Negative Commandment 353 (Digest)
Provocative Behavior
"No man shall come near to any of his relatives, to uncover [their] nakedness"—Leviticus 18:6.
It is forbidden to derive pleasure from any of the women whom the Torah forbids us from marrying, by kissing, embracing and the like. For such behavior leads to actualizing the forbidden relationship.
Unabridged English Text of this Mitzvah »
« Close
> The 353rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from deriving pleasure from any forbidden partner,;) even without sexual relations, e.g., through kissing, hugging, and the like.
>
>
> The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,;) "To a close relative, do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations," as if to say, "do not come close to them in any type of closeness which could lead to sexual relations."
>
>
> The Sifra says, "The phrase, "Do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations," would seem only to prohibit actual sexual relations. How do we know that one may not have other types of closeness? From the verse,;) 'Do not come close to a woman who is tameh from being in nidah.' This only proves that both relations and closeness are forbidden with a woman who is in nidah. How do we know that the same applies to all forbidden partners? From the verse, 'Do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations.' " There it also says, "What is the meaning of the phrase,;) 'Those who do;) [these sexual violations] shall be cut off spiritually'? Since it says, 'Do not approach,' one might think that kares is incurred even for other forms of closeness; the verse therefore says 'those who do,' not 'those who come close.' " The Torah repeats its prohibition of these vulgar acts in the verse,;) 'Do not follow any of the perverted customs'?
>
>
> However,;) the two prohibitions,;) "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor the ways of Canaan...," do not just prohibit the "perverted customs' [and therefore repetitions of the prohibition against acts of closeness], but rather the perversions themselves which are listed in the subsequent verses. These two prohibitions therefore include all forbidden sexual relations; but since the prohibition against following "the ways of Egypt" and "the ways of Canaan" includes all their immoral acts,;) and matters of agriculture, raising animals, and social life, the Torah therefore continued by specifying the specific type of sexual relation referred to — this type, another type, and so on. This is clear from the verse at the end of this section,;) "The people who lived in the land before you did all these disgusting perversions." The Sifra says, "I would think [from the ban on following 'the ways of Egypt,' etc.] that one may not construct buildings or plant vineyards like theirs. The Torah therefore adds,;) 'Do not follow [any] of their customs' — the prohibition covers only customs which have been practiced by them and their forefathers." And there it explains, "What did they used to do? A man would marry another man; a woman another woman; and one woman would marry two men."
>
>
> This all proves that the prohibitions against following "the ways of Egypt" and "the ways of Canaan" are of a general nature, covering all forbidden sexual relations. Afterwards, the particular categories are each mentioned separately.
>
>
> The details of this mitzvah are explained in the Commentary on the Mishneh to the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin, where it is also explained that the punishment is lashes.
>
>
> It is also important to know that in any case where sexual relations are forbidden upon punishment of kares, a child conceived from that forbidden union is called a mamzer. G‑d has called this child a mamzer, whether the forbidden union was intentional or accidental — with the exception of a child born from a union when the mother was in nidah. Then the child is not called a mamzer, but a ben nidah. This is explained in the fourth chapter of Yevamos.;)
>
>
>
> Footnotes
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> Literally, ervah, or any woman forbidden upon punishment of kares.
>
>
>
> 2.
>
> Lev. 18:6.
>
>
>
> 3.
>
> Ibid. 18:19.
>
>
>
> 4.
>
> Ibid. 18:29.
>
>
>
> 5.
>
> Apparently the Sifra's question is based on the seemingly extra words hanefashos ha'osos. The verse could have said v'nich'rsu ('they shall be cut off'), and it would have obviously referred to the sexual relations discussed in the previous verses. "Those who do" therefore comes to limit this punishment only to actual sexual relations, not to other forms of closeness, which do not incur such a strict punishment.
>
>
>
> 6.
>
> Ibid. 18:30.
>
>
>
> 7.
>
> In the following discussion, the Rambam proves that Lev. 18:3 is unrelated to the prohibition against kissing, etc., but is rather a general prohibition covering forbidden sexual relations. Since it is general in nature, it is not counted among the 613 mitzvos (see Introductory Principle Four].
>
>
>
> 8.
>
> Ibid. 18:3.
>
>
>
> 9.
>
> This term includes immorality in sexual relations, theft, dishonest weights and measures, etc. See Kapach, 5731, note 21.
>
>
>
> 10.
>
> Ibid. 18:27.
>
>
>
> 11.
>
> Ibid. 18:3. This is the conclusion of the verse which speaks of "the ways of Egypt," etc.
>
>
>
> 12.
>
> 49b.
Positive Commandment 149 (Digest)
Inspecting Animals for Kosher Signs
"These are the beasts which you shall eat"—Leviticus 11:2.
We are commanded to inspect wild or domesticated mammals before consuming them, to ascertain whether they possess the kosher signs—i.e., split hooves and cud chewing.
Unabridged English Text of this Mitzvah »
« Close
> The 149th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the signs of beheimos and chayos ;)]. They must chew their cud and have split hooves, and only then may they be eaten. It is a positive commandment that we examine them for these signs.
>
>
> The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,;) "These are the animals that you may eat...."
>
>
> The Sifra says, "The phrase,;) '[Among mammals, any one that has split hooves that are cloven and that brings up its cud —] that one you may eat,' teaches that only that kind may you eat, and you may not eat one which is non-kosher." This means that from the law that it may be eaten if it has these signs, we imply that it may not be eaten if it lacks these signs. And according to the principle already explained,;) a prohibition which is implied from a positive commandment is counted as a positive commandment. Therefore, after the passage quoted above, the Sifra continues, "This teaches us the positive commandment; what is the source of the prohibition? The verse,;) ['these are the ones that you may not eat...:] The camel...' " as explained in the section dealing with the prohibitions.;)
>
>
> This shows that the statement, "That one you may eat," constitutes a positive commandment. The mitzvah, as previously mentioned, is that we are commanded to inspect every beheimah and chaya for these signs; and only then may it be eaten. This law is itself the mitzvah.
>
>
> The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractates Bechoros and Chullin.
>
>
>
> Footnotes
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> The primary difference between these two categories of animals is that chayos have splintered horns or antlers, whereas beheimos do not. Beheimos and chayos are sometimes referred to as "tame" and "domestic" animals.
>
>
>
> 2.
>
> Lev. 11:2.
>
>
>
> 3.
>
> Ibid. 11:3.
>
>
>
> 4.
>
> See P38.
>
>
>
> 5.
>
> Lev. 11:4.
>
>
>
> 6.
>
> See N172.