Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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