1. Since it is written [Deuteronomy 14:6]: "Any animal that has split hooves, [whose foot] is divided into two hoofs and chews the cud, [this may you eat],"¹Similar verses are also stated in that passage with regard to fish, fowl, and locusts. Like verses are also stated in Leviticus, except that in Leviticus, there is no such commandment with regard to a kosher fowl. To include that as well, the Rambam refers to the passage in Deuteronomy. one may derive that any animal that does not chew its cud and have split hoofs is forbidden. A negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.²I.e., it does not have the severity of a negative commandment. Hence its violation is not punishable by lashes.

The Rambam is explaining that the Torah is not commanding us to eat kosher species, for there is no obligation to partake of them. Instead, it is commanding us to take precautions - through checking distinguishing signs - against partaking of non-kosher ones. See Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 6) where the Rambam elaborates in the explanation of the concept of a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and notes which deals with this issue.

With regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4]³Here the Rambam cites the verses from Leviticus - although like verses also appear in Deuteronomy - for Leviticus comes first in the Torah. states: "These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs." From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut. Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut.⁴The commentaries have raised a question concerning the Rambam's statements. There is a general principle (Pesachim 24a, et al): "We do not issue a warning on the basis of logical deduction." Implied is that a person is not given lashes when a prohibition is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, but instead derived through logic. Why then, these commentaries ask, are lashes given for partaking of non-kosher species other than the four mentioned specifically by the Torah?

The Rambam offers a resolution to this question in his Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172). There he explains that in this instance, we are not deriving the prohibition on the basis of logic, for it is already stated in the positive commandment. We are using logic only to derive that this prohibition is also included in the negative commandment. The prohibition against eating them involves a negative commandment in addition to the positive commandment that is derived from "This may you eat."

2. Therefore anyone who eats an olive sized portion⁵Approximately, an ounce in contemporary measure. of the meat of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beasts is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. This applies whether he partook of the meat or the fat. For the Torah did not distinguish between the meat and fat of non-kosher animals.⁶Such a distinction is made with regard to the meat and fat of kosher animals. With regard to non-kosher animals, by contrast, the two are included in the same category and the same prohibition applies to both of them.

3. With regard to humans: Although [Genesis 2:7] states: "And the man became a beast with a soul," he is not included in the category of hoofed animals. Therefore, he is not included in the [above] prohibition.⁷For the prohibition mentions the animal's hoofs. Accordingly, one who partakes of meat or fat from a man - whether alive or deceased - is not liable for lashes. It is, however, forbidden [to partake of human meat] because of the positive commandment [mentioned above].⁸The Ra'avad and the Rashba differ with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that there is no prohibition at all against partaking of meat from a human. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 79:1) follows the Rambam's ruling.

The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's position, noting that - as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and in Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2 - there is no Scriptural prohibition against partaking of milk and blood from a human. Now these leniencies are derived from the exegesis of verses from the Torah. Were the meat of a human not to be forbidden, why would it be necessary to teach that his milk and blood are permitted? Who would have thought otherwise? For the Torah [Leviticus 11:2] lists the seven species of kosher wild beasts and says: "These are the beasts of which you may partake." Implied is that any other than they may not be eaten. And a negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.

4. When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fowl, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:13] states: "These shall you detest from the fowl. You shall not partake of them." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:11] states: "You may partake of all kosher fowl." Implied is that the non-kosher may not be eaten.

Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fish is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:11] states: "They shall be detestable for you. Do not partake of their meat." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:9] states: "All that possess fins and scales, you may eat." Implied is that those that do not possess fins and scales may not be eaten. We thus learn that anyone who partakes of a non-kosher fish, domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl nullified a positive commandment and violated a negative commandment.⁹Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172, 173, 174) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 154, 156, 157) include these among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

5. A non-kosher locust is included among [the category of] flying teeming animals.¹⁰I.e., there is no separate commandment not to partake of a non-kosher locust. Instead, this is included in the general prohibition against partaking of non-kosher teeming animals. The Lechem Mishneh and others note that, in contrast, to the previous halachot, the Rambam does not mention the fact that there is a prohibition against partaking of locusts that results from the positive commandment to partake of them. One who partakes of an olive-sized portion¹¹Or an entire teeming animal even if it is smaller than an olive; see Halachah 21. of flying teeming animals is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Deuteronomy 14:19] states: "All flying teeming animals are non-kosher for you. They may not be eaten."¹²Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 175) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 471) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

As explained in the halachot that follow and summarized in Halachah 23, there are five prohibitions in the Torah that refer to teeming animals. The categories are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that one particular creature may be included in several - or all - of these categories.

What is meant by a flying teeming animal? For example, a fly, a mosquito, a hornet, a bee, or the like.

6. When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a teeming animal of the land, he is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 11:41] states: "Any teeming animal that swarms on the ground is detestable to you. It should not be eaten."¹³Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 176) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 162) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

What is meant by a teeming animal of the land? Snakes, scorpions, beetles, centipedes, and the like.

7. The eight teeming animals that are mentioned in the Torah¹⁴Leviticus 11:29-30. The translation of the names of these eight species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter.

The Torah singles these teeming animals out from others and states that they convey ritual purity. It does not mention anything about them with regard to the prohibition against partaking of their flesh. Nevertheless, since this quantity of their flesh is significant in another halachic context, it is also considered significant with regard to this prohibition (Meilah 16b). This explains why the minimum measure for which they are liable is less than that associated with other prohibitions. are: the weasel, the mouse, the ferret, the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. A person who eats a lentil-sized portion of their meat is liable for lashes. The minimum measure that one is prohibited to partake of their meat is the same as the minimum measure that conveys ritual impurity. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of a lentil.

8. When does the above apply? When one partakes of them after they have died.¹⁵For their flesh only conveys ritual impurity after they have died. If, however, one cuts off a limb from a living creature from one of these species and eats it, he does not receive lashes unless he [partakes of] an olive-sized portion of meat. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of an olive.

One who eats an entire limb of a teeming animal after it dies does not receive lashes unless it contains a lentil-sized amount of meat.¹⁶Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 4:3 states that there is no minimum measure with regard to the limbs of a teeming animal within the context of ritual impurity. A person who touches an entire limb of a such an animal after its death becomes impure even if the limb is smaller than the size of a lentil. Nevertheless, we do not rule that one is liable if he eats such a limb.

Meilah, loc. cit., explains that although the limbs of other animals also convey ritual impurity no matter what their size, one is not liable unless he partakes of an olive-sized portion. Hence, there is no reason to extend the stringency that applies with regard to these teeming animals any further.

9. The blood of these eight teeming animals and their flesh can be combined to reach the minimum measure of a lentil, provided the blood is still attached to their flesh.¹⁷If not, one is not liable until he partakes of an olive-sized portion, as stated in the following halachah. Similarly, the blood of a snake¹⁸Which is not one of the teeming animals explicitly mentioned by the Torah. is combined with its flesh to reach the measure of an olive and one receives lashes for it. The rationale is that its flesh is not separate from its blood, even though it does not impart ritual impurity.¹⁹In contrast to the blood of the eight teeming animals that were singled out by the Torah. Similar concepts apply with regard to other teeming animals that do not convey ritual impurity.

10. When a person collects the blood of teeming animals that has been separated [from their bodies] and partakes of it, he receives lashes if he partakes of a portion the size of an olive.²⁰The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Halachah 9) states that this applies even to the eight teeming animals mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Once their blood is separated from their bodies, the minimum measure is the same as that of other species. [This applies] provided he was warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] a teeming animal. If, however, he is warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] blood, he is not liable. For we are liable only for the blood of domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl.²¹As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

11. All these measures - and the distinctions between them²²That for some one is liable for an olive-sized portion and for others, for a lentil-sized portion. - are halachot received by Moses at Sinai [and transmitted via the Oral Tradition].

12. One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of an aquatic teeming animal is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:43] states: "Do not make your souls detestable [by partaking] of any teeming animal that swarms... and do not become impure because of them." Included in this prohibition are teeming animals of the land, that fly, and of the water.²³Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 164) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As obvious from the Rambam's words here and as explained in greater length in Sefer HaMitzvot, this is not a specific commandment relating to aquatic teeming creatures, but a general commandment relating to all teeming animals. Accordingly, when a person partakes of a teeming animal of the land or a flying teeming animal, he is liable for two transgressions.

The Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9) and the Maggid Mishneh differ with the Rambam and maintain that this is not considered as a separate mitzvah.

What is meant by a aquatic teeming animal? Both small creatures like worms and leeches that inhabit the water²⁴See Halachot 18-19. and larger creatures that are beasts of the sea. To state a general principle: Any aquatic creature that does not have the characteristics of a fish, neither a non-kosher fish or a kosher fish, e.g., a seal, a dolphin, a frog, or the like.

13. The species that come into existence in garbage heaps and the carcasses of dead animals, e.g., maggots, worms, and the like which are not brought into being from male-female [relations],²⁵The Rambam is stating - based on Midrashic and Talmudic sources - that there are creatures which spontaneously regenerate. It is not our place to defend these concepts against the findings of science. It must, however, be said that many Rabbinical leaders who are aware of the work of Pasteur and others did not doubt the teachings of the Torah and accepted these laws. but from filth that decays and the like are called "those which creep on the earth." A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion [of these creations] is liable for lashes,²⁶Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 177) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 165) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 11:44] states: "Do not make your souls impure with any teeming animal that creeps on the earth," even thought they do not reproduce. Teeming animals that swarm on the earth, by contrast, are those that reproduce from male-female [relations].

14. [The following laws apply with regard to] species that come into being from fruits and other foods.²⁷See Halachot 18-19. Should they depart from [the source from where they came into being] and go to the earth,²⁸The Rambam's wording is borrowed from the prooftext cited. Even if these crawling animals do not reach the earth, but merely appear on the surface of the fruit, they become forbidden., as stated in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178). Note, however, Halachah 16. a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes,²⁹Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 163) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 11:42] states: "With regard to any teeming animal that swarms on the earth, [do not eat them]." This forbids those that departed to the earth, even though they returned to the food. If, however, they did not depart, it is permitted to eat the fruit together with the worm in it.

15. When does the above apply? When the food became worm-ridden after it was uprooted from the earth.³⁰Or removed from its tree. If, however, it became worm-ridden while it was connected [to its source of nurture], that worm is forbidden as if it became departed to the earth. For it was created on the earth. One is liable for lashes [for partaking of it]. If there is a doubt, it is forbidden.

Therefore all fruits that commonly become worm-ridden³¹This is a halachic issue that is given much attention today. We find certain Jewish groups who have taken it upon themselves to grow vegetables without any exposure to insects. There is a heightened consciousness with regard to the need to check and many books and tools have been produced with this purpose in mind. It must be emphasized, however, that although there are no vegetables that are absolutely insect and larvae free, the common halachic approach is not to show concern for any insects and/or larvae that are not visible to the naked eye. Conversely, we assume that all insects we discover came from male-female relationships or came into being while the fruit was connected to its source and do not permit any because they might have come from the fruit itself after it was detached. when connected [to their source of nurture] should not be eaten until one checks the fruit from its inside,³²I.e., an external search is not sufficient and one must cut the fruit or vegetable open and search from the inside. for perhaps it contains a worm. If the fruit remains twelve months after being severed [from its source], it may be eaten without being inspected. For a worm inside of it will not endure for twelve months.³³Since a crawling animal will not live for more than twelve months inside produce and the produce has been detached for more than twelve months, it follows that the animal came into being from the produce itself and thus the produce and the animal can be eaten together.

Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:8) states that the produce should be checked lest there be crawling animals that have left the produce. One of the ways to select grains, legumes, and the like is to soak them first. Any ones with holes will float to the top. They should be discarded, lest they be worm-ridden.

16. If [the worm] departed to the atmosphere, but did not reach the earth, or only a portion of it reached the earth, it departed after it died, the worm was found on the seed on the inside, or it departed from one food to another, [in] all these [situations, the worm] is forbidden because of the doubt, but lashes are not administered [if one partakes of it].

17. A worm found in the stomach of a fish, in the brain within the head of an animal, and one found in meat are forbidden. When, however, salted fish becomes worm-ridden, the worms in it are permitted.³⁴Provided they have not departed from the fish itself (Maggid Mishneh).

The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's approach as follows: All worms that are found in both meat and fish while the animals are alive are forbidden, for we assume that they entered from the outside. Even after a fish dies, we can assume that the worms in its stomach were swallowed when it was alive. Similarly, those in an animal's brain can be assumed to have entered its nose from the outside and are hence, forbidden. Those found in the body of a fish are considered to have been spontaneously generated are hence permitted. Those found in the meat of an animal are not permitted. The rationale is that anything that comes from an animal is permitted to be eaten only after it has been slaughtered according to law. Even though the animal itself was slaughtered, since that slaughter preceded the existence of the worms, they are not permitted.

The Ra'avad and many other Rishonim differ with the Rambam's understanding and permit worms that came into being in meat from animals that were ritually slaughtered, e.g., in meat that was salted to be used at a later time. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:16) quotes both views, but appears to favor the more lenient one. The Rama states that it is customary to follow the more lenient view. In practice, in the present age, this problem is far less prevalent, for because of refrigeration and freezing, it is less likely for worms to exist in meat. This is comparable to fruit which has become worm-ridden after it has been separated from the earth. It is permitted to eat them together with the worm that is in them.

Similarly, if water³⁵Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20. in a utensil produces teeming animals, those teeming animals are permitted to be drunk together with the water, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 11:9]: "All that possess fins and scales in the water, seas, and rivers, they you may eat." Implied is that you may eat those that possess [fins and scales] in the water, seas, and rivers and those that do not possess them, you may not eat. But those creatures [that come into existences] in utensils are permitted whether they possess [fins and scales] or not.

18. [Since the water found] in cisterns, trenches and caves is not flowing water, but instead is collected there,³⁶I.e., water that is stored in storage compartments dug into - or naturally found within - the earth.

The Maggid Mishneh states that irrigation ditches and breeding ponds which water flows through are not included in this category, because - in contrast to water found in containers - the water in them does not stand still. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:1) quotes a difference of opinion on this issue. it is comparable to water found in containers. [Hence], aquatic teeming animals that are created [in these places] are permitted. A person may bend down and drink³⁷Commenting on the citation of this ruling by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:2), the Rama states that if one finds worms in a bucket of water drawn from such bodies, the worms are forbidden, because we fear that the worms came from the bucket and not from the water. without holding back even though he swallows these flimsy teeming animals when drinking.³⁸Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20.

19. When does the above apply? When the teeming animals did not depart from the place where they came into being. If they did, even though they later return to the container or the cistern, they are forbidden. If they went out to the walls of the barrel and then fell back into the water or the beer, they are permitted.³⁹For the walls are still considered as "the place where the teeming animals came into existence." Similarly, if they went out to the walls of the cistern and the cave and returned to the water, they are permitted.

20. When a person strains wine, vinegar, or beer and eats the insects, bugs, and worms that he strains, he is liable for lashes for partaking of an aquatic teeming animal or [for partaking of] a flying teeming animal and an aquatic teeming animal.⁴⁰If the insect has the characteristics of both the prohibited species, as stated in Halachah 23. [This applies] even if they returned to the container after they were strained, for they departed from the place where they came into existence. If, however, they did not depart, one may drink without holding back, as we explained.⁴¹Halachah 18. I.e., he need not worry that perhaps they became separated (Maggid Mishneh).

21. When, in this chapter, we have spoken about partaking of an olive-sized portion, [the intent is that] one ate an olive-sized portion of a large creature or one collected some from one species and some from another similar species⁴²For the portions of forbidden insects to be combined, they need not be of the same species. They must, however, be included in the same prohibition. See Chapter 4, Halachah 17. until one partakes of an olive sized portion. If, however, one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed.⁴³This is a general principle applying in many contexts in the laws of kashrut. The creature must, however, be visible to the naked eye.

[This applies] whether one partook of it after it died or while it was alive. Even if the creature decayed and lost its form,⁴⁴If, however, it has decayed to the extent that it is no longer fit for human consumption, one is not liable, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 11. one is liable for lashes since one consumed it in its entirety.

22. When an ant has lost even one of its legs,⁴⁵For it is no longer considered as a complete creation. one is not liable for lashes for partaking of it unless one eats an olive-sized portion. For this reason,⁴⁶This phrase refers to the previous halachah. one who eats an entire fly or an entire mosquito whether alive or dead is worthy of lashes for partaking of a flying teeming animal.

23. [The following laws apply if] a particular creature is [included in the categories of] a flying teeming animal, an aquatic teeming animal, and a teeming animal of the earth, e.g., it has wings, it walks on the earth like other [earthbound] teeming animals, and it reproduces in the water. If one partakes of it, he is liable for three [sets of] lashes.⁴⁷The Rambam's statements are based on Makkot 16b: "If one eats a potisa, one is liable for four [sets of] lashes, an ant, five [sets of] lashes." As he explains in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179), the intent is not that one is liable for additional sets of lashes because several prohibitions are stated with regard to a particular creature. Instead, the intent is that if one creature falls into several forbidden categories, one is liable for a set of lashes for every forbidden category. See Maggid Mishneh.

It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, the Ramban, and other Rishonim do not accept the Rambam's interpretation and instead, maintain that the prohibitions mentioned in Makkot, loc. cit., refer to the repetition of prohibitions concerning a single creature.

If, in addition to the above, it is one of the species which are brought into being in the earth in fruit, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes. If it is one of the species that reproduce,⁴⁸I.e., although this particular creature was spontaneously generated, it was brought into being in a manner that it could reproduce and bear offspring. he is liable for a fifth [set of] lashes. If it also can be considered as a non-kosher fowl in addition to being considered a flying teeming animal,⁴⁹In Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam is sensitive to the question that might arise and states: "Do not wonder how it is possible for a fowl to come into being from the decay of fruits, for we have seen this take place frequently." In that source, he also explains that it is possible for a single creature to have the characteristics of a non-kosher fowl and a flying teeming animal. he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: [for partaking of] a non-kosher fowl, a flying teeming animal, a teeming animal of the earth, an aquatic teeming animal, an animal that swarms on the earth, and a worm from fruit.

[This applies whether] he partook of the entire creature or he partook of an olive-sized portion of it. Therefore one who eats an ant that flies that breeds in the water is liable for five [sets of] lashes.

24. When one crushed ants, added another complete ant to those that were crushed so that the entire quantity was equal to an olive-sized portion, and partook of it, he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: five [for partaking of] the one ant⁵⁰As stated in the previous halachah. and an additional one, because he partook of an olive-sized portion of dead non-kosher animals.⁵¹The Rambam is not referring to the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is not ritually slaughtered. For that prohibition applies only with regard to kosher animals, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. For this reason, the Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to that halachah) raises questions with the Rambam's statement here. The Kessef Mishneh and others attempt to offer resolutions.