Kommentar zu Wajikra 11:25

וכל הנשא מנבלתם AND WHOSOEVER BEARETH OUGHT OF THE CARRION OF THEM [SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN] — In every passage where there is mentioned uncleanness consequent upon the bearing of anything unclean it is more stringent than uncleanness which is the result of contact, inasmuch as the former requires also the washing of the clothing one happens to wear whilst carrying the unclean thing (Sifra, Shemini, Section 4 8).

וכל הנושא מנבלתם יכבס בגדיו, “and anyone carrying part of such a carcass, etc.” The Torah applied more stringent laws for carrying such a cadaver than for merely coming into contact with it without moving it. The latter is required to also immerse his garments before he and they can become purified. The reason may be that ”touching” is presumed to be a light touch, something merely incidental, whereas “carrying” implies major preoccupation with the cadaver in question. The garments of a carrier had an active part in the cadaver being transported.

The uncleanness [caused by] carrying is more severe than [that caused by] touch. Re’m writes: I have not heard a correct explanation as to what Rashi is coming to let us know with this rule. It is explicitly written here that the impurity caused by touch does not require washing of clothing and impurity caused by carrying requires washing of clothing! If it is to inform us that everywhere else it is as it is written here — what practical difference does that make? Perhaps the answer is: Rashi is coming to let us know that the impurity of touch is not derived through a kal vachomer from the impurity of carrying and it would thus require washing of clothing, [as follows:] [The impurity acquired by] carrying is not applicable to creeping creatures [and the impurity of a seminal discharge], yet it requires washing of clothing, then [the impurity of] touch, which is applicable to all types of impurities, is it not logical that it requires washing of clothing? For this reason Rashi explains: “Wherever the uncleanness [caused by] carrying is mentioned, it is more severe than [that caused by] touch,” and you will not find any place where Scripture obligates washing clothing for the impurity of touch. If the impurity of touch required washing of clothes from a kal vachomer, then Scripture would not have neglected to write in some place regarding the impurity of touch: “He shall wash his garments.” The same type of argument is found in the first chapter of Chulin (22b) (Re’m). This does not seem to be true, because if Rashi means this, he should say the opposite: “Wherever the uncleanness [caused by] touch is mentioned, it does not require washing of clothing.” And a further difficulty: Rashi should explain that Scripture is coming to let us know that the impurity of carrying is not derived from the impurity of touch to be exempt from washing clothing, [as the Sages derived in Toras Kohanim]: [The impurity of] touch is more allencompassing, yet it does not cause impurity to clothing, then [the impurity of] carrying, which encompasses less [types of impurities], is it not logical that it should not cause impurity [to clothing]? Therefore, the Torah teaches, etc. It seems to me that Rashi is coming to inform us not to say [the impurities of] touch and carrying are the same. Because if so, when the Torah writes that creeping creatures and seminal discharge cause impurity through touch, they should also cause impurity by carrying. With regard to this Rashi says in any case the impurity [caused by] carrying is more severe than [that caused by] touch, in that it requires washing of clothing. If Scripture’s intent was that they [creeping creatures and seminal discharge] cause impurity also with carrying, it would not have remained silent, for washing of clothing cannot be derived from [the impurity of] touch, since, “it is sufficient for that which is derived through logical means [such as through comparison or kal vachomer, to be like that from which is was derived]...” (Nachalas Yaakov).