Midrasch zu Wajikra 5:2

1) (Vayikra 5:2) ("Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, or the carcass of an unclean animal, or the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing, and it be hidden from him, and he is unclean and he is guilty") "Or if a soul touch any unclean thing": The early masters were wont to say: I might think that even if one touched something that had touched an unclean thing (tamei), he was liable (for entering the sanctuary or eating consecrated food); it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "the carcass of an unclean animal," "the carcass of an unclean beast," "the carcass of an unclean creeping thing" — Just as these are unique in being avoth hatumah (primary causes of tumah), (so all that are avoth hatumah are included), excluding those which are not av hatumah).

2) R. Akiva said: I might think that even if one touched food, drink, or earthenware vessels (that had become tamei) he was liable, these are excluded, not being avoth hatumah.

3) Or, if you learn a thing in one way (viz., binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles 3), you learn it in all of its aspects — Just as an unclean beast is unique in that touching it is distinct from carrying it (i.e., by touching it, one's garments do not become tamei, whereas by carrying it they do) and it becomes an av hatumah to render tamei both man and beast, so I include only those things which are like it. What do I include? The qualifying amount of the sprinkling waters of the red heifer and the saddle (mercav) (of a zav, one who is unclean by reason of a seminal emission), the touching of which is distinct from carrying them, (touching not rendering one's garments unclean; carrying, doing so) and which become an av hatumah to render tamei both man and beast. "any unclean thing" includes the chair and the couch (of a zav), whose touching is like its carrying and which become an av hatumah to render a man tamei to make his garments tamei. "unclean" includes the burner of the red heifer, and bullocks (the bullock of the anointed high-priest, the bullock of "forgetfulness" (helem davar) of the congregation, and the Yom Kippur bullock), and the sender-away of the (Yom Kippur) scape-goat, without touching, (a man who touches them not becoming tamei). "any unclean thing" includes (for tumah liability in entering the sanctuary a man who walks under unclean) overhanging boughs, (under unclean) jutting stones (adjoining a cemetery), and (who touches) semen (even though carrying it does not confer tumah). These are the words of R. Yehudah.

[(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.] This text is related (to Prov. 18:21): DEATH AND LIFE ARE IN THE POWER OF THE TONGUE. Everything depends on the tongue.¹⁰Tanh., Lev. 5:2. < If > one is acquitted, he is acquitted for life; < if > one is not acquitted, he is condemned to death. < If > one is engaged in Torah with his tongue, he is acquitted for life, inasmuch as the Torah [is called life, according to what is stated] (in Prov. 3:18): < WISDOM > IS A TREE OF LIFE TO THOSE WHO TAKE HOLD OF IT. It (i.e., the Torah) is also one's healing for the evil tongue (i.e., slander), as stated (in Prov. 15:4): A HEALING TONGUE IS A TREE OF LIFE. But if one is occupied with slander, his soul is condemned to death, since slander is more harmful than the shedding of blood. Thus whoever kills takes only one life, but the one who speaks slander kills three people: the one who tells it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is told.¹¹PRK 4:2; Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Deut. R. 5:10; M. Pss. 12:2; yPe’ah 1:1 (16a). Doeg spoke slander against Ahimelech; and he (i.e., Ahimelech) was killed, [as stated] (in I Sam. 22:16): BUT {SAUL} [THE KING] SAID: YOU SHALL SURELY DIE, AHIMELECH. Saul also was killed, [as stated] (in I Chron. 10:13): < SO SAUL DIED > FOR THE TREACHERY WHICH HE HAD COMMITTED AGAINST THE LORD. And thus did Saul say (in II Sam. 1:9, to a young man): PLEASE STAND OVER ME AND SLAY ME, FOR DEATH THROES HAVE SEIZED ME. < The young man was > the accuser¹²Gk.: kategoros. of Nob, the city of priests. Now DEATH THROES (ShBTs) can only denote priesthood, since it is stated (in Exod. 28:13 with reference to high-priestly dress): AND YOU SHALL MAKE GOLD BROCADE (rt.: ShBTs). Doeg also was uprooted (ShRSh) from the life of this world and from all life in the world to come. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 52:7 [5]): GOD WILL ALSO TEAR YOU DOWN FOR EVER; HE WILL SEIZE YOU, TEAR YOU AWAY FROM YOUR TENT, AND UPROOT (ShRSh) YOU FROM THE LAND OF THE LIVING. SELAH. < I.e., he will uproot you > from life in the world to come. Who is more severe? One who smites with the sword or < one who > smites with the dart? [Say: The one who smites with the dart.] The one who smites with the sword is only able to kill his companion if he draws near to him and touches him; but in the case of one who smites with the dart, it is not so. Rather one throws the dart wherever he sees him. Therefore, one who speaks slander is comparable to the dart, as stated (in Jer. 9:7 [8]): THEIR TONGUE IS A SHARPENED DART; IT SPEAKS DECEIT. It also says (in Ps. 57:5 [4]): THE CHILDREN OF ADAM, WHOSE TEETH ARE SPEARS AND DARTS, [AND WHOSE TONGUE A SHARP SWORD]. See how harmful slander is, in that it is more harmful than adultery, blood shedding, and idolatry.¹³M. Pss. 52:2. Of adultery it is written (in Gen. 39:9, where Joseph is addressing Potiphar's wife): THEN HOW SHALL I DO THIS GREAT EVIL AND SIN AGAINST GOD? Of blood shedding it is written (in Gen. 4:13): AND CAIN SAID TO THE LORD: MY SIN IS GREATER THAN I CAN BEAR. Of idolatry it is written (in Exod. 32:31, with reference to the golden calf): ALAS, THIS PEOPLE HAS SINNED A GREAT SIN. But when it (i.e., Scripture) mentions slander, it does not say "great" (in the masculine singular, as in Gen. 4:13), "great" in the feminine singular, as in Gen. 39:9 and Exod. 32:31), but "great" (in the feminine plural). Thus it is written (in Ps. 12:4 [3]): THE LORD SHALL CUT OFF ALL FLATTERING LIPS, < EVERY > TONGUE SPEAKING GREAT THINGS (in the feminine plural). It is therefore stated (in Prov. 18:21): DEATH AND LIFE ARE IN THE POWER OF THE TONGUE.

4) ("the carcass of an unclean animal":) Why is "unclean" needed? (For even the carcass of a clean animal confers tumah!) I might think that (touching) only a whole animal is intended. How do I know that (touching) only an olive-size of it suffices? From "unclean" (i.e., a size that is susceptible of that term.)

5) ("the carcass of an unclean beast":) Why is "unclean" needed? I might think that only the carcass itself is intended. How do I know that (touching) the attached horns and hair is included? From "unclean."

6) ("the carcass of an unclean creeping thing [sheretz]":) Why is "unclean" needed? I might think that only its flesh is intended. How do I know that (touching) its blood, its combination (e.g., half a lentil-size of one sheretz with half a lentil-size of another) and its admixture (with other species of sheretz) is included? From "unclean."

7) ("and it be hidden from him":) What is hidden from him? Uncleanliness (i.e., his having become unclean)? Or the sanctuary (i.e., the fact that he had entered the sanctuary)? It is, therefore, written (in clarification) "and it be hidden from him and he is unclean." It is for hiddenness of uncleanliness that he is liable and not for hiddenness of the sanctuary. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Eliezer cites "a sheretz and it be hidden from him." It is for hiddenness of the sheretz that he is liable and not for the hiddenness of the sanctuary. R. Yishmael says: "and it be hidden from him" is written twice (verses 2 and 3), to make him liable for hiddenness (i.e., non-awareness) of uncleanliness and hiddenness of the sanctuary.

8) (In the instance of) all the arayoth, a minor (i.e., a male of nine years of age and a female of three years of age) is equated with an adult (in making the adult partner liable for the death penalty); but with a maidservant, a minor maidservant is not equated with an adult (maidservant in making her partner liable for the death penalty [viz. Vayikra 5:2]).

9) (In the instance of) all the arayoth, peripheral intercourse is equated with consummated intercourse (vis-à-vis) the death penalty; but with a maidservant peripheral intercourse is not equated with consummated intercourse [viz. Vayikra 5:2]).

11) (Vayikra 9:17): "And he presented the meal-offering and he filled his hand from it": "filling" is stated here, and "filling" is stated elsewhere (Vayikra 5:2). Just as the "filling" there is "his full fistful," so the "filling" here is his full fistful. And just as with the "filling" there, if he took a fistful and there entered into it a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is invalid; here, too, it is invalid.