Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

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.

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

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.