Midrasch zu Wajikra 11:32

1) (Vayikra 11:32) "And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei." Of what is this verse speaking? If of their death, this has already been stated (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal), this is stated below (Vayikra 11:35). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hechai (a limb of a living animal, [and "in their death" signifies the death of the limb]). (But why is a verse needed for this?) Is it not derivable a fortiori? viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh (to confer tumah), ever min hechai of it confers tumah, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, how much more so should ever min hechai of it confer tumah! (Why, then, is the verse needed?) No, if this is so with a beast, it may be so because it confers tumah by being carried. Would you, then, say the same for a sheretz, which does not confer tumah by being carried, (but only by being touched)? Since it does not confer tumah by being carried, (I would say that) ever min hechai of it does not confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written "And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei" — to include ever min hechai.

1) (Vayikra 11:32): "sack": This tells me only of sack. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) kalkali and chebek (types of saddle bands)? From "or sack." I might think that (also included) as requiring tumah are ropes and cords. It is, therefore, written "sack." Just as sack is reticulated, so all must be reticulated (to acquire tumah).

1) (Vayikra 11:35): "And all that there shall fall of their carcass (that of sheratzim) upon it shall be tamei": Of what is this speaking? If of their death (i.e., touching the carcass itself) this has already been mentioned (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hechai, this has been mentioned above (Vayikra 11:32 [see Section 6:1]). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal).