To not eat of the swarming creatures of the waters: To not eat of the swarming creatures of the waters, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:43), “You shall not abominate your souls with any swarming creature that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them and become impure through them.” And the substance of a swarming creature of the waters is well-known; that it is from the minute creatures that swim in the water — and they are called the swarming creatures of the waters. And this negative commandment is specific to them, [and] besides the negative commandment that is specific to the impure fish; as these are not included as fish at all, since they are a completely different species of its own. That is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 179), about this verse, that it comes to teach about this. But Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (on Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 9, s.v. vera’iti larav z”l) disagrees with him on this and wrote that this negative commandment is not a specific negative commandment about any swarming creature; but rather that it is from the general negative commandments for which we do not administer lashes, like “You shall not eat any abomination” in Deuteronomy 14:3 at the beginning of the sections of the prohibited animals. And so [too,] here at the end of all of them, it stated, “You shall not abominate your souls” with all of the walkers of the ground that I have prohibited. And grouped in this was the prohibition of the impure beast, the prohibition of the impure fowl, the flying swarming creature and the swarming creature of the ground. As all the forbidden and the distanced is included in abomination, as [with] “For He did not disparage nor abominate the plea of the lowly” (Psalms 22:25). And both of them, may their memories be blessed, wrote at length about this negative commandment and involved in it that which [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara [in] Makkot 16b, “If he ate a putita, he is lashed four [sets], an ant five, a wasp six.” And each one explains what appears [correct to him] about the matter.
And if I had come to write all of their arguments about the thing such as they are, the matter would be lengthy, to the point that a large parchment would not hold it and I would go out of this task of mine. However, according to my opinion, their main disagreement in the matter is dependent upon whether we administer two [sets of] lashes for one prohibition or not. As Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 9) in the roots of the commandments [such] that he made and fixed with screws that we can never be lashed two [sets of] lashes for one sin — and even if several negative commandments come about it in Scripture. [It is] as if you would say by way of illustration that “You shall not eat pig” would come in the Torah in five verses — or even one hundred — if he ate it, he would always only be lashed for one eating. And even though those negative commandments do not come to have anything expounded from them besides the additional prohibitions — nonetheless, a man is always lashed only one [set of] lashes for a single prohibition.
And from the angle of this root that it is fixed for him, he had to greatly strain the explanation of that teaching of the Gemara of Makkot and to explain it not like the explanation of all of the commentators that preceded him. And he, himself, wrote that he did not see the commentary of any man before him who explains it like him. And the general rule of his commentary about the thing is that which he always reviews; that that which they said that a man is lashed for the eating of one creature [for] many negative commandments is such that that creature has the addition of an aspect, such that that [additional] negative commandment is designated for that addition; and not that he ever be lashed two [sets of] lashes for one prohibition alone — and even if there are a thousand negative commandments stated in the Torah about it, as we said. And therefore he said that the creature for which the Sages, may their memory be blessed, made liable several [sets] of lashes is such a one as brings together in its body several species. For example, [it is] such that you would say that its character is such that it is possible to call it a swarming creature of the ground and a flying swarming creature — for example that it has wings — and a swarming creature of the waters, that it also swims in the water even as it flies in the air. [This is] as we sometimes see in a few species of swarming creatures. And in this way with some strain that he strains in his explanation, he explains this teaching in the Gemara of Makkot: “If he ate a putita, he is lashed four [sets], an ant five, etc.” And he exerts himself to find six separate matters in the body of one creature.
And Ramban, may his memory be blessed does not require all of this. As he reasons that we should administer several [sets of] lashes for one prohibition if there are multiple negative commandments in the Torah about it and they are not required by us for other teachings. And he [presented] many proofs about this — proofs that appear “strong as a mirror of cast metal.” And he explained the teaching of the Gemara Makkot nicely like the understanding of the early scholars. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, expounds the negative commandment of the swarming creatures of the water from that which is written in the section of the prohibition of fish, “And anything that does not have fins and scales, etc. from any swarming creature of the waters, etc. it shall be an abomination for you” (Leviticus 11:10). And this is truly a thing that is learned from its context, as it is speaking in the section about the prohibition of fish, and there it is also speaking about the swarming creature of the waters. Understand this, my son; and if you merit, choose for yourself according to your opinion — these and those are the words of the living God.
Its laws are short, and the general principle of the matter is that all those small creatures — like worms, leeches and similar to them — that grow in the waters, are called swarming creatures of the waters.
And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and eats a whole creature of them — and even if it is the smallest — is lashed. But if it is not whole, he is not lashed until he eats a kazayit of them. And nonetheless, it is forbidden to eat even less than a kazayit from Torah writ; as half of a measure [that would result in punishment] is forbidden by the Torah. But there is only liability for lashes for eating the transmitted measure.
שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל מִשֶּׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם – שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל מִשֶּׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מג) אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם. וְשֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם יָדוּעַ עִנְיָנוֹ, שֶׁהוּא מִבְּרִיּוֹת דַּקּוֹת הַשָּׁטוֹת בַּמַּיִם וְהֵם נִקְרָאִים שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם. וְזֶה הַלָּאו מְיֻחָד בָּהֶם מִלְּבַד הַלָּאו הַמְּיֻחָד לְדָג טָמֵא, שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ בִּכְלַל דָּגִים כְּלָל, כִּי מִין אַחֵר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא לְגַמְרֵי. זֶהוּ דַּעַת הָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (בסהמ"צ ל', ת קע"ט) בַּמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה שֶׁעַל זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד. וְהָרַמְבַּ"ן זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (בסהמ"צ שורש ט בד"ה וראיתי לרב ז"ל) חוֹלֵק עָלָיו בָּזֶה, וְכָתַב כִּי הַלָּאו הַזֶּה אֵינֶנּוּ לָאו מְיֻחָד עַל שׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא מִן הַלָּאוִין הַכּוֹלְלִים שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶם, כְּמוֹ לֹא תֹאכַל כָּל תּוֹעֵבָה הַכָּתוּב בְּמִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה (דברים יד ג) בִּתְחִלַּת הַפָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁל אִסּוּר בַּעֲלֵי הַחַיִּים. וְכֵן בְּכָאן אָמַר בְּסוֹף כֻּלָּן אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל מְהַלְּכֵי הָאֲדָמָה שֶׁאָסַרְתִּי, וְיִכָּנְסוּ בָּזֶה אִסּוּר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְאִסּוּר עוֹף טָמֵא וְשֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף וְשֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ, כִּי כָּל הָאָסוּר וְהַמְּרֻחָק נִכְלָל בְּשִׁקּוּץ כְּמוֹ כִּי לֹא בָזָה וְלֹא שִׁקַּץ עֱנוּת עָנִי (תהלים כב כה). וְהֶאֱרִיכוּ עַל הַלָּאו הַזֶּה שְׁנֵיהֶם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה הַרְבֵּה, וְגִלְגְּלוּ בּוֹ מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בִּגְמָרַת מַכּוֹת (טז ב) אָכַל פּוּטִיתָא לוֹקֶה אַרְבַּע, נְמָלָה לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ, צִרְעָה לוֹקֶה שֵׁשׁ, וְכָל אֶחָד יְפָרֵשׁ בָּהּ הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלָיו בָּעִנְיָן.
To not eat of the swarming creatures of the waters: To not eat of the swarming creatures of the waters, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:43), “You shall not abominate your souls with any swarming creature that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them and become impure through them.” And the substance of a swarming creature of the waters is well-known; that it is from the minute creatures that swim in the water — and they are called the swarming creatures of the waters. And this negative commandment is specific to them, [and] besides the negative commandment that is specific to the impure fish; as these are not included as fish at all, since they are a completely different species of its own. That is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 179), about this verse, that it comes to teach about this. But Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (on Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 9, s.v. vera’iti larav z”l) disagrees with him on this and wrote that this negative commandment is not a specific negative commandment about any swarming creature; but rather that it is from the general negative commandments for which we do not administer lashes, like “You shall not eat any abomination” in Deuteronomy 14:3 at the beginning of the sections of the prohibited animals. And so [too,] here at the end of all of them, it stated, “You shall not abominate your souls” with all of the walkers of the ground that I have prohibited. And grouped in this was the prohibition of the impure beast, the prohibition of the impure fowl, the flying swarming creature and the swarming creature of the ground. As all the forbidden and the distanced is included in abomination, as [with] “For He did not disparage nor abominate the plea of the lowly” (Psalms 22:25). And both of them, may their memories be blessed, wrote at length about this negative commandment and involved in it that which [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara [in] Makkot 16b, “If he ate a putita, he is lashed four [sets], an ant five, a wasp six.” And each one explains what appears [correct to him] about the matter.
וְאִם בָּאתִי לִכְתֹּב כָּל טַעֲנוֹתָם בַּדָּבָר כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן, יֶאֱרַךְ הָעִנְיָן עַד שֶׁלֹּא יְכִילֶנּוּ קְלָף גָּדוֹל וְאֵצֵא מִגֶּדֶר מְלַאכְתִּי זֹאת. וְאוּלָם לְפִי דַּעְתִּי עִקַּר מַחֲלָקְתָּם בָּעִנְיָן תָּלוּי אִם לוֹקִין בְּאִסּוּר אֶחָד שְׁנֵי מַלְקוּיוֹת אִם לֹא, שֶׁהָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה כָּתַב (שורש ט) בְּעִקְּרֵי הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁעָשָׂה וְקָבַע בָּהּ מַסְמְרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִלְקֶה לְעוֹלָם עַל עֲבֵרָה אַחַת שְׁתֵּי מַלְקוּיוֹת, וַאֲפִלּוּ יָבוֹאוּ עָלֶיהָ בַּכָּתוּב כַּמָּה לָאוִין, כְּאִלּוּ תֹּאמַר עַל דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ בַּתּוֹרָה בְּחָמֵשׁ מִקְרָאוֹת אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּמֵאָה לֹא תֹּאכַל חֲזִיר, אִם אֲכָלוֹ, לֹא יִלְקֶה לְעוֹלָם בַּאֲכִילָה אַחַת אֶלָּא מַלְקוּת אַחַת. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאוֹתָן הַלָּאוִין לֹא יָבוֹאוּ לִדְרֹשׁ מֵהֶן שׁוּם דָּבָר רַק לְתוֹסֶפֶת לָאוִין, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן לֹא יִלְקֶה לְעוֹלָם אָדָם עַל אִסּוּר אֶחָד לְבַד רַק מַלְקוּת אַחַת.
And if I had come to write all of their arguments about the thing such as they are, the matter would be lengthy, to the point that a large parchment would not hold it and I would go out of this task of mine. However, according to my opinion, their main disagreement in the matter is dependent upon whether we administer two [sets of] lashes for one prohibition or not. As Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 9) in the roots of the commandments [such] that he made and fixed with screws that we can never be lashed two [sets of] lashes for one sin — and even if several negative commandments come about it in Scripture. [It is] as if you would say by way of illustration that “You shall not eat pig” would come in the Torah in five verses — or even one hundred — if he ate it, he would always only be lashed for one eating. And even though those negative commandments do not come to have anything expounded from them besides the additional prohibitions — nonetheless, a man is always lashed only one [set of] lashes for a single prohibition.
וּמִצַּד הַשֹּׁרֶשׁ הַזֶּה הַקָּבוּעַ אֵלָיו הָיָה לוֹ לִדְחֹק בְּפֵרוּשׁ אוֹתָהּ שְׁמוּעָה דִּגְמָרַת מַכּוֹת (שם) הַרְבֵּה וּלְפָרְשָׁהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּפֵרוּשׁ כָּל הַמְפָרְשִׁים שֶׁקְּדָמוּהוּ, וְהוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ כָּתַב, שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה פֵּרוּשׁ אָדָם שֶׁקָּדַם לוֹ שֶׁיְּפָרְשָׁהּ כָּמוֹהוּ. וּכְלָל פֵּרוּשׁוֹ בַּדָּבָר הוּא שֶׁיַּחְזֹר לְעוֹלָם, כִּי מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁאָדָם לוֹקֶה בַּאֲכִילַת בִּרְיָה אַחַת הַרְבֵּה לָאוִין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בְּאוֹתָהּ בְּרִיָּה תּוֹסֶפֶת עִנְיָן שֶׁיִּתְיַחֵד הַלָּאו בְּאוֹתָהּ תּוֹסֶפֶת וְלֹא שֶׁיִּלְקֶה לְעוֹלָם מֵאִסּוּר אֶחָד לְבַדּוֹ שְׁתֵּי מַלְקוּיוֹת, וַאֲפִלּוּ נֶאֶמְרוּ בַּתּוֹרָה אֶלֶף לָאוִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ, וְלָכֵן יֹאמַר הוּא שֶׁהַבְּרִיָּה שֶׁיְּחַיְּבוּ עָלֶיהָ חֲכָמִים זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה הַרְבֵּה מַלְקוּיוֹת הִיא כְּגוֹן שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיִּתְחַבְּרוּ בְּגוּפָהּ הַרְבֵּה מִינִין, כְּגוֹן שֶׁתֹּאמַר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה תְּכוּנָתָהּ בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹתָהּ שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ, וְשֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לָהּ כְּנָפַיִם, וְשֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם שֶׁתָּשׁוּט גַּם כֵּן בַּמַּיִם עִם הֱיוֹתָהּ מִתְעוֹפֶפֶת בָּאֲוִיר. כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כֵּן לִפְעָמִים בִּקְצָת מִינֵי הַשְּׁרָצִים. וְעַל הַדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עִם קְצָת דֹּחַק שֶׁיִּדְחַק בְּפֵרוּשׁוֹ יְפָרֵשׁ שְׁמוּעָה זוֹ דִּגְמָרַת מַכּוֹת, אָכַל פּוּטִיתָא לוֹקֶה אַרְבַּע, נְמָלָה לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ, וכו'. וְיָגַע לִמְצֹא בְּגוּף בְּרִיָּה אַחַת שִׁשָּׁה עִנְיָנִים חֲלוּקִים.
And from the angle of this root that it is fixed for him, he had to greatly strain the explanation of that teaching of the Gemara of Makkot and to explain it not like the explanation of all of the commentators that preceded him. And he, himself, wrote that he did not see the commentary of any man before him who explains it like him. And the general rule of his commentary about the thing is that which he always reviews; that that which they said that a man is lashed for the eating of one creature [for] many negative commandments is such that that creature has the addition of an aspect, such that that [additional] negative commandment is designated for that addition; and not that he ever be lashed two [sets of] lashes for one prohibition alone — and even if there are a thousand negative commandments stated in the Torah about it, as we said. And therefore he said that the creature for which the Sages, may their memory be blessed, made liable several [sets] of lashes is such a one as brings together in its body several species. For example, [it is] such that you would say that its character is such that it is possible to call it a swarming creature of the ground and a flying swarming creature — for example that it has wings — and a swarming creature of the waters, that it also swims in the water even as it flies in the air. [This is] as we sometimes see in a few species of swarming creatures. And in this way with some strain that he strains in his explanation, he explains this teaching in the Gemara of Makkot: “If he ate a putita, he is lashed four [sets], an ant five, etc.” And he exerts himself to find six separate matters in the body of one creature.
וְהָרַמְבַּ"ן זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה לֹא נִצְטָרֵךְ לְכָל זֶה, כִּי הוּא יִסְבֹּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָנוּ לִלְקוֹת עַל אִסּוּר אֶחָד כַּמָּה מַלְקוּיוֹת אִם יִתְרַבּוּ עָלָיו הַלָּאוִין בַּתּוֹרָה וְלֹא יִצְטָרְכוּ לָנוּ לִדְרָשׁוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת, וְהִרְבָּה רְאָיוֹתָיו עַל זֶה רְאָיוֹת חֲזָקוֹת כִּרְאִי מוּצָק לְפִי הַדּוֹמֶה. וּפֵרוּשׁ הַשְּׁמוּעָה דִּגְמָרָא מַכּוֹת כְּפֵרוּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יָפֶה. וְלָאו דְּשֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם דָּרֵשׁ לֵהּ הָרַמְבַּ"ן זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה מִמָּה שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּפָרָשַׁת אִסּוּר דָּגִים וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְגוֹ' מִכָּל שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם וְגוֹ' שֶׁקֶץ הֵם לָכֶם. וְזֶה בֶּאֱמֶת יִהְיֶה דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ, שֶׁבְּפָרָשָׁה זוֹ יְדַבֵּר בְּאִסּוּר דָּגִים שֶׁגְּדֵלִים בַּמַּיִם, וְשָׁם יְדַבֵּר גַּם כֵּן מִשֶּׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם. שְׁמָעֶנָּה בְּנִי, וְאִם תִּזְכֶּה בְּחַר לְךָ לְדַעְתְּךָ, אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵם.
And Ramban, may his memory be blessed does not require all of this. As he reasons that we should administer several [sets of] lashes for one prohibition if there are multiple negative commandments in the Torah about it and they are not required by us for other teachings. And he [presented] many proofs about this — proofs that appear “strong as a mirror of cast metal.” And he explained the teaching of the Gemara Makkot nicely like the understanding of the early scholars. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, expounds the negative commandment of the swarming creatures of the water from that which is written in the section of the prohibition of fish, “And anything that does not have fins and scales, etc. from any swarming creature of the waters, etc. it shall be an abomination for you” (Leviticus 11:10). And this is truly a thing that is learned from its context, as it is speaking in the section about the prohibition of fish, and there it is also speaking about the swarming creature of the waters. Understand this, my son; and if you merit, choose for yourself according to your opinion — these and those are the words of the living God.
מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי אִסּוּר הַמַּאֲכָלִים, כָּתַבְנוּ לְמַעְלָה (מצוה עג, וקנה).
We have written above (Sefer HaChinukh 73, 155) from the roots of the prohibition of food.
דִּינֶיהָ קְצָרִים. וּכְלַל הָעִנְיָן כִּי כָּל אוֹתָן הַבְּרִיּוֹת קְטַנּוֹת, כְּמוֹ הַתּוֹלָעִים וְהָעֲלוּקָה וְכַיֹּצֵא בָּהֶם שֶׁגְּדֵלִים בַּמַּיִם נִקְרָאִים שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם.
Its laws are short, and the general principle of the matter is that all those small creatures — like worms, leeches and similar to them — that grow in the waters, are called swarming creatures of the waters.
וְנוֹהֶגֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן בִּזְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. וְעוֹבֵר עָלֶיהָ וְאָכַל בְּרִיָּה אַחַת שְׁלֵמָה מֵהֶן, וַאֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה בְּיוֹתֵר לוֹקֶה, וְאִם אֵינָהּ שְׁלֵמָה, אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל מֵהֶן כַּזַּיִת. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אָסוּר לֶאֱכֹל מֵהֶן דְּבַר תּוֹרָה אֲפִלּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכַּזַּיִת. שֶׁחֲצִי שִׁעוּר דְּאוֹרָיְתָא הוּא אָסוּר, אֲבָל אֵין חִיּוּב מַלְקוּת אֶלָּא עַל אֲכִילַת הַשִּׁעוּר הַמֻּקְבָּל.
And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and eats a whole creature of them — and even if it is the smallest — is lashed. But if it is not whole, he is not lashed until he eats a kazayit of them. And nonetheless, it is forbidden to eat even less than a kazayit from Torah writ; as half of a measure [that would result in punishment] is forbidden by the Torah. But there is only liability for lashes for eating the transmitted measure.