Halakhah for Makkot 26:25

And also included in these negative statements that are negations is His saying (Leviticus 27:29), "Any human being who has been proscribed is not ransomed." Indeed, once you know what the content of this statement is, it is clear to you that this is a negation and not a prohibition. And that is that Scripture here has already discussed the set values of appraisals according to the amount of years of the one appraised and whether they are male or female. And there is no difference whether one said, "My appraisal is upon me"; or "the appraisal of x is upon me" - as we see who this person is and how old he is, and he gives according to that. But if the one appraised was someone who was liable for a death penalty of the court and his judgment has been completed - and after that someone said, "The appraisal of that one is upon me" - he is not obligated to give anything, since that one is considered as if he is dead, for there is no value to him once his judgment has been completed. And this is the content He wanted [to express] by saying, "is not ransomed" - meaning to say, he has no value, such that the appraiser should give it. So this is one of the laws of appraisals and their regulations mentioned by Scripture, and not a prohibition. And the language of the mishnah (Arakhin 1:3) is, "One who is moribund and one who is taken to be executed is not vowed about nor appraised." And the Talmud (Arakhin 6b) explains that this is on condition that he has come out of a Jewish court with a guilty verdict. And the words of the Mekhilta are, "Those who are liable for the death penalty do not have redemption, as it is stated, 'Any human being who has been proscribed is not ransomed.'" And reflect upon the language of the statement and be precise in your study of it - how they explained that this negative statement is a negation and not a prohibition, by their saying, "do not have redemption"; and they did not say, "we may not redeem them." And they explained this very matter in the Sifra in the section about appraisals (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 12:7) and said, "From where is it derived that if one liable for the death penalty of the court said, 'My value is upon me," he has said nothing? We learn to say, 'is not redeemed.'" That is to say [that the question was,] from where is it that [we know that] he is not liable [for any] value. And we have already explained this matter with complete clarity, such that no question is left about it, even for one whose intellect is the most dense among all people. And since we have spoken about this matter, you should know that the words that can connote a prohibition in the Torah are four. And anything that is prohibited by one of these four is called a negative commandment. And they are guard, lest, do not and no (hishamer, pen, al, lo). And in explanation, they said (Makkot 13b:5), "Wherever it is stated, guard, lest, or do not, it is nothing other than a negative commandment." But there is one thing that remains for us to explain in order to complete the intent of the section. And that is that when the Torah tells and commands us to cleanse ourselves by negating actions x and y, behold that action is included in the negative commandments. And even though the negative statement through which it comes is a negation and not a prohibition - since it commands us to negate it from ourselves, and say, "I have not done such and such," we perforce know that such and such an action is prohibited to us. And this is like when Scripture commands us to say, "I have not eaten of it while in mourning, I have not cleared out any of it while I was unclean and I have not deposited any of it with the dead" (Deuteronomy 26:14) - it is indicating that all of these actions are prohibited to us. And behold that this explanation will come in its place, when we speak about these commandments.

Among the laws of the commandment is what they, of blessed memory, said (see Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 10:1) that one who detaches signs of impurity - whether all of them or part of them; or even if he burns a healthy patch of skin, completely or even partially; whether from [his] flesh or from a garment or from the house; whether before the priest sees the blemish or during the days of tentative quarantine or during the days of definite quarantine or even after he is [deemed] exempt - in all of these, he transgresses a negative commandment and is liable for lashes. About this it states, "Be careful with the blemish of tzaraat to guard exceedingly and to do like all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you to do; as I commanded them, be careful to do" - meaning to say, "as I commanded them, be careful to do" and do not remove or cut off the blemish. And the well-know principle already preceded us (Makkot 13b) that in every place where it states, "be careful," or "lest" or "do not," it is nothing but a negative commandment. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (see Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 10:1) that a person is only lashed for this when his actions are effective for him - meaning to say that in the removal of that which he removed of the blemish, there remained less than the required amount [for impurity] in the remnant. But if there remained the amount [needed] for impurity in the remnant - for example, if there was a bright spot and there were three white hairs in it and he detached one, or if he burned part of the healthy skin and there remained part of it the size of a lentil - he is not lashed; as behold, he is [still] impure as at first. And so [too], all that is similar to this. But we [rather] strike him with lashes of rebellion. And the matter is not like this with a scab, as he is not lashed for a scab in his shaving part of the scab - until he shaves all of it, as I wrote in its place in the Order of Eeshah Ki Tazria (Sefer HaChinukh 170).