Do not despise an Egyptian. When an Egyptian becomes converted to Judaism, we are forbidden to to despise him and deny him from marrying an Israelite after three generations *This latter case, which [i.e., the grandchildren of Egyptian converts are is also interpreted by the rabbis as including eligible for marriage to Israelites], as it is said the cursing of the Divine (Deut. 23:8) “You shall not despise an Egyptian.” Name, is treated in Stanza 15. The idea is The expression “to [your] dwellings (lam’gurim)” that there also we have suggests conversion, i.e., [the meaning is] “when a single prohibitive he becomes converted.”139 statement covering two cases which differ in punishment. This causes them to be decoupled into two separately counted prohibitions, i.e., No. 25 concerning cursing judges, and No. 26 concerning cursing the Divine Name.

100. Do not despise an Edomite when he comes to my footstool, And there shall not come among My people those who are wounded or broken. There is a separate prohibition against despising the descendants of Esau, as it is said (Deut. 23:8) “You shall not despise an Edomite,” but we should allow them to come into marriage after three generations. The meaning of “when he comes to my footstool” is to say “when he comes under the feet of the Divine Presence,” similar to (Isa. 66:1) “and the earth is my footstool.” I previously mentioned (Stanza 86) that Nachmanides adds on a separate prohibition here, which is (Deut. 3:4) “You shall not instigate war against them.” And there shall not come among them. This is a prohibition that a person whose penis or testes are damaged may not marry a Jewish woman, as it is said (Deut. 23:2) “No one whose testes is crushed or

139 Rabbi Perlow cogently notes that ibn Gabirol’s actual meaning is not about marriage, but about not expelling an Egyptian who settles in the Holy Land. — 348 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

whose member is cut off shall be admitted.” All this constitutes a single prohibition, as I wrote in the Principles (No. 9). 101. And a Hebrew [maidservant], whom you should take in marriage, should not go free Like a gentile [maidservant] goes free with [loss of] projecting limbs. Maimonides wrote (Principle 8) that “she shall not go free as the menservant do (Exod. 21: 7)” is not an enumerated prohibition, but is merely a negation. That is to say that the law of being freed because of [destruction of] projecting limbs does not apply to her, though it does apply to gentile slaves [on the basis of Exod. 21:26–27]. Maimonides wrote that Scripture had to negate this law for her [the Hebrew bondwoman] so that we should not derive this law by a fortiori argument from the gentile slaves. He brings proof from what they stated in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 3, 41) that “she shall not go free as the menservant do” [means that] she does not go free as a result of [destruction of] projecting limbs, as gentile [slaves] go free. But the Gaon, author of Halachot Gedolot, did include this in the enumeration of the commandments. Nachmanides wrote (critique of Principle 8) that the only circumstance in which a negative or positive statement in Scripture can be taken as mere negation [or permission], and which, therefore, is not admissible to the enumeration [of the commandments], is when Scripture had need for the negation. But if there is no need for that negation [or permission], it would be included in the enumeration of the commandments. He brings proof from the argument of Rabbi Ishmael with Rabbi Akiva in three cases (Sotah 3a), i.e. (Num. 5:14), “And he will be jealous of his wife,” (Lev. 21:3) “For her, he will defile himself,” and (Lev. 25:46) “You will take your bondmen forever.” For Rabbi Akiva interprets them [these verbs] as meaning a requirement, whild Rabbi Ishmael interprets them as meaning permission, for they are needed to negate certain laws that one might think apply to them. Therefore, one must inquire concerning “She shall not go free as manservants do,” if it is taken as a negation, why did Scripture have to negate this law [of setting free a slave whose eye or tooth, etc. had been destroyed] from [applying to] her? Also, what reason would we have had to think that this law might apply, so that this negation is necessary? As to what Maimonides wrote that one might have thought that this law — 349 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

[of tooth and eye] should be applied to her [the Hebrew bondwoman] by deduction from the gentile slave, Nachmanides disagrees. For setting free the gentile slave is considered a fine, and such derivations are not applicable to fines. This is in accord with their statement (Ketubot 40b) that monetary laws are not derivable from fines, and they stated (Makkot 4b) concerning a fine that it is a singular case specified by the Torah. Also, they said that the law of one who defames [his newly married wife, see Deut. 22:13–19)] is a fine [and therefore, one can not deduce from here to other cases]. Nachmanides wrote that this is the reason why the Halachot Gedolot counts this as a prohibition. And he explained that its meaning is that, if the master would want to get her out of his household when he knocked out her teeth, he transgresses the prohibition, but she should stay with him, since the compensation required for the tooth might exceed her redemption value, or since it is possible that he may marry her, or his son may. It is also possible that this prohibition is addressed to her father, that it is forbidden to take her away from the house of the master because of the [destroyed] projecting limb, but she should remain with him, and he must compensate her for her tooth. But Nachmanides has doubts about whether this is just a negative statement and whether this negation is needed by Scripture. [This need] is for another reason, not the reason given by Maimonides [which Nachmanides has discredited]. He says that if the section concerning protruding limbs would, in its simple sense, include all types of slaves, whether Hebrew or gentile, Scripture would certainly need this negative statement [to say that it applies only to gentile slaves], and it [“She shall not go free, etc.”] would not be enumerated. But if Scripture does not in that section include Hebrew slaves, we would not need this negative statement, and of necessity this prohibition of “She shall not go free as manservants do” would be among the enumerated prohibitions. And it seemed to Nachmanides that there is a difference of opinion [among the Tannaim] whether the word slaves (avadim) written in the Torah by itself [without adjective] includes the Hebrew slave or not. So it seems in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 9, 93) concerning the verse (Exod. 21:26) “When a man strikes the eye of his slave,” and (in Mishpatim 7, 79) concerning the verse (Exod. 21:20) “When a man strikes his manservant or maidservant with a rod.” But Nachmanides said that this matter requires much more inquiry and careful study, and — 350 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

he could not get to a decision about this. Nevertheless, he did agree with Maimonides’s enumeration in not including this [as an enumerated commandment]. 102. And her master shall not betray her, but he shall let her be redeemed at her value; He shall not have power to sell her, as in other sales. What the poet mentions “And her master shall not betray her” [based on the conclusion of Exod. 21:8) is not a prohibition regarding the Hebrew bondmaiden which is being discussed [since the words are merely attached to the earlier expression in the verse that he shall not forcibly sell her]. The content of “He shall let her be redeemed” (ibid.) belongs to the positive commandments (Stanza 59). The commentator on the Azharot inserted here two prohibitions regarding the attractive female captive. One is (Deut. 21:14) “You shall not sell her for money,” and the other is (ibid.) “You must not enslave her.” Indeed, these are two separate prohibitions in the enumeration, the one being not to sell her after he had relations with her, and the other is that he may not make her a servant. But “He shall not have power to sell her” (Exod. 21:8) is a prohibition that the master should not sell a Hebrew bondwoman to anyone else, as is mentioned in the first chapter of Kiddushin.140 103. He shall not diminish her food, her clothing, And her marital intercourse, should he take another woman. The prohibition of [not diminishing] food, clothing, and marital intercourse applies to any Israelite wife, as well as to a Hebrew bondwoman [in which context the prohibition is stated]. For it is written (Exod. 21:9) “He shall deal with her as is the practice with free maidens.” 104. There are four women who are forbidden to the kohen; And one of these is permitted to others. An ordinary kohen is forbidden to marry three kinds of woman, namely, a prostitute, a chalalah [a woman of profaned priestly descent], and a divorcee. Thus, it is written (Lev. 21:7), “They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; nor shall they take a woman di140 This citation is incorrect. Further details are found in the note of Ziv Hazohar. — 351 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

vorced from her husband.” The High Priest is in addition prohibited to take a widow. These constitute five enumerated prohibitions. For if the High Priest married [with kiddushin] to [a woman who is] a widow, a divorced woman, a chalalah, or a harlot, he is punished with four whippings.141 And if he had intercourse with a widow, even though he had not performed kiddushin, he would be [separately] punished. And in the last chapter of Kiddushin (78a), they explained that all of them [the cases of widow, divorced woman, chalalah, and harlot] are separate prohibitions, and are not an instance of lav shebichlalut [an inclusive prohibition, which is usually counted as single, see Principle 9]. For they say there (77a) that just as the divorced woman is separated [in a separate clause] from the chalalah and the harlot with respect to an ordinary kohen, so is she separated for a High Priest.* They also say there (ibid., 78a) that a High Priest with a widow is *The separate twice punishable, once for (Lev. 21:14) “He shall not mention of one item in a lav shebichlalut take” [i.e., not marry], and also for (ibid., v. 15) “He is a commonly used shall not profane” [i.e., not have intercourse]. The device for uncoupling the components of a poet wrote this afterward (in the following stanza) lav shebichlalut. “And he shall not profane his seed,” which is this prohibition. He means the High Priest as a definite noun [i.e., the voweling is lakohen, “to the priest,” not l’kohen, “to a priest”] when he says “are forbidden to the priest,” i.e., the one “who is greater than his brethren (Lev. 21:10).” “And the four” are the widow, chalalah, harlot, and divorced woman. “And one of them” is permitted to ordinary kohanim, namely the widow. And we do not count separately the prohibitions [divorced woman, chalalah, and harlot] as applied respectively to the ordinary kohen and to the High Priest, as is seen from the last chapter of Kiddushin (77b). 105. And he may not let his hair be disheveled, nor tear his clothes; And he shall not profane his seed, nor [profane] the fortified sanctuary. 141 This statement appears in disagreement with Maimonides, who claims that for the divorced woman, the chalalah, and the harlot, whipping is not incurred unless the kiddushin is also followed by intercourse. There are diverse opinions about the punishment by whipping, and the reasoning is intricate. — 352 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Maimonides wrote in his Sefer Hamitzvot (Prohibition No. 163) that a kohen who performed service with his hair disheveled [i.e., allowed to grow long] or with rent garments is punishable by death [by divine judgment], but if he merely entered the sanctuary thus, without doing service, he is guilty of trespassing a prohibition [punishable with whipping]. Likewise, in his great work (Mishneh Torah, Bi’at Hamikdash 1, 15) he wrote that he is to be whipped. Nevertheless, he counts this as only a single prohibition concerning the head disheveled, and a single prohibition concerning torn clothes. And the High Priest differs from the ordinary kohen in that he is forbidden to dishevel [his head] or to rend [his garment] for the death of a relative, even disregarding his time of service. Nachmanides disagrees and says that there is no Torah prohibition that an ordinary kohen may not enter the sanctuary with his hair disheveled or his clothes torn, but he may not perform service thus. As to the teaching in the first chapter of Kelim (Mishnah 9), “Between the porch and the altar is still more holy, for no one who has a blemish or whose hair is disheveled may enter there,” this is a rabbinic extension, but there is no Torah prohibition about them. I have also seen that Rabbenu Shimshon in his commentary on the Mishnah has explained thus. Regarding the matter of those with disheveled hair, there is nothing explicit in Scripture. But in Tractate Ta’anit (17b) and Sanhedrin (22b), these are derived from the prophetic books. They quote (Ezek. 44:20) “They shall not let their hair grow long,” and close by (ibid., v. 20) “They shall not drink wine.” The juxtaposition of long hair and drinking wine is to teach that just as drinking wine [by the kohanim] can lead to death, so letting hair grow long can lead to death. They further state that this law was orally transmitted [not recorded in the Torah], and Ezekiel attributed it to a Torah verse as an asmachta [i.e., a Torah verse that is reminiscent of the law, although it is not the actual source]. And as to what is said regarding Elazar and Ithamar (Lev. 10:6) “Do not dishevel your head and do not rend your clothes, so that you shall not die,” it does not come to instruct us concerning future generations, as Maimonides thought, but it was an instruction for that particular occasion. That is why they had to derive the law [applicable to the future] from [the Book of] Ezekiel. Nor tear his clothes. This also is not expressly stated in a Torah verse, nor [is it derived] by midrashic exegesis. But it is included in — 353 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

the [law of the kohen] who lacks his required vestments. Therefore, Nachmanides (on Prohibition 164) exchanges the law about torn vestments in favor of that concerning missing vestments, as I shall explain below (Stanza 154). And thus do they say in the Sifra (Shemini 29), explaining [the meaning of “disheveling”] as not growing [hair] into a disheveled condition, i.e., they should not grow their hair [excessively], as Onkelos translated (Lev. 10:30) “They shall not grow disheveled.” Likewise, they said in the Sifra (Lev. Shemini 30) that “you shall not dishevel your head” (Lev. 10:6) means that you shall not grow [hair excessively]. And he shall not profane his seed means that he [the High Priest] should not have intercourse with a widow, even if he did not marry her, as I explained previously in the preceding stanza. Nor [profane] the fortified sanctuary. This is a separate prohibition counted by the Halachot Gedolot, i.e. (Lev. 21:12), “And he shall not leave the sanctuary, and not profane, etc.” But Maimonides did not enumerate it (see Principle No. 5) since he considers it [not profaning] as the reason why he should not leave, since he would thereby profane [the sanctuary]. However, Nachmanides mentions that he supports the Halachot Gedolot that it would be plausible to count it separately, so that if he went out and left his service undone, he transgresses two prohibitions, “He shall not leave” and “He shall not profane.” This is similar to what they said about a High Priest with a widow, that if he married her and had intercourse, he is whipped twice, on account of “He shall not take” (Lev. 21:14) and on account of “He shall not profane” (ibid., v. 15). The poet wrote below [about not leaving the sanctuary], “And with the matter of ‘he shall not leave, etc.,’” and there I will explain further with God’s help. 106. And he shall not make himself impure for his father or mother; But [he may] for a corpse of his people, who has no one to bury him. The High Priest is forbidden to defile himself [to mourn] close relatives, and the ordinary kohen is forbidden to defile himself [to mourn] distant relatives (Lev. 21:1–12), and these are two [distinct] prohibitions. But for an obligatory corpse [abandoned with none to attend to him], even the High Priest should defile himself [by doing the burial], provided — 354 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

the corpse is Jewish. This is the meaning of “a corpse of his people who has no one to bury him.” There is another prohibition, which he mentions later (Stanza 110), i.e., that he may not enter the tent of a corpse. 107. On account of [observing] “He shall not leave,” he will be acceptable before Me; And he will rejoice when he goes out like a bridegroom from his chambers. Maimonides wrote in his Sefer Hamitzvot (Prohibition No. 165) that it is a prohibition for the High Priest that he may not go out following the bed [bearing the body in the funeral procession] even for his father or his mother. But Nachmanides wrote that this prohibition only means that a kohen should not interrupt a priestly service and go away. Now, Maimonides wrote [differently] in his great treatise (Mishneh Torah, Klei Hamikdash 5, 5) that a High Priest leaving to follow the funeral is only a rabbinic extension, and that this prohibition of not interrupting service and leaving actually applies both to the High Priest and to the ordinary kohen, and that it incurs the punishment of death by the “divine court.” [This is the punishment] even though they did not list it in the Mishnah [where it says] “These are the ones who are punished by death”; for Nachmanides wrote that not all cases of those punishable by death are recorded in that Mishnah, and some are included and some are omitted. The poet said in a rhetorical way that if he fulfills this commandment, it will be pleasing to God, and He will change his mourning to gladness, so that he will rejoice when he comes out from the Temple [after performing his service] like a bridegroom from his room and canopy. Since the poet wrote among the positive com*Apparently, Duran was mandments (Stanza 84) regarding a bridegroom drawn to a discussion of the prohibition regarding “He will be free from going out [to war], and he the bridegroom’s military will not be assigned tasks,” he omitted it here service at this particular [among the prohibitions], which would have been point because of the mention of a bridegroom more appropriate, since these are prohibitive in this stanza. Also, the commandments.* The content of this prohibition expression “He shall not go out” (Lo Yetze) occurs is that a bridegroom should not leave home for a both in the verse on the full year, as it is said (Deut. 24: 5) “He shall not go bridegroom and that of forth into the army.” And they said in the Gemara the High Priest leaving the sanctuary. Sotah (44a) that one might think that “he shall — 355 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

not go forth into the army” means just that he should not go into the army [as a soldier], but he might prepare weapons and supply water and food. Therefore, Scripture says (ibid.) “He shall not be charged with any thing.” One might think that in other cases where one is exempt from military service, i.e., after building a new house or planting a new vineyard [see Deut. 20:5–6], he is also exempt from auxiliary functions. But Scripture emphasizes that it is [only] he [the bridegroom] who is not to be charged with anything, but others can be charged. [Thereupon the Gemara raises the question that] if the clause “He shall not be charged with anything” covers it [actual military service], what need is there for the clause “He shall not go forth in the army”? [The Gemara replies that it means that if a commander wrongfully impressed the bridegroom into army service], he has transgressed two prohibitions. Now, it is known from the Principles (No. 9) that [such repetitious prohibitions] are enumerated as just a single commandment. Thus did Maimonides write [in Prohibition 311, that it is counted singly]. But the Halachot Gedolot counted them as two prohibitions, and Nachmanides supported him (in his critique of Prohibition 311 of Maimonides). He wrote that if the bridegroom is taken for auxiliary tasks, [the perpetrator] transgresses a prohibition, and if he is taken for battle, [the perpetrator] transgresses another prohibition in addition to the first one. Now, such cases are counted as two [enumerated prohibitions]. But here, he [Maimonides] thought that these two prohibitions are a single matter, and that in any case he transgresses two prohibitions. But he [Nachmanides] criticized him [Maimonides], and said that it is not so, since in the case of supplying weapons and food, he does not transgress “He shall not go forth,” since this applies only to soldiers, and such a one [who only supplies] is not one of them. But the one who goes into battle involves two prohibitions, the second one being in addition to the first. Therefore, it is proper to count them separately. This is what he [Nachmanides] wrote here, but I did not see that [Nachmanides in his own enumeration] added on to that of Maimonides. 108. Regarding “It shall not be put out,” his greatness will be increased; And his lamp will not be put out, but will shine like the luminaries. Scripture stated (Lev. 6:6) “An everlasting fire should be burning on — 356 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

the altar; it should not be put out.” They explain in Zevachim (91b) that if one had put out even one coal on the array, he transgresses this prohibition and is punished by whipping. In a lyrical way, the poet says that if one kept this prohibition, his honor will grow, “and his lamp will not be put out,” as is the lamp of the wicked, but it will shine like the sun and the moon. 109. She shall not eat his bread, when a non-kohen marries his daughter; But she may eat of it, if she returns to be as in her youth. The content of this prohibition embraces two subjects. The one is a prohibition against a chalalah [a degraded daughter of a kohen] eating [priestly portions of] holy food. As they explained (Yevamot 68a), the verse (Lev. 22:12) “If a priest’s daughter is married to a commoner, she shall not eat that which is set apart from the holy things” means that when she cohabits with one who is not valid for her, this makes her invalid, and consequently, “She shall not eat from that which is set apart from holy things.” They explain (ibid., 68b) that this refers to the breast and thigh [of peace offerings, which are reserved for the kohen]. This aspect of the prohibition is based on the rabbinic interpretation of “a commoner” (zar) as a man who is forbidden to her, rather than just a non-kohen. But also included in this [prohibition] is that if she marries a nonkohen, she may not eat terumah (heave offering). As they said (ibid.), that Scripture could have said, “She shall not eat holy things”; however, the expression “That which is set apart (terumat) from the holy things” implies both cases. Now, if she is widowed or divorced, and she has no children from the Israelite [former husband], then she may revert to [eligibility for] terumah, but she does not revert regarding the breast and thigh. This is the law about this matter, but the poet has omitted in his poem the breast and the thigh, only mentioning the terumah, which is “his bread.” 110. And also there shall not eat of it his hired man or his tenant; And he shall not enter where there is a corpse, in tents shrouded in bitterness. When he says, “And also there shall not eat of it (bo),” this refers to the antecedent “bread” [in the previous stanza]. But this is [grammati— 357 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

cally] wrong, since “bread” (pat) is a feminine noun [while “of it” bo is a masculine form]. [Examples of correct feminine usage of pat in Scripture are:] “Your bread that you ate, you will vomit it” (Prov. 23:8); “Nor have I eaten bread by myself, without an orphan eating of it” (Job 31:17); and “Better is dry bread with quietness than a house full of feasting with strife (Prov. 17:1).” But he [the poet] is seizing the expression in Scripture, “The tenant of a kohen or his hired man shall not eat of it (bo)” (Lev. 22:10), which refers to the bread (lechem, which is masculine).142 This is a prohibition that even the kohen’s tenant [according to tradition this refers to the long-term Hebrew slave] and hired man are not allowed to eat of the terumah. For other non-kohanim, there is a separate prohibition, which the poet recorded above (Stanza 55), “And those who are impure, as well as strangers, may not eat terumah.” And he shall not enter where there is a corpse.* This is a prohibition not to enter the tent of a corpse. Now, *Note that from Stanza 104 there are two prohibitions, one being not to there is an intermingling of prohibitions concerning all be defiled by [entering] a tent, and the other kohanim and those concerning not to be defiled by touching or carrying [the the High Priest. Stanza 106 is about the law of a kohen corpse]. These are counted separately as two being forbidden to defile commandments, i.e., “He shall not become himself with a corpse. The defiled for his mother or father” (Lev. 21:11), stanza seems to address the High Priest particularly, but and “He shall not go in to any dead body two prohibitions are recorded (ibid.).” The Sifra states (Emor 28, 4) that one there, one for the ordinary kohen [No. 267] and one for is guilty [separately] for “He shall not be dethe High Priest [No. 266]. They filed” and for “He shall not enter.” Regarding are separately counted because an ordinary kohen, there is mentioned only one the High Priest is forbidden even regarding corpses of prohibition, which is (Lev. 21:1) “He shall not near relatives, whereas the be defiled for a corpse among his people.” But ordinary kohen is not. The additional prohibition, not they derived (Sifra on that verse) by a gezerah to enter the tent [which is shavah from the High Priest that he also [the separately punishable], applies ordinary kohen] is guilty both for “He shall not only to the High Priest. This prohibition appears here in be defiled” and for “He shall not enter.” But Stanza 110, even though the Maimonides decided to count the law of the earlier part of the stanza applies to ordinary kohanim ordinary kohen singly [i.e., the law of entering as well. is only derived by rabbinic interpretation, and 142 This quotation of Lev. 22:10 is incorrect, as noted by Perlow and Ziv Hazohar. Perhaps the intention of the poet was to call attention to the use of bo and “his bread” in the related v. 11. — 358 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Maimonides only counts laws explicit in the Torah], and I have not seen any authority who disputes this. 111. And he shall not eat the inner offering, with malice and with deceit; And he shall not entirely sever the pigeons with torn wings. It is forbidden to eat an inside sin offering [i.e., one whose blood must be sprinkled inside the Sanctuary], as it is said (Lev. 6:23), “Any sin offering whose blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, may not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.” And the Sifra (Tzav 77, 8) says that [this verse means additionally] that anything that is required to be burnt is forbidden to eat. What he says with malice and with deceit is a poetic expression, that he should not eat it with malice, deceit, and trickery.143 And he shall not entirely sever. If the kohen severed the head of a bird sin offering while doing melikah [slaughtering not with a knife but by pressing his sharpened thumbnail from the back of the neck], he is punished with whipping, as it is said (Lev. 5:8) “He shall perform melikah on the back of its neck, but he shall not sever it,” and so did they explain it in Zevachim (65). When he says “entirely” (l’hatzmit), it means that he is not punished by whipping unless the separation is total. The pigeons with torn wings. This alludes to the expression (Lev. 1:17) “And he shall tear its wings, but not sever them.” However, the “but not sever” in that verse should not be enumerated, but Scripture is saying concerning the bird burnt offering that he must tear its wings, and he does not need to sever them.144 One learns this from what they said (Zevachim 64) that in the case of the bird sin offering, if he severed it, he invalidates [the offering], while in the case of the bird burnt offering, if he severed, he has not invalidated it; and thus did Maimonides explain it. 112. And his totally burnt meal offering may not be eaten, lest he be dismayed; 143 The significance of this last remark is not clear. See Ziv Hazohar, note 437. 144 According to Zohar Harakia, the poet erred in counting not to sever the wings of the burnt offering, and not counting not to sever the neck of the sin offering. This is, however, the opinion of Halachot Gedolot, which was ibn Gabirol’s basis. Zohar Harakia, however, follows Maimpnides’s opinion, which is just the opposite. — 359 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

And let him not offer a defective sacrifice among the rams and sheep. This is the prohibition that the kohen’s meal offering may not be eaten, as it is said (Lev. 6:16) “Every meal offering of the kohen shall be a whole offering; it shall not be eaten.” The Sifra states (96, 54) that any [offering] that is termed a whole offering (kalil) is subject to a prohibition against eating it, and so it says in Gemara Makkot (18b). The poet warns [not to eat the offering] lest one would be punished, dismayed, and crushed. Mashchat (defective) is one with a blemish, from the expression in Scripture (Lev. 22:25) “Because their corruption (mashchatam) is with them, there is a blemish in them.” So this is about slaughtering a blemished sacrifice on the altar. But I have already explained this above (Stanza 39) regarding “And you shall not give a fire offering of the blind and broken.” 113. And a layman shall not break forth to see the sanctuary when it is disassembled, And one who is unclean [shall not enter], lest he be swallowed amidst noise and calamity. The poet follows the Halachot Gedolot in counting (Num. 4:20) “And they shall not come in to see when the holy things are being covered” among the enumerated prohibitions. But Maimonides differed with the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot], saying that this commandment does not apply throughout the generations, and therefore, it is not part of the enumeration. And he brought proof from the words of the rabbis, who said in Sanhedrin (81b) that the crime of a person who stole a holy vessel is hinted in the verse “And they shall not come in to see when the holy things are being covered [with “covered” interpreted as stolen].” Since they used the term hinted, it is evident that this is not the simple meaning of Scripture, but the verse is speaking about [the behavior of] the Levites in the wilderness. Also, Maimonides insisted on this, for if it [the case of stealing holy vessels] were a Torah law, it would have been listed among [the sins] punishable by death by divine decree. But Nachmanides upheld the words of the Gaon, for even if the Talmud says “where is it hinted,” this does not prove that this is an asmachta [rather than the actual meaning]. Indeed, we do find cases of Torah laws, where the expression “hint” is used. They said (ibid., 83b), — 360 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

“Where is it hinted that a tevul yom [who has immersed himself, but does not become ritually clean until the end of the day] who performed sacrificial service [during that day] has profaned it?” And he, Nachmanides, proved that this is a Torah law, since it is punishable by death. Again, they said (Makkot 2b), “Where is it hinted that perjured witnesses are to be whipped by Torah law?” Also, they said in Gemara Avodah Zarah (36b) that an Israelite woman [is forbidden] to be privately [with a man other than her husband], and they further said, “Where is it hinted that this privacy is indicated in the Torah?” The above cases were mentioned by Nachmanides. Now, I have also found [such instances, such as] “Where is there a hint that burial is a Torah law?” (Sanhedrin 46b). Yet it is an enumerated positive commandment (above, Positive Commandment No. 25). I also found the words “Where is it hinted?” in the first chapter of Megillah (2a), regarding the Megillah being read on the eleventh, twelfth [etc. of Adar]. According to what is said there, this is fundamentally a rabbinic enactment, and is not due to the [suggestive reading as an] asmachta in those verses, even though the day of assembling* is based on the asmachta. So the enactment about Monday and Thursday *I.e., Monday or Thursday, was made by Ezra, who came after Mordechai and when the peasants would bring wares to the city Esther, and the editor of the Mishnah used the market; the public Torah Scriptural verses as an asmachta, as mentioned in reading was enacted on these days, and the the Yerushalmi (Megillah 4, 1). But the fact that normal times of reading several times [would be eligible for the Megillah] of the Megillah were was enacted by the sages in the original enactalterable to coincide with these days. ment. Thus, when the sages say, “Where is it 145 hinted?” this is no proof that it is an asmachta. Also, as to what Maimonides said that [the transgressing thief] is not punished with death by the heavenly tribunal, and it seems from his words that if he were among those [who incur such punishment], it would be proper to count it [as a permanent Torah commandment]; Nachmanides retorted to him that, although he is not punished by death at the hands of heaven, he does incur death at the hands of man, which 145 I have considerable doubt as to the accuracy of my translation here, and as to the cogency and utility of this section on the Megillah. Also, I don’t see that the above citation from the Yerushalmi is useful. It seems that the general idea here is that the use of the expression “hint” does not mean that the law hinted at is not essentially a Torah law, nor that it is not essentially a rabbinic enactment. — 361 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

indicates a more serious sin. For we learned in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 81b) that if one steals a holy vessel, zealous [onlookers] may strike him down. But in fact, he is also punishable by death at the hands of heaven. For they said in Gemara Sanhedrin (82b) that there cannot be a situation where the Torah makes a person not culpable, yet we can put him to death. But [the cases of] a kohen performing Temple service while unclean, and a person who is whipped [for a transgression] and then repeated it [he is incarcerated in a way that causes death], and one who steals a Temple vessel, and one who has intercourse with a gentile all incur death at the hands of heaven, and on that account we may kill them. It [the case of one who steals a holy vessel] is included in the verse “And they shall not come to see when the holy things are being covered, lest they die.” For stealing and robbing are called “covering” (bli’ah), as it is said (Job 20:15) “He swallowed (bala), [i.e., something that is swallowed is covered)] wealth, and then he shall vomit it.” It is as if to say that one who covers [or swallows] a holy vessel and steals it is to be put to death. Thus, the words of Halachot Gedolot have been upheld. And the meaning of “shall not break forth” (yitgale’a) is related to (Prov. 17:14) “leave a quarrel before it breaks forth.” It is like saying that a layman [i.e., not a kohen] should not break forth [I am assuming that yitgaleh in the text should read yitgale’a] to see the holy vessels while the Levites cover them, and also part of this is that he must not steal them. There is related to this [another] perpetual prohibition, which is that they shall not be lazy about guarding the Sanctuary. Just as there is a positive commandment that he recorded among the positive commandments (above, Positive Commandment, Stanza 46), so is there a prohibition not to abandon guarding it. The expression in the Mechilta (actually Sifre Zuta, end of Korach) is “The verse (Num. 18:4) ‘And they shall keep the charge of the Tent of Meeting’ might only imply a positive commandment. Where is there a prohibition [about this matter]? It is from (ibid., v. 5) ‘And you shall keep the charge of the Sanctuary.’”146 There is also a [separate] enumerated prohibition, that of (Lev. 16:2) “He shall not enter at any time into the holy place.” They said in the Sifra (Acharei 6) that “at any time” means during Yom Kippur; “into the holy place” includes all the other days of the year; “inside the curtain” 146 As to why “and they shall keep” is considered positive, while “you shall keep” is negative, see Yad Halevi, Prohibition No. 67, Note 1, and Pos. Comm. No. 22, note 2. — 362 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

prohibits [entering] the entire Temple147, i.e., not during service time [this last phrase is Zohar Harakia’s clarification]; one might think that the death punishment applies to the whole Temple, so Scripture says “before the ark cover which is on the ark.” How is this understood? The phrase “before the ark cover” [refers to the place where one is punishable] by death, and for the rest of the Temple, it is by a prohibition [i.e., whipping; up to here is the Sifra]. Likewise, in the Gemara Menachot (27b), they stated clearly that for the [rest of the] Temple one incurs forty [lashes]. There is also a question here why they should not be two separately counted [prohibitions], since, [although they are both included in the same clause], they are differently punished, one by death, and the other by prohibition [whipping]. And one who is unclean [shall not enter], lest he be swallowed amidst noise and calamity. It is a prohibition that an unclean kohen must not perform service. And in Sanhedrin (83b), they said, “Whence is it that an unclean kohen who performs service [is punishable] by death? It is said (Lev. 22:2) ‘Speak to Aaron and his sons that they should separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, that they do not profane, etc.’ And it is said elsewhere (ibid., v. 9) and they shall die for it, since they profane it [this is for a kohen who is unclean and eats terumah]. Just as the latter profanation is punishable by death, so is the profanation here [an unclean kohen performing service] punishable by death.” [The actual language in the Gemara is somewhat different.] That is why he says “Lest he be swallowed amidst noise and calamity,” i.e., God would swallow him amidst noise and calamity. 114. And one should not entangle his path and become burdensome; So he should not be like Korah and his rebellious comrades. The Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] counts the prohibition of (Num. 17:5) “He shall not be like Korah and his congregation.” But Maimonides differs with him about this, and said that it should not be counted. For the sages interpreted that this is a negative statement [rather than commandment], which is saying that one who challenges the priesthood [of the descendants of Aaron] will not be punished by being swallowed by the earth] or burnt like Korah and his congregation; but his punishment 147 The logic of this exegesis is explained in Chavell’s The Commandments, Vol. 2, p. 67, Note 3. — 363 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

will be leprosy, similar to the hand of Moses (Exod. 4:6). And this is the meaning of (Num. 17:5) “As the Lord spoke by the hand of Moses to him.” And Maimonides said that the rabbinic interpretation (Sanhedrin 110a) that one who persists in an argument transgresses a prohibition, as it is said, “And he will not be like Korah and his congregation,” [and this verse] is only said as an asmachta [and it is not the actual scriptural meaning]. Now, Nachmanides upheld the words of the Gaon, and he said that the way they interpreted this in the Yelamdenu (= Tanchuma) as a negative statement [rather than as a prohibition] is an asmachta, and not the fundamental meaning of the verse. It is also true, as Maimonides said, that the fundamental meaning of the verse is not a prohibition against contentiousness [generally], for there is elsewhere a prohibition about this. But the fundamental meaning of the verse is to warn against challenging the [established] priesthood, as Korah and his followers did. And this is why the Exalted One commanded that the “beaten plates as a covering for the altar” (Num. 17:3) should be “as a memorial unto the children of Israel” (ibid., v. 5). It is on two accounts, [as stated in v. 5, one being] that no layman may approach to burn and offer a sacrifice, and also [a second one] that no one should dispute the priesthood of Aaron. Now, these two prohibitions are stated with the expression “memorial” [rather than a “you shall not,” yet they] are truly prohibitions. It is in the style of (Gen. 32:33) “Therefore, the children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh vein,” and in the style of (Deut. 21:4) “which may be neither plowed nor sown” [which are also not phrased as “You shall not”]. One should not count [separately] “That no layman may approach” (Num. 17:5), since there is already another explicit prohibition for this, as it is said (Num. 18:4) “No layman shall come near to you.” But one should count “There shall be no one like Korah and his congregation” (Num. 17:5), and they attached to it [as an asmachta] any one who is insistently contentious. As to what Nachmanides wrote that not being insistently contentious belongs to another prohibition, I do not know it, unless we attach this to (Exod. 23:2) “One should follow the majority” [the rabbinic rendering of “acharei rabbim l’hatot”]. For when one follows the majority, dissension is dispelled from Israel, as they mention in Sanhedrin (82b), and they attach this to (Deut. 14:1) “lo titgodedu,” literally, “You shall not cut yourselves,” but the rabbis relate titgodedu (cut) — 364 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

to the word agudah (group), [and they translated it] “You shall not make yourselves into various groups.” Or perhaps Nachmanides had in mind the prohibition (Deut. 17:11) “You shall not turn aside,” the purpose of which is that there should not be many arguments in Israel. And in the She’iltot, in the parsha of Korah, it attaches it [the idea of not being argumentative] to “You shall not hate” (Lev. 19: 17). The meaning of “One should not entangle his path” is that one should not make his path crooked, similar to (Joel 2, 7) “they do not entangle (y’abtun) their paths,” i.e., one should not challenge the priesthood, for if he does so, it will become a trouble and burden. 115. And the service of an old Levite is not proper; And you shall not take the mother of the nest in the face of the birds. The Gaon, author of Halachot Gedolot, includes in the enumeration of prohibitions (Num. 8:25) “And from the age of fifty years they [the Levites] shall retire from the work force and serve no more.” Maimonides criticized him for this, since he thought that this prohibition is not a commandment throughout the generations, but only in the wilderness, when there was carrying on the shoulders of the Levites. But in later generations this commandment was transferred from the Levites to the kohanim, and then this prohibition became obsolete. Now, Nachmanides differed with him [Maimonides], for [in his opinion] it is unthinkable that this commandment should change during later generations, and [in fact] the Levites were never disqualified from carrying the ark on their shoulders [in later times, when there was a permanent stationary Temple, and the ark was moved only on rare occasions]. For in the time of David, they carried it [the ark] even the second time where he did it properly [the first attempt to move the ark to Jerusalem was unsuccessful, as related in 1 Chronicles 13], as it is said (1 Chr. 15:26), “And it happened, when God helped the Levites who were bearing the ark of the covenant of the Lord.” It is also written (ibid., v. 27), “And all the Levites who were carrying the ark.” But what may be said about this is that in the wilderness the Levites carried it, but in the Land [of Israel], both kohanim and Levites [were carrying it]. For carrying on the shoulder was assigned to the children of Kehat, and kohanim are included among the children of Kehat. And thus is it written (ibid., vv. 11–12), “And David called for Zadok and Abiathar — 365 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

the priests and for the Levites, Uriel, Asaiah, and Joel, etc. . . . and he said to them, ‘You are the heads of the fathers’ houses of the Levites; sanctify yourselves, you and your brothers, that you may bring up the ark of the Lord” Also, it is written there (ibid., v. 14) “And the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the Lord, God of Israel.” Likewise, it is written in the Book of Joshua (3:3), “And they commanded the people saying, ‘When you see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests the Levites bearing it, etc.’” Also, they said in Gemara Sotah (33b), “There are three places where the kohanim carried the ark: when they crossed the Jordan, when they marched around Jericho, and when they brought it back to its place.” It would seem from this that in other places the Levites carried it. When they returned it to its place, the reason is that the Levites never enter the Holy of Holies. For even in the wilderness, they would not come in there until the curtain was brought down [over the ark, see Num. 4:5] by the kohanim, as it is said (Num. 4:18) “Do not cut off the tribe of the families of Kehat, etc.” [For they might die, if they entered the Holy of Holies while the ark is uncovered]. But even if [the duty of carrying on the shoulders] was transferred from the Levites to the kohanim [as Maimonides claimed], the prohibition [about the retirement age of fifty] would not be excluded from enumeration. For anyone who may carry the ark, be he a Levite or kohen, is forbidden to carry it after his fiftieth year. As to what they stated (Chullin 24a) that age does not disqualify a kohen, this refers to priestly duties; but with respect to levitical duty, they would be disqualified by age [i.e., over fifty], just like the Levites. Now, even though we [no longer] have carrying on the shoulder, this prohibition is not excluded from the enumeration, since it applies throughout the generations at any time that there would be carrying on the shoulders. Thus, its suspension is not because it does not apply now, but because it is not needed for us now. Therefore, he [Maimonides] counts [by the same token] destroying the descendents of Amalek and the seven [Canaanite] nations among the commandments. And he gave the reasoning that a commandment is said to be applicable throughout the generation as long as it does not become terminated at a specific time or place, and even in the absence of that thing in those [later] generations [in this case, in the absence of any more Amalekites and Canaanites] which is the subject of the commandment. This is also like Maimonides’s including in the enumerated — 366 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

prohibitions, that of (Exod. 25:15) “They [the rods] shall not be removed from it [the ark],” for the rods serve only to carry the ark. Also, Nachmanides said (Principle No. 3) that this commandment is for [all] generations, since in the time of the messianic king, they will be carrying the ark in the future wars, just as Phineas did in the war with Midian. For it is said (Num. 31:6) “The holy vessels and the trumpets for alarm were in his hand,” and the Sifre states (Pinchas 37, 6) that “the holy vessels” refers to the ark. And it is just like what the sons of Eli did (1 Sam. 4:4). Therefore, he [Nachmanides] decided to include this in the enumeration of the prohibitions, according to the opinion of the Gaon, and not according to the opinion of Maimonides. And you shall not take the mother of the nest. This is an explicit prohibition, which is that of sending away [the mother bird when taking] the nest (Deut. 22:27). In the face of the birds. Some versions say [instead of “birds” (tzipporim) rocks (tzurim], based [on the phrase in the First Book of Samuel (24:2)] “upon (al p’nei) the rocks.” 116. And I will extend your days by the commandment of “You shall not deal in usury”; And He will not darken your light in a disordered land. The commandment of “You shall not deal in usury” is one of the prohibitions regarding interest [on a loan], and he has recorded some of them previously (Stanza 26). This prohibition is for the borrower that he should not borrow from his fellow if the lender bites (noshech, i.e., takes interest), and the lender would be causing him to bite [i.e., gives him interest, which explains the causative form, tashich]. He mentions being blessed with long life, for it is thus written (that one is blessed for observing this prohibition in Deut. 23:20–21) “You shall not have a loan with interest with your brother . . . in order that He will bless you.” Because of the requirement of the poetic rhyme he says “v’yamecha amshich (I will extend your days), even though the causative form (hiphil) of this verb [i.e., amshich is hiphil from mashach, pull] is not found in the literature of the sages. Similarly, he says “He will not darken your light,” [i.e., He will not take away your soul] like he said, “I will extend your days.” “In a disordered land,” i.e., without the regularities of the planets, according to the expression in Scripture (Job 10:22), “A land of thick darkness like the darkness of the shadow of death without order.” — 367 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

117. And you shall not move afar with the commandment of the Sabbath limit; And the law of the meal offering on a griddle, or baked in ovens. It is an old controversy among the early authorities as to whether the Sabbath limit [beyond which one is not to venture on the Sabbath] is a Torah law or a rabbinical law. Maimonides wrote in his Sefer Hamitzvot (Prohibition 321) that the 2,000-cubit boundary is a Torah law. But this is not evident at all, because this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, but the law is not according to him. But in his large work (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 27, 1) he wrote that the 2,000-cubit Sabbath is rabbinic, while the three-parasang boundary [twelve times as long as 2,000 cubits, which was the dimension] of the encampment of Israel, is a Torah law. He also wrote this in a responsum (No. 156), and it is also the opinion of the great authorities. They bring proof from what they state at the end of the first chapter of Eruvin (17a) that one is punished by whipping for the prohibition of [exceeding] the Sabbath limit. Also, in the Yerushalmi (Eruvin 3, 4) they said that the clearest opinion is that the boundary is 12 mils, [the extent] of the encampment of Israel. And in Gemara Shabbat, Chapter Rabbi Akiva (87b) it also appears so, since Rava and Rav Acha bar Yaakov only disagree as to whether in the commandment of the Sabbath as given at Marah [where, according to tradition, a number of commandments were given before they were given at Sinai] the statute of the Sabbath limit was given or not, but in the Sabbath commandment as given at Sinai, it seems that all agreed that they were commanded regarding the Sabbath limit. But the later authorities, Maimonides among them, decided that it comes out from the Talmudic discussions that there is no mention of the Sabbath limit at all by Torah law. For they clearly stated in places in the Talmud (Shabbat 69a and 70b) that there is a separate prohibition regarding the Sabbath boundary limits only according to Rabbi Akiva, or that there is a separate prohibition regarding kindling a fire according to Rabbi Yose [i.e., these are the two possible cases where there might be actions prohibited on the Sabbath by the Torah, yet are only punishable by whipping, whereas the many actions which comprise the prohibition of doing “work” are punishable by execution]. But according to the majority of rabbis, there is not a separate prohibition for the Sabbath limit. — 368 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

And in Chapter Mi Shehotziuhu (Eruvin 46a), it states that Rava said to Abaye that it is known that eruv laws are rabbinic [which presumably includes the law of the Sabbath limit], so therefore, this prohibition should not be counted. And you shall not move afar (v’lo timot rabat) is based on the verse (Ps. 62:3) “I shall not be greatly moved (lo emot rabah),” a large movement. We find the word rabat [usually a possessive form, used by ibn Gabirol, rather than the normal form rabah] used also for the separated form (the normal nonpossessive form), e.g. (Ps. 123:4), “Our soul is much (rabat) sated,” and (Ps. 129:1) “Much (rabat) have they afflicted me from my youth.” And the law of the meal offering on a griddle, etc. In the section on meal offerings, there is a prohibition not to bake the remainder of the meal offerings [i.e., not only is there a prohibition against there being leaven in the meal offering proper, but also in leftover dough, which is eaten by the kohanim], as it is said (Lev. 6:10), “It shall not be baked with leaven, their portion, etc.” This is to say that the portion of the kohanim is subject to the law of “It shall not be baked.” Likewise, they state in the Mishnah Menachot (5, 3) that one is guilty for baking it [even if during the earlier stages there was no leavening, and just when the remainder for the kohanim was being baked the dough had leavened]. There is also another prohibition in that section, which applies to all sacrifices, and that is not to omit salt from the sacrifice, as it is said (Lev. 12:13) “You shall not omit salt.” So these are the “laws of the meal offering on the griddle and that baked in ovens,” as well as of other meal offerings and sacrifices. 118. And your house will not be destroyed, [if you keep the injunction] not to loosen; And the commandments of not forgetting, two of them having been stated. The poet promises that if a person keeps the commandments of “It shall not be loosened,” his house will not be destroyed like “the house of the haughty” (Prov. 15:25), [where the verb yisach used in this stanza, is there used to mean “cut off”]. This is the prohibition that the breastplate must not be separated from the ephod. And at the end of Makkot (20a), they said, “But there is the case of one who loosens the breastplate, whose prohibition is from the verse (Exod. 28:28) ‘It shall not be loosened.’” They spoke similarly about removing the rods of the ark — 369 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

(on the basis of Exod. 25:15), which he mentions below (Stanza 125). And in the Gemara Yoma (72a) they state that these two prohibitions, as well as the prohibition about tearing the opening of the robe [of the ephod, on the basis of Exod. 28:32], are enumerated as commandments. Nachmanides (Additional Prohibition No. 3) includes [among commandments relating to proper sanctuary rituals] not to alter the order of setting up the utensils from the verse (Exod. 12:13), “And you shall be heedful in everything I have said to you.” For they said in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 20, 220, v. 13): “Why is it said, ‘And you shall be heedful in everything I have said to you?’ Since it says (Exod. 26:35), ‘And you shall set the table, etc.,’ it is [further] said, ‘And you shall be heedful in everything I have said to you’ [to tell us] that if one altered them, he has transgressed a prohibition [the verb tishameru often having the force of a prohibition].” This is the actual law. The laws of “You shall not forget” were not enumerated by Maimonides, although they were in the Halachot Gedolot. The first [of the two] is that we should not forget our belief in God, which is expressed in Deut. (6:12) “Be you heedful lest you forget the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.” And I am puzzled by both of them [Halachot Gedolot and Maimonides]. For according to Maimonides, who counts [as the first of his positive commandments] the statement (Exod. 20:2) “I am, etc.,” he should also count this one [not to forget] among the negative commandments, which corresponds to it. And according to the opinion of the Gaon [author of Halachot Gedolot], who does not count the statement “I am, etc.,” he should likewise not have counted this one [not to forget]. But Nachmanides decided to also include this statement (“I am, etc.”) in his enumeration, and according to his decision it is also appropriate to have this prohibition in his enumeration. Now, the second one [commandment of not forgetting] is that we should not forget having stood at Mt. Sinai. This is expressed (Deut. 4:9–10) as “But be heedful and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that you do not forget the thing that you saw with your own eyes, and so that they do not depart from your heart . . . the day when you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb.” Also, Nachmanides enumerated it (Additional Prohibition No. 2). There is some proof that this prohibition should be part of the enumeration as related to forgetting standing at Sinai or related to forgetting the Torah, from what is stated in — 370 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Menachot (99b): Resh Lakish said that anyone who forgets even one thing that he learned transgresses a prohibition, as it is written “But be heedful and watch yourselves scrupulously that you do not forget, etc.” This is also in accordance with R. Avin, who said (Eruvin 96a) that any where it says hishamer (be heedful), pen (lest), or al (do not), this must be a prohibition. This prohibition is in my opinion an enumerated prohibition, in any event, and one who transgresses it is punishable by whipping. But it does not refer to forgetting Mt. Sinai, but it refers to being heedful about his own life, for they state in Chapter Shevuat Ha’edut (Sh’vuot 36a) that if one curses himself, he is punishable by whipping, as it is said, “Be heedful and watch yourselves scrupulously,” and as Rabbi Avin said that any place that it is said hishamer, pen, or al, this must be a prohibition. Maimonides, in fact, wrote this in his major work (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin, 6, 3). But he wrote there that this law is derived from the general statement forbidding cursing others [besides particular cases, like the deaf, who are mentioned in the Torah], but this does not seem so from the Gemara [where the law against cursing oneself is derived from the verse “Be heedful,” as explained above].* *In the Mishneh Torah, however, There are apparently two prohibitions he seems to say that it is derived here (in Deut. 4:9–10). The one concerns from “Be heedful,” the previous contrary statement by Zohar guarding one’s life, and it is repeated in Harakia notwithstanding. A very (Deut. 4:15) “Take heed well for your- long and far-ranging discussion of selves,” and this is also borne out in the problem is given Perlow in his work on Saadyah’s enumeration, Chapter En Omdin (Berachot 32b), and Prohibitions 47 and 48. In Yad from this is derived the prohibition about Halevi, we find a simple solution to this ambivalence. Maimonides uncovered water, and the stringency holds that one who curses himself about this exceeds that for [explicit] prois forbidden by the general prohibition against cursing hibitions of the Torah, as is seen in the people. But the verse “Be heedful” final chapter of Chullin (10a). is used to show that just as one is The second prohibition that I mennot supposed to injure others, so he is not supposed to injure his tioned (in Deut. 4:9–10) is about forgetown person, and thus, he himself ting that standing [at Sinai]. Both of these is included along with all Israelites under “You shall not curse.” may be enumerated although they are included in one negative statement, for Maimonides did similarly in the case of war spoils and inheritance of land in Israel (see above Stanza 85). And Nachmanides did similarly in counting leaven and honey separately (see Stanza 68), since there is a — 371 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

specific verse that divides [the two subjects].* It is also possible that being heedful not to endanger oneself, say, by uncovered water, is included in (Deut. 22: 8) “That you do not bring blood-guilt in your house.” There is another “You shall not forget” which is enumerated, and this is not to forget the deed of Amalek, as it is said (Deut. 25:19) “You shall eradicate the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.” And if the verse (Deut. 9:7) “Remember and do not forget how you provoked anger,” is dubious [as to its being an enumerated commandment] as Nachmanides (Additional Positive Commandments No. 7) was doubtful about its being a positive commandment, whether it is a positive commandment for all generations or not. Then also [the prohibition against] forgetting would not be in the enumeration [because of the doubt whether it applied to future generations]. As they stated in the Sifra (Bechukotai 2, 3): “One might think [that remembering ‘how you provoked anger’ means remembering] in your heart. But the words do not forget already expresses [not] forgetting in one’s heart.”148 When he says, “two of them having been stated,” this is not grammatical, since this combines a masculine form (“having been stated,” ne’emarim) with a feminine form (“two,” sh’tayim).149

*That is, if items A and B are included in one statement, they are not listed as two separate commandments; however, if there is a separate verse in the Torah covering item A, this allows A and B to be counted separately. In our particular case, we have verse Deut. 4:9–10, which covers both not endangering one’s own life and not forgetting the happening at Mt. Sinai. We have additionally Deut. 4:15 which applies just to not endangering one’s life, and thus, the two matters may be counted separately.

119. And the commandment of “Do not kindle,” and the commandment of “Do not lie”; And the commandment of “You shall not sell,” [and] the field of open spaces around cities. There is disagreement among the sages as to why the Torah says specifically “You shall not kindle” (Exod. 35:3), since all kinds of work 148 So the additional implication of “remember” is that one should verbalize this. Furthermore, one sees that both “remembering” and “not forgetting” have separate implications, and also that if one is subject to doubt, so is the other. 149 This poetic license was used, since sh’tayim is correct to agree with mitzvoth (commandments), which is feminine. But the wrong masculine form, ne’emarim, is used to fit in with the rhyme scheme, where every stanza ends with the sound rim. — 372 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

are included in the general prohibition [of not working on the Sabbath]. Some say it indicates that it is different in being forbidden only as a usual prohibition [punishable only by whipping, while other kinds of work are subject to capital punishment]. Others say it is to separate [various types of work, which means that if one does various types of work unintentionally, he must bring a sin offering for each type]. If so [that it merely clarifies the commandment of not doing work], why should it be included in the enumeration of the commandments [in addition to the commandment of not working]? But we should include here a subject which should be included in the enumeration of the commandments, and this is that the court should not burn someone guilty of a crime punishable by burning, on the Sabbath. The same applies to other types of capital punishment, which also do not override the Sabbath [even though punishment by the court is a positive commandment, and positive commandments often do override prohibitions]. And in the Mechilta (Vayakhel 1, 6), they state concerning “You shall not kindle” that burning is part of the general law [of forbidden work on the Sabbath], and it is singled out to teach that just as burning is specifically one kind of capital punishment, and does not override the Sabbath, so no other kinds of capital punishment override the Sabbath. And in the Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 4, 6), they state concerning “In all your habitations” (also Exod. 35:3) that Rabbi Illa said in the name of Rabbi Yose that from this phrase one learns that courts of law should not be conducted on the Sabbath [“habitations” is also used elsewhere in connection with courts]. And the commandment “Do not lie” is a prohibition that one who denies [that he owes] money, should not swear falsely. And in the Sifra (Kedoshim 24, 3), they say regarding “Do not lie” (Lev. 19:11) that, since it is said (Lev. 5:22), “[if he] swore falsely” we learn that there is a punishment. But where do we see a prohibition expressed? It is from “Do not lie.” And in the Gemara Shevuot [actually in Bava Kamma 105b], they said that if one swore in [false] denial of money [owed], he transgresses two prohibitions, “Do not lie” (Lev. 19:11) and “You shall not swear falsely in my name” (Lev. 19:12). And the commandment “You shall not sell” is written in the Torah (Lev. 25:23) “And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity.” Maimonides counted it (Prohibition No. 227) and said that it is a prohibition that we shall not sell our inherited land as an absolute sale, as it is said, “And — 373 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

the land shall not be sold in perpetuity.” But to Nachmanides, it does not seem correct that this prohibition would apply to such an action. But it seems to him, according to what is mentioned about this in the Yerushalmi (Demai 5, 8) that the prohibition means that we should not sell land to someone who would not return it at the Jubilee year, i.e., a gentile [assuming that Jewish rule over the land does not exist]. Thus, he decided to include it in the enumeration, although the Halachot Gedolot does not count it, since he considers it a negative statement [that sale of land is valid subject to its return at the Jubilee year], not a prohibition. [And] the field of open spaces around the cities. There is another prohibition to which the poet refers here, which is (Lev. 25:34) “And the fields of the open land about their cities may not be sold.” It is explained at the end of Arachin (33b) that the meaning of this prohibition is that they should not make their planted fields into open fields, or open fields into planted fields. There are two other prohibitions similar to these [i.e., something that cannot be sold or exchanged] which are part of the enumeration, and they are (Lev. 27:28) “Anything that has been proscribed [for the Lord] shall not be sold or redeemed.” These prohibitions concern one who has proscribed his field, that he should not sell it to someone else, and should not redeem it, but it should belong to the kohen, and so is it stated in the Sifre (B’chukotai 110, 4). 120. And the commandment of diverse kinds, and the upper millstone or the mill, And for weights of scales in merchant pouches. The poet includes three prohibitions in “the commandment of diverse kinds,” i.e., diverse kinds of the vineyard, diverse kinds of seeds, and diverse kinds of animals, and I have already written about this above (Stanza 17). Aside from the [above-mentioned] sowing of diverse kinds of the vineyard, there, there is a fourth prohibition, which is not to eat the fruits of diverse kinds of the vineyard. For it is said (Deut. 22:9) “lest (pen) . . . be forfeited (tikdash),” and they explained in chapter 4 of Kiddushin (56b) that [pen tikdash means] pen tukad esh (lest it have to be burned in fire). They have already stated (Eruvin 96a) that anywhere it is said hishamer (be heedful), pen [which is our case], or al (do not), this indicates a prohibition. And the upper millstone or the mill. This prohibition is that one should not take as a pledge instruments used to prepare needed food, as — 374 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

it is said (Deut. 24:6) “No one shall take the mill or the upper millstone as a pledge.” And it is said in the Mishnah Bava Metzia (9, 13) that this does not just apply to the mill and upper millstone, but to anything needed to prepare food, as it is said (ibid.), “For he is taking a person’s life as a pledge.” Now, this prohibition is not counted as two, even though they have stated (Bava Metzia 115a) that [if one took as pledge both a mill and an upper millstone], he is guilty for the mill separately and for the upper millstone separately. This does not make us count it as two prohibitions, for undoubtedly if one took as pledge many utensils, he is guilty for each and every one, just like one who takes as pledge clothing from many widows (see Deut. 24:17). And the sages of the Talmud would not have even needed to mention this [that one is separately guilty for the mill and the upper millstone], since it is obvious, but because the work is performed by the mill and upper millstone jointly, one might have considered them but a single commandment, and he would only be subject to a single whipping for both of them. Therefore, they explained to us they are like two separate instruments, for which he would be separately guilty for each. And for weights of scales. This is the prohibition that we should not have defective weights and measures, as it is said (Deut. 25:13) “You shall not have in your bag diverse weights, etc.” Even though this prohibition is repeated in (ibid., v. 14) “You shall not have in your house various ephahs” as I wrote above, this is only counted as a single commandment, for all of it just completes the content, as is known from the Principles (No. 9). It is forbidden to keep them, even just to use them [measuring vessels] as a chamber pot (Bava Batra 89b). He has previously (Stanza 31) recorded the prohibition “You shall not falsify measures of length, etc.” (Lev. 19:35). 121. And the commandment of “You shall not take a pledge” you shall bear on your shoulder, So your leaf will not wither, and you will flourish like palm trees. This is the prohibition not to take a pledge from a widow, whether poor or rich, as it is said (Deut. 24:17) “You shall not take a widow’s garment as a pledge.” The expression in the Mishnah in Bava Metzia (9, 13) is “One may not exact a pledge from a widow, whether she is poor or — 375 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

rich.” He [the poet] assures us that if we bear this commandment on our shoulder, our leaf will not wither (see Ps. 1:3), and we will flourish and grow like a palm tree (see Ps. 92:13). 122. And the law of “You shall not add on” and the law of “You shall not defile,” And the law of “You shall not round off the edges of the head,” like the [pagan] priests. This is the prohibition not to add on to the commandments, e.g., like having five scriptural portions in the tefillin, or five tzitait fringes, or five species involved with the lulav, etc., where one adds on to the commandment itself, as it is said (Deut. 13:1) “You shall not add on to it.” And at the end of Eruvin (100a) and in Zevachim (80a), it is stated “You have transgressed against ‘You shall not add.’” And the law of “You shall not defile” (Num. 35:33). The Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] counted this, but Maimonides did not, because this statement is merely giving a reason for the prohibition of murder, and anything that just gives a reason [or consequences of sinful acts] is not to be enumerated, as is known from the Principles (Principle No. 5). But Nachmanides (on Principle 5) defended the Halachot Gedolot for enumerating it from what is said in the Sifre (Massei 30, 33) that the verse “And you shall not defile the land” is a prohibition against insincerity [the word tachanifu, translated here as defile, also has the meaning of insincerity or flattery]. It is appropriate in this place [in the verse concerning murder], since one must not show flattery to a murderer [i.e., make a pretense, for whatever reason, that the murderer should not bear the full penalty of the law]. And Nachmanides also discussed that both Maimonides and Halachot Gedolot neglected [to enumerate] a related prohibition. This is (Num. 35:33) “And the land can have no expiation for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.” He brings as proof for this what is stated in the Gemara Ketubot (37b) when they identify two prohibitive verses forbidding taking monetary ransom [rather than the specified punishment for murder], the one being unintentional [murder] and the other being intentional. They raise the question why there is [yet a third expression regarding this matter, i.e.], “And the land can have no expiation for the blood.” From this quotation, it seems that it [i.e., “and the land . . . blood”] was considered by them as a prohi— 376 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

bition. Nevertheless, Nachmanides says that it is possible that these prohibitions are not included in the enumeration, since all of them are prohibitions about a murderer, forbidding the same thing. And it is already known from the Principles (No. 9) that repeated prohibitions are counted only as one. And the law of “You shall not round off” (Lev. 19:27). This is the prohibition not to round off the temples of the head, making one’s side growth like the area behind the ears [i.e., equally hairless]. Removal [of hair] all around the head (Yevamot 5a) is also considered rounding off [i.e., although the Torah talks specifically about the side growth, it also addresses the case of removing all the hair on the head, since it includes the side growth]. This was the practice of the [idolatrous] priests [i.e., they shaved their side growth]. There is here only a single enumerated commandment, even though they state (Makkot 20b) that this is a prohibition for the one who cuts around [someone else’s head] and a prohibition for one whose head is cut around [by someone else]. Also, one is separately culpable for each side [of the head]. Nevertheless, there is no separate prohibitive statement for the one who shaves, the one who is shaved, and for each temple. 123. And the commandment of “You shall not diminish” you shall never annul; And the law of one who has defamed, making false accusations. This is the prohibition that we should not diminish the commandments, like [with] three phylactery portions, and similar cases. And thus they state (Eruvin 100a) “One thus transgresses ‘You shall not diminish’ (Deut. 13:1).” And the law of one who has defamed is the prohibition that he [the defamer] may not divorce his wife, as it is said (Deut. 22:19) “He may not send her away all his life.” And if he did divorce her, he must fulfill the positive part of the commandment, “And she shall be his wife.” But if he is a kohen, who is forbidden to marry a divorcee, or if she died before he [Levite or Israelite] could marry her again, then he would be punished by whipping. Also, there is a similar enumerated commandment concerning one who rapes a woman (Deut. 22:29). 124. About the commandment “Do not lift” you shall never act corruptly; — 377 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

And the commandment that one should not add on in striking those being punished. This is a prohibition that iron should not touch the stones of the altar, as it is said (Exod. 20: 22) “You shall not build it of hewn stones.” He [the poet] already wrote (Stanza 14) “You shall not build it hewn.” The prohibition is repeated [in the Torah], as it is said (Deut. 27:5) “You shall build there an altar to the Lord your God . . . You shall not lift iron tools over them.” What he says “You shall never act corruptly” (tachanifu) is a word play related to (Dan. 11:32) “He will corrupt (yachanif) with smooth talk.” [This alludes to the requirement] that the stones of the altar must be smooth and flaws in them make them invalid. And the commandment that one should not add on is a prohibition to the court that they should not whip excessively those who incur whipping—i.e., those being punished (nosarim), as in the expression (Deut. 21:18) “And they shall punish (v’yisru) him”—more than the limit prescribed in the Torah, which is thirty-nine [lashes]. And if they added even one stroke, they have transgressed against not adding. And they stated in the Sifre (Tetze 153, 3) “One might think that this only applies to the limit of forty strokes. Whence is it known that it also applies to cases where the court has estimated [that the perpetrator can survive only a smaller number of strokes], whatever that estimated amount may be? It is from the verse repeating (in Deut. 25:3) ‘One should not add on’ and ‘Lest he add on.’” And an individual striking his fellow is included in this prohibition, as it is mentioned in the third chapter of Ketubot (32b) and in other places (Sanhedrin 85a, Makkot 8b).150 125. And the law of “You shall not stray,” and the law of “You shall not fear,” And the law of “They shall not be removed,” and the law of an oath of self-denial. You shall not stray (Num. 15:39) is the prohibition against thinking wistfully about idol worship and forbidden sexual relations. This is as the sages explained that “after your heart” (ibid.) means heresy, and “after your eyes” means sexual immorality, as mentioned in Berachot (12b) and in the Sifre (Sh’lach 70). It is plausible to count them as two commandments, for their content is different, one being heresy and 150 See Maimonides’s Prohibition 300. — 378 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

the other being sexual immorality. [Furthermore,] Scripture separates them by saying (ibid.) “After your heart and after your eyes,” and not just “After you heart and your eyes.” And so have I seen it among those who enumerated the commandments. And the law of “You shall not fear” is a prohibition to a judge that he should not be afraid of saying the truth. The text of the Sifre (Devarim 17) says, “[The verse] ‘You shall not be afraid of any man’ [Deut. 1: 17] [means the following]. You might say ‘I am afraid of this person since he might kill me, or burn down my silo, or cut down my plantings.’ Therefore, Scripture says, ‘You shall not be afraid of any man.’” There is another enumerated commandment which deals with a false prophet, and which says “You shall not fear him.” (Deut. 18:22) Thus, they interpreted this in the Sifre (Shof’tim 71, 21) that “you shall not fear him” means that you should not refrain from proclaiming his guilt. [This last sentence is added in accordance with MS text.] And the law of “They shall not be removed” is the prohibition not to remove the rods of the Ark. And thus do they mention in Yoma (72a) and in Makkot (22a), that this is an enumerated commandment. Now, the Halachot Gedolot enumerates [another commandment with the same verb, i.e., lo yasuru, meaning “They shall not be removed,” while lo tasur means “You shall not turn away”], i.e., “And you shall not turn away from any of the words which I command you” (Deut. 28:14). It is not correct to enumerate it, since it is one of the commandments that includes the whole Torah, as is known from the Principles (No. 4). But Nachmanides defended him, since he [Nachmanides] does not [generally] enumerate commandments that cover the whole Torah, except in this case, since it is significant in that it adds a prohibitory character to all the positive commandments collectively [thus making transgressions of any positive commandment more serious]. This is similar to what is said (Deut. 27:26) “Cursed is he who does not uphold the words of this law to do them.” Also, in another place, it is written (Deut. 5:29) “You shall observe to do that which the Lord your God commanded; and you shall not deviate to the right or left.” Nevertheless, Nachmanides, although he defended the Gaaon [Halachot Gedolot] that he does not include all-inclusive commandments, he does not agree with his enumeration [of this as an exceptional case], since this is not a prohibition [altogether] but [is part of] the promise included among the blessings [of verses 1–14] that they will become “the head and not the tail” (v. 13) — 379 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

if they will not151 turn away from the words of God. If, however, it is to be understood as a prohibition, it is regarding idolatry alone, since the end of the verse is “To go after other gods to serve them.” Now, there are many prohibitions regarding idolatry, but they are not all enumerated separately, as is known from the Principles (No. 9). And the law of an oath of self-denial is a prohibition for a person who forbids himself something with an oath, that he should not break his word, as it is said (Num. 30:3) “He shall not break his word.” The sages explained that “he shall not break (yachel) his word” means that he should not make his words permissive [the word yachel is related to chullin = permitted food]. And in Shevuot (20b), it states that [if one transgresses] a konam vow [whose language differs from an “oath” in that the konam says “Object A is forbidden to me,” rather than the oath expression, “I take an oath not to benefit from object A”], he [also] transgresses “He shall not break his word.” There is a positive commandment about this also, i.e. (Num. 30:3), “According to all that comes out from his mouth he shall do.” 126. And the law of “I have not eaten,” and the law of “I have not removed,” And the law of “I have not given” for the dead who are cut off. These prohibitions refer to second tithe [that tithe which is set aside for consumption in Jerusalem]. One is forbidden to eat it while in mourning, or in a condition of impurity, and one may not utilize it for anything but eating and drinking. The prohibition for these commandments is expressed by the verse (Deut. 26, 14), “I have not eaten it in my mourning,” which implies (Ma’aser Sheni, 5, 12) that it is forbidden to an onen [a mourner before the burial]; “I have not removed any of it while unclean,” which is a prohibition against eating second tithe while unclean, which they state (Sifre, Tavo 14, 14) means whether the person is impure while the tithe is pure, or the person is pure while the tithe is impure; “and I have not given of it for the dead,” from which it is inferred that the second tithe money [gotten by selling the second tithe produce] may only be spent for eating and drinking. This prohibition even extends to spending for the needs of a corpse that one is commanded to provide for it a casket and shrouds. This is how Maimonides (Prohibitions 150– 151 I am translating this assuming that the text should be k’shelo, not v’shelo. — 380 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

152) explained [these commandments]. Furthermore, he stated (end of Eighth Principle) that these prohibitions, although not expressed in the language of a negative commandment, but by the person who makes the declaration [regarding his use of tithes] negating [the forbidden actions], “I have not done thus and so,” they are still in the category of prohibitions, and one who transgresses them is punishable by whipping. Also, the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] counts them, and the poet [ibn Gabirol] follows him. Now, Nachmanides differs with him and says that these verses constitute prohibitions derived from positive statements [which generally do not incur punishment by whipping]. For we, the living, are commanded to eat this in purity and with happiness, not with mournfulness, nor with impurity; and we are not to give it to the dead. However, one is not to be whipped for them on account of these prohibitions. A proof for this is what they [the sages] include under “I have not removed any of it while unclean” the law that one should not ignite impure second tithe under what he is cooking [on the basis of the double meaning of lo bi’arti, “I have not removed” and “I have not burned”], as is mentioned in Chapter He’arel (Yevamot 73b). Now, if this was an actual prohibition, one who ignited this material under what he was cooking, he would be whipped, and no one has ever said such a thing, and Maimonides himself does not say this. He [Nachmanides] brought another proof from what they said there, “Rabbi Shimon says that ‘I have not removed any of it while unclean’ means whether I am unclean and it is clean, or it is unclean and I am clean. And where is this prohibited?” So they were seeking a prohibitive statement from another place on which to base punishment by whipping. Similarly, Rashi wrote in Chapter Kol Sha’ah (Pesachim 24a) that “I have not removed any of it while unclean” is just a declaration, so they brought a prohibition from another place. Therefore, Nachmanides said that the prohibition of “I have not removed any of it” should not be enumerated, and likewise “I have not eaten any of it in my mourning” and “I have not given of it for the dead,” for there is no whipping for them, and if one purchased [from the second tithe money] a coffin or shrouds, he is not whipped, and nobody ever said this [i.e., that they should be whipped]. Nachmanides further attacked Maimonides, since they stated (Berachot 40b) that “I have not forgotten” (Deut. 26:14) [refers to forgetting] to “recall your name” for it [i.e., reciting a blessing — 381 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

upon separating second tithe]; and it is known that if one separated and did not recite a blessing, he has not transgressed a prohibition, and the same applies to the other negative statements. It is somewhat difficult for me, regarding the prohibition of an onen eating holy food or second tithe, [to say] on which commandment we should base this, if [as Nachmanides asserts] there is no [clear-cut] prohibitive statement. As for the prohibition about uncleanness they are based on other prohibitions, and they are included in the enumeration. But, as for the other prohibitions derived from this verse, which according to Maimonides are positive commandments derived from negative statements, I cannot find any basis for them any place. And we would have to add these among the positive commandments together with prohibitions derived from positive statements [since the latter are legally considered as positive commandments], and this needs further clarification [see Ziv Hazohar, note 712]. Perhaps everything might be included in [the commandment] that we are commanded to eat second tithe in Jerusalem, which we have already among the positive commandments.152 127. And regarding the law of a pledge you shall judge righteously; And the portion about the lay person, and the portion about the officers. Regarding the law of a pledge [for an unpaid loan] there are two prohibitions. The one is that [a lender] should not take a pledge from a debtor on his own, but only through a court order, as it is said (Deut. 24:10) “You shall not enter his house to take his pledge.” The text of the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 9, 13) says that if one lends to his fellow, he should not take a pledge except through the court, and one should not go into his house to take his pledge [but the borrower should bring it outside]. The second prohibition is that we should not hold back the pledge of a poor person which is in our possession while he needs it, as it is said (Deut. 24:12) “You shall not go to sleep with his pledge,” and they explain it in the Sifre (Tetze 143, 12) as “You shall not go to sleep while his pledge is with you.” And the portion about the layman and the portion about the 152 This last sentence is absent in our manuscript version. — 382 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

officers. According to the way the commentator on the Azharot [of ibn Gabirol] explains it, and we have no better explanation, [the word layman here] means the kohen who is anointed for [functions relating to] war, since he is a layman [i.e., of lower status] relative to the High Priest. In that section [dealing with the role of the kohen before battle, Deut. 20:2], there is a prohibition (Deut. 20:1) “You shall not be afraid of them,” and similarly (v. 3) “Do not fear nor be alarmed nor be frightened from them.” Now, Maimonides wrote (Prohibition No. 58) that anyone who becomes afraid and retreats and flees, has transgressed a prohibition, expressed by (Deut. 7:21) “You shall not be frightened by them,” and the prohibition is repeated by (Deut. 3:22) “You shall not fear them,” and the officers repeat this to the people (Deut. 20:8). Now, Nachmanides eliminates this from the enumeration, saying that this is not a prohibition but a promise [i.e., it means that you will not be afraid; you will, in fact, be confident, having no need to be afraid]. For if it were a prohibition, the officers would not be adding and saying that (Deut. 20:8) “whichever man is fearful and faint-hearted” should publicly proclaim his sin and go back home. But Nachmanides [by not counting the commandment “You shall not be afraid”] does not diminish the number of commandments by this omission, since he does include one commandment on this matter (Nachmanides’s Additional Prohibition No. 10). It is for one who is “fearful and faint-hearted” that he should not go into the battle, as it is said (Deut. 20:8), “He shall not make his brothers’ heart melt like his heart,” i.e., he should not go in and cause his brothers’ heart to melt like his heart; and also the Halachot Gedolot counted this. 128. And all the Torah portions, which express wisdoms, Which in arid deserts are a place of flowing rivers. The Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] enumerated among the commandments, sixty-five Torah portions which apply to the community, like the portion about the great court, and the minor courts, and civil laws. Later, scholars were unable to fathom his intention. For Maimonides criticized him for enumerating certain prefaces to commandments as [actual commandments]. Also, Nachmanides, although he defended him [Halachot Gedoloot] about that, admitted that he himself did not rightly understand him, for he counts general statements among specific commandments and prohibitions among positive command— 383 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

ments. Since this does not interfere with the enumeration of the commandments, I will not deal with it at length, except for the one matter included among the “Torah portions.” This is the prohibition which Maimonides did not record, but the Halachot Gedolot wrote “the Torah portion of inheritance” and the “Torah portion of the law of the first born.” Nachmanides wrote that this refers to the prohibition that we may not transfer the inheritance of the first born to the son of the loved one, and therefore, he included it in the enumeration of the commandments (Additional Commandment No. 12). But concerning the verse (Num. 36:7) “No inheritance shall pass, etc.,” they have already stated in Chapter Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 102a) that it only applied to that generation. Therefore, it was a temporary commandment, and should not be included in the enumeration, as is known from the Principles (No. 3). The meaning of “which express wisdoms” means [that the Torah portions] bring forth wisdoms to saturate thirsty souls [as indicated by the rest of the stanza]. 129. And there are seventy one cases whose deeds incur death; And these are enumerated, and they are mentioned in Scripture. And the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] also counts 277 prohibitions in his list of prohibitions, and seventy-one sins punishable by death. The poet mentions them individually, and in each case, I will explain his intention and the intentions of those who disagree with him and what should properly be enumerated. 130. He who gives his son to Molech in his great wickedness, And he who blasphemes his salvation while lifting his hand. And one who blasphemes his salvation. He speaks of God with the term salvation, since He is the God of our salvation (Ps. 79:9). This is the prohibition against cursing God, which in included in the verse (Exod. 22:7) “You shall not revile God,” which he already mentioned (Stanza 15), and there I explained [why here two separate commandments are attached to a single verse]. When he says “while lifting his hand,” he alludes to the verse (Num. 15:30) “but a person who acts with a high hand [i.e., defiantly].”

— 384 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

131. And he who entices and he who profanes, and the drunkard and glutton son; And he who strikes or curses, and he who leads cities astray. [The poet] has not yet mentioned the prohibition of enticing, this prohibition being that one may not seduce any person in Israel into idol worship, and if he does so, he must be put to death. The prohibition is mentioned in the verse (Deut. 13:12) “And all Israel will hear and see and will no longer do.” I already wrote about this above (Stanza 23), and they said this in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 67a). “And he who profanes” refers to profaning the Sabbath, which is punishable by stoning. [The poet] already wrote above (Stanza 59) “And to put aside all work on Sabbaths to make them acceptable.” And so did the Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] count, among those punishable by stoning, the person who profanes the Sabbath; and he [also] includes among his prohibitions “You shall not do work on the Sabbath.” Maimonides argues with him for enumerating both the prohibition and the punishment. Now, Nachmanides defended the Gaon, that he did not mean that “you shall not do work” applies to kinds of work punishable by stoning, but to the kind that only is prohibited [and punishable by whipping, not execution]. This applies to one who drives his animal on the Sabbath, which is forbidden by a prohibition, but is not subject to the death penalty, as is mentioned in the last chapter of Shabbat (154a). Nevertheless, this argument has no bearing at all on the enumeration of the commandments, for I have already written above (Positive Commandments, Stanza 5) how the punishments are properly counted. But I am wondering why we should not count two prohibitions regarding the Sabbath, one being [work] punishable by death, and the other being [work only subject to a] prohibition, i.e., driving an animal. And even if there would be only a single prohibitory statement, it would be propter to separate them because of the difference of punishment, just as is customarily done for other prohibitions, where there is a difference of punishment, and certainly if there are several prohibitions [as in our case]. And the drunkard and glutton son. The drunken and glutton son has no prohibition except that it is included in (Lev. 19:26) “You shall not eat over blood.” And the poet has already written (Stanza 48), “You shall not eat over the blood of my early daily offering.” There, I wrote about all the opinions expressed concerning this prohibition. He writes — 385 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

it [again here], not to be an addition to the enumeration, but only [to indicate] that it is punishable by death. And he who strikes or curses speaks about [doing these actions] to his father or his mother. If one strikes his father, he is punishable by strangulation, and for one who curses it is by stoning. Now, Maimonides counts them as separate prohibitions, even though they do not have specific prohibitions [saying “You shall not strike” and “You shall not curse”]. But the one who strikes is included in (Deut. 25:3) “One should not exceed in striking.” As they said in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 61, 15), “From the verse ‘He who strikes his father or mother’ (Exod. 21:15) we understand a punishment. From where is the prohibition? [There is a general rule that the Torah does not specify a punishment unless it also has an explicit or implicit prohibitive statement]. It is from the verse (Deut. 25:3) ‘He may strike him forty times, but he should not exceed.’ Now, one may deduce from minor to major, that if in the case of a person for whom it is a commandment to strike him, one is forbidden to strike him [beyond the legal limit], it is so much more forbidden in the case of one for whom there is no commandment to strike him at all, one is prohibited to strike him.” As for him who curses, he is included in [the prohibition of)] “You shall not curse elohim.” (Exod. 22:27) As it is stated in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 67), “From the verse (ibid., 21:17) ‘One who curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death’ we understand the punishment. From where is the prohibition? If your father is a judge, Scripture states ‘You shall not curse elohim.’ If he happens to be a ruler, he is included in (Exod. 2:27) ‘You shall not curse a ruler among your people.’ If he is an ordinary man, he is included in (Lev. 19:14) ‘You shall not curse a deaf person’ [which is understood to apply to every Israelite]. You can thus derive a binyan av [a rabbinic interpretation of a verse or verses in which the specific case mentioned is extended to other cases whose essential features are similar] from these three [judge, ruler, and deaf person]. Their common feature is that they are members of you r nation, and you are forbidden to curse them, so your father is one of your nation, and thus you are forbidden to curse him,” and thus did they explain in the Sifra (Kedoshim 34, 13). But Nachmanides differs with him [Maimonides], and he says that one should not count these prohibitions [separately], but they are included with the rest of Israel. And when they said in the Mechilta that — 386 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

if [the person cursed] was his father and a ruler, then he is guilty on account of his father, and a ruler, and a judge, and being one of your nation, it does not imply four prohibitions. But there are three prohibitions, and the punishment [of death] on account of the father is added to them [the other three]. This is similar to what they said (Makkot 17b) [about the statement that] if one ate a fire offering whose blood had not been sprinkled, he is punished by whipping five times. [They proposed that the actual intention was not five whippings, but just that this action involves] five prohibitions. Nachmanides wrote that Maimonides was acting according to the custom of the Halachot Gedolot, who counted under the prohibition of “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod. 20:13) the cases of a betrothed maiden, the fully married woman, and the daughter of a kohen [as three separate enumerated prohibitions] because they differ in their punishments. Now, he [Maimonides] disagreed with him [Halachot Gedolot]. But here he [Maimonides] follows the same method with regard to striking and cursing. But he himself [Nachmanides] also counted “You shall not eat over the blood” as two commandments (in his criticism of Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 195), because of a difference in punishment. So how can he raise an objection here [in the case of striking]. Also, Maimonides counted “And do not mention the name of other gods” (Exod. 23:13) as two commandments [Prohibitions 14 and 26] on the basis of different punishments. Also, according to him, “You shall not curse elohim” (Exod. 22:27) is counted for two prohibitions, as I have written (Stanzas 15 and 48). But in the case of striking or cursing, it is plausible to enumerate them thus [separately], and it is not analogous to the case of the adulterer and the adulteress. For in that case, they are all included in the death penalty, since it says (Lev. 20:10) “The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” As to specifying one case by stoning [for both adulterer and adulteress if she was betrothed], another by burning [the adulteress daughter of a kohen], and another by strangulation [both adulterer and adulteress if she is fully married], this does not mean that these details should be included [separately] in the enumeration. This is because they are only an explanation of the general statement that all of them are put to death, and the difference in the type of execution is not equivalent to being a separate prohibition. However, if one case were only a prohibition [with no death penalty], and the other case was — 387 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

punishable by the death penalty, then it would be proper to count them as two distinct prohibitions [as in the case of cursing one’s parent vs. cursing a fellow Israelite]. And so it is that he [Maimonides] brought them into the enumeration without dividing them [Prohibition No. 347 has all the varieties of adultery as a single prohibition]. He who leads cities astray. This is the prohibition against an individual leading the public astray to idolatrous worship. And the difference between the enticer [at the beginning of this stanza] and the one who leads astray is that enticing refers to an individual [who is enticed], while leading estray refers to many people [who are lead astray]. The prohibition which expresses this is (Exod. 23:13) “Let it [the name of other gods] not be heard out of your mouth,” as is mentioned in Sanhedrin (63b). 132. And one who utters falsehoods in the name of idol worship, And one who does ov divination, and the yidoni sorcerers with their falsehoods. “Dover sarah” means “one who utters falsehoods” (see Lev. 13:6). This refers only to one who prophesies [falsely] in God’s name, but he who prophesies thus in the name of an idol is the one who is punishable by stoning, even if he proclaims the law correctly. But the poet was not precise about this [since he attaches stoning to one who prophesies falsely in God’s name] for poetic purposes.153 The prohibition which expresses this, according to what Maimonides wrote, is (Exod. 23:13) “You shall not mention the name of other gods.” Now, Maimonides wrote (Prohibition No. 26) that even though this prohibition is about swearing in the name of an idol, as I have written previously (Stanza No. 24), this does not preclude one prohibition from applying to many things, and it is not considered a generalized prohibition (lav shebichlalut), if the punishment is separately stated for each thing. This is similar to (Lev. 19:26) “You shall not eat over blood,” which Nachmanides (on Prohibition No. 195) counts as two prohibitions. In all such cases, it is because there is a difference in the punishments. There is an additional reason for separating this prohibition [i.e., “You shall 153 The commentators, e.g., Perlow, point out that here the Zohar Harakia is in apparent contradiction to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 11, 1, which specifies strangulation for one who prophesies in the name of an idol. — 388 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

not mention the name of other gods” ] into two [separately enumerated] negative commandments, since swearing in the name of an idol is included in another prohibition, i.e. (Deut. 6:14), “You shall not go after other gods,” which includes not to fear an idol, not to honor it by embracing or kissing it, and not to swear by it, as I wrote in the Principles (No. 9). So this prohibition applies particularly to one who prophesies in the name pf an idol, which is punishable by death. And one who does ov divination in loathsomeness [means one who keeps far from it], for it is proper to keep far away from it [because of its loathsomeness]. It is from the expression (Num. 11:20) “And it shall be loathsome to you.” [In the phrase] “And the yidoni sorcerers with their falsehoods,” the nun of yidoni should have a tzere which makes it [plural] possessive with “falsehoods” [i.e., yidonei would mean the “the yidoni sorcerers of”]. These are two prohibitions contained in one negative statement, i.e., “Turn not to the ovot or the yidonim” (Lev. 19:31). Now, Maimonides wrote (Priohibition 9), “Do not think that this is an inclusive prohibition [lav shebichlalut, which is usually considered a single commmandment, although specifying more than one case], since it has already been separated when mentioning the punishment, where it says (ibid., 20:27) ‘If a man or a woman does ov sorcery or (Heb. o) yidoni sorcery, they shall surely be put to death’ [the word o for ‘or’ is considered a decoupling word, while the conjunction v’ is not, although it is frequently translated as ‘or’]. The Sifra states that we understand the punishment (from 20:27); but whence do we have a prohibition? It is from ‘Turn not to the ovot and yidonim.’” But Nachmanides disagreed (on Prohibition 9) with him, and said that it actually is an inclusive prohibition. He brings proof from what they said in Sanhedrin (65a) and Keritot (3b): “What is different here [Sanhedrin] where yidoni is mentioned [in addition to ov], whereas there [Keritot] it does not mention Yidoni [just ov]? Rabbi Yochanan said that it is because they are both stated as a single prohibition [and thus regarding penalties for the offense it makes no difference whether one committed the ov offense and then the yidoni offense, or whether one committed the ov offense twice]. Resh Lakish, however, said [that the yidoni is omitted in Keritot], since it does not involve physical action [and only a prohibition involving physical action requires a sin offering when the sin is not intentional]. Why would Resh Lakish not say the same reason as Rabbi Yochanan? Rav Pappa said that [it is because] — 389 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

they are divided [in this verse] about the death penalty [as explained above regarding verse 20:27; thus, Resh Lakish would consider them as two separate prohibitions, separately needing sin offerings, except for the fact that the yidoni intrinsically does not incur a sin offering]. Rabbi Yochanan [would respond to this] that a separation in the prohibitive statement is what counts as an effective separation, while a separation in the death penalty does not count as an effective separation [with regard to requiring separate sin offerings].” Now, Nachmanides wrote that the law was decided in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan [which would contradict Maimonides’s argument for listing ov and yidoni as separate]. Nevertheless, he [Nachmanides] still counts them as two separate commandments, according to his methodology of enumeration of the commandments, as is known from the Principles.154 133. A person who murders, [awaits] fright and the pit; And the people of an apostate city are to be pierced by the sword. He has already recorded above (Stanza No. 12) “You shall not crush a person,” where I gave two interpretations, and according to the first interpretation, it is repeated here to indicate that the punishment [for murder] is execution by the sword. According to the second interpretation [whereby Stanza 12 refers to executing a criminal without supervision of the court], the crime is mentioned here to also indicate the prohibition of (Exod. 20:13) “You shall not murder.” The Gaon [Halachot Gedolot] added the commandment of (Num. 35:34) “You shall not defile the land,” which is stated in the portion about murderers. Maimonides (in his Fifth Principle) criticized him that this phrase expresses a reason [for a commandment, and is thus not a commandment in itself], and it should not be counted, as is known from the Principles. But Nachmanides defends the Gaon, and he wrote that it [“You shall not defile the land”] could be a prohibition [addressed specifically] to the court, or an additional prohibition [against murder] in the Land [of Israel], similar to the case of moving a boundary [which applies only to the Land of Israel, whereas moving a boundary 154 In Principle No. 9, Nachmanides differs from Maimonides in that the enumeration of separate commandments does not depend on whether the actions are separately punished, but rather on the nature of the actions. Thus, he considers ov and yidoni as separate prohibitions, although they are not separately punished. — 390 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

marker anywhere is forbidden under the prohibition of robbery (see Maimonides’s Prohibition 246)]. And he [Nachmanides] also includes this in his enumeration.155 He [ibn Gabirol] says that a person who murders will have fright and the pit, since all his days will be painful with fright and the pit [the grave] until he is executed by the court or by divine intervention, as when God brings together [two people who have not been punished for their sins] to an inn (Makkot 10b), [and they mutually cause each other’s punishment] so that he falls into a pit. The expression “fright and the pit” is derived from Isa. 24:17–18, [where the certainty of divine justice is expressed, which is echoed in the rabbinic statement in Makkot]. And the people of the apostate city are to be pierced. For also the people of the apostate city are to be executed by the sword, similar to a murderer; therefore, they are included in the same stanza. There is nothing here that adds to the enumeration. They [the people of the apostate city] are among those to be executed by the court, like idol worshippers [in general], but individual [idol worshippers] suffer stoning, while their wealth is spared; while multitudes suffer the sword and their wealth is destroyed. [The last part is emended she’y’chidim b’skila . . . u’merubim b’sayif in accord with the Baraita, Horayot 8a. Also MS has u’merubim instead of v’hanidachim.] 134. And the intentional false prophet, the worm will cover him; And the woman who lies with the beast of the forests. This refers to a false prophet who speaks in God’s name that which He did not say to him. The expression of this prohibition is (Deut. 18:20) “But the prophet who speaks presumptuously in My name that which I did not command him,” and his death is by strangulation, as is mentioned in Sanhedrin (84b). There is a [type of] prophet who incurs divinely ordained death, i.e., one who transgresses against his own words, and [also] one who suppresses his prophecy. But these are not guilty of transgressing a specific prohibition [and thus are not punishable by whipping]. And one who transgresses the words of a prophet is punished by divinely ordained death also, and it is contained in a positive commandment, as it is said, “And you shall hearken unto him” (Deut. 18:15). 155 Perlow remarks that Duran erred here, since Nachmanides did not count “You shall not defile the land,” although he did include a similar prohibition. — 391 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

That which he says “the worm will cover him” means that he will die, for beneath him maggots are spread, and he is covered with worms (Isa. 14:11). And the word mida’at [which I translated as “intentional”] means [that he prophesied] in his own estimation, but he was not sent for this mission, even though the prophecy may have been said to his fellowman. And a woman who lies with the beast of the forests is the prohibition that a woman should not have intercourse with an animal, as it is said (Lev. 18:23) “And a woman should not let herself be with a beast to mate with it.” He expresses this as “beast of the forests,” since a woman would not do this in a populated place where males are to be found, or because of fear of the court; and she is subject to stoning. 135. And having intercourse with a betrothed woman, or with his fully married daughter-in-law; And [having intercourse] with a farm-fed animal, or with males. Maimonides argued against Halachot Gedolot for counting [the adultery of] the betrothed woman, the married woman, and the daughter of a kohen as three separate prohibitions, while he includes them in a single commandment; for they are all the wife of a man; and it is not right to divide because they have different punishments. This seems correct to me because of what is said in Sanhedrin (65a) concerning ov and yidoni sorcery, “A separation in the prohibitive statement means that the commandments are separate; separation in the death penalty does not does not indicate separate commandments.” And he [Maimonides] brought proof from what is stated in Sanhedrin that everything is covered by [the prohibitions of] the adulterer and the adulteress [which would be punishable by strangulation, as is indeed the case for the fully married woman], but Scripture makes an exception for a betrothed woman, who is punishable by stoning, and for the daughter of a kohen, who is punished by burning. The intention is to indicate that when Scripture says (Exod. 23:13) “You shall not commit adultery,” every case of intercourse with a married woman is in this, whether she is betrothed, or fully married, daughter of a kohen, or daughter of an Israelite. Since they are included in a single prohibition, it is not correct to divide them because of the difference in their death penalties. Or with his fully married daughter-in-law. This refers to the — 392 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

wife of one’s son, and this is punishable by stoning. As to the expression “his fully married daughter-in-law,” the same applies to a betrothed daughter-in-law [by kiddushin], i.e., she is punished by stoning, for even another betrothed woman [betrothed to someone other than one’s son] is punished by stoning. It seems to me that he stated it thus to imply that if his son raped a woman [thus creating a kind of bond with the woman], she is [nevertheless] permitted to him. For the accepted law is not in accordance with Rabbi Judah, who in Yevamot (97a) forbids [a man from union with] a woman raped by his father, which would apply much more so in the case of a woman raped by his son, as stated before. Perhaps you might wonder why the daughter-in-law is not counted as two separate prohibitions, the one being during his son’s lifetime, and the other being after his death. For there are two negative statements written about this (Lev. 18:15): “Do not uncover the nakedness of you daughter-in-law, she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.” It is so interpreted (in Sanhedrin 54a) [as having two prohibitive statements], although in Mishnah Keritot (1, 1) it is counted as a single prohibition. For it is thus stated in Sanhedrin [“The Mishnah states that one who has intercourse with his daughter-in-law is culpable for two prohibitions, i.e., for a married woman and for his daughter-inlaw.] Why is he not also culpable for the wife of his son?” [The answer is given,] “Abaye said that the verse begins with the daughter-in-law and concludes with the term his son’s wife to indicate that ‘daughter-in-law’ and ‘his son’s wife’ are the same.”156 So from this interpretation it would only be counted as a single prohibition. And with a farm-fed animal. A woman copulating with an animal has already been mentioned (Stanza 134). Now, another prohibition is mentioned, that of [a man] copulating with an animal. They are not combined in a single commandment, even though the term copulation (r’viah) applies to both, one [the male] being termed the copulater (rove’a) and the other [female] being termed the one who receives copulation (nirva’at). Maimonides proved this from the Mishnah Keritot (1, 1) where they list the thirty-six [transgressions punishable by] “cutting off,” and they separately count the giver and the receiver of copulation, and do not include them as one transgression like they include in that Mishnah all [other] particulars in one general statement; so it appears 156 Rashi comments that this repetition implies that the prohibition holds even if the son died. — 393 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

that these are two prohibitions in the enumeration, and this is true. His expression “farm-fed” throws shame on the copulater who has given his semen to an animal at its master’s feeding-trough, which is certainly revolting and deserves a harsh death. Or with males. A single prohibition applies to the semen giver and to the receiver, which is the verse (Lev. 18:22) “You shall not lie with a male.” This includes the receiver, since [lo tishkav (you shall not lie)] can be read lo tishakev (you shall not be caused to lie) [just by altering the vowel points], according to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion (Sanhedrin 54b), as I explained above in the stanza (No. 95), where it says “There shall be no male prostitute.” And according to what they concluded in Sanhedrin (54a) there belong here two other prohibitions, which are one who has intercourse with his father, or with his father’s brother, making him twice guilty, once on account of his father or his father’s brother, and once on account of “You shall not lie with a male.” They [the prohibitions are expressed as] (Lev. 18:7) “You shall not uncover your father’s nakedness [and also presumably Lev. 18:14, “Do not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother,” though it is absent from the Hebrew text]. I have also written this above (Stanza 95). 136. And he who has intercourse with a married woman is greatly shamed and embarrassed; And he who deals repulsively with his aunt; and both are cursed. The statement “is greatly shamed and embarrassed” is from the expression in the verse which says (Prov. 6:32) “He who commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding . . . he will experience punishment and dishonor, and his shame will not be wiped away.” This prohibition includes both the adulterer and the adulteress, whether engaged [by kiddushin] or married, whether an Israelite woman or a daughter of a kohen. One should not make a separation among them at all, as I wrote before (Stanzas 131 and 135). Although one verse includes adulterer and adulteress, as it is said (Exod. 20:13) “You shall not commit adultery,” and another verse separates [by specifying only the adulterer], saying (Lev. 18:20) “Do not have carnal relations with your neighbor’s wife,” we still should not count them as two prohibitions, i.e., the adulterer and the adulteress. This is because of the same reasoning that we did not [separately] count, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, “There shall be no — 394 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

male prostitute” and “You shall not lie with a male” (see above Stanzas 135 and 95), for we count the prohibition that includes [both cases], but the special prohibition [that includes only one case] is only for reinforcement. Also in the Mishnah Keritot (1, 1), [in the enumeration of sins punishable by “cutting off”] they count adultery as a single case of “cutting off.” In this case, I would not think that Nachmanides would differ with him [Maimonides], even though he does differ about the case of leaven and honey (see Stanza 68), since there the inclusive prohibition mentions both cases explicitly, and the specific prohibition only comes to separate the two. But here the inclusive prohibition expresses both cases with a single term; therefore, we count the inclusive prohibition, while the second prohibition is for emphasis. Similarly, the entire section about forbidden relations addresses the man, while at the end it generalizes in the verse (Lev. 18:29) “And the persons who do these will be cut off,” the females with the males. This is the way it appears to me to make these matters consistent. He who deals repulsively with his aunt. This is the prohibition about the wife of his father’s brother, which is punishable by “cutting off.” When he says “both are cursed (ne’arim),” this is an expression of cursing, as in (Mal. 3:9) “You are cursed with a curse (me’erah),” and it refers to the verse (Lev. 20:20) “They will die childless.” 137. He who has intercourse with her who bore him, his daughter, his wife’s daughter, His son’s daughter, or his daughter’s daughter are scattered at the mouth of the nether world. Her who bore him means his mother, even if she is not his father’s wife; for instance, if his father raped his mother, and she bore a child to him, this is a mother who is not his father’s wife, and this is punishable by stoning. There is another prohibition regarding his father’s wife who is not his mother, and this also is punishable by stoning. And if one had sexual relations with his mother who is also his father’s wife, either during his father’s life or after his death, and it was unintentional, he must bring two sin offerings, one because of being his mother, and the other being because of being his father’s wife, as they stated in Sanhedrin (54a). His daughter. This means a man’s daughter by a woman he raped, and also the daughter of his son or the daughter of his daughter, [in a — 395 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

case where the grandmother was] a woman he raped [rather than his wife]. For a man’s daughter by his wife is included in the prohibition of (Lev. 18:17) “a woman and her daughter.” But his daughter [even if not by his wife, but by rape, for example] is not written explicitly in the Torah, but is derived from a gezerah shavah, as they stated in Keritot (5a) “Let a gezerah shavah not be insignificant in your eyes, for the prohibition about a daughter is a fundamental law in the Torah, and Scripture teaches this only by a gezerah shavah with the word henah and zimah.” This means that regarding a woman and her daughter it is said (Lev. 18:17) “They are (henah) near kinswomen,” while regarding the daughter of his daughter it is said (ibid., v. 10) “They are (henah) your own nakedness.” So just as in the former case the daughter and granddaughter [of the wife] are made equal (in v. 17, both are prohibited), so in the latter case [v. 10 where only the granddaughter is explicit] his daughter is made equal to the granddaughter [i.e., his daughter is likewise understood to be forbidden. In addition to the derived prohibition for his daughter, we can also derive the punishment for his daughter], for regarding the punishment it is said here (18:17) “They are near kinswomen, it is depravity (zimah),” and later (Lev. 20:14) “If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is depravity; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they, that there be no depravity (zimah) among you.” Just as in the latter case, burning [is the penalty], also here (Lev. 18:17), [which deals not only with mother and daughter, but also mother and granddaughter] it is by burning. Furthermore, burning applies to the man’s daughter in 18:10, since the verses 17 and 10 are linked by the gezerah shavah of henah]. Inasmuch as [the daughter] is not explicitly written in the Torah, the Tanna in the Mishnah does not count her among the thirty-six prohibitions punishable by “cutting off” (Keritot 1:1), and so it is explained in the Gemara. His wife’s daughter. This is another prohibition [separate from his daughter], which applies even to her daughter by another man. This is (in the verse Lev. 18:17,) “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter.” It is also [punishable] by burning. Thus, there are two [separate] prohibitions, one applying to his daughter by a woman he raped, and the other to his wife’s daughter by another man. But the commentator on the Azharot [Rabbi Moses ibn Tibbon] did not include this. His son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter. These are two — 396 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

prohibitions, i.e. (Lev. 18:10), “You shall not uncover the nakedness of the daughter of your son or the daughter of your daughter.” These are counted as two, and it is not an inclusive prohibition (lav shebichlalut), [which is usually counted as a single prohibition]. For Scripture has divided them by the word or (o rather than u). This is Maimonides’s opinion, as I wrote previously (Stanza 132), regarding the ov and the yidoni. These are punishable by burning. “Are scattered at the mouth of the nether world” is based on a Scriptural expression (Ps. 141:7) “Our bones are scattered at the mouth of the nether world,” which is a metaphor for death. 138. One who has intercourse with his sister, or with his mother-in-law, Or with his wife’s sister, or with the sister of his parents; A sister from one’s father born from a woman who is not his wife, e.g., from a woman he raped, is included in (Lev. 18:9) “the nakedness of your sister”; and so is the nakedness of his sister by his mother who is not his father’s wife, but is by another man. And the nakedness of his sister from his father’s wife is included in (ibid., v. 11) “the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter.” These are two prohibitions, and one who has intercourse with his sister from his father and from his mother who is married to his father is guilty on two counts, once since she is his sister, and the second since she is the daughter of his father’s wife, as is mentioned in the second chapter of Yevamot (22b). But since there is the single designation “sister,” the Tanna in the Mishnah which lists the thirty-six cases of “cutting off” (Keritot 1:1) counts them both as only a single case. Or with his mother-in-law. His mother-in-law is included in “a woman and her daughter” (Lev. 18:17). It is punishable by burning during the lifetime of his wife. After she dies, some say that [intercourse with the mother] incurs the punishment of “cutting off” (see Mishneh Torah, Issurei Bi’ah 2, 7 and 8), but this is not true. But even though it does not incur “cutting off,” it is included in (Deut. 27:23) “Cursed is he who lies with his mother-in-law.” Or with his wife’s sister. He has already written previously (Stanza 92) “a woman in addition to her sister” for the content of the prohibition, and it is repeated here regarding the punishment. Or with the sister of his parents. He includes here two prohibi— 397 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

tions, the sister of his father or his mother, i.e., his parents, and they are both punishable by “cutting off.” 139. Or with a woman and her daughter, or the daughter of her son or daughter, Or with a woman sitting in her menstrual period to complete the observance. He has already mentioned (Stanzas 137 and 138) the daughter of his wife, and his mother-in-law, so there is no addition to the list of commandments here. The daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter. These are two prohibitions, i.e., the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter. The Tanna includes all of them in the general term a woman and her daughter (Keritot 1:1), as is explained in the Gemara Keritot (3b). All of these are punishable by burning: his daughter, his son’s daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his wife’s daughter, her son’s daughter, her daughter’s daughter, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother. Whenever he takes the one in marriage, if he has intercourse with the other [related] woman, she is punished by burning. They are all counted as separate prohibitions, and when they state in Keritot (15a) that Scripture considers them a single depravity (zimah), this just means to say that if one has intercourse with his mother-in-law who is simultaneously his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-inlaw’s mother [which is possible in an unlikely scenario], he only needs to bring a single sin offering [if the sin was done unintentionally], since one designation applies to all three relationships, and she was a single person. If one has intercourse with his mother-in-law while his wife is alive, the punishment is by burning, while after her death the punishment is “cutting off” in Maimonides’s opinion (Issurei Bi’ah 2, 7 and 8), but others disagree and say that the prohibition is only expressed by (Deut. 27:23) “Cursed is one who lies with his mother-in-law” [but not the direct prohibition in Leviticus 18]. Or with a woman sitting in her menstrual period, to complete the observance. If one has intercourse with a niddah [a woman during her menstrual uncleanness] before her purification immersion, even though she has waited a long time after she stopped seeing [blood stains], this is punishable by “cutting off,” as it is said (Lev. 18:19) “And to a woman in her menstrual uncleanness you shall not come near.” — 398 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

Although he wrote above (Stanza 92) “Do not lie with her in her separation of uncleanness,” this pertains to the prohibition, and he repeats it here in the context of the punishment. To complete the observance. This means until completion of her time of purification (See Lev. 12:4). 140. Or with his father’s wife, or with his brother’s wife, Or with the mother of his mother-in-law or of his father-inlaw; all these are cursed. This refers to [having relations with] his father’s wife who is not his mother [i.e., a stepmother]. He has already written (Stanza 137) about his mother who is not his father’s wife. These are two distinct prohibitions, as I wrote above. Or with his brother’s wife. This is about intercourse with a brother’s wife who had children with him [since if there were no children the levirate law prescribes intercourse as a commandment], and it is punishable with “cutting off.” Or with the mother of his mother-in-law or of his father-inlaw is included in “the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter,” (Lev. 18:17) since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her mother are included in a single prohibition, whether [the man] had married the mother first or the daughter first. And with respect to the mother of his mother-in-law, his wife is her daughter’s daughter, and with respect to the mother of his father-in-law, his wife is the daughter of her son. All these are included in the statement (Deut. 27:23) “Cursed is he who lies with his mother-in-law.” 141. And the law of daughters of a kohen, and the law of their false accusers, And the law of those who have intercourse with them, to destroy them utterly. There is no addition to the enumeration here, since they are included in the prohibition of a married woman, as I wrote above (Stanzas 135, 136). And the daughters of a kohen are punishable by burning, like a woman and her daughter, while those who falsely accused them would be subject to strangulation, as would be the men who had intercourse with them. For it is said (Deut. 19:19) “as he intended to do to his brother,” which implies not [as he intended to do to] his sister. And those who — 399 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

had intercourse with them are subject to strangulation, for Scripture is discussing a married woman who is the daughter of a kohen, i.e., an [adulterous] Israelite woman is punishable by strangulation, while an [adulterous] daughter of a kohen is punishable by burning. For Scripture is dealing with a fully married woman, who is punishable by strangulation if she is an Israelite, but if she is the daughter of a kohen, the punishment is burning. This is mentioned in Sanhedrin (50a), which follows the opinion that stoning is a more severe punishment than burning.* Scripture imposes the more severe penalty only on the woman, but the male adulterer suffers only strangulation, same as *The idea is that clearly the case of an adulterer with an Israelite woman. a daughter of a kohen who commits adultery has done an especially shameful thing, and her punishment is especially severe; the prescribed punishment of burning is thus more severe than that of strangulation, which applies to the married Israelite woman. On the other hand, if the woman is betrothed by kiddushin, the case of an Israelite is punished by stoning, so the burning of the daughter of a kohen would not make sense, if we hold that burning is less severe than stoning.

142. One who has intercourse with a gentile woman should be killed for his evil deed, And likewise one who steals with deception the choice vessels. Herein two things are included, where outraged zealots may strike down the perpetrator [without being punished for taking the law into their own hands]. They are one who has intercourse with a gentile woman, and one who steals a holy vessel. The prohibition of intercourse with a gentile woman is expressed by (Deut. 7:3) “You shall not intermarry with them.” It is punishable by “cutting off” from the verse in the prophets (Mal. 2:12) “The Lord will cut off from the man who does this anyone who calls and answers.” Even though there are two types of punishment for this prohibition, i.e., a zealot striking him down at the time of the act, or whipping if zealots did not strike him down, this prohibition is not to be divided and counted as two prohibitions, since no verse in the Torah explicitly applies to zealots striking down, except from the story of the deed of Zimri (Num. 25:1–15), and such a case should not be in the enumeration in my opinion. One who steals a holy vessel transgresses the prohibition (Num. 4:20) “They shall not enter to see the holy things as they are covered” [on the alternate translation “to see as they hide away the holy things”], and I discussed this at length in another place (Stanza 113).

— 400 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

143. And one who kidnaps shall sleep in the grave, And one who eats fat or blood will be like the fat of lambs. The prohibition of kidnapping is found in the Decalogue, i.e., “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:13). If one kidnapped a person and then sold him, he incurs the death penalty, as it is said (Exod. 20:16) “If one kidnaps a person and sells him.” The prohibition against selling is (included in Lev. 25:42) “They shall not be sold as slaves are.” He already mentioned this above (Stanza 99), “You shall not sell a Hebrew [servant] like one sells a gentile [slave].” The execution [of one who kidnaps and then sells a Hebrew person] is by strangulation. A corpse is [described as] sleeping in the grave. The prohibitions of [eating] fat and blood were mentioned above (Stanza 48), “Fat and blood are both forbidden,” and they are [punishable] by “cutting off.” Kikar Karim means the fat of the lambs, which is consumed in smoke. Similarly, people who eat fat and blood will be consumed. Thus is the language of the verse (Ps. 37:20), “And the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs, they pass away in smoke, they pass away.” This figure of speech is that one who eats fat will become like fat. 144. Cursed is every devious person who eats piggul, It may only be consumed by the fire in the ovens. Piggul refers to someone having, during the slaughtering, thoughts of eating the sacrifice at an invalid time, and by this thought the sacrifice is rendered invalid. Because of this, he states, “Cursed is every devious person,” i.e., the one who has such a wrongful thought. The prohibition written about this is (Exod. 29:34) “It shall not be eaten because it is holy,” and in Tractate Me’ilah (17b) and in Tractate Makkot (18a), and in Chapter Kol Sha’ah (Pesachim 24a) they state that the verse “It shall not be eaten because it is holy” is meant to include that in every case of a sacrifice becoming invalid, eating it is prohibited, and piggul is a case where a sacrifice has become invalid. Also, actual notar [sacrificial meat that has remained beyond its permitted time, unlike piggul where the wrongful thought caused it to become invalid even within its normally permitted time] is within the prohibition of Exod. 29:34, and they are counted as two prohibitions in Maimonides’s opinion. Now, Nachmanides has added here (Additional Prohibitions No. 5) another prohibition which is not to eat holy sacrifices which one had — 401 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

slaughtered with the intention of eating them in an improper place. He shows at length the propriety of this [additional commandment]. He wrote that the prohibition [about eating piggul] is not because any holy sacrifice that has become invalid is forbidden to eat as Maimonides wrote (see above paragraph). For this is an inclusive prohibition (lav shebichlalut), and all agree that this type of prohibition is not counted [in its several components], as is known from the Principles (Principle No. 9). But [the actual prohibition] is in the second chapter of Zevachim (28b), where they derive from the verse (Lev. 7:18) “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering be at all eaten . . . it shall not be accepted,” both intending [to eat] beyond the permitted time and intending [to eat] outside the permitted place. But they make the distinction between them that intention [to eat] beyond its time is punished by “cutting off,” while the intention [to eat] outside the permitted place is punished not by “cutting off” but by whipping. Now, eating [actual notar] is [punishable] by “cutting off,” and [eating a sacrifice rendered unfit] by planning to eat it beyond its proper time is likewise [punishable] by “cutting off.” But for the intention of [eating] outside the permitted place there is no explicit prohibition, but it is derived from a gezerah shavah. Concerning actual notar there is a prohibition from what is stated (Exod. 29:34) “You shall burn in fire what is left over; it shall not be eaten.” The law about planning [to eat the sacrificial meat] at the wrong time we derive by a gezerah shavah from actual notar. Concerning planning to eat it in an improper place there is an argument, [Nachmanides bringing proof] from what they stated (Tosefta Makkot 3, 3) that upon offering a sacrifice [one who plans to eat it in an improper place] is punished by whipping [if one has the idea to eat it in the wrong place] when one slaughters it, or sprinkles the blood, or burns it, just as they said concerning one who eats it at an improper time. So this is forbidden by the Torah, and it is proper to include it in the enumeration.157 And it only may be consumed, since notar and piggul are not fit for food, and must be burned. “The fire in the ovens” refers to kiyor (an oven), which has the meaning “kirah shehikissuha” (an oven which they 157 From my reading of Nachmanides’s Additional Prohibition No. 4 and the sources he quotes, I do not see any distinction made between planning to eat of the sacrifice at an improper place and an improper time. — 402 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

ignited, see Mishnah Shabbat 1, 3). It is based on Zechariah (12:6) “Like a pan of fire among wood.” 145. Broken loins will be for him who performs magic deception, And cleanness of teeth will be for him who eats notar. For him who performs magic deception (Heb. ochez einayim). He mentions this (in connection with) sorcery, which is prohibited (Maimonides, Prohibition No. 34), as it is said (Deut. 18:10) “There shall not be found among you . . . nor a sorcerer.” If one actually performs an act [of witchcraft], he is subject to the death penalty. If he only did a deceptive imitation [of witchcraft], he is guilty of trespassing a prohibition, as mentioned in the Gemara Sanhedrin. Since it may involve capital punishment, he says “breaking of loins” (see Ezek. 21:11). And cleanness of teeth indicates lack of food, as it is written (Am. 4: 6) “And cleanness of teeth in all your cities and lack of bread.” This is measure for measure [the famine is punishment] for eating notar. I have already written in the preceding stanza about the prohibition of notar. 146. One who serves a mifletzet, which is to be decisively destroyed, And one who eats leaven during the days that are watched. Regarding idolatry Maimonides listed three prohibitions. One is not to accept it [an idol] as a deity, and the prohibition is (Exod. 20:3) “You shall not have other gods,” and I wrote this before (in Stanza 7). The second is not to worship it with any of the four types of worship which are specified for God, even though it is not a characteristic type for it [the idol]. As they state in the Mechilta (Mishpatim 177, 19), “We derive the punishment [for idolatry] from (Exod. 22:19), ‘He who sacrifices to [false] gods will be utterly destroyed,’ but we do not have a prohibition expressed here. Therefore, Scripture states (ibid., 20:5) ‘You shall not prostrate to them nor serve them.’ Now, sacrificing is part of the general prohibition [of serving], and it is singled out (in 22:19) to indicate that just as sacrificing is specifically a type of worship that is performed to God, and one is guilty for it whether it is a characteristic service for a particular idol or not, so also all similar kinds of service that are performed in serving God are punishable whether this is characteristic for a particular idol or not.” These are prostrating, sacrificing, burning to smoke, and offering libations. And this is what they said (Zecvachim — 403 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

106a): “Since the verse (Lev. 17:7, ‘They shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the satyrs’ is not needed to indicate customary forms of worship, since it is written [Deut. 12:30] ‘How do these nations worship their gods?’ it may be applied to the case where it is not a customary form for it [that idol]. Such a case would be sacrificing an animal to Mercury.”158 The third prohibition is not serving an idol in other ways than the four aforementioned that are appropriate to God, but which are a characteristic way of serving that idol. Examples are evacuating before Pe’or or throwing a stone to Mercury. And the prohibition for this is (Exod. 20:5) “You shall not serve them.” And it is stated in the Mechilta that “you shall not prostrate before them nor serve them” means that one is independently guilty for prostrating and for serving. But Nachmanides counts all the negative statements about idolatry as just a single prohibition. For in the Gemara (Makkot 23b), it states that “I am . . .” (Exod. 20:2) and “You shall have no . . .” (ibid., v. 3) we heard [directly] from the mouth of the Almighty.* So *This is in explanation of they (i.e., Exod. 20:2–6) are counted as two of the 613 the gematria commandments [and since v. 2 is one commandment, interpretation by the remaining verses must be one commandment]. I which Moses is said to have conveyed have already written this (Positive Commandments, 611 commandments Stanza 11, and Negative Commandments, Stanza 8). to Israel. But he [Nachmanides] further says that regarding hugging and kissing [an idol] for whom this is not a customary mode of worship, there is a separate prohibition, just as there is regarding vowing in its name or attesting in its name. But in his final words (i.e., where Nachmanides summarizes his enumeration), I have not seen that he included this in the enumeration. Perhaps this is because a single prohibition includes this together with vowing in its name and attesting in its name, since one prohibition covers all of them [i.e., “You shall not go after other gods” (Deut. 6:14)], as I have written in the Principles (No. 9, see p. 26, col. 2; and p. 27, col. 1 in Ziv Hazohar edition). A mifletzet (an abominable thing). I explained this in the Positive Commandments (Stanza 27). Some versions have tifletzet, based on “Your terror has deceived you” in Jeremiah (49:16), but the meaning is the same. One who eats leaven during the days that are watched. “The days that are watched” means the days of Passover, as it is said (Exod. 158 This way of extending the scope of a verse is a common rabbinic method of exegesis. — 404 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

12:42) “It is a night of watching,” or [as in] the statement (ibid., v. 17) “And you shall observe [the Hebrew is the same as for “watch”] the feast of unleavened bread,” or the statement (Deut. 16:1) “Observe [the Hebrew is the same as for “watch”] the month of Abib.” This prohibition concerns eating leavened grain during Passover, and it is punishable by “cutting off.” The prohibition is written as (Exod. 13:3) “No leavened bread shall be eaten.” Now, Maimonides adds here another prohibition, not to eat on Passover a mixture with leavened bread, like Babylonian kutach, when it amounts to [eating] an olive’s bulk within the time needed to eat half a loaf. The prohibition written about this is (Exod. 12:20) “You shall eat nothing leavened.” Maimonides remarks that if it amounts to less than an olive bulk during the time needed to eat half a loaf, this is rabbinically forbidden, but it is not punishable by whipping [which only applies to Torah prohibitions]. But Nachmanides disagrees with him regarding the law and regarding the enumeration. For if one ingests an olive’s bulk during the time of eating half a loaf, this is actually punishable by “cutting off,” and this is not considered like a mixture of leaven but like actual leaven. They expressly said (Pesachim 44a) that for an olive’s bulk consumed in the time of eating half a loaf, [the prohibition] is a Torah law. And regarding [prohibitions] generally they speak (Avodah Zarah 67a) about [cases where something is forbidden] both in itself and in its being [used as] a flavor, and they are punishable [by whipping], and [they point out that] this is the case for [ingesting] an olive’s bulk during the time of eating half a loaf. Since in the general case of other prohibitions one is punished by whipping [for such a mixture], in the case of leaven [mixtures] it is punished by “cutting off,” for there is no scriptural interpretation in other prohibitions which indicate a situation where whipping is retained while “cutting off” is excluded. So since it [eating an olive’s bulk during a time of eating half a loaf] is considered as actual eating, in that it is punished by whipping for ordinary prohibitions, similarly with sins punishable by “cutting off,” it is equivalent to actual eating and would be punished by “cutting off.” Now, if there is less than an olive’s bulk in the time of eating half a loaf, Rabbi Eliezer included this [as forbidden] from the verse (Exod. 12:20) “You shall eat nothing leavened,” that it should be punished by whipping, but not by “cutting off,” and such is the case of Babylonian — 405 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

kutach and similar things. But the law is not according to his opinion, but according to the rabbis, who say that for actual leavened grain one is punished by “cutting off,” but for mixtures of leaven there is nothing [no punishment]. And according to their opinion [i.e., the rabbis], the prohibition of “nothing leavened” is not meant to include the case of mixtures of leaven, but it is used only for another interpretation; i.e., one might have reasoned that only grain that became leavened by itself [is meant to be forbidden]. How is it known that also grain that was leavened by another agent [is included]? For this, we invoke the verse “nothing leavened.” Thus, this prohibition would not be enumerated, since it serves to complete the law of actual leaven. 147. One who does not perform the paschal lamb, his name will be covered with darkness; Like a man who eats or works on Yom Kippur. [Transgressing] the paschal offering is punishable by “cutting off,” but it is not part of the enumeration of the prohibitions, and thus they stated in Mishnah Keritot (1, 1) “The Paschal lamb and circumcision among the positive commandments are punished by “cutting off.” His name will be covered in darkness. This is a curse that he will be cut off and his name will rot (Prov. 10:2). Like a man who eats or works on Yom Kippur. One who eats on Yom Kippur is punishable by “cutting off,” and it is a prohibition. In the Mishnah Keritot, where they enumerate sins subject to “cutting off,” they count eating on Yom Kippur, and everything listed there is a prohibition except the paschal lamb and circumcision. We do not find [in Scripture an explicit] prohibition, but we do find a punishment, “for any person who does not practice self-denial . . . shall be cut off.” In the Sifra (Emor 182), they deduce the prohibition [of eating] from that regarding work, for the verse [that prescribes “cutting off” for the sin of working on Yom Kilppur] is not really needed, since it can be argued that if fasting, although it does not apply to the Sabbath and other holidays, does apply on Yom Kippur, certainly [the prohibition of] work, which applies to them [Sabbath and holidays] must apply to Yom Kippur. In that case, why is the verse stated [regarding work? It is to indicate that] just as work is punishable only if it came after being warned about the prohibition, so the punishment for not fasting only can come after being warned about the prohibition. — 406 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

One who performs work on Yom Kippur is punished by “cutting off,” as it is said (Lev. 23:31) “You shall not do any work” [the punishment is actually in the previous verse, v. 30]. [The poet] already wrote above (Stanza 60) “the holiday of atonement” [as a time when work is forbidden], but repeats it here regarding the punishment. 148. A person who anoints or compounds I will judge with my wrath; And a person who stops his ear to the decision of the authorities. Regarding the anointing oil there are two prohibitions, namely (Exod. 30:32), “It shall not be rubbed on any person’s body, and you must not make anything like it in the same proportions.” The latter is called mefatem (one who compounds something by grinding the ingredients together). Both [the preparer and the one who anoints it on the body] are punishable by “cutting off,” and thus they are separately counted in Mishnah Keritot (1, 1). He has already written (Stanza 55) “And you shall not come near to anoint with the anointing oil” as a prohibition, and repeats it here on account of “cutting off.” Likewise, one who compounds the incense is punishable [which is not repeated here], since he relies on what he wrote (Stanza 56) “You shall not compound incense,” or he meant to include it in with the mefatem [in our stanza]. “I will judge them with my wrath” indicates “cutting off,” as it is said (Lev. 17:10) “I will set my face against, etc.” And a person who stops his ear (based on Ps. 58:5) to the decision of the authorities. This is the prohibition (Deut. 17:11) “You shall not turn aside from the verdict they announce to you,” and this is the prohibition of the rebellious elder, as is mentioned in the Sifre (Shof’tim 24), and the transgressor is punishable by strangulation. 149. One who slaughters outside, or offers up outside, And one who is not washed in the waters of the basins. In the Mishnah Keritot (1, 1), they count one who slaughters or offers up a sacrifice outside its specified place as two separate prohibitions, each of which is punishable by “cutting off.” He has already written above (Stanza 52) “You cannot make an offering in any external place” with regard to prohibition, and he repeats it here on account of the punishment; and there I explained it. And one who is not washed with the waters of the basins. One — 407 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

who performs priestly services with his hands or feet unwashed is punishable by death. But there is no prohibitive statement, but a positive commandment, as it is said (Exod. 30:20) “They shall wash with water and not die,” and this has already been included in the enumeration of the commandments (Positive Commandments, Stanza 48). 150. And one who transgresses regarding the blood of the covenant, his life will be cut off; But it is a hope and a future for freeing the prisoners. They have already stated in the Mishnah Keritot (1, 1) that the paschal lamb and circumcision are punishable by “cutting off,” and that they are [unlike the majority listed there] positive commandments. He says by way of a curse that the life of one who transgresses these will be cut off, while one who keeps them will have a good reward for his work, since Israel is redeemed through the merit of circumcision, as it is said (Zech. 9:11) “Also you, for the blood of your covenant, I send forth your prisoners.” [This promise of redemption of prisoners] will give you “a hope and a future,” which is a verse from Jeremiah (9:11). 151. And the impure will be trodden down, when he enters the Sanctuary, And one who eats holy sacrifices with impurity of the flesh. Will be trodden down is an expression of curse, that “he will be trodden down in his place as straw is trodden down” (Isa. 25:10). This refers to one who is impure and enters the Temple. There are two prohibitions about this. The one refers to [entry into] the camp of the Divine Presence, which consists of the entire courtyard within the gate of Nikanor, as it is said (Num. 5:3) “That they shall not defile their camp.” It says in the Gemara Makkot (14b) that concerning one who enters the sanctuary while impure there is written both a prohibition and a punishment. The punishment is (ibid., 19:13) “He has defiled the L’s. tabernacle . . . shall be cut off.” The prohibition is (Num. 5:3) “They shall not defile their camp.” Also, it says in the Mechilta [actually in the Sifre Zuta] that “they shall send out of the camp” (Num. 5:2) is a positive commandment, and [the corresponding] prohibition is “They shall not defile their camp.” The prohibition is reiterated regarding a woman who gives birth, as it is said (Lev. 12:4) “She shall not come into the sanctuary,” [which is punishable] by “cutting off.” This applies even if she is — 408 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

still lacking just her atonement offering [although having completed the number of days required for the defilement], for it is written (ibid., v. 7), “He will make atonement for her and she will become cleansed,” which implies that until then she remains defiled. And it is similarly stated in the Gemara Makkot [perhaps Yevamot 74b is meant] and Zevachim (19b). The second prohibition is that [one who is defiled] may not enter the camp of the Levites, which is the entire Temple mount [outside the camp of the Divine Presence], as it is said concerning one defiled by a night incident (Deut. 23:11) “He shall not come within the camp.” I explained this prohibition above in the stanza (65) “And an incident that might be seen.” It seems that regarding defiling the sanctuary and its holy things two [separate prohibitions] should be counted. The one is punishable by “cutting off,” and the other as [only an ordinary] prohibition, from what is stated (Sifra, Acharei 129) that the verse (Lev. 17:16) “But if he does not launder [his clothes] and bathes his body, he shall not bear his guilt” means that [not] washing the body is punishable by “cutting off,” but [not] laundering his clothes is punishable [only] as a prohibition. Thus did Maimonides write in his big work (Mishneh Torah, Biat Hamikdash 3, 12). And since they involve different punishments, they should be counted as two separate commandments. And one who eats holy sacrifices with impurity of the flesh. There are two prohibitions about eating holy things with impurity. The first is about [eating] pure holy things while one’s body is impure. This is [punishable] by “cutting off,” as it is said (Lev. 12:4) “She shall touch no hallowed thing,” and it is stated in the Sifra (Tazria 16, 8) that the verse (ibid.) “She shall touch no hallowed thing . . . and she shall not come into the sanctuary” [implies] that just as one who enters the sanctuary while impure is punished by “cutting off,” so is one who eats holy things while impure is punished by “cutting off.” And in the Gemara Makkot (14b), they stated regarding an impure person who ate holy things that the punishment is clearly written, i.e. (Lev. 7:20), “The person who, in a state of uncleanness, eats flesh from the peace offerings . . . shall be cut off.” But from where do we have a prohibitive statement? It comes from (Lev. 12:4) “She shall touch no hallowed thing.” And there (Makkot ibid.) they stated, “‘She shall touch no hallowed thing’ is a prohibition not to eat it. Do you mean that the prohibition is about eating; or perhaps — 409 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

it is a prohibition about touching? Scripture, therefore, says ‘She shall touch no hallowed thing, and she shall not come into the sanctuary.’ The hallowed thing is thus made similar to the sanctuary. Just as [entering] the sanctuary is something that involves taking away one’s soul [i.e., the punishment of ‘cutting off’], so the hallowed things [in this verse] should be a case involving taking away one’s soul [and eating holy things while unclean is punishable by ‘cutting off,’” while merely touching holy things is not]. The second prohibition [the first one being due to one’s own body being unclean] is that of eating holy things that have become unclean. For it is said (Lev. 7:19) “And the flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten.” And in Pesachim (24b) they stated that the unclean body case is [punishable] by “cutting off,” while the unclean meat is [punished only as] a prohibition [i.e., by whipping]. 152. One who eats tevel, pains will come to him, And he will exert himself for naught, and throes will seize him. Grain from which the great terumah, [given to the kohen by an Israelite], and terumah of the tithe [the Israelite must give a tithe to the Levite, and the latter must give a portion of this tithe to the kohen] have not been separated, is called tevel. One who eats it is punished by the heavenly tribunal, as it is said (Lev. 22:15) “And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they set apart to the Lord” And in Sanhedrin (83a) they said, “Whence is it derived that if one eats tevel, he is punishable by death? It is from what is said (ibid.) “And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they set apart to the Lord” Scripture refers to [the grain] from which terumah needs to be separated, and it [the punishment of death] is derived [by a gezerah shavah] of the expression chilul [profaning] from terumah [i.e., the rabbis consider Lev. 22:9 as prohibiting a kohen from eating terumah while [he is] impure, and that verse uses the expression ‘and die thereby if they profane it.’” And in Gemara Makkot (16b) they state that for tevel from which the great terumah or the terumah of the tithe has not been removed, there is the punishment of death [by the heavenly tribunal], but if first tithe, or second tithe, or the poor tithe has not been removed from it, it is punishable as a prohibition, but not with the death punishment. For it — 410 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

is said (Deut. 12:17) “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, etc.)”; later, it says (Deut. 26:12) “That they [the Levite, stranger, orphan, and widow] will eat within your gates.” Now, [based on the common expression “within your gates,”] just as the latter quotation refers to the poor tithe, also the former quotation refers to the poor tithe.* This prohibition (Deut. 12:17) has already *This indicates that grain been enumerated (No. 116). The law regarding from which the poor tithe has not been removed challah-dough is like the law of terumah [i.e., a is forbidden to eat. The portion of the dough must be removed to give straightforward meaning of Deut. 12:17 is that it to the kohen before the remaining dough can forbids eating various types be used, just as the terumah portion, etc. must of dedicated foods outside be separated from the grain before using the of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, there appears to be a remainder], since it [challah-dough] is called secondary meaning to this terumah (Num. 15:19–20). verse, i.e., to prohibit eating of tithes, etc., which have And he stated by way of a curse that not yet been separated from pains will come upon him . . . and throes will the grain, this expression seize him [compare Isa. 13:8)], and also he “within your gates” implying that the tithe is still mixed will exert himself for naught, in accordance in the grain. This remark is with their statement (in Ta’anit 9a) that aser made by Rashi on Makkot 17b. The expression “within te’aser (Deut. 14:22) [can be understood othyour gates” is also taken by erwise than in the conventional sense of “You the Gemara to include even shall surely tithe” by voweling it to read aser the poor tithe under this tevel prohibition, on the basis te’asher, meaning] “Tithe that you will become of Deut. 26:12, which shows rich” [i.e., in order for your produce to prosper, that the expression “within you gates” is associated with you must remove and distribute the prescribed the poor tithe. contributions]. 153. And a stranger [not a kohen] who eats terumah, destruction will come to him, And a kohen who becomes impure by transgressing statements [of the Torah]. He has previously recorded (Stanza 53) “No unclean person nor non-kohen may eat terumah,” and there I explained the matter. They are repeated here for the feature that they [the transgressors] incur the penalty of death by the hands of heaven. And [this also applies to] a kohen who becomes impure and then transgressed by eating terumah.

— 411 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

154. And from the world will depart the tevul yom who is delivered to the sun, And one who is lacking his enumerated garments. A tevul yom [one immersed on the final day of his impurity, but is not yet fully pure] is one who did the ritual immersion for his seminal pollution or for another type of impurity, but has not reached sunset [and still retains until sunset a lesser degree of impurity]. If he [happens to be a kohen and] performs priestly service, he transgresses a prohibition and is punished with death by the hand of heaven. They stated in Sanhedrin (83b) that the verse (Lev. 21:6) “They shall be holy unto their God, and they shall not profane the name of their God,” though it would not be pertinent to a [fully] impure kohen [being forbidden to serve], since this has been stated elsewhere; but it may be applied to a tevul yom who served, and who is punishable by death, [this being derived] from [the case of a kohen who is impure and eats] terumah, since the expression “profaning” (chilul) is used in both cases. And he says by way of a curse that a tevul yom whose sun has not yet set [after his bathing] will depart from the world, and this would be the meaning of “the tevul yom who is delivered to the sun,” that is, his purification is delivered to [i.e., is awaiting] the setting of the sun. And this death [punishment] applies when he does Temple service, and he relies on the following stanza (No. 154) [to make this idea clear, where it says] “And the stranger who does service.” But it is possible that this should be read as the tevul yom who is delivered to service, [by reading l’shamesh, “to serve,” instead of lashemesh, “to the sun,”] with the shin having a patach and with the mem having a tsere, and with a dagesh in the mem. This would mean “a tevul yom who goes in to serve in the Temple.” And service would be implied by “delivered,” just as the Targum renders “They are wholly given,” (Num. 8:16) [where it speaks of the Levites as being given for the divine service] as “They shall be delivered.” And one who is lacking his enumerated garments, i.e., the eight of the High Priest during the whole year, but four on Yom Kippur, and likewise for the regular kohen always [four]; if he serves [without the required garments], he is punished by death, as they taught in Mishnah Sanhedrin (83b). And they said in the Gemara, “How is this known?” Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and this [teaching] was traced back to R. Elazar son of R. Shimon, that the verse (Exod. — 412 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

29:9) “And you shall gird them with girdles . . . and shall bind head-ties on them, and they shall have the priesthood as their perpetual right” implies that when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; and when their garments are not on them, their priesthood is not on them, so they become like lay people, and it has been taught that a layman who performs service is punished by death. Now, Nachmanides (on Prohibition No. 163) enumerated [a kohen] lacking his proper garments as one of the commandments, though Maimonides does not count it. But he puts in its stead (Prohibition No. 164) [a kohen entering the Sanctuary with] torn clothes. Nachmanides does not count that [torn clothes], as I have written previously (Stanza 105). 155. And a Levite who performs (a kohen’s) service, I will be glorified by his death; And one who is lacking in atonement will be lost from the world. The sages (Yoma 24a) counted a layman who performed service [of a kohen] among those incurring death by the hands of heaven, as it is said (Num. 18:7) “And the outsider who encroaches shall be put to death.” Therefore, he said, “I will be glorified by his death,” similar to what is said at the death of Nadav and Avihu (Lev. 10:3), “before all the people, I will be glorified,” after they had offered an alien fire. There is another prohibition [about wrongful service], i.e., that Levites should not enter to a service belonging to the kohanim, nor kohanim to that of Levites, nor a Levite to that of another [category of] Levite, like a gatekeeper doing the service of a singer. For it is said (Num. 4:19) “Each person to his duties and to his burden.” It was stated as a prohibition to the Levites (Num. 18:3) “They shall not come near the holy furniture or the altar,” and regarding the kohanim it was said (ibid.) “So that they shall not die, neither they [Levites] nor you [kohanim].” And the Sifre (Korach 8) says, “The verse ‘they shall not come near the holy furniture’ constitutes the prohibition, and ‘they shall not die’ (ibid.) states the punishment. This means only that Levites are punished for and forbidden concerning priestly service. How is it known [that the same applies] to kohanim for Levite service? It is from (ibid.) ‘nor you.’ How is it known that [a Levite assigned to] one type of service [should

— 413 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

not perform] another type of service? It is from (ibid.) ‘neither they.’159 Now [continues the Sifre], Rabbi Joshua ben Hannaniah wanted to help Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgada with closing the Temple doors. He said to him, ‘Go away, for you have forfeited your life, since I am a gatekeeper, and you are a singer.’” Now, the punishment of death applies only to Levites who have performed priestly service. And they state it thus in the Mechilta [actually it is in Sifre Zuta] that Levites doing kohen service are punishable by death, but kohanim who do Levite work are only punishable as a prohibition [by whipping]. Therefore, one must investigate why they should not be counted as two [separate prohibitions], as we wrote in the prohibition of “You shall not eat over blood” (Stanza 48). This is also apparent from Nachmanides criticizing Maimonides (Prohibition No. 73) for not counting two separate commandments regarding [a kohen entering the Temple] drunk, one being punishable by death if it is during the time of service, and the second by whipping if it is not during service time, as I will write directly after this [stanza]. One who is lacking atonement will be lost from the earth. A kohen who is lacking his atonement [for certain kinds of impurity from which one only becomes entirely clean by means of an atonement offering on the day after his immersion] and performs priestly service is punished with death. In the Tosefta Zevachim (12, 8), they count this among prohibitions punishable by death. Maimonides counts this in Hilchot Sanhedrin (19, 2) along with those punishable by death who are to be whipped, but he did not count this as a separate prohibition. Perhaps it is included in the category of one who is defiled and serves. For in those [cases that] he counts there (ibid.) he customarily separates a single prohibition into two or three [cases], as I wrote in the Principles (No. 9, at the end of Zohar Harakia’s description of the second type of lav shebichlalut). However, in Hilchot Bi’at Hamikdash (4, 4) he [Maimonides] wrote that [a kohen who is] lacking atonement and performs priestly service is not punishable, and here there is a contradiction in his words.

159 In most versions of the Sifre, the proof texts “nor you” and “neither they” are inverted. We adopt the emendation given by Malbim on the Sifre which was proposed by the Kesef Mishneh on Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 3, 9–11 and approved by the Gaon of Vilna. It was also used in the Yad Halevi, Prohibition No. 72. — 414 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

156. And death is fitting for [a kohen who is] disheveled or drunk; And an impure [kohen] who comes to serve in the Temple. Ratui is like raui (fitting, proper), from the language of the Mishnah (Hagigah 2, 1) “If one does not take cognizance of the honor of his Creator, it is fitting that he had not come into the world.” And there is an expression in the Talmud (source not found), “It is as fitting for him as if he had not prayed.” He has written above (Stanza 105), “And he [the kohen] may not grow disheveled,” and he repeats it here, since this is one of those cases that are punished with death by the hands of heaven. There (ibid.) I explained the prohibition of growing disheveled. [A kohen who is] . . . drunk. Maimonides holds that [kohanim] who are drunk [while performing] Temple service are punished with death, but if they merely entered the Temple, they are punishable by whipping. Nachmanides (on Prohibition 73) criticized him [Maimonides] why he, according to his opinion, did not count them as two prohibitions, the one punished by death and the other with whipping. But he [Nachmanides] wrote that kohanim are only forbidden to perform service while drunk, but regarding merely not entering there is no prohibition, and if it is forbidden, it is only a rabbinic embellishment. For the [kohanim who are] members of the guard [the group designated for Temple service during a particular week] are forbidden to drink wine during the day time, even at their homes, while the members of a “father’s house” [this is the one seventh of a guard which is assigned to a particular day of that week] are forbidden even at night. [This quotation (from Mishnah Ta’anit 2, 7) is given by Nachmanides to show that] all these [restrictions on drinking] are rabbinic laws, since they may be needed to perform service. And Maimonides’s opinion is that [kohanim] intoxicated with wine are punishable with death, but [kohanim intoxicated] with other intoxicants are just forbidden [punishable by whipping]. According to this, it would be proper to count them separately. Nachmanides, however, thought that other intoxicants do not have a [Torah] prohibition, for it is derived by a gezerah shavah from the Nazirite [by the common word] shechar (see Keritot 13b). This is also Rashi’s opinion (Rashi on Lev. 10:9). It seems that Maimonides does not separate a prohibition into two unless they differ in punishments administered by the human court, e.g., the one by whipping and the other by capital punishment. But if they differ in that — 415 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

[one is punished] by “cutting off” and [the other] by death [decreed by heaven], he does not count these separately, since both [of the latter] are given whippings [in addition to their suffering the divine punishment]. With this [theory] several puzzling questions that we raised against him, as well as Nachmanides did, are solved, for we did not penetrate to his ultimate opinion about this. And an impure [kohen] who comes to serve in the Temple. This is a prohibition that has the penalty of death for an impure kohen who may not perform service. I have already written above (Stanza 113) about [the words] “And an impure [kohen] lest he be swallowed,” and he repeats it here regarding the punishment; and there I explained it. Now, if for mere entry [while unclean], he incurs the punishment of “cutting off,” how is it possible that for performing service [while he is unclean] he would be punishable just by death [rather than the more sever penalty of “cutting off”], since from the time of entering [the Temple] he incurs the penalty of “cutting off”? Possibly, [the answer is that] it is possible to perform service without actual entry, by using a long-handled hook to turn over the sacrificial meat from a distance, and this is the solution of Ravad (on Hilchot Bi’at Bet Hamikdash 4, 4).160 In the Temple [lit. bachadarim, i.e., in the rooms] means the sections of the Temple, i.e., the courtyard, the sanctuary, and the innermost section [Holy of Holies]. Some read this as hadarim (glories) [rather than chadarim (rooms)], since it [the Temple) was a magnificent structure. *** And now you o’ reader, “see, even see” (1 Sam. 24:11) what I have written about both the positive and the negative commandments, how many disagreements and how many confusions have fallen into the enumeration of the commandments. It seems like Maimonides in his first draft could not get the right number of prohibitions. For so did Nachmanides write (at the end of the Prohibitions section) that it was lacking seven commandments in the prohibitions. But we see them fully numbered in his later version. Now, Nachmanides had added on his own 160 Y. Perlow’s marginal note on Zohar Harakia here points out that the more appropriate answer to the question here is that given in the Gemara Sh’vuot 17b, while Ravad’s answer is needed only to cover the case of a tevul yom performing service. — 416 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

for completion, so that these would be in excess to his [Maimonides’s revised] enumeration. But we observe that among those that he [Nachmanides] had added there was one that [actually] was written by Maimonides. Apparently, it was not written in the first version [which was used by Nachmanides], and he remembered it in his later version. That one was (Deut. 19:13) “Your eye shall not take pity,” referring to [punishing] a murderer. And concerning the prohibitions relating to a Nazirite, Maimonides counted them as only a single prohibition (see Maimonides in his Ninth Principle), and so did he [Nachmanides] decide to count it. But in his [Maimonides’s] final version, there are five prohibitions (Nos. 202–206); all of this I have [previously] written (Stanza 63 of the Prohibitions). So we have accounted for five commandments that were missing in the first version [four extra Nazirite commandments and one about not taking pity on the murderer]. But I do not know which were the sixth and seventh that were missing. So it seems to me that Maimonides had great weariness in writing, reviewing and correcting. Also, Nachmanides himself, although attempting to complete what was missing for Maimonides, says (at the conclusion of his critique of the prohibitions) that he is unsure of himself on this and he is not confident about his own enumeration, and he leaves this matter to Elijah [who is to explainl unresolved problems in the time to come]. For if all the men of valor have not found their hands and feet, how can (I,) the smallest of the small among them, determine the enumeration, when one builds and the other wrecks, one builds a fence and the other smashes it, one raises objections and the other answers it. Therefore, I say that this thing should be left as is, and our hands will be filled by the commandments of reading, interpreting, and receiving reward. And perhaps what was agreed that the number of commandments is 613 [365 prohibitions and 248 positive commandments] is according to Rabbi Simlai, and is in accordance with how he interpreted the commandments. But we need not rely on him in his interpretation for decision on the law, but we should rely on the discussions in the Talmud. And as to why this number is mentioned all over, it is because we have not found any other sage who enumerated them, so we have held on to his enumeration. And even if this number should be somewhat less or more, the [actual] number is approximately this. This is like the saying in many places (Sukkah 8a), “This is a small [error], and he

— 417 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

is not concerned with a small thing.”161 Maybe someone whose heart is broader [in understanding] than my heart will bring that which is hidden to light and will achieve what I could not. But I have done all I could do. And if God gives us leisure, and if we spend our days well and our years pleasantly, then we may put additional effort into establishing the enumeration. But for now, it is sufficient that we have a beginning on this. And it is not a small piece of work that we did on this. Only a sage who is well versed in the entire Talmud can realize the effort in this work. And He who chose us from all nations and crowned us with His commandments and made us wise with His teachings, may He open our eyes to see the wonders of His Torah, and may His commandments make us wiser than our enemies.162 Its [this work’s] completion was in Algiers, the city of our sojourning, on the second of the month of Sivan, in the year 5177 (1418 CE). “May the Lord give strength to His people, may the Lord bless His people with peace” (Ps. 29:11). It is totally completed, praise to God, Creator of the Universe. The following are several stanzas which conclude ibn Gabirol’s Azharot, on which the Zohar Harakia has no comment. Concluded are the positive commandments and negative commandments, With the help of the rock, refuge, and shield of the righteous. These are the teachings, well-founded and fortified, And they have branches like the twigs of palm trees. May the most high God hasten to gather his needy people, And build Mount Zion with its valley and corpses. May He erect His Tabernacle and illumine its darkness, And give strength to His king and raise up our horn.

161 Perlow in his introduction to Saadya’s enumeration shows that the last argument about small deviations is way off. 162 The last is a grammatically questionable adaptation of Ps. 119:99. — 418 —

———————————————— The Negative Commandments ————————————————

And may the small population see the arising of those sleeping in dust, When the shofar is sounded, and when the flag is raised on the mountains. And from the top of noisy streets the mouths will sing, And from the lairs of lions and from the mountains of leopards. (And then every erring nation will melt because of the trouble, At the sound of a multitude celebrating with joy and songs.)163 On the mountain of Galilee we will march with the flute, And then You will desire the whole offering, and then they will offer bullocks.164 ***

163 This stanza is absent from the Zohar Harakia. 164 As it is written in Ps. 51:21, “Then will You delight in the sacrifices of righteousness, burnt offerings and whole offerings; then they will offer bullocks upon Your altar.” — 419 —

————————————————————

Preface

— 420 —

————————————————————

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

Appendix to the Zohar Harakia The author said [the author informs us that this appendix is also his writing] that God, having blessed us until now—blessed is God who let us live and kept us until this time—we have seen fit to add on to the teaching about determining the calculation of the enumeration of the commandments according to our humble opinion and reasoning. We make our basis Maimonides’s enumeration in his Sefer Hamitzvot and in the beginning of Sefer Hamada (in the Mishneh Torah). Now, we have decided to count a prohibition derived from a positive statement (lav haba michlal aseh) in the enumeration of the 248 [positive commandments], on account of the proof we found for this from the Yerushalmi, as we wrote at the end of our commentary on the positive commandments (Stanza 82). For we do not find even for Nachmanides, who disputes with Maimonides, any consistency, since he includes some of them in his enumeration and excludes some. And according to this decision of ours we have seen that the number of 248 [positive commandments] would be completed with prohibitions derived from positive statements whose laws are considered as positive. You have already seen from what we wrote in our commentary on the positive commandments, that Nachmanides found fault with Maimonides’s enumeration regarding twenty-six commandments which he deleted from his own [Nachmanides’s] enumeration. These are (1) “to serve Him” meaning prayer (Stanza 12); (2) “And you shall swear by His name” (Stanza 14); (3) demanding payment of a loan to a gentile (in the sabbatical year) (Stanza 37); (4) taking interest from a gentile (Stanza 37); (5) bringing sacrifices from outside the land of Israel to the Temple (Stanza 38); (6–8) the four types of capital punishment which he Nachmanides counts as just one commandment while Maimonides counts them as four, so that Nachmanides has deleted three more commandments, which added to five previously mentioned makes eight; (9) the law of annulment of vows; all the laws of impurities, which are thirteen commandments (Stanza 68) which Nachmanides omits from his enumeration, and which added to the previous nine makes twenty-two commandments; he also omits the four commandments of examining the signs of cattle and animals [regarding clean and unclean species], examining signs of birds [printed texts omit this], examining signs of — 421 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

fish, and examining signs of swarming flying things (Stanza 82), all together twenty-six commandments. He inserts in their stead to complete the enumeration twenty-six other commandments, as you have seen from what I wrote in the commentary on the commandments. These are (1) to recite a blessing for the Torah (Stanza 24); (2) remembering what was stated concerning Miriam (Stanza 26); (3) “You shall be wholehearted” (Stanza 31); (4) eating holy sacrifices in Jerusalem (Stanza 35); (5) to include all other sacrifices between the two daily [morning and evening] sacrifices (Stanza 35); fruits of the seventh year to be used as food, and not for merchandising (Stanza 36); (7) enabling one’s brother to make a living (Stanza 39); (80) returning specified interest (Stanza 39); (9) eating the paschal lamb on the fourteenth [of Nissan] prohibited (Stanza 40); (10) prohibition of benefiting from the clothing of one afflicted with tzora’at (Stanza 45); (11) the law of (a master) who knocks out his slave’s tooth (Stanza 18); (12) to make the Ark and its cover (Stanza 49); (13) the prohibition against sacrificing the limbs of a wild animal on the altar [as implied from a positive commandment (see Positive Commandment No. 133, Stanza 51)]; (14) the blood avenger must execute the murderer (Stanza 53); (15) the prohibition against eating impure terumah [implied by a positive statement, Stanza 54)]; (16) to set aside terumah from quality produce (Stanza 54); (17) to recognize rights of the first born (Stanza 58); (18) to sanctify the hair grown on a Nazirite by prohibiting making use of it (Stanza 59); (19) to take possession of the Land of Canaan (Stanza 76); (20) to leave a fourth side for [enemy] soldiers [to flee] (Stanza 77); (21) prohibition of destruction of fruit trees during siege [implied by the positive statement that they may be eaten (Stanza 77)]; and (22) prohibition of making a legal decision while drunk [derived from a positive commandment (Stanza 82 of Negative Commandments)]. And, [furthermore], he enumerates reading of the shema [twice a day (see Stanza 12)], the two daily offerings [morning and evening (Stanza 45)], the incense burning morning and evening (Stanza 50), vows regarding holy things as well as vows regarding personal prohibitions, and determining the new moon and determining leap years, [all the above five topics as two separate commandments each]. So he has five extra commandments, since Maimonides had counted [each pair] as only a single commandment. With the twenty-two [additions listed previously] there are now twenty-seven. This is how I found his [Nachmanides’s] enumeration — 422 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

recorded. But I am puzzled about him, since he was lacking twenty-six [commandments] and he put in their stead twenty-seven, as you see from what I wrote. This is aside from his being in doubt about consulting the urim and tummim (Stanza 72), whether this should be an enumerated commandment or not. Now, we in our own humble opinion [i.e., in Duran’s own enumeration] are lacking, as you see from what we have written in our commentary on the commandments (Stanza 55), all the monetary laws that Maimonides wrote and which Nachmanides approved, totaling ten. These are: (1) case of an unpaid guardian, (2) case of a paid guardian, (3) law of a borrower, (4) law of buying and selling, (5) law of claimant and defendant, (6) law of a thief, and the four principal types of damage which he counts as four, i.e., (7) the ox [goring], (8) the pit, (9) the beast [by eating and trampling], and (10) the fire. All of the above, we include in the enumeration as a single commandment, namely, to judge righteously. Thus, we are lacking nine commandments. Also, we include in that general commandment one who causes bodily injury, since it is also among the matters of monetary compensation. So there are ten commandments missing. We also omit from Nachmanides’s count the law of the blood avenger (Stanza 55), making eleven. We also omit from his count the commandment of “You shall be wholehearted” (Stanza 13), making twelve. Also, we omitted from Maimonides’s count the commandment of deciding according to the majority (Stanza 52), making thirteen. We also omitted from his count what a laborer is allowed to eat (Stanzas 72 and 73), making fourteen. We also omitted from his count the commandment of breaking the neck [of the calf when there is an unsolved murder (see Stanza 63)], according to Ravad’s opinion, making fifteen. Also, we agreed with Maimonides’s opinion to count reading of the shema (Stanza 12) and daily offerings (Stanza 45) and incense (Stanza 50) and vows (Stanza 38) and setting the time of the new moon and the leap year [all of the above counting] as a single commandment [rather than two, as in Nachmanides’s count]. So we are omitting five commandments from Nachmanides’s count, for he counted them as two each only because he was forced [in order to complete] the required number [rather than by logical considerations]. But we found that the number could be completed without recourse to this [the last five omitted]. So there are twenty [deletions so far]. Also, we agree with the opinion of the Halachot Gedolot to count — 423 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

the head tefillin and the hand tefillin as a single commandment, just like Maimonides concluded concerning the blue thread of the tzitzit (Stanza 14). For just as it is stated (Menachot 44a) that [absence of] the head tefillin does not interfere with [the legitimate observance of] the hand tefillin, similarly did they say that [absence of] the blue thread does not interfere with [the legitimate observance of] the white thread.165 We have previously written in my commentary on the positive commandments (Stanza 20) that Maimonides’s proof that it [the tzitzit] should be counted as a single commandment is not valid, and his objection against the Halachot Gedolot [which would indicate that one] should count [tefillin] as two commandments is not valid. So in the end, the commandment of tefillin would be treated equivalently to that of tzitzit, so that if tzitzit is a single commandment, so is tefillin single. So [as a result,] there are twenty-one [deletions]. You have already seen our decision (Stanza 11) to delete from the count the statement “I am” [the first statement in the Decalogue], and the commandment of [affirming God’s] unity, in accordance with the Halachot Gedolot, since these are fundamental tenets of the Torah [rather than specific commandments], so there are [now] twenty-three [deletions]. We also omitted from Nachmanides count making the ark and its cover. For we would only be making a single [ark], and we are sure that we would not have to make another in the times of the Messiah, since God will reveal to us the one that Moses made, as they expounded (Yoma 72a) that the verse (Exod. 26:15) “acacia planks, upright” as meaning “lasting forever,” [since the word omdim (upright) can also mean (lasting),] so there are now twenty-four [deletions]. But we left the commandment of proper slaughtering in the enumeration (Stanza 82), even though we wrote a proof from the Midrash Yelamdenu that it is not counted as a commandment with the meaning that it is a duty to slaughter; nevertheless, we have left it in the enumeration because of our decision to count [we here translate in accordance with the version in the Torah Shelemah edition, i.e., “im kol zeh hinachnuhu b’cheshbon mipnei haskamatenu limnot” prohibitions implied by positive commandments [among the positive commandments]. And 165 In Maimonides’s Principle 11, the role of “interference” is discussed in deciding whether two aspects of a commandment are to be separately enumerated. The considerations regarding the tefillin and the tzitzit are discussed by a number of commentators. — 424 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

this commandment is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment, regarding sacrifices slaughtered outside of their proper places, as I wrote in the commentary on the positive *Actually, in Stanza 82 the author suggests that the laws commandments.* prohibiting slaughter of an We are forced to agree with the view of animal in the courtyard for Maimonides (see Stanza 45) who does not one’s own use is the one he substitutes for the method enumerate the priestly commandments, of proper slaughter. All three pouring [of oil], mixing [of dough], and othlaws, (1) proper method of slaughter, (2) slaughtering er types of service enumerated by Halachot a sacrifice only in a valid Gedolot, since Nachmanides agree with him place, and (3) prohibition of [Maimonides]. Even though we had on this non-sacrificial animals in the courtyard, are derived, by matter a proof that these things should be implication from the same included in the enumeration, this is not verse, Deut. 12:21. In the list of commandments, at decisive enough [for us] to differ from them the beginning of this work, [Maimonides and Nachmanides, especially] Positive Commandment 240 is since our enumeration would then not then given as “slaughtered outside [valid places]” in older books, be in proper agreement. but Perlow emended this to So we must include twenty-four com“slaughter of non-sacrificial animals in the courtyard.” The mandments to complete the number 248, apparent inconsistency in the and we found them scattered throughout text itself is left unsolved. the Talmud. They are the following: (1) to add on to [the Sabbath] holiness from the weekday (Stanza 19); (2) to gaze at the tzitzit (Stanza 20); (3) recalling the exodus from Egypt (Stanza 26); (4) to receive converts (Stanza 28); (5) to select terumah from its own species (Stanza 34); (6) a kohen who performs service should be physically like descendants of Aaron [thus certain defects listed in Mishnah Bechorot 7, 1 would disqualify him] (see Stanza 46); (7) “You may charge interest to the foreigner,” which is in disagreement with Nachmanides, and we have included it166 as a prohibition derived from a positive statement, which is not the opinion of Maimonides [who reads the verse as “You must charge interest”] (see Stanza 37); (8) the prohibition of eating leaven on Pesach [derived] by a positive statement (see Stanza 40); (9) a kohen should keep himself holy by not becoming impure by means of a corpse (Stanza 49); (10) the prohibition of assigning an unblemished animal to the maintenance of the Temple (Stanza 51); (11) the prohibition of leaving the limbs [and fats] 166 We think that the text should read v’hichnasnuhu, not v’hichnisuha. — 425 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

of a sacrifice all night on the floor [without burning them] (see Stanza 51); (12) “Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy” (Lev. 6:20) (see Stanza 55); (13) eating terumah in purity (Stanza 54); (14) keeping far from falsehood (Stanza 59); (15) the High Priest forbidden to marry a woman who is not a virgin (Stanza 44); (16) prohibition of marrying an Egyptian or Edomite convert in the first two generations (Stanza 44); (17) paying back one’s creditor (Stanza 59); (18) a Nazirite should preserve his sanctity (Stanza 59); (19) “And her impurity be upon him” (Lev. 15:24), which is a positive commandment concerning a menstrually impure woman (Stanza 64); (20) leaving the field two years in the possession of the purchaser (Stanza 73.)167; (21) an Israelite being forbidden to perform the priestly blessing (Stanza 44); (22) prohibition against relatives whose intercourse would be incestuous from being alone with each other (Stanza 78); (23) “And he shall be jealous for his wife” (Num. 5:14) (see Stanza 83); (24) purification of the impurity of one rendered impure by a corpse, in accordance with Maimonides, since we do not agree with Nachmanides’s opinion about this. Also, [in addition to commandments listed by Nachmanides which Duran previously rejected] we find difficulty with his [Nachmanides’s] including in the enumeration of the commandments that regard the knocking out of a slave’s tooth (Stanza 18), a Nazirite keeping the sanctity of his hair (Stanza 59), the fourth direction [for an enemy to flee] (Stanza 77), and judicial decision connected with an intoxicated judge (Stanza 82), for we do not find the sages mentioning them as specific commandments. We have introduced in their stead the four commandments to examine [the signs that render animals, birds, fish, and swarming flying things fit to be eaten]. We have done this in accordance with the opinion of Maimonides to the effect that these are prohibitions derived from positive statements. Now, if we would have to include in this [our enumeration] making the Ark and its cover, because of the proof which we found about this (in Stanza 49), we would withdraw either [the commandment about] the relatives [whose intercourse is considered to be incest] not being alone, or that of the husband required to be jealous about his wife [whom he suspects of adultery], in order to be in agreement with the opinion 167 Perlow notes here that this is contrary to what is written in the text, where he mentions two commandments on this matter. — 426 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

of the early authorities. And if neither of these two could properly be included in the enumeration, we could additionally include in the count a man being forbidden to have intercourse with two wives [of a brother who died without children (see Stanza 69). With this, the enumeration of the 248 [positive] commandments is completed. But if we have one commandment too many, because of that which Nachmanides added on in his count [as Duran mentioned above when he points out twenty-six deletions by Nachmanides and twenty-seven substitutions], we would omit the commandment of receiving converts, and include it under the commandment of circumcision and immersion of a Jew. Now, we have not added to the enumeration the burning of leftover paschal meat and the burning of an “inner” sin offering [as Duran proposed in Stanza 40], for we have not seen any of the previous authorities who counted them; and their knowledge was broader than our knowledge, and we do not have a clear proof to include them. And even though the prohibitions stated about them are included in the enumeration, the positive aspect of the law [burning] is not equivalent to that of the prohibition about this. For we find a distinction between them [i.e., the positive vs. the prohibitive], that if many things are included in a single prohibition, we see that the early authorities would count each thing separately, if there is some extra feature in the scripture which serves to separate them; however, this is not so for positive commandments, for everything included in a single positive commandment is counted as just a single commandment, as is know from the Principles.168 And in Chapter Ketzad Tzolin (Pesachim 82b) it says in the explanation of everything that becomes invalid as a holy sacrifice, that it must be burnt, and this is known from oral tradition, while the scriptural verses concerning this are otherwise needed for the interpretation; thus, there is only one commandment which envelops all the cases, and this is counted. And we left all the guilt offerings included in the enumeration as a single commandment, according to their opinion [that of the predecessors], even though we were tending to separate them (see Stanza 66); for we did not want to depart from their path except for compelling proofs from the Talmud. Also, we found that our list could be in agreement with theirs [regarding the 248 total] without this [separation of 168 The comment of Perlow here says that such a distinction is not at all found in the Principles. — 427 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

various cases of guilt offering]. So why should we fault their enumeration for something for which we do not have a decisive reason, for if the early authorities were like angels, we are but mortals (Sabbath 112b). Now, regarding the enumeration of the prohibitions, we decided, according to Maimonides’s opinion, to enumerate every prohibition which involves two separate punishments as two prohibitions. So just as he enumerates (Exod. 22:27) “You shall not revile God” (Prohibitions, Stanza 15, Commandments 25 and 26) and (Exod. 23:13) “You shall make no mention of other gods” (Commandments No. 58 and No. 323, see Stanza 132) as two commandments for each, since they are separate prohibitions, one punishable by whipping and the other by death, so we will handle other prohibitions. Thus, the method of enumeration will be uniform for everything. Now, with regard to a lav shebichlalut (inclusive prohibition), Maimonides counts them according to the [potential number of] whippings, but Nachmanides does not consider the [number of] whippings, but the similarity of the subjects [included in the prohibition], as is noted in the Principles (No. 9). We [on the other hand] have seen fit to count [only] the negative statements [without subdivision], whether there can be many whippings [for the various parts done simultaneously], or whether there could only be a single whipping for them, or whether it is one of those prohibitions where there is no whipping. So we diverged from Maimonides’s opinion about this, and we also disregard whether there is a similarity of character between them [the various parts] or whether their characteristics differ. This is with the condition that one of the components is not expressed by a separate prohibition in another place, like the prohibition (Deut. 18:10) “There shall not be found among you one who passes, etc.” (Stanza 79), or like the prohibition (Lev. 21:14) “A widow or divorcee” (Stanza 104), as is indicated in the Principles (No. 9). Also, if there are a number of prohibitions about different matters which are, however, similar to each other, each prohibition should be counted, such as offering blemished animals on the altar (Stanza 39). We differ with Nachmanides’s opinion about this [he combines Maimonides’s Prohibition No. 91 and 95 into a single commandment, since their subject matter is similar, one prohibiting permanent blemishes and the other (prohibiting) temporary blemishes, even though they are derived from separate prohibitive statements]. Since neither of them has a proof to support his opinion, — 428 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

and it depends on their reasoning, logic would require us just to count the prohibitive statements, whether they are inclusive or specific. And thus, we found the number correctly, and treatment of prohibitions would be the same as that of positive commandments, counting all compounded cases with one way of enumeration. After this decision of ours, we will strive to determine the enumeration. Nachmanides deleted from Maimonides’s enumeration thirty-one prohibitions. These are: (1 and 2) two concerning idol worship; (3) not to hearken to a [false] prophet (Stanza 23), (4) not to be frightened of them [i.e., Israel’s enemies] (Stanza 50); (5) blemished kohanim not to enter the Temple (Stanza 50); (6) a kohen with a temporary blemish may not serve (Stanza 50); (7) not to bring a sacrifice with a temporary blemish (Stanza 39); (8 and 9) not eating [outside Jerusalem] the tithe of grain, wine, and oil, which Maimonides divided into three and he [Nachmanides] counted as a single prohibition (Stanza 47); (10, 11, and 12) “I have not eaten [second tithe] in my mourning . . . and I have not put away . . . and I have not given . . .” (Deut. 26:14; see Stanza 126); (13, 14, and 15) the prohibition of creeping things that do not reproduce, creeping things of the water, and worms in fruit (Stanza 72); (16 and 17) bread, roasted grain, and fresh grain [before the Omer offering] which Maimonides counted as three prohibitions but Nachmanides as one (Stanza 37); (18) prohibition of wine poured [for idol worship] (Stanza 29); (10) prohibition of mixtures with leaven (Stanza 146); (20) prohibition of leaven before its time (Stanza 41); (21) “You shall do nothing to the girl” (Stanza 28); (22) prohibition of shaving the hair of a scall (Stanza 65); (23) prohibition of [going beyond the Sabbath] boundaries (Stanza 117); and (24) “You shall not draw near to uncover her nakedness” (Stanza 11). Also, Nachmanides said that [in his copy of Maimonides’s Sefer Hamitzvot] Maimonides did not complete the 365 prohibitions, but seven of these commandments were missing, which together with the twenty-four just mentioned makes thirty-one missing from his Nachmanides’s list. So he had to introduce thirty-one prohibitions in their place. These are the following: (1) not to forget God (Stanza 118); (2) not to forget standing at Sinai (ibid.); (3) not to alter the order of sacred vessels (ibid.); (4) not to slaughter holy sacrifices with the idea of eating them at an improper time or place (Stanza 144); (5) not to eat sacrifices which were slaughtered with the idea of eating them at an improper — 429 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

place (ibid.); (6) not to eat the slaughtered bird of a metzora (Stanza 72); (7) the Levites may not take their terumah [the portion of their tithe which they must give to the kohen] from bad quality for the good quality [produce, which they would eat for themselves] (Stanza 47); (8) we shall not accept the shekel offering from gentiles (Stanza 51); (9) we must not accept the testimony of a single individual in capital cases (Stanza 28); (10) “He shall not melt” [i.e., a coward shall not melt the courage of his comrade soldier] (Stanza 127); (11) “And you shall keep yourself away from any evil thing” (Stanza 65); (12)one may not give away the firstborn privilege (Stanza 128); (13) you shall not spare a murderer (Stanza 80); (14) the prohibition [to a High Priest] of a chalutzah (Stanza 93); (15) prohibition of [a man having intercourse with his wife who becomes] a sotah in secret [i.e., an adulteress] (Stanza 91); (16) “It shall not be difficult in your eyes” concerning a Hebrew slave [i.e., to give him presents when he goes free] (Stanza 57); (17) “You shall not feel bad in your heart” [when you give charity] (Stanza 79). Also, he counts the cases of [not marrying] an Ammonite or Moabite (Stanza 86), [not oppressing] an orphan or widow (Stanza 13), [not inflicting the death penalty on] the innocent and righteous [the rabbis understood these terms to mean two ways in which a man may be acquitted in spite of his apparent guilt] (see Stanza 88), [not to burn on the altar] leaven or honey (Stanza 68), [not bringing as gift to the Temple] the fee [of a harlot] or the price [of a “dog”] (see Stanza 54), [not to eat] partially roasted or boiled [paschal lamb] (Stanza 74), [all the above] as two commandments apiece, while Maimonides counts [them] as one apiece. So he [Nachmanides] has six additional prohibitions, which with the seventeen aforementioned makes twenty-three. [Now continuing, we have]: (24) [a kohen] should not profane the sanctuary of his God [by leaving the sanctuary in the midst of service] (Stanza 105); (25) not to pollute your land [by allowing the corpse of an executed criminal hanging overnight] (Stanza 64); (26) “They shall not enter to see during the covering [of the holy vessels by the Levites] (Stanza 113)”; (27) “He shall serve no more,” said of the Levites [after their retirement age] (Stanza 115); (28) “You shall not bring sin on the land” (Deut. 24:4) [by taking back an ex-wife who was divorced by a second husband] (see Stanza 93); (29) “The land shall not fall into harlotry” (Stanza 13); (30) “One should not be like Korach and his company” (Stanza 114); (31) the prohibition of [deriving benefit from] — 430 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

a firstborn of an ass [which was not redeemed] (see Stanza 72). With this, Nachmanides’s 365 prohibitions are completed. But he had a difficulty with three prohibitions, i.e., not to harass Seir [Edom], Moab, or Ammon (see Stanza 86). He included them in his enumeration of the commandments, so he had to delete from Maimonides’s enumeration three [commandments] correspondingly; and so he was pressed to count the four prohibitions concerning offering a blemished animal on the altar as just a single commandment (see Stanza 39), since it is a single subject. You have already seen that we decided to count the prohibitory statements, without considering the resemblance of the subjects. You have also seen about these three prohibitions [Seir, Moab, Ammon], that they do not apply throughout the generations, and because of this [we did not enumerate them], and therefore, we left Maimonides enumeration about sacrificing blemished animals as he had it [as four separate commandments]. But we must look into Nachmanides’s enumeration as to whether it jibes with our ideas or not. For we have worried about what he wrote that Maimonides did not complete the number of 365 prohibitions [since we have taken as our starting point Maimonides’s complete 365 commandments together with Nachmanides’s alterations and additions], whereas we found then complete. Therefore, we have an excess of seven commandments over the 365 prohibitions, and how can this be? So we labored ceaselessly [the Hebrew phrase is from Lam. 5:5], for all this care [this phrase is from 2 Kings 4:13] of ours is just for this purpose of bringing forth a precise enumeration, no less and no more. But we have seen (compare Stanza 63) that he [Nachmanides] criticized Maimonides for [allegedly] counting the prohibitions of the Nazirite as a single prohibition, in view of his [Maimonides’s] decision to enumerate prohibitions according to the number of [individual] whippings [as punishment for several components simultaneously transgressed], which would require him to enumerate five prohibitions, for there are five whippings among them [the Nazirite prohibitions]. But according to the version of the Sefer Hamitzvot that is in our hands, which is the translation of Rabbi Moses ibn Tibbon, we found that he does count them as five prohibitiions. Apparently, in the first version of Sefer Hamitzvot which came to the hands of Nachmanides, which was the translation of Rabbi Abraham Halevi ibn Chasdai, he only counted them as one, and later he [Maimonides] reviewed and corrected this. Thus, we have — 431 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

discovered [in the final version] four commandments [of Maimonides] over what Nachmanides found *At this point we pause in the translation to [i.e., we have identified in the clarify the drift of the reasoning in Duran’s argument. He is dealing with a difficulty in final version four specific comNachmanides’s enumeration. As we have mandments which were not in seen, Nachmanides starts with Maimonides’s enumeration as a basis, and then he deletes the 358 of the first version], certain commandments which do not meet his and thus we only have three of criteria and inserts certain replacements to Maimonides’s prohibitions that make up the proper number. In turn, Duran takes Nachmanides’s list and deletes and adds are missing.* according to his opinion. But we have a problem Furthermore, we found that with all this for the prohibitions, for in the he [Nachmanides] criticized him manuscript which was in Nachmanides’s hands, the enumeration was incomplete, so that there [Maimonides] (see Stanza 80) were 358 instead of 365 prohibitions. Having for not enumerating the prohibideleted 24 prohibitions from Maimonides’s work, Nachmanides introduced 24 + 7 = 31 to tion of sparing a murderer, while bring up the proper number. But Duran did we find that in our version [of not know what Nachmanides’s list comprised, since the identity of the seven missing was not Sefer Hamitzvot] it is included. known. What Duran had available was only Apparently, Maimonides rethe complete list of Maimonides, which, taken viewed and corrected the text. together with Nachmanides’s additions and deletions and seven extra, comprises 365 + 7 But we, in accordance with = 372 prohibitions. So he has a basis which is our decision to separately enuoversized. However, Duran finds some hints in merate negative statements reNachmanides’s discussion as to what the gardless of their being separately difference was between the incomplete list of punishable or not, Maimonides’s Nachmanides’s version of Maimonides’s enumeration and the final version of Maimonides. listing of the prohibitions of the The incomplete list had all the grape products Nazirite as five prohibitions, forbidden to a Nazir comprising a single commandment, but the complete list had all these would only have the effect of separated as five separate commandments. adding in two prohibitions. For Thus, we have accounted for four of the items regarding the Nazirite, there are which were part of the shortfall in the defective list. Similarly, a fifth missing commandment four negative statements made is identified as not taking pity on a murderer, (Num. 6:3–4). These include “He which is found in Maimonides’s full list. These shall drink no vinegar of wine five items are things which Nachmanides disapproved for the enumeration, and thus, if they or vinegar of strong drink,” and had been in the defective list, he would have also “He shall not drink liquor to delete them and substitute for them. Thus, the number of substitutions would have been of grapes.” Now, these two are increased by five, and the number of missing about a single matter, as I wrote commandments would reduce to two. And so, if Duran did not have any further objections to in my commentary on the proNachmanides’s list, he would have a problem hibitive commandments, and of being oversized. However, he does have according to everyone’s opinion disagreement with Nachmanides, whereby — 432 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

they should be enumerated as only a single commandment. There are also two other prohibitions indicated regarding the Nazirite, i.e., “He shall not eat either fresh or dried grapes” and “He shall not eat from the seeds or skin.” Now, Maimonides, who enumerates prohibitions corresponding to the number of whippings incurred [when they are transgressed simultaneously], these should be enumerated as four [fresh, dried, seeds, skin]. But in our [i.e., in Duran’s] opinion, as we count the number of negative clauses, they would only be counted as two. So these two would be added for us [i.e., for our count] in addition to the enumeration of Nachmanides. So we would only have to fill in the deficit in the enumeration of the commandments with twenty-eight, since we find the prohibition of sparing a murderer, and the two additions concerning the Nazirite, and we deduct these three from the thirty-one [substitutions of Nachmanides for the twenty-seven prohibitions he deleted from Maimonides, plus the seven missing prohibitions in Maimonides’s early version] in Nachmanides’s list, we would remain with twenty-eight missing prohibitions. However, both of them [Maimonides and Nachmanides] agreed to enumerate the ov and the yidoni as two separate prohibitions, either because their practices are different, or because the practitioners are different. But we, because of our decision to count the number of negative statements, count them as a single commandment, and therefore, we have one prohibition less, and thus we have finally twenty-nine [missing rather than twenty-eight]. Now, we need to compensate for those of Nachmanides’s substitutions that we have deleted. Although Nachmanides deletes from Maimonides’s enumeration [the prohibition of entering the sanctuary with] torn priestly garments (Stanza 105), we do not have to compensate for it, for he has already substituted for it [the prohibition for a kohen to perform service] lacking his priestly garments. In fact, we have deleted from Nachmanides’s substitutions the prohibition not to forget God, which is according to our reasoning (Stanza 7) that just as we do not enumerate the statement “I am (the Lord your God, etc., Exod.

he deletes seventeen of Nachmanides’s substitutions, and he also differs with both Nachmanides and Maimonides on the number of separate commandments applying to the Nazirite. The above considerations leave a net deficit which Duran compensates by providing his list of eighteen additional prohibitions. If this whole matter seems somewhat too technical and wearisome, and you don’t feel like working it out in deatail, you are quite normal, and you may just choose to go through it hastily. We now return to the text of Duran at the words od matzinu.

— 433 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

20:2)” as a specific positive commandment, so we should not enumerate “You shall not forget,” which is a prohibition concerning this statement in the enumeration of the prohibitions. We also deleted (Stanza 144) the prohibition of eating a slaughtered sacrificial animal with the thought of eating it outside the proper place, since it is a lav shebichlalut, for in the verse that prohibits this, i.e. (Deut. 17:1), “You shall not sacrifice unto the Lord your God and ox or a sheep in which there is a blemish,” there is nothing explicitly mentioned except a “blemish.” And this [i.e., a blemish] has already been prohibited in another place, and two verses concerning a single matter should only be enumerated as a single commandment. We also deleted (Stanza 72) on this basis the slaughtered bird of a metzora. We also deleted on this basis accepting shekel contributions from gentiles. We also deleted (Stanza 28) the prohibition not to accept testimony of a [single] individual, as we wrote our opinion about this in our commentary on the prohibitions. We also deleted the prohibition [of a man continuing to have marital relations with] his secretly adulterous wife, since this is included with the prohibition of remarrying his divorced wife, and this in our opinion is a lav shebichlalut. For this reason [lav shebichlalut], we agree with Maimonides’s enumerating [prohibited marriage with] an Ammonite or Moabite (Stanza 246), oppressing an orphan or widow (Stanza 13), not killing one who is “innocent and righteous” (Stanza 88), the prohibition of leaven or honey (Stanza 68), [accepting as a sacrifice] the fee [of a harlot] or the price [of a dog], [eating paschal meat] partially roasted or water cooked, as single commandments [although each action is associated with two separate people or things]. And regarding the prohibition (Deut. 12:17) “You may not eat within your gates, etc.” according to our ideas about lav shebichlalut, we will have five prohibitions fewer [i.e., Duran counts it as a single commandment rather than Nachmanides’s six], as you may see from what we have written about these prohibitions. So the number [of prohibitions which] we have deleted from Nachmanides is seventeen commandments, so we need to replace with our [choice of prohibitions]. These are besides one more to compensate the ov and the yidoni which they count separately, but we only count as a single prohibition (see Stanza 232). Now, we have, according to what we wrote in our commentary on these prohibitions, eighteen prohibitions corresponding to those we — 434 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

deleted, and they will complete the 365 prohibitions, as follows. With the prohibitions of the Nazirite that Maimonides counted as five, we counted them according to our system only as three, and Nachmanides only as one in his system of enumerating the commandments, so we have [in effect] two additional commandments [compared with Nachmanides]. The third is not dedicating unblemished animals for temple maintenance [rather than sacrifices]. The fourth is the prohibition of deriving benefit from a corpse, which is derived by a gezera shava, just as they decided (Sefer Hamitzvot, Prohibition No. 315) to count [the prohibition of] an uncircumcised person [eating terumah], which is derived from a gezera shava. The fifth is the prohibition of benefiting from meat mixed with milk. The sixth is “You shall not eat over blood” as prohibiting the first [gluttonous] eating by the rebellious son (Stanza 48). [Even though this is a lav shebichlalut containing many forbidden acts, we may count the particular prohibition of the rebellious son separately], just as we count “You shall not curse God [and judges]” (Stanza 15) as two separate prohibitions; similarly we should count this prohibition (“You shall not eat over blood”) as two prohibitions, since one [being those other components of the commandment which are punishable] by whipping, and the other [gluttony which is ultimately by] death. Similarly, the seventh (Stanza 99) is (Lev. 25:42) “They may not be sold as bondmen,” is due to the same reason [i.e., the case of selling a Hebrew slave in a degrading manner is punishable by whipping, while the case of kidnapping a slave is punishable by death]. Similarly, the eighth, eating blood (Stanza 48), [comprises two prohibitions], the one [eating “life blood,” punishable] with “cutting off,” and the other [eating “organ blood,” punishable as an ordinary] prohibition [with whipping]. Similarly, the ninth is leading a donkey on the Sabbath (Stanza 131), [this kind of work being punishable only as an ordinary prohibition, not by death as for other kinds of work]. And similarly, the tenth is that of a lay person who does [priestly] service, which involves two prohibitions, one punishable by death and the other as a simple prohibition, with the same reasoning (see Stanza 155). The eleventh is “Your eye shall not have mercy” stated about false witnesses (Stanza 80), just like they decided to enumerate “You shall not have mercy” regarding one who incites idolatry (Stanza 23), or a murderer (ibid.), or one who seizes the genitals (Stanza 80), the reasons — 435 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

being the same. The twelfth is “You shall not profane your daughter, making her a harlot,” as we wrote (Stanza 13) in our commentary on the prohibitions. And if this prohibition is not admissible in the enumeration, we could introduce instead [eating from a sacrificial animal] slaughtered with intention of [eating it] outside [the proper place], since a particular negative commandment applies to this.169 The thirteenth is the prohibition (Lev. 2:11) “It shall not be made with leaven.”170 The fourteenth and fifteenth are (Exod. 13:15) “The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less [than a half shekel].” The sixteenth is the entry [by the High Priest] into the Sanctuary [when not required] which is prohibited (see Stanza 68). The seventeenth is the prohibition of defiling the Sanctuary by his unlaundered defiled clothes [even though his body has been washed] (see Stanza 151). The eighteenth is to take care of one’s life [not to endanger it], as it is said (Deut. 4:15) “And you shall be most heedful of your lives.” May He who guards the life of his faithful ones, guard our going and our coming, and lead us on the path of his commandments from now on forever, Amen. And here our intention is fulfilled, with G’s. help, in figuring the enumeration of the commandments, according to our reasoning and our humble opinion. We have seen fit to enumerate the commandments according to our opinions, following the order of [ibn Gabirol’s] Azharot, which we made as a basis for arranging these matters [to see] how much it agrees with us, even though this [commentary] facilitates things for anyone who undertakes such a work. And it is a divine task for anyone who comes to fulfill it with all his heart, all his soul, and all his capability; and may his majesty be like the olive tree (Hos. 14:7).171 It [the Azharot] is a book full of attractiveness, [like] jacinth, agate, or topaz; spikenard, flowing myrrh, or cassia.172 It counts 365 and 248 169 Initially, Duran rejected this as a separate commandment, when he lists those additional commandments of Nachmanides which he deletes. It is the second in the list, and he deleted it on the basis that it is derived from a lav shebichlalut, where a single verse contains a number of different topics. However, here he finds a redeeming feature, that a portion of the verse (Lev. 7:18) that says “It is an abhorrent thing” is applied by the sages to the case of an animal slaughtered with the intention of eating it in an improper place. 170 The commentary Ziv Hazohar emends the text here to quote the prohibition in Ex. 13:3 “No leavened bread shall be eaten,” as we have theorized in Principle 9, that various negative statements should be separately counted, even though the content overlaps. 171 The words above, yado, m’odo, and hodo, rhyme. 172 Chemdah, pit’dah, and kidah rhyme. — 436 —

———————————————— Appendix to the Zohar Harakia ————————————————

[commandments]. The one who crowned it [the Azharot] with a gem [Duran’s commentary] and made for it a foundation of sapphire (Isa. 54:11), the father who gave birth to this, is Shimon son of Zemach.173

173 The usage of b’no to mean “son of” is rare. Oddly, it is used by Bilam in his prophetic declarations (Num. 23:19, 24:3, and 24:15). Perhaps Duran used the expression Shimon b’no to recall the language in the Mishnah (Avot 1:16) and the important teachings expressed there. — 437 —

————————————————————

Preface

— 438 —

————————————————————

————————————————————

Glossary

————————————————————

Glossary Aseh. A positive commandment (literally “do!”). Asmachta. A rabbinic device in which a Torah law is “read in” to a biblical verse, but is not so much a derivation of the law, but a mnemonic device, the validity being derived by other considerations. Azharot. A poetic formulation of the 613 commandments. A number of these poems have been written by illustrious authors and are chanted on the holiday of Shavuot. Chalal. A descendant of a kohen who is unfit for the priesthood due to a sexual offense. Chalitza. The process given in the torah by which the levirate marriage is circumvented. Challah. Priestly portion of dough. Dikdukei Soferim. Subtle interpretations of the Scribes. Gaon. Title of a leading Babylonian rabbi in the post-Talmudic period; in our work the term the Gaon refers to the author of Halachot Gedolot. Guf torah. A well-recognized important Torah law. Gematria. An interpretation based on the numerical value of a Hebrew word, dependent on its spelling. Gezera. A rabbinic enactment enlarging the scope of a torah prohibition. Gezera shava. A method of rabbinic interpretation of the torah based on the same expression being used in two different biblical verses. Halachot Gedolot. First widely accepted enumeration of the 613 commandments. Hekesh. A method of rabbinic interpretation based on the juxtaposition of two words in a biblical verse. Kal v’chomer. Rabbinic legal deduction inferring from minor to major. Kashrut. Being fit for a particular use, e.g., meat that is permissible for food is called kasher. Kiddush and Havdalah. Blessings at the beginning and the end of the Sabbath focusing on the creation of the world and the divine covenant with Israel. Kiddushin. The first phase of Jewish marriage by which the bride is strongly forbidden to have relations with anyone other than the groom. However, the couple may not yet consummate the marriage until the next phase, which is called nissuin. Kohen, kohanim. Priest, priests, in particular the descendants of Aaron who are valid to perform priestly functions Lav shebichlalut. An “inclusive prohibition,” which subsumes two different prohibitions in a single clause. Lo ta’aseh. A negative commandment (literally “do not do”). Lulav. The palm branch used in celebration of the Sukkot holiday. Mamzer. Child born of certain forbidden unions. — 439 —

————————————————————

Glossary

————————————————————

Maror. Bitter herbs eaten on Pesach. Nevelah. An animal that dies a natural death and is thus forbidden to eat, since it did not die by ritual slaughter. Niddah. A woman during her menstrual impurity. Nissuin. The second phase of Jewish marriage whereby the marriage is consummated. Notar. Leftover sacrificial meat, which is forbidden to eat. Ov. A type of idolatrous practice forbidden in the torah. See yidoni. Pesach rishon. Pesach observed at the proper time on the fifteenth of Nissan. Pesach sheni. Pesach observed on the fifteenth of Iyar, if one could not do so on the fifteenth of Nissan. Ribbui. A method of rabbinic interpretation in which a deduction is made from an expansive word in the biblical statement. Semichah. Originally meant the rabbinic chain of ordination stemming from Moses. Currently, it means rabbinic ordination attesting to the competency in Jewish studies and personal character befitting a congregational rabbi. Tefillin. Small parchment scrolls contained in leather boxes worn on the hand and the arm. The biblical verses include those that record the commandment to wear the tefillin. Terefah. An animal that has died by a violent act, so that it is forbidden to eat, not having been properly slaughtered according to Jewish ritual. Tzitzit. Fringed garments intended to remind the wearer of the divine presence. Tzora’at. A plague that infects a person or a house, rendering them impure until it is “healed.” Yidoni. A variety of idolatrous practice, related to the ov. Zav. A person who has had a bodily efflux which renders him “unclean.” Z’nut. Harlotry Zonah. A harlot.

— 440 —

————————————————————

Preface

— 441 —

————————————————————

————————————————— Translator's Afterword —————————————————

Translator's Afterword: Two Dreams and Helpful Children When I retired, I determined to fulfill two dreams. One was to bring my studies of the 613 commandments to a publishable form. The other was to indulge my desire to do some things of a woodcraft nature. I had read books on woodcarving, but I did not make any progress in this direction because of my literary work. Then my daughter Hannah and son-in-law Harold bought me a set of woodcarving tools. I then got an idea for a woodcarving project that would combine with my studies of the 613 commandments. There is a well-known Talmudic statement that 613 commandments were given to Moses at Sinai, and later on, King David and the prophets summarized them into eleven commandments, then six, then three, then two, and finally into a single statement. I imagined a wooden pictorialization of the original 613 on top, with the lower levels representing the various summaries. The original 613 are on slips of paper, with the rest being calligraphy on various veneers and with various techniques of forming the letters. The general aspect of the picture resembles vaguely the shape of a Menorah. For the complete list on paper, I looked to the formulation which was most economically expressed in short phrases. Thus, I came to copy by hand the list given at the beginning of the Zohar Harakia, which represents Duran’s decisions as to the proper enumeration. While laboriously doing this, I noticed that after I had gone through all the positive commandments and the the 145 first prohibitions, the next number listed was No. 148. Thus, it looked like two entries were somehow lost. I also noticed that Perlow, in his notes on the introductory enumeration section, did not mention this lacuna, but he noticed that at prohibition 204 there is a jog in the numbering. Now, I looked at the Lemberg edition, which was the one that Perlow was using, and indeed there the numbers 202 and 203 are skipped. So here, there is likewise a deficit of two commandments but at a different place. So in either version there are actually two less than the required number of 365 prohibitions. Perlow proposed two commandments in Duran’s scheme which he claims were inadvertently omitted. Now, it is too exasperating to examine the details of all the pieces of the problem here. However, I noticed that in the Manuscript version of the list the numbers 146 and 147 occur in the table, but with blank spaces — 442 —

————————————————— Translator's Afterword —————————————————

next to them. So I looked carefully at Stanza 54, and in Duran’s commentary he states explicitly that the poet should have have included here two other commandments, i.e., not to put oil in the meal offering of a sinner, and not to put frankincense in it. It thus appears plausible that originally Duran’s list included these two. Why do these two spaces appear blank? It is plausible that in scanning the two preceding commandments, not to put oil in the meal offering of a suspected adulteress (sotah) and not to put frankincense in it; the copyist decided that there was a redundancy here, so he erased the latter two. This error is especially likely, since the script version of sotah and choteh (sinner) could be deceivingly similar. In discussing the above anomaly, I was fortunate in having a copy of the Lemberg edition through the efforts of my son Benjamin. Another interesting difficulty arose in connection with Duran’s discussion (Stanza 77) of the Aramaic word linta. He cites a source in Midrash Tanchuma to support this. Since I did not understand the proof, I tried unsuccessfully to find it. I thought it would help to have some one look up linta on the computer program for rabbinic sources. My son, Joshua, assisted me by directing me to a neighbor, Dr. Arnold Lustiger, who has this program. But none of the quotations with the the word linta turned out to be what I needed. Dr. Lustiger advised me that we should enter other words surrounding linta in the quotation, and this scheme brought up the proper source. The surprise here was that the word in the quotation was not linta. It was the word legata [as in “legacy”]. Thus, Duran either misread the quotation, or got the wrong impression from a faulty copy. In any event, his proof for the meaning of linta was false. Finally, when I first became aware of inadequacies in the current printed editions of the Zohar Harakia, I had occasion to visit my son, Jonathan, who then was living in London. This gave me the opportunity of examining the copy of the first printing [in 1515] at the British Library. His son, Adam, was instrumental in this effort. It turned out that many of the current textual flaws in current editions are also there. So it is probable that the successive editions were just following the first printed version. So it was gratifying that when the going got tough, my children sometimes stood me in good stead.

— 443 —

————————————————————

Preface

— 444 —

————————————————————

————————————————————

Preface

————————————————————

Citations Index 1. Bible 1:14 5:1 6:3 7:14 7:16 7:21 8:17 9:5 9:7 12:5 15 15:19 17:1 17:5 17:9 18:24 25:6 26:5 32:33 34:2 38:21 38:22 47:19 49:6 49:11 2:27 4:6 5:18 9:4 10:3 12:2 12:8 12:9 12:10 12:11 12:13 12:15 12:17 12:18 12:19 12:21 12:42 12:43 12:45 12:46 12:48

Gen.

Exod.

13:3 13:7 13:8 13:9 13:10 13:15 13:16 13:38 14:13 15:25 18:19 18:23 19:5 19:6 19:8 19:17 20:2 20:2 20:2-6 20:3 20:4 20:5 20:8 20:12 20:13

172 14 181 311 312 53 312 234 194 76 330 330 110, 111 218, 294 111 211, 219 320 219n65 294, 364 14 344 340, 344 99 331 134 386 364 143 191 65 164 129 58, 317, 318 127, 275 176 370 106, 215, 273 405 129 273 212 405 14, 274 274, 290 274, 297 274

20:14 20:15 20:16 20:17 20:20 20:22 20:23 21:7 21:8 21:9 21:11 21:14 21:15 21:17 21:20 21:26 21:27 21:28 22:3 22:7 22:17 — 445 —

405, 435n169 215, 273, 275 114 16 18 435 86 105 308 92 140 102 222 223 65 222, 223 68, 226, 370, 432 12, 223, 404 404 12, 223, 403 225, 226, 404 226, 403, 404 15, 112 207 208, 230, 233, 235, 236n83, 387, 390, 394, 401 233 67 13, 67, 401 310 227 378 271 349 180, 351 351 180 59 386 41, 386 350 349, 350 349 162, 256 233 384 335

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

22:19 22:20 22:21 22:24 22:27 22:28 22:30 23:1 23:2 23:3 23:4 23:5 23:5 23:6 23:7 23:8 23:11 23:13 23:15 23:18 23:19 23:32 23:33 24:12 25:8 25:10 25:15 25:17 25:23 25:30 26:13 26:15 26:35 27:20 27:21 28:9–12 28:28 28:32 28:38 29:6 29:9 29:12 29:33 29:34 29:36-37 29:38 29:58 3:3 30:7 30:9 30:15

403 107, 252, 253n93 59, 236 97, 266, 304 239, 241, 282, 348, 386, 387, 427 240 32, 255, 259 23, 54, 229, 262 238, 252 102, 250 101 109 244, 247 251 177, 229, 230, 332 293 119, 120 34, 81, 249, 282, 387, 388, 392, 427 310 276 175, 315 324 325 84 62, 142 62 35, 367, 370 62 62 61, 143 39 423 370 61 143 11 35, 369 35, 370 146 343 305, 413 153 55, 170, 344 55, 401, 402 151 145 146 10 61, 144 307 286

30:20 30:23–28 30:25 30:32 30:34 30:37 31:10 33:3 34:15 34:21 34:25 34:26 34:28 35:3 36:2 39:1 40:15 1:5 1:17 2:7-9 2:11 2:14 10:3 10:6 10:9 10:11 10:16 10:17 10:30 11 11:3 11:8 11:10-11 11:13 11:20 11:24 11:41 11:42 11:43 11:44 11:46 12:4 12:7 12:13 13:6 13:11 13:33 13:36 13:45 13:46 13:51-52 14:4–7 14:9 15:18

— 446 —

285, 408 62 62, 143 292, 407 61 293 140 261 256, 258 89, 120, 159 274, 276 315 77 372, 373 208 141 159 Lev.

212 359 137 59, 306, 435 159 413 353, 354 59, 214, 415 214 153 166 354 46 130 191 52 51 52 191 50, 52, 311 49, 50, 312 51, 52, 311 50, 174, 311, 312 53 399, 408, 409 409 369 388 41 301 41, 301, 302 209 210, 301 134 62 113, 160 192

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

15:24 15:33 16:2 16:4 16:10 16:34 17:3–4 17:7 17:10-11 17:13 18:3 18:4 18:6 18:7 18:9 18:10 18:11 18:14 18:15 18:17 18:19 18:20 18:21 18:22 18:23 18:29 18:30 19:10 19:11 19:12 19:13 19:14 19:15 19:16 19:17 19:18 19:19 19:2 19:20 19:21 19:22 19:23 19:24 19:25 19:26 19:27 19:28 19:29 19:3 19:4

185, 425 113 141, 362 141 183 140 271, 287 404 407 213, 283 309, 325 34 230, 309 394 397 396, 397 397 394 35, 48, 393 396, 397, 399 231, 398 231, 394 295 57, 345, 394 57, 58, 392 395 34, 74 120, 121 233, 314, 373 36, 250, 373 36, 98, 99, 240, 242, 244, 255, 335 54, 235, 241, 386 82, 250, 252, 265, 266 249, 262 110, 243, 244, 280, 365 97, 110, 244, 247 45, 58, 242 74, 173 41, 254 182 34 197, 213, 319 90, 265 197, 280 54, 60, 314, 315, 319, 385, 388 96, 322, 377 292, 300 35, 336, 341, 344 89 47, 224, 226, 228, 229, 305

19:6 19:7 19:9 19:30 19:31 19:33 19:35 19:36 20:10 20:14 20:18 20:20 20:25 20:27 21:1 21:3 21:5 21:6 21:7 21:8 21:10 21:11 21:12 21:13 21:14 21:15 21:17 21:21 21:22 21:23 22:2 22:4 22:8 22:9 22:10 22:12 22:13 22:14 22:15 22:17 22:20 22:21 22:23 22:24 22:25 22:27 22:28 22:30 22:32 23:7 23:14 23:22 23:30-31 — 447 —

127 127, 269 242, 305 112 305, 389 252, 253n93, 314 260, 261, 375 71, 176-178 39, 387 396 343 395 53, 54 236, 389, 390 354, 358 16, 102, 198, 217, 349 292, 293 144, 412 56, 60, 337, 351 144 209, 210, 352 45, 358 354 132 35, 133, 352, 354, 427 354, 354 284 138 268, 269 284, 285 363 290 31 280, 363, 410 46, 279, 290, 358 357 168 182 410 267 270, 267 158, 260, 266 158, 266, 269 267, 286, 309, 310 286, 360 157 295 269, 277 79, 239 145 57, 60, 264 242, 242 407

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

23:32 23:35-36 23:42 24:5–9 24:16 25:4 25:5 25:6 25:8 25:9-10 25:11 25:14 25:17 25:23 25:24 25:25 25:29 25:34 25:35 25:36 25:37 25:39 25:42 25:43 25:45 25:46 25:55 26:1 26:34 26:35 26:40 27 27:6 27:10 27:28 27:29 27:30-31 27:32 27:33 3:17 4:13 5:1 5:2 5:6 5:8 5:11 5:22 5:23 6:2 6:3 6:6 6:7 6:9

89 115 90 61 79, 239 263 119, 120, 263 119 42, 202 201 263 243 107, 243, 252, 314 41, 373 202 16 180 374 119, 126 17, 126 261 320 347, 401, 434 346n135 16 87, 198, 217, 346, 349 320 226, 228 264, 296 264 131 188 289 189, 288 374 17, 18 115 117, 288 41, 288, 289, 302 46, 57, 282 185 160, 250 38 38 17, 359 38, 292 314, 373 98, 124, 256 282 138 138, 282n104, 356 136 165

6:10 6:12 6:16 6:20 6:23 7:9 7:14 7:17 7:18

369 204 47, 204, 360 166, 425 56, 128, 359 127 200 128 271, 402, 435n168 44, 410 409 46, 57, 282 57, 282 117 135 139 146, 154 36n12 291 153 152 186 133

7:19 7:20 7:23 7:26 7:31 7:33 7:34 7:37 8:15 8:29 8:31 9:2 9:4 9:22

1:17 4:5 4:18 4:19 4:20 5:2 5:3 5:14 5:15 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:8 6:9 7:1 7:9 7:15 7:17 7:20 8:16 8:25 9:12 10:9 10:10 11:25 — 448 —

Num.

79 366 366 413 360, 400 112, 408 408 16, 198, 217, 349, 425 291, 292, 308 299, 431 59, 300, 431 178, 179 45 45, 298 179 179 222 138 147 147 146 412 365 276, 297, 298 203 93, 203 20

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

14:24 15:2 15:19 15:20 15:21 15:22-23 15:30 15:37–41 15:38 15:39 17:3 17:5 18:3 18:4 18:5 18:7 18:8 18:12 18:17 18:18 18:20 18:21 18:24 18:26 18:28 18:29-30 18:31 18:32 19 19:9 19:16 20:1 23:19 24:3 24:15 24:20 25 25:1–15 27:21 28:4 29:39 30:3 31:6 31:7 31:23 31:25 31:54 35:12 35:16 35:19 35:21 35:24 35:29 35:30

20 170 169, 170, 411 118, 168, 213, 169, 411 168 69 384 62 95 14, 15, 95-97, 378 364 41, 363, 364 413 138, 362, 364 138, 362 135, 166, 167, 285, 413 143 117 289 138 334 116 115 116 116 171 115 279 191 204 211 314 435n172 435n172 435n172 103 11n4 400 197 146 131 124, 299, 380 367 206 296 199 199, 200 234 39 162 162 40 39 236

35:31-32 35:33 35:34 36:7 1:16 1:17 1:21 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:9 2:19 2:29 3:4 3:22 4:15 4:16 4:24 4:25 4:6 4:9–10 5:12 5:18 5:29 6:12 6:13 6:14 6:16 6:4 6:6 6:7 7:16 7:2 7:20 7:21 7:25 7:26 7:3 7:7 8:10 8:5 9:7 10:11 10:12 10:13 10:15 10:16 10:20 10:21 11:13 11:23-24 11:29 11:31 — 449 —

293 376 35, 390 384 Deut.

107, 211 379 204 329 194 331 329 329 332 348 383 371, 435 226 77 226 171 370-372 15, 112 233, 234 379 370 28, 55, 80, 81, 97 55, 389, 404 310 72, 82, 76, 109 76 83 324 325 325 383 234, 249 47, 53, 227, 249, 257, 258 326, 400 222 98 82 104, 372 143 80 85 321 34, 321 74, 79, 80, 112 90 74 205 205 205

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

12:2 12:5–6 12:13 12:14 12:15 12:17 12:19 12:20 12:21 12:23 12:24 12:26 12:27 12:30 13:1 13:2 13:4 13:5 13:6 13:7 13:8 13:9 13:12 13:14 13:15 13:17 13:18 13:21 14:1 14:3 14:4 14:9 14:10 14:11 14: 12 14:19 14:21 14:22 14:23 14:28 15:10 15:13 15:1 15:2 15:3 15:7 15:8 15:9 15:14

106 124 125, 287 125, 130, 272, 287 189 44, 59, 60, 175, 277, 278, 282, 411, 433 333 81, 405 213, 424 255, 313 304 125 118 325, 404 376, 377 208 246, 248 77, 102, 196 162 233 211 247, 248 247, 385 211 160 206, 326 47, 228, 257, 258, 327 256 292, 293, 364 53, 259, 260 213 213 52 37, 213, 214 214 52, 311 207, 315 115, 310, 411 60, 118, 277 115 103, 322 320 121-123, 215, 262 121-123, 215, 262 121-123, 215, 262 275, 321 97, 103 321 123

15:18 15:19 15:22 16:1 16:3 16:4 16:5 16:8 16:10 16:14 16:18 16:19 16:21-22 17:1 17:6 17:7 17:10 17:11 17:14 17:15 17:16 17:17 17:18 18:1 18:2 18:3 18:4 18:5 18:6 18:10 18:11 18:13 18:14 18:15 18:20 18:22 19:3 19:8 19:12 19:13 19:14 19:15 19:17 19:19 19:20 19:21 20:5–6 20:8 20:13 20:1-3 20:16 — 450 —

195, 294 287, 288 167 172, 405 129, 215, 273, 276 276 18, 288 55 109 114 82, 159 253 228 270, 433 254 162 159 22, 365 205 197, 346 308, 309 35, 346, 347 197 333 334 118, 170, 213 117, 169, 170 140 137 60, 245, 295, 315, 322, 334, 403, 427 60, 236, 245, 322, 334 110, 111, 315 315 391 208n61, 391 379 182 330, 331 323 323, 335, 417 36, 335 253, 255 160 208, 236n83, 399 18, 211 323 356 383 206 383 204, 324, 325

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

20:17 20:19 20:20 21:1 21:1-4 21:1-8 21:4 21:14 21:18 21:23 22:1 22:1–3 22:4 22:5 22:6 22:7 22:8 22:9 22:10 22:11 22:12 22:13–19 22:18 22:19 22:24 22:26 22:27 22:29 23:2 23:4 23:5-6 23:8 23:9 23:10 23:11 23:13-14 23:15 23:16 23:17 23:18 23:19 23:20 23:21 23:22 23:24 23:25-26 24:1 24:4 24:5 24:6 24:8 24:9 24:10 24:11

205 206, 207, 335 335 254, 313, 327 313, 327 313 183, 314, 364 351 281, 378 103, 300 304 304 109, 304 344, 345 37, 190 190 217, 372 212, 316, 374 212 305 95 350 281 262, 350, 377 209 41, 253 367 36, 208, 340, 377 337, 348 59 332 348 133 303 302, 409 190 189, 302 248 238 57, 182, 336, 344, 345 291, 339 367 122, 214, 367 123, 124, 240 123 256 195 34, 342, 429 217, 355 375 104, 210, 301 104 98, 121, 382 178

24:12 24:13 24:14 24:15 24:16 24:17 24:19 24:20–21 24:22 25:2 25:3 25:4 25:5 25:6 25:9 25:11 25:12 25:13 25: 14 25:17 25:19 25:25 26:5 26:5–10 26:7 26:12 26:13 26:14 27:1–8 27:5 27:11 27:19 27:23 27:26 28:9 28:14 28:15 28:47 28:58-59 28:68 29:17 31:12 31:19 32:1 32:3 32:21 32:26 32:38 33:10 33:4 33: 5

— 451 —

382 98 242 197, 244 246 251, 252, 375 121, 213, 243, 263 242 170 161, 281 378, 386 242 165 193 193, 194 194 194, 323 260, 375 375 104 104, 372 208 175, 279 279 224 170, 411 117 44, 380, 381, 428 201 378 45 59n18 397-399 47, 379 78, 102, 109 379 112 93 80 308 249 159 109, 197 172 100 227 301 257 145 12, 21, 33, 68, 224, 226, 330 68

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

3:3 3:7 8:22

5:2 5:4 8:2 9:13

4:4 14:23 16:2 20 21:9 24:11 24:2 25:18 28:16

1:10 5:24 12:16 12:8 21:6 23:1 23:21 23:8

3:4 6:14 8:63 8: 64 12:11 22:7

4:13 16:3 21:6

3:22–23 5:12 6:10 6:15 7:2 8:21 10:22 10:33

Josh.

Judg.

1 Sam.

2 Sam.

1 Kings

2 Kings

Isa.

11:19 13:8 14:11 19:3 22:18 23:11 24:17–18 24:23 25:10 30:2 30:29 30:32 32:4 32:6 35:4 40:2 40:30 41:8 44:16 44:21 44:25 45:18 48:11 48:17 49:26 50:13 51:20 54:11 57:17 58:7 58:10 58:13 59:17 61:3 66:1 66:12

366 77 141

209 67 121 112

367 20 310 315 274 416 367 117 244

86 315 347 346 300 85 255 20

148 275 146, 148 148 10 78

5:12 5:28 9:4 9:11 9:23 10:2 10:8 11:4 2:13 2:21 2:22 27:10 32:35 36:22 36:33 42:2 43:3 48:11

430 296 296

9 172 20 287 10 266 106 243 — 452 —

330 411 392 9, 327 10 103 391 266 408 308 90 10 66 131 66 296 66 76 126 294 110 195 91 10 243 10 332 435 11 196, 320 97 106 196 86 348 10, 311 Jer.

71 9 250 408 114 110 247 224 325 15 180 218 296 127 127 78 208 9

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

49:16 49:24 51:11

1:1 3:18 3:27 16:7 18:6 20:5-8 21:2 21:11 23:41 24:17 27:23 28:24 36:21 43:10 43:18 43:25–26 44:20 45:15 45:18 45:20 45:25

2:14 14:7 14:10

2:7 3:5

4:6 8:5

19

2:9

1:6 1:11 2:2 6:5 6:10

404 68 10 Ezek.

Hos.

Joel

Amos

Obadiah Jona Mic.

9:11 12:6 14:4

9 234 250 196 231 321 86 403 20 86 161 9 126 151, 153 153 151 353 288 151-153 151-154 154

2:12 3:1 3:4 3:9 3:10

1:3 10:3 14:3 15:5 16:4 18:31 19:8 19:12 19:110 29:11 31:7 34:11 37:20 44:13 49:11 51:21 57:5 62:3 68:31 69:9 72:10 73:3 73:10 76:12 79:9 87:3 90:1 91:1 92:13 95:8 101:3 101:5 104:20 105:15 106:7 106:28 106:30 109:11 111:8 115:1 115:6 119:80

291 435 221

365 141

403 260

330

9

206 196 234 104 219n67

— 453 —

Zech.

Mal.

Ps.

297, 408 403 331n131

326, 400 11 284 121, 395 310

376 240 315 123, 261 257 223n72 221 220 66 418 326 121 401 251 10 419n163 9 369 329 343 287 9 196 284 384 10 91 221 376 321 9 262 50 143 321 256 11n4 234 92 91 132 110

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

119:80 119:99 119:106 123:4 124:1–2 127:5 128:4 129:1 141:3 141:7 149:9

2:6 3:6 3:8 3:15 4:22 4:23 5:8 5:22 6:32 8:13 8:23 8:30 8:35 10:2 10:15 12:18 15:25 17:1 17:14 19:26 22:4 23:5 23:8 24:11 24:30–31 25:8 26:20 27:15 27:17

3:6 5:13 7:2 9:6 10:22 15:31 20:15 31:17 31:24 36:33 37:18

Prov.

Job

111n37 418n161 80 369 332 20 85 369 250 397 132

40:25

66 77 83 221 219, 311 222 231 123 394 244 144 109, 222 311 406 103n31 9 369 358 362 266 99 9 358 10 264 238 238 67 10

2:15

255 66 233 106 367 229 362 358 227 227n76 12

3:1 6:17 8:35

1:2 1:11 2:8 2:17 4:2 4:5 5:2 7:6

2:11 4:5 5:5

3:19 5:4 9:2 6:4 10:17 12:11

7:5 8:15 9:27 10:2

8:27 10:16 11:24 11:32 12:3

4:2 5:13 10:33

13 — 454 —

12 Song of Songs

Ruth Lam.

Eccl.

Esth.

Dan.

Ezra

Neh.

1 Chron.

13 223n72 67 194 288 308 222 11

10

240 9 430

10 92 10 255 346n136 67

243 9 84 20

10 10 329 378 10, 11

146 147, 149 148

131 320 207

365

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

15:11-12 15:14 15:26-27 18:11 18:8

4:21 13:10 24:6 24:9 31:4

2:1 8:2

365 366 365 199 199 2 Chron.

1:2 5:12

192 140 207 207 291

4:4 5:3 5:4 7:2-3

2. Mishnah

1:9 1:16 1:17 3:15 3:23 4:6 4:12 4:13

1:1

4:8 9:13

9:7 9:33

7:1

5:3

2:1

1:9 9

1:1

Avot

Bava Kamma Bava Metzia

Bechorot

Berachot Chullin Hagigah Kelim

3:4 250 435n172 9 243 172 84 109 15n6, 20

1:8

1:7

5:4–5 7:3-4

164

4:1 5:3 7:4 11:1

173 375, 382

289 289

1:3 2:2 6:1

100

295

6:2 9:8

415

2:7

285 353

3:4

1:6 1:10 1:33

Keritot 128, 287, 393, 395-398, 406-408 — 455 —

186 241 Ma’aser Sheni

Menachot

Middot Mikvaot Mo’ed Katan Nega’im

Sanhedrin

Shabbat

Sotah

Taanit Tamid Temurah

290 380

145 369 292 156

238

185

195

301 301

239 106 48 388n152

403 128 86

254 254

415

288

288 288 288

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

Terumot

1:1 2:6 3:6

Yevamot

8:11

20:211 20:228 24 61:15 67 177:19 178:20 189:28 220:13

169 117 240

337

3. Tosefta Berachot 3:1 6:1 6:19

74 97 169

Megillah 1:11

185

Toharot 2:2

192

Menachot 9:1

279

Makkot 3:3

402

Zevachim 12:8

414

1:6

6:39 15:88 15:94

Mechilta Mechilta Bo

Mechilta Vayakhel

5:2 6:3 7 11:9

Mechilta Yitro

373

70 70 296 271

Mechilta deRashbi Exod. 12:10 127 23 238

Mechilta deRashbi Yitro 8 233, 234 8:13 236 14 233

25:15 39:4 96:24 96:54

4. Midreshei Halakha

209:6

332 276 304 386 386 403 237 240 370

251 6 129 146:15 146:19

129 274 274

Mechilta Mishpatim 3:41 349 7:79 350 9:93 350 10:100 256 19:182 97 19:185 266 19:188 239, 241 20:194 259 20:196 229 20:208 109 20:210 177

5 72:3 139:8

2:3 13:108 69:4 107:3 110:4

— 456 —

Sifre

Sifre Acharei

Sifre Acharei Mot

Sifre Bechukotai

189 82 136 360

362 409 230 230

140 167 325

372 289 288 289 374

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

2:13 80:2 86:2 86:53 101:8 105:5

6:7 17 86:14

13 22 24

3:60 7:107 19:243 28:4 45 50:10 86:18 108:5 119:8 122:12 182 1

1:2 2:23 9:12 24:3 28:7 34:13 34:13 35:14 37:2 41:8 42 43 44 72 77:1 82:2 84:38

Sifre Behar

87:10 127:20

42, 202 320 346 346 346 226, 227, 326

Sifre Deut.

Sifre Ekev

Sifre Emor

Sifre Haazinu Sifre Kedoshim

1 8 14 15 45 52 55 57 67:29

100 379 335

17:9 108:5 116:4 120:10

74, 76 77 205

284 270 239 358 284 284 290 269 267 286 406

30:33

5 49 107:8

15:34

29:4 37:6

172

174 233 47, 224, 226 373 36 241 386 235 250 249 244 243 244 319 237 238 265

11 24 34 36:19 42 43 53:29 60:5 67:9 75 93:3 130 177 191:11 15:39 24 — 457 —

176 54 Sifre Korach

Sifre Lev.

Sifre Massei Sifre Naso

Sifre Num. Sifre Pinchas

Sifre Re’eh

Sifre Shelach

362 413 166 285 334 138 116 116 171

249 268 267 267

376

131 291 179

94

146 367 124 125 278, 279 333 313 255 205 77, 78 247 182 259 122 276 106 62n19 169

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

70

69

67

2:74 38 54:4 169:4

3 8:499 24 27:14 30 31 60 66:13 71:21 85:12 86:14 127 142

14:14

16:8 152:5

40 42 68 82 106 119 120 125:17 126:18 126:18 126:18 129 140:8 143:12 145:14 147:16

378 Sifre Shemini Sifre Shelach

Sifre Shofetim

Sifre Tazria

Sifre Tetze

213

94

Sifre Shemini

Sifre Tavo

148:17 150:2 153:3 160:11-12 161:12 Sifre Tsav

30:9 76:7 77:8

191 214 166 311

252 242 378 194 323

165 56 359

5. Babylonian Talmud

6b 9a 10b 11a 13a 16b 22a 28b 29b 33b

253 270 407 205 197 346 314 110 379 323 256 206 327

20a 20b 29b 36b 43b 44a 51b 62a 67a 72b 74a

380

409 209

9a 23b 56a 89b 90b 102a 113b 174a

103, 300 101 332 45, 306 253 303 302 238 340 344 345 122 301 382 240 245

15b 41a 41b 54b 55a 56b — 458 —

Arachin

17 164 90 93, 112 91 243, 244 178 188 202 374

Avodah Zarah

325 99, 176, 193, 303 314 207, 233, 326, 361 225 106 249 120 405 257 179

Bava Batra

Bava Kamma

207 160, 199 331 260, 375 260 384 108 178

332 256 28, 112 242 241 101n29

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

71a 79b 80a 105b 110b

5b 30a 32 32a 32b 49a 59a 59b 60b 61b 62a 70b 71a 75b 87b 89a 110b 111a 115a

4a 10b 13a 27a 31b 33b 43a 43b 56b

5a 10b 11b 12b 13a 13b 14a 14b 16b 19b 20b 21a 24b 25a 26b 29a

256 255 124 373 165, 187

32b 40a 40b 48b 53b 54a 61b 63a

Bava Metzia

26, 314 144 101 89, 304 109 177 243 107, 252 261 255, 260, 313 17, 126 122 261 235, 266 198 242 244 240, 245, 255 375

Bechorot

3a 3b 7a 12a 27b 30a 40a

4b 6a 7a 8a 9a-b 10b 14b

86 88, 313 88, 180 169 290 259, 266 138 139 339

10a 17b 24a 40a 49b 59a 63b 67a 67b 68a 78a 79a 80b 87a 95b 96a 100b 102b 110a 113b 114 114a 115b 120b 126b 127a 131a

Berachot

84 281 105 104, 378 104, 218, 294 73, 104 91 105 195 25 112 73, 74, 97, 16, 105 218 189, 302 282 92 — 459 —

371 26 381 91, 118 174 82, 112 73 77 Betzah

24 179 51, 275 55, 316 260 89 288

Chagigah

Chullin

310 147 310 107 184 158 309

371 92 139, 366 256 25, 258 51 46 312 50 259 213 241 157, 269 98 315 294 53 56, 255, 259 317 167 259 316 315 92 51 51 121

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

132b 133b 139a 140a

6

17a 17b 46a 53a 54a 96a 100a 105a

36b 38b 44a 45a 57b 59b 80a 6a 8b 10a 11b 1 17 2a 3b 4b 5a 8b 13b 15a 16a

11a 17a 24b 29b 30a 32b

33a 37b 40b 41b 46a 72a 84a 86a 103a 105b 106a 110b 111a

135, 137 165, 187 190 214 Derech Eretz

177

Eruvin

368 305 369 20 219 172, 371, 374 376, 377 285

Gittin

Horayot

Kallah Kelim

2a 4a 9b 14b 17a 21a 21b 23b 29a 30a 31a 32b 34a 37a 39a 52b 56a 56b 57b 62b 74a 74b 77a 77b 78a 80b 82b

238 87 93 248 225 144 339 150 225 275 132, 143 201 31

Keritot

87, 297, 342 57, 236, 389, 398 46, 60, 277 143, 264, 292, 293, 306, 396 186 415 398 342, 343 Ketubot

2b 4b 6b 8b 10b 12a 13b 14b 16a 16b 17b

108 177 133 132 133 378 — 460 —

328 376 350 332 262, 303 160 250 178 30, 100 253 82, 139 205 77 Kiddushin

28 180 196n58 180, 181 320 16 180 137 85 19, 84 114 99 159 265 25, 265 291 256 374 213 108 338 337 334, 337, 352 56, 60, 352 35, 352 207 233

Makkot

208, 361 127, 236, 350 254 378 53, 391 16 40, 293 290, 408, 409 98, 190 121, 410 47, 387

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

18a 18b 20a 20b 21a 21b 22a 23a 23b 24b 17b 2a 19b 22b 32a 18b 19b 27b 28a 28b 34a 38a 42b 43b 44a 45a 45b 50a 50b 56a 58b 59a 66a 72a 77b 78b-79a 81a 82b 99b 14b 17a 3b 11a 34b 36a 38b

259, 277-279, 401 130, 360 292, 322, 369 328, 377 293, 300 55, 316 47, 227, 304, 335, 379 229 12, 21, 68, 223, 226, 404 123 Me’ilah Megillah

41a 42a 42b

13b 25a 27a 33b 35b 37b 41a 62a

401 361 85 326 315

30a 35a 46b 57a

Menachot 134, 135, 137 149 363 94 142 201 94 169 97 41, 86, 87, 94, 95, 423 146, 151, 152, 154 150 149 148 149 307 149, 153 161, 190 159 199 156 92 154 371 Moed Katan Nazir

4b 5b 7b 21a 22b 24a 24b 25a 28a 28b 41b 42a 44a 45a 47b 58b 59a 59b 67a 68a 70 72b 82b 84a 85a 85b 91a 93a-b 109a 113b 115a 117a 120a 121b

93 235 23 298 299 299 299 — 461 —

298 160 45, 298 Nedarim

Niddah

Pesachim

23 14, 314 253 101n29 137 110 102 76 175 113 290 235

105, 273 273 212 106, 272 235 43, 44, 381, 401 316, 410 76, 79, 316 273 17 129, 317 267 405 196 55 282 118 170 210 302 276 167 426 89, 131 297, 298 114 18, 272 183 107 110, 244, 254 26 90 128, 130 85

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

6a 16b 24a 24b 26b 34b 35a

11a 16a 20b 21a 22b 25b 26b 27a 27b 28a 33b 45b 46b 49b 50a 51b 52a 54a 54b 56a 56b 59a 59b 60b 61b 63a 63b 64b 65a 65b 66a 66b 67a 71b 74a 74b 78a 81b 82b 83a 83b 84a 84b 85a 87a 89a

Rosh Hashanah 123, 124, 241 92 164 225 203 92 75

90a 95b 97b 110a 11b 13a 25a 64a 69a 70b 75a 87a 87b 88b 94b 107b 110b 112b 114b 123a 132b 149a 154a 154b 156a

Sanhedrin

164 197 103, 142 346 353 122 26 262 245 246 236, 333 162 103, 361 161 400 39 161 35, 48, 393-395 57, 58, 345, 394, 395 79 82 111, 218, 294 195 257 248 54, 22, 280, 281 249, 388 296 57, 236, 389, 392 319, 334 239 195 385 281 79 79 162 360, 362 362, 364 279, 410 360, 363, 412 279 391 378 27 112

10a 17b 18b 29a 36a 20b 21a 21b 25a 30a 30b 31a 39a 47b

3a 14a 26b 33b 37a 38b 39b 44a 44b

— 462 —

106, 247 90 9n1 364 Shabbat

Shevuot

24 231 89, 115 201 368 368 171 14 152, 368 68 345 312 310 427 89 131 210 305 305, 385 25 111

131 416n159 185 14 371 23, 380 250 22 102 160 161, 177 229 84 233

Sotah 16, 87, 102, 198, 349 77, 78, 196 232 366 83 133 78 355, 356 205

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

6a 8a 28b 32b 37b 43a 44a 45b 51b 56a 9a 17b 28b

2b 3b 4a 4b 5a 5b 6a 7a 7b 15b 16a 17b 29b 30a 33b

4a 6b 7a 11a 11b 14a 22b 37b 39a 39b 44b 45a 46b 47b 49a 55b 60a 61a 61b 62a

Sukkah

65 68a 68b 69a-b 70a 71a 73b 74b 76a 81a 84a 84b 97a

113, 160 417 90 132 86 151, 153, 155 285 9n1, 21, 81 308 137

Taanit

Temurah

Yevamot

310, 411 353 92

5b 12b 19a 21b 23a 24a 26a 30b 38a 53b 54a 60a 71b 72a 73b 74b 81a 81b 82a 86b

188 77, 80 79, 240 189 171 270, 290 17, 266 267, 268 157, 267 150 28, 30 126 339 291 158

92 88 161 193 342 293 397 341 107, 193 193 338 338 108 14, 107 133 232 132 338 237, 337 14

9b 19b 23b 28b 29b 34a 48b 56a 64-65 65b 79a 91b 97b 101a 101b 106a 107a 112b

— 463 —

195 168, 337, 357 357 341 290, 337 274 381 409 232 339 38 340n131 393 Yoma

155 141 137 138 244, 245 413 144 17 144 142 308 185 141 35, 140, 370, 379, 423 22, 98, 197 167 297 89 79 120 Zevachim

156 409 140 402 271 158 149 153 359 17 26 357 154, 166 149, 153 291 287, 404 271 125

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

114b

272

1:9 7:1 9:3 5:8 3:4 4:5 1:8 1:7 4:1 6:1 9:4 2:1 3:3

1:1

1:4 10:1 1:1 4:6 7:7 7:9 7:10 10:8 6:1 2:3

Avodah Zarah

97 195

Demai

Gittin

24:5 47:48 74:13

330, 331 58

Megillah

2:2 24

97, 361

Nazir

110

Orlah

1:13 2:14

265 134

Peah

Pesachim 106, 129, 215 176

Sanhedrin

Shabbat Shekalim

310

Lev. Rabba

Song of Songs Raba

14 78 330

159 71

205

12 114

Tanchuma Kedoshim 3 71 Korach 7 232 Lev. 2 247 Mattot 1 77 Naso 2 71 Noach 11 320 Sh’lach 15 212 Tetze 2 14, 33, 215

262

Rosh Hashanah

Gen. Rabba

Deut. Rabba Shofetim 5:13

57

Nedarim

132 308

7. Midreshei Aggadah

195

Kilayim

79, 232

Yoma

1:4

368

Sotah

155

Sukkah

3:1 5:1

374

Eruvin

Kiddushin

Sotah 1:5

325

Berachot

Shevi’it

1:1

6. Jerusalem Talmud

330 373 58 231 296 309 86

Yalkut Deut. 807 Mishlei 4:937

331 14

Yalkut Shimoni Korach 754 Remez 199 Tehillim 723

167 127 96

8. Poskim

207, 332 — 464 —

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

Mishneh Torah 1 1:15

Hilchot Bet Habchirah

142

1:2

Hilchot Chametz Umatzah 1:8 273 Hilchot Edut

6:3 9:4 19:2 19:4

27:1 28, 30 340 28

4:18

Hilchot Issurei Mizbe’ach 5:6 158

12:1

5:5 8:3

1:3

6:7

Hilchot Klei Hamikdash

Hilchot Korban Pesach Hilchot M’lachim Umilchamoteihem

355 141

272

206

Hilchot Ma’aseh Hakorbanot 2:15 153 Hilchot Mamrim

Hilchot Sanhedrin

371 59 414 59, 329

Hilchot Shabbat

368

Hilchot Sotah Laws of Hiring

217

198

Laws of Levirate Marriage 1:12 193

Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 4:6 257, 259

1:2

163

Hilchot Shemitta V’yovel 11:9 202

Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 336, 340 397, 398

18:1 2:7-8

Hilchot Rotze’ach

160n48

Hilchot Ishut

1:2 1:4 3:20

59

Hilchot Pesulei Hamukdashin 18:2 271

Hilchot Biat Bet Hamikdash 1:15 353 3:12 409 4:4 416

1:1

Hilchot Nezirut

22

Hilchot Na’arah Betulah 2:17 340

— 465 —

————————————————————— Index —————————————————————

— 466 —