Comentario sobre Levítico 11:34

מכל האכל אשר יאכל OF ALL THE FOOD WHICH MAY BE EATEN — This is to be connected with the preceding verse (consequently the words ואתו תשברו v. 33 are a parenthesis): “whatsoever is in it shall be unclean”; viz., anything of all food which may be eaten upon which water has once come, if it is in an earthen vessel which is unclean, itself becomes unclean. [And similarly all drink that may be drunk in any vessel, if it is in an earthen vessel that is unclean, itself becomes unclean]. From this we learn several things: we learn that food is not fitted and liable to become unclean until water has once come upon it, and after water has once come on it it can any time after become unclean, and even after it has become dry; that wine and oil and anything which is termed משקה, liquid, (besides the three mentioned, also blood, milk, dew and honey of bees; cf. Mishnah Makhshirin 6:4) makes vegetation fitted to become unclean even as water does, for thus must the verse be expounded: any food upon which there cometh water or any liquid which may be drunk out of any vessel, that food shall become unclean. Further our Rabbis derive from here the law that a “secondary uncleanness” (ולד הטומאה) cannot render “vessels” (a term used to denote anything except food and animate beings) unclean. For thus we read in a Boraitha (Pesachim 20a): One might think, since Scripture states v. 33: anything that is inside it shall be unclean, that all “vessels” that are placed inside an earthen vessel become unclean through the medium of the interior of an earthen vessel (i. e. because they are in contact with the earthen vessel which has itself become unclean through something unclean having been inside it)! It, however, says: all that is within it shall become unclean … of any food etc., — i.e., food [and liquids] may become unclean through the medium of the interior of an unclean earthen vessel, but no “vessels” can become unclean through the medium of the interior of an unclean earthen vessel. Now since a dead שרץ, “reptile” (which causes the uncleanness to the earthen vessel) is a primary source of uncleanness (אב הטומאה) and the object which has been rendered unclean by it (in this case the כלי חרס) is a secondary uncleanness (ולד הטומאה), consequently we have the rule that the latter a secondary uncleanness — cannot in turn render unclean “vessels” which are in it. And we further learn from this (Pesachim 20a) that if a dead reptile (שרץ) falls into the interior of an earthen oven in which there is bread, but the reptile does not come in contact with the bread, the oven becomes a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree (ראשון לטומאה) and the bread one of the second degree (because the bread only becomes unclean through having come in contact with the oven which is only a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree, and not a primary source): and we do not say that we regard the oven which contains the primary source as though it were full of uncleanness, and is itself a primary source, so that the bread should be a secondary uncleanness of the first degree (תחלה), as though it had itself touched the primary source; for if you argue so, then any article which is in an earthen vessel is not excluded from becoming unclean through the medium of its interior (whilst we have just stated that “vessels” are excluded — that in such a case they do not become unclean), because you see, if we assume that the whole interior is full of a primary source of uncleanness, it would be as though this uncleanness itself has touched them (the objects) on their outside and then the objects would indeed have become unclean: we, however, have stated that in such a case they do not become unclean; therefore we do not assume that the primary source of uncleanness fills the whole interior: the bread therefore receives the uncleanness not from the carcass but from the oven and is thus a secondary uncleanness of the second degree which does not further transfer its uncleanness to things which have no sacred character. — And we further learn (Chullin 118b; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 8 2) in regard to the “coming of water”, that this does not render vegetation fitted to become unclean unless it falls upon them after they have been plucked; because if you say that they (the vegetation) can acquire this fitness whilst still attached to the soil, then the law has no significance at all, for you have no growing vegetation upon which water does not fall at some time or other, and what, then, is the sense of Scripture saying, “upon which water cometh”? — And we further learn (Yoma 80a) that articles of food which are unclean do not render other food unclean unless the former contains at least a volume equal to that of an egg, for it says: “[food] which may be eaten”, i.e. food which may be eaten at one time, and our Rabbis calculated that the gullet does not hold more than a hen’s egg (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 9 1; cf. also Yoma 80a).

OF ALL THE FOOD WHICH MAY BE EATEN, THAT ON WHICH WATER COMETH, SHALL BE UNCLEAN. Rashi commented: “This verse according to its [Rabbinical] interpretations teaches many things. We learn that food does not become fit to be susceptible of impurity until water has once come upon it, and once water has come upon it, it can subsequently at any time become impure, even after it has become dry, etc. Our Rabbis have further learned from this verse that ‘a secondary impurity’²⁵²Or as generally also referred to “a first degree of impurity.” Reference here is to a person or vessel that touched one of the eight dead creeping things enumerated in Verses 29-30, which are considered “fathers of impurity.” The person or vessel that touched them become “a first degree of impurity.” There are many “fathers of impurity.” Thus the carrier of those animals that are unfit for food, or of those which are fit for food but have not been slaughtered in the proper ritual manner, mentioned above in this section, also belong to this category [[illegible]] “a first degree of impurity.” Now “fathers of impurity” can convey impurity to people and vessels, whereas “a first degree of impurity” can only convey impurity to foodstuffs and liquids. does not render vessels impure, for so we are taught etc. Again we learn that the coming of water upon vegetation makes it susceptible to impurity only after it has been plucked from the soil etc.” And included among the principles [we learn from this verse], Rashi said: “And we further learn that impure foodstuff does not convey impurity to other objects unless it [the former] consists of at least the size of an egg, for it says, of all the food which may be eaten, which means food which can be eaten in one gulp, and the Sages calculated that the esophagus does not hold more than a hen’s egg.” This is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi.].
But there is [too great a] brevity in Rashi’s comment. For this verse speaks about foodstuff itself becoming impure, and does not refer to its conveying impurity to others. The Rabbi [Rashi], however, derived this principle from what the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:²⁵³Torath Kohanim, Shemini 9:1. “Of all the food etc. shall be unclean. This teaches that food [upon which a dead creeping thing falls], is rendered impure even if it be of the smallest quantity. Now I might think that it can also convey impurity to other objects if the [original] impure food was of the smallest quantity; Scripture therefore says, which may be eaten. Thus you learn that it cannot render other things impure unless it is itself the size of an egg.”²⁵⁴In other words, it was on the basis of this Torath Kohanim that Rashi interpreted the expression in the verse here, of all food which may be eaten as applying to “impure” food conveying impurity to others, the verse teaching us that the conveyor of the impurity must be of the size which may be eaten, which is, as explained above, the size of an egg. The verse could not refer to the original foodstuff itself becoming impure because of having touched a dead creeping thing [or any “father of impurity” — see above Note 251], for in that case even the smallest quantity of food suffices to be rendered impure. — But, Ramban continues, other scholars have already differed with Rashi on this point, bringing proof etc. (see text). But other authorities have already differed²⁵⁵Tosafoth Shabbath 91 a. with the Rabbi [Rashi], and they brought proofs that by Scriptural law foodstuffs do not [even] become impure at all unless they are of the size of an egg. Thus the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim [mentioned above] is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic law,⁸⁰See in Exodus, Seder Yithro, p. 314, Note 449. the Rabbis having added [the stricture] that foodstuffs of even the smallest size also become impure [although they cannot convey impurity to others unless they themselves are the size of an egg]. The main interpretation of the verse is as the Rabbis have said there [in the Torath Kohanim]:²⁵³Torath Kohanim, Shemini 9:1. “The food. This is to exclude food for cattle [that it is not susceptible to impurity]. Of all the food — this is to include food for cattle which one intended to use for human consumption. Which may be eaten, excepting decomposed foods.”

אשר יבא עליו מים יטמא, those who wish to find a reason for G’d’s commandments in order to confound the heretics, and in order to make them intelligible in terms of the laws of nature, would do well to consider this piece of legislation. Foodstuffs, originating in the earth, though subject to ritual impurity under certain conditions, are free from even potential impurity as long as they have not been in contact with water The first step in preparing earth grown food is to wash it, etc. Therefore, as long as no water has fallen on such potential food it is free from such impurity or potential impurity. [Water which fell on it against the wishes of its owner does not count. Ed.]

To the verse. This is because it is not connected with the juxtaposed verse: “you shall break it.” The meaning of “אשר יבא עליו מים (upon which water comes),” is: “אשר באו עליו (upon which [water] came).” This is because the expression אשר יבא [seemingly] instructs that after the food was within the impure earthenware vessel — if water will come upon it — it will become impure. This, however, is not so, for the Torah enjoins (v. 38): “If water was once placed on seeds and part of their carcasses fall upon them” — then it will become impure. Rashi then adds: “While it is within an unclean earthenware vessel.” So that you will not say that since the food entered the interior of an impure vessel and then was taken out from the vessel, it will become impure if water now came upon it, because we would say the impurity returned and awakened after the water came upon it. Therefore, Rashi says: “[Water comes] while it is within the vessel” (Re’m).

אשר יבא עליו מים יטמא, “(any food inside it) which has become wet through contact with water has become subject to ritual impurity.”The Torah had found it as necessary to spell out the rules governing how different kinds of food or drink and seeds may become subject to ritual contamination until this point. [As long as fruit or grain is on the tree or attached to the soil, no rainfall can contaminate it. Ed.] As soon as it had been mixed with water it became fit as food and seeing that water was no longer connected to its origin, river or pond, liquids other than water when not integral to the fruit from which they have been squeezed, confer basic susceptibility to ritual defilement. Orange juice, etc, while in the orange is therefore not considered as a “liquid” at that stage. Wine, dew, oil, blood, which are not part of their original status anymore are subject to the same rules as water that is no longer part of the earth it came forth from. This is also the reason why the Torah had written: מים, “water,” and not כל מים, “water, “any (kind of) water.”

Even when dry. This is because Scripture makes its being subject to impurity dependant only on whether water comes on it, without specifying; it does not differentiate whether it is dry or moist.

בכל כלי, “in any such vessel,” the logic is that just as the vessel is no longer attached to the origin from which its craftsman had detached it, so any other material which has been attached from its origin is liable to become a source directly or indirectly of ritual defilement. This rule means that water contained in cisterns and caves is not liable to make the vessels in that airspace subject to ritual defilement as long as they have not been detached.

Food or liquid become unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel. Re’m writes: It seems to me that the phrase “or liquid” is a misprint, and the correct text is “food becomes unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel,” and not “food or liquid.” This is because the word “beverage” that is written in the verse was already explained by Rashi as referring to preparing it for impurity, and according to Rabbi Eliezer, but it does not refer to causing impurity from a beverage, as the view of Rabbi Yuda and Rabbi Yossi (Pesachim 16a). If so, [that “beverage” refers to preparing for impurity], how could Rashi write later: “Furthermore, our Rabbis learned from here [food or liquid becomes unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel, but not vessels]...”? Also, in Toras Kohanim and in Pesachim (20b) it is only written: “Food becomes impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel, but vessels do not become impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel.”

After it had been picked. Meaning: After the food had been detached from the earth, otherwise, there is no [vegetation] that had not been exposed to water [through rain], so why then does it say [impurity is only applicable]: “Upon which water comes”?

Unless there is an egg’s-volume. I.e., people that eat less than this amount are not impure. However, this does not mean that food does not cause other items to become impure when it does not have this amount, because even if it has the minimum amount through which it becomes impure it does not cause other things to become impure. This is because foodstuffs do not cause other foodstuffs to become impure by Torah law (so I found). The fact that it does not cause impurity to other things is derived from [the fact] that Scripture does not write טמא but rather, יטמא, which is as if it says: It is impure but it will not cause other things to become impure.

That is that He commanded us to administer [the laws of] impurity of foods and drinks. And this commandment includes the impurity of foods and drinks in its entirety. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods 16.)