Midrasch zu Wajikra 11:25

5) — Now if Scripture is stringent with a sheretz, whose blood is like its flesh, shall we then be stringent with a beast, whose blood is not like its flesh? — I will derive it, then, from ever min hameth (a limb from a dead animal), viz.: If ever min hameth, whose prohibition does not obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites, (the former being permitted to eat of a dead animal that has not been slaughtered by shechitah), yet (it) confers tumah, then ever min hechai, whose prohibition does obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites, should it not confer tumah? — No, this may be so with ever min hameth, where the flesh that falls off from it is tamei, but would you say (the same for) ever min hechai, where the flesh that falls off from it (as opposed to being torn off from it) is clean? Since the flesh that falls off from it is tahor, it (the flesh torn off from it) should not confer tumah! (It is, therefore, necessary) to write "all who touch their carcass" (Vayikra 11:24), and "all who carry of their carcass" (Vayikra 11:25) (are tamei), to include ever min hechai.

8) (Vayikra 11:25) "And everyone that carries of their carcass shall wash his clothing and he shall be unclean until evening": We are hereby taught that the carrier confers tumah upon clothing. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If touching (where the instances of tumah) are many (relative to carrying), does not confer tumah upon clothing, then carrying (where the instances of tumah) are few (relative to touching), how much more so should it not confer tumah (upon clothing)! It must, therefore, be written that the carrier must wash his clothing, whereby we are taught that the carrier does confer tumah upon clothing.

9) I might think (that such tumah obtains) even with raw wool; it is, therefore, written "beged" (clothing). If "beged" (alone were written), I might think (that tumah obtained) only with a large, white beged which confers tumah (in the instances of zav and plague-spots). Whence would I derive (the same for) a large, colored beged, a small, white beged, a small, colored beged, until there would be included (even) a net-band or a small wrap? From "beged"-"begadav" (i.e., from the use of the longer form, "begadav," rather than the base form, "beged") for (purposes of) inclusion. Whence is it derived that other implements are equated with begadim (in this connection)? From (the superfluous) "vetamei" ("and he shall be clean.") (Vayikra 11:25). I might think that he also confers tumah upon men and upon earthenware (which, for tumah purposes is likened to man); it is, therefore, written "beged" — he confers tumah upon clothing, and not upon men or earthenware.