Daily Mitzvah (Rambam)

The 150th mitzvah is that we are also commanded regarding the signs of birds; that only certain species are permissible. These signs are not listed in Scripture, but have been determined by investigation; that after examining each and every one of the prohibited species, we have found characteristics common to all of them. These are the signs of a non-kosher bird.1 That we have been commanded to examine birds and declare one type non-kosher and another kosher is the positive commandment.

The Sifri says, "The statement,2 'You may eat every kosher bird,' is a positive commandment.' " This states clearly what we hinted to above.

The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Chullin.

Footnotes

1.

See Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros, 1:16.

2.

Deut. 14:11.

The 151st mitzvah is that we are also commanded regarding the signs of grasshoppers. These signs are explained in Scripture as knees which extend above the feet.

This mitzvah is similar to the preceding ones, the relevant verse being,1 "The only flying insects [with four walking legs] that you may eat are...."

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third chapter of tractate Chullin.

Footnotes

1.

Lev. 11:21.

The 152nd mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the signs of fish. These signs are explained in Scripture in G‑d's statement,1 "This is what you may eat of all that is in the water."

Our Sages said explicitly in Gemara Chullin,2 "One who eats a non-kosher fish transgresses both a positive commandment and a prohibition." This is because the statement "this you may eat" implies that other things you may not eat, and that a prohibition which is implied from a positive commandment is counted as a positive commandment. This shows that the phrase, "This is what you may eat" constitutes a positive commandment.

As mentioned previously, when we say that this is a positive commandment, we mean that we are commanded to judge according to these signs and declare "this may be eaten" and "this may not be eaten." This is clear from the verse,3 "You must separate out the clean animals and birds from the unclean," and this distinction can only be made through [examining] the signs. Therefore, each of these four categories of signs — those of beheimos and chayos, of birds, of grasshoppers, and of fish — constitutes a separate mitzvah. We have already quoted the language of our Sages where each is called a separate positive commandment.

The details of this mitzvah — regarding the signs of fish — are explained in the third chapter of tractate Chullin.

Footnotes

1.

Lev. 11:9.

2.

66b.

3.

Lev. 20:25.

The 172nd prohibition is that we are forbidden eating from a non-kosher beheimah or chaya.

The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Among the animals that bring up their cud...there are some that you may not eat. These include the camel, the hare, the hyrax...and the pig."

Other non-kosher animals, however, are not listed explicitly; it is from the verse,2 "This you may eat every animal that has a true hoof...and which brings up its cud" that we know that without both these signs together, it may not be eaten. However, it is a prohibition which is implied from a positive commandment, which, as we have explained, is counted as a positive commandment. The general principle is that a prohibition which is implied from a positive commandment is counted as a positive commandment, and one is not punished by lashes.

However, from a kal va'chomer3 we learn that there is a direct prohibition against eating other non-kosher beheimos and chayos, and that one who does so incurs lashes. [The kal va'chomer is:] If one receives lashes for eating a pig or a camel, each of which has one sign of a kosher animal — certainly one receives lashes for eating another animal which has no kosher sign whatsoever.

Listen to what the Sifra says about this subject: "The verse 'This you may eat,' teaches that only that kind may you eat, and you may not eat one which is non-kosher. This teaches us the positive commandment; what is the source of the prohibition? The verse,4 'These are the ones that you may not eat from among the cud-chewing [hoofed animals: the camel... the hyrax...the hare...the pig...].' This teaches only these particular species; what is the source for other non-kosher species? It is a logical inference: 'if there is a prohibition against eating these animals, which have one sign of being kosher, certainly there is a prohibition against eating other animals which have no kosher sign whatsoever.'

"In summary, the camel, hare, hyrax and pig are prohibited by an explicit verse, and the other non-kosher animals are prohibited by a kal va'chomer. Therefore the positive commandment is derived from the verse, and the prohibition from a kal va'chomer. This kal va'chomer, however, is to reveal the existing law, as we explained regarding [the prohibition of incest with] a daughter," as explained in the appropriate place.5

Therefore, one who eats a kezayis of meat from any species of non-kosher beheimah or chaya receives lashes by Biblical law. Keep this in mind.

Footnotes

1.

Deut. 14:7-8.

2.

Ibid. 14:6.

3.

One of the 13 rules of Torah interpretation, that one can generalize from a less obvious case to a more obvious one.

4.

Lev. 11:4.

5.

N336. The Torah lists a grand-daughter among the incestual prohibitions, but not a daughter.

In the Second Introductory Principle, the Rambam explains that laws which are derived through the 13 rules of Torah interpretation are not included in the count of 613 mitzvos. Nevertheless, sometimes the law is not actually "derived" from the rule, but the law has been passed down orally as one of the 613, and is only "revealed" through the rule. In such cases, the law is included in the count of 613.

The 174th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating a non-kosher bird.

The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement regarding those species,1 "These are the flying animals that you must avoid. Do not eat [the following:]. "

One who eats a kezayis of their meat also receives lashes.

The details of this mitzvah — along with the previous two2 — are explained in the third chapter of Chullin.3

Footnotes

1.

Lev. 11:13.

2.

N172 and N173.

3.

59a.