הלכה על מכות 32:1

But the true statement that you will not wonder about and will not push off is that one who eats a creature that is a flying swarming thing and a swarming thing [of the earth] is only lashed two [sets of] lashes - one on account of [the swarming things of the earth; and one on account of flying swarming things. And if it is also a swarming thing of the sea, he is lashed three - one on account of] the swarming things of the earth; one on account of the flying swarming things, the negative commandment of which is also explicit; and one on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." For it forbids every swarming thing, so that swarming things of the water are also included in, "anything that swarms" - by His saying, "with anything that swarms." And if he ate a swarming thing of the earth only, he would be lashed one - on account of, "All the things that swarm, etc." And likewise [for] a flying swarming creature, [he would be liable for] only one - on account of the flying swarming things. And likewise only one for swarming creatures of the water - on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And this negative statement including the swarming things of the earth, does not make it that he is lashed twice for a swarming thing of the earth. For [even] if there were a thousand negative statements appearing for us about swarming things of the earth that were all explicit, he would only be lashed for one. For they are all repeated about the exact same content. And even if He said, "A swarming thing of the earth shall not be eaten"; "You shall not eat a swarming thing of the earth"; "They shall not eat a swarming thing of the earth," a thousand times, it would only make him liable for one [set of] lashes. Could you see those that established this corrupted principle holding that one who wears shatnez (forbidden mixtures) be lashed twice because two negative statements appeared about it? I have never seen them hold this. Rather if another person were to say it, they would disparage him. Yet they do not disparage themselves about their saying that [one who eats] a flying swarming thing or a swarming thing of the earth is lashed twice - once on account of the negative statement that is explicit about it, and once on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And this [part] of the matter's explanation would not [even] be lost on a foolish child. But I will [now] return to the matter I started to explain and say that when it happens that a creature is born in a certain seed or a certain fruit and goes out to the exteriority - and even though it has not touched the surface of the ground: Behold if one eats it, he is liable for one [set of] lashes, since a specific negative commandment appeared about it - as we explained in the previous commandment. But if it moved to the ground and walked on it: If one eats it, he is liable once on account of, "things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat them" (Leviticus 11:42); and once on account of, "are repulsive, they may not be eaten." And if it happened with this that it is not fruitful and does not multiply, he would be liable three [sets of] lashes for it - the two previously mentioned, and the third [on account of,] "you shall not make yourselves impure through any swarming thing that creeps" (Leviticus 11:44). And if in addition to these, it flies, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes on account of, "winged swarming things are impure for you; they may not be eaten" (Deuteronomy 14:19). And if along with this, it would swim in the water even as it flies - as is constantly seen with many species - he would be liable a fifth [set of] lashes on account of a swarming thing of the water that is included in that negative commandment, which is, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And if along with this, this creature that comes to exist on its own from food is also a bird, he would also be liable a sixth [set of] lashes on account of, "These you shall consider repulsive from among the birds; they may not be eaten" (Leviticus 11:13). And do not dismiss that there be a species of birds that come to exist from rot, as people often see birds larger than a small nut coming to exist from rot. And do not dismiss that there be a species that is itself an impure bird and a flying swarming thing. For this is not unlikely, since it would surely have characteristics of a bird, and actions and characteristics of a flying swarming thing. Do you not see that all the earlier commentaries counted among those [with] six [sets of] lashes, an impure fish [that is also] a swarming thing of the water? And that is also true - do not dismiss it. For it is likely that it be a fish and a swarming thing of the water; or likewise a bird and a swarming thing of the water; or likewise a bird and a flying swarming thing. And that is the putita - which is a bird, a flying swarming thing, a swarming thing of the earth and a swarming thing of the water. And therefore we are liable four [sets of] lashes for it. And one is lashed five for an ant, [as] the ant that is mentioned is a flying ant that comes to exist from rotten fruits and which is not fruitful and does not multiply. One is liable one on account of a swarming thing that separates from food; one on account of a swarming thing of the earth; one on account of that which crawls on the ground; one on account of a flying swarming thing; and one on account of a swarming thing of the water. And a wasp that also comes to exist from rot is - in addition to these - a bird [as well as a] flying swarming thing. And it is only among fools that it be impossible that the ant or wasp or other types of birds and swarming things come to exist from rotten food. For they have no knowledge of natural science, but rather think that it is impossible in all of the species, that one come to exist from another except through a male and a female - since this is what they see. And I have already explained to you the content that you must examine and determine [to know that] a person is liable, for eating a certain creature, so many [sets of] lashes; and [another one] is only liable for [a lesser amount]. And it is made clear to you from these verses that we do not look for a [requisite] size from one who eats an entire creature, and we do not say whether there was [a requisite amount of] a kazayit. Rather, [even] if he ate a small mosquito, he is lashed three [sets of] lashes on account of a swarming thing of the earth; on account of a swarming thing that crawls; and on account of a flying swarming thing. And behold they also said (Makkot 16b), "One who delays his orifices transgresses on account of do not be repulsive. And one who drinks water from the horn of a bloodletter" - and that is a tool for drawing out - "transgresses on account of, 'do not make yourselves be repulsive.'" And this is an analogy to eating things that are disgusting and drinking disgraceful things which a man pushes away, such that one is forbidden about them. But he is not liable for lashes because of them; for the simple meaning of the verse is only about swarming things. Be we do strike him with lashes of rebellion. Behold it has already become clear to you, from all that we had precede, that we have indeed only taken the prohibition of the swarming thing of the water from this verse - which is, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive - for no specific prohibition appeared about it besides this. And understand this. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)