Comentario sobre Levítico 11:40

והנשא את נבלתה HE ALSO THAT BEARETH THE CARRION OF IT [SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — The uncleanness resulting from bearing the carrion is more stringent than the uncleanness resulting from contact with it; for he who bears it thereby renders his garments unclean, whilst as for him who touches it his garments do not thereby become unclean, since it does not state regarding him in the preceding verse: “he shall wash his garments” (cf. Rashi on v. 25).

AND HE THAT EATETH OF THE CARCASS OF IT SHALL WASH HIS CLOTHES, AND BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse speaks here of one who eats in the way that people usually eat, namely, that he touches and carries what he eats, and therefore becomes impure by contact and by carrying. It was necessary to mention this case so that it should not occur to anyone that because of eating, his degree of impurity should be greater [than that resulting merely from contact and carrying]. It mentioned this law in regard to an animal fit for food [as mentioned in the preceding Verse 39], because a person can [easily] err with regard to it, thinking that it was slaughtered properly [and he will therefore eat it], but such errors do not normally occur with regard to forbidden animals, and the way of the Torah is to speak of what usually happens. But according to its [Rabbinic] interpretation,²⁷¹Niddah 42 b. the verse comes to prescribe the [minimum] size required to become impure through carrying or touching, namely an amount that can be called “eating,” which is the size of an olive and Scripture also mentioned this law in regard to carrion of an animal fit for food, whilst the same law applies to an animal not permitted as food, because He finished here the law of impurities.²⁷²And therefore He mentioned it in regard to the carrion of an animal fit for food, and from it we apply the rule to the carrion of an animal unfit for food. This is in accordance with similar explanations mentioned above. According to the opinion of the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim,²⁷³Torath Kohanim, Shemini 4:2; 10:1-4. all impurities [conveyed] by carrion [of animals fit for food and those which are unfit animals] are included here, and the section above²⁷⁴Above, Verses 26-27. refers to limbs of animals. I have already mentioned this.²⁷⁵Ibid., in Verse 24.

והאכל מנבלתה, anyone eating of its carcass, etc. According to Torat Kohanim the only reason this verse was written is to inform us that the size of an animal which confers ritual impurity on someone carrying or touching its carcass is the same as that of someone eating of it, i.e. the size of an olive. The verse does not intend to convey the meaning that a reader who did not read any of the aforegoing would have derived from it, namely the prohibition of eating from such a carcass and that swallowing it confers impurity. The reason that we cannot understand the verse in that way is that we already have a clear verse in Leviticus 22,8: "he must not eat it on pain of becoming impure through it." The word בה in that verse is an exclusion and means that only the carcass of a pure bird which died of natural causes confers such impurity as soon as one swallows it but not the swallowing of parts of a mammal which dies of natural causes rather than ritual slaughter. Dead birds do not confer impurity through contact; therefore the Torah had to tell us that if the bird was a pure bird it does confer impurity as soon as it reaches one's esophagus and if a priest ate from that bird he is disqualified from performing his duties unless he purifies himself. Why did the Torah not spell out such a regulation but depended on our deriving it through exegesis? Perhaps the Torah intended to teach us numerous halachot from a single verse, something that would have been difficult if the verse had only stated that the carrion of a clean bird is capable of conferring impurity by one's swallowing it. We are taught in Chulin 71, for instance, that if the meat of a dead swarming thing has deteriorated to the extent that a dog would reject it as unfit to eat, it no longer confers impurity. This halachah is derived by Tossaphot in Bechorot 23. We have a verse in Kings II 9,10 where Izzevel, wife of king Achav, is described as being eaten by the dogs, not being buried. We note that consumption of meat by dogs is described by the term אוכל the same term used for humans consuming food. Seeing that it is the intention of our verse to establish a linkage between eating and impurity, it is only logical that other halachot of that nature may be derived from this verse.

מנבלתה , our sages in Niddah 42 understand the wording as telling us something about the minimum size of the carcass which can confer such ritual impurity. [based on the preposition מ in the word מנבלתה, meaning “part of its carcass.” If one carries a sufficient quantity of such a carcass which would qualify halachically as “food,” i.e. consumption of this quantity of forbidden food would make the party culpable for a penalty, then it confers ritual impurity on the person carrying it. The amount is the equivalent of the size of an olive. According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that if one eats of this carcass one become ritually impure even if one never touched any part of it. (compare what the Torah writes in Leviticus 22,8)

והאוכל מנבלתה יכבס בגדיו, “and he who eats from that cadaver must wash his clothes (immerse them in a ritual bath)”. Our sages explained this verse as an attempt by the Torah to apply the same yardstick regarding purification of someone who had consumed ritually contaminated food, as to someone whose clothing had become contaminated by it. In both instances contamination, i.e. eating the size of an olive results in the person becoming contaminated, just as contact through carrying of an amount of an olive’s size, results in the carrier becoming ritually unclean. According to the plain meaning of the text, the Torah describes a normal person’s eating habits. He both touches and lifts up the food that he is eating. You might have thought that a worse degree of contamination occurs when the party concerned has not only touched the contaminated food but has also eaten it. The Torah teaches that this is not so. This point is made by the Torah in conjunction with the discussion of “kosher” animals because it is easy to err and to assume that because the animal in question had been prepared for consumption by being ritually slaughtered, that it could not become ritually contaminated. To disabuse us of such thinking the Torah used as its model for this legislation specifically a “kosher” animal. The error the Torah tries to head off, is not likely to occur in conjunction with ritually unclean animals, and it is the habit of the Torah to address the most common scenarios.

The uncleanness of carrying is more severe. I explained this above (v. 25). [You might ask:] Why does Rashi explain this here when he already explained it above? The answer is: Since it is written here: “Whoever eats of its carcass” — To provide a [minimum] measure for one who carries or touches [it] — I might think that since Scripture equates them for the minimum measure of impurity, the same also applies for the washing of clothing. For this reason, Rashi needed to once again explain here. We should not ask: How does Rashi know this? Re’m already answered: Since Scripture would not have neglected to mention in some place regarding impurity [caused by] touch that one must wash his clothing.

והאכל מנבלתה, והנושא את נבלתה, “and anyone who eats from its carcass, or anyone who carries part of that carcass;” the same law applies even if one person carries the carcass while outside sacred grounds and his partner is within sacred grounds. You cannot argue that instead of repeating the words: את נבלתה a second time, the Torah need only have written the pronoun: “it;” different measurements are applied to what is called “eating,” and what is called “carrying;” therefore the noun “its carcass,” had to be repeated. (Compare Rashi)11,43. ונטמתם בם, “so that you have become ritually contaminated by them.” The word ונטמתם has the letter א after the letter מ missing. We find more such examples in the Torah, as in Genesis 20,6: מחטו לי, “from sinning against Me, or Numbers 10, 13, צב instead of צבא, as well as Deuteronomy 11,12, מרשית instead of מראשית. [Our author cites similar examples also from the Books of the prophets. Ed.]

והאכל מנבלתה AND HE THAT EATETH OF ITS CARRION [… SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — One might think from this statement that the act of eating therefrom makes him unclean! But this is not so because when it states of the carcass of a clean fowl (Leviticus 22:8) “that which dies of itself (נבלה) or that which is torn he shall not eat to defile himself therewith”, we may learn from it: בה “therewith” — only that (the carcass of a clean fowl) makes a person’s clothes unclean by the very act of eating therefrom, but the carcass of cattle does not make a person’s clothes unclean by the very act of eating therefrom if there is no carrying involved, e. g., if another person inserts it into his gullet (for one it not regarded as carrying something which is inside his body). But if this be so, why is it here stated “he that eateth”? In order to prescribe as a minimum for making unclean him who bears or touches such carrion a quantity as much as can be called “eating” viz., a piece as large as an olive (Sifra, Shemini, Section 10 7; Niddah 42b).

Perhaps. Rashi explains this out of order, after the phrase “Whoever carries its carcass,” so that he could connect the one who carries with the one who touches — to inform us about the difference between them, that is, that the impurity of carrying is more severe than the impurity of touch, as explained above, for otherwise, what is it coming to let us know?

עד הערב ‎‎וטמא AND HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTO THE EVEN — although he may have immersed himself in water he must await sunset before he becomes clean.

As much as for eating — and that is an olive’s-bulk. That is, a half of an egg. [You might ask:] Rashi explains above (v. 34): “food which is eaten in one [gulp], and the Sages estimated that the gullet cannot hold more than a hen’s egg [at once],” i.e., an entire egg! [The answer is:] That is referring to a forced situation and here it is referring to an unforced situation. This raises a strong difficulty: In the end, it is not possible that Scripture should write a falsehood! The one who eats it does not need to wash his clothing, only the one who carries it! It appears to me: Certainly, the verse goes according to its plain meaning, that is, whoever eats of its carcass, in that he stuck it into his gullet by himself, is not impure due to the eating but he is impure due to carrying the [minimal] amount of eating (Gur Aryeh).

The setting of the sun. I already explained this above regarding (v. 32): “shall be brought [put] into water, and remains unclean until the evening,” and here its explanation is the same. Re’m explains this in another way: Although he immerses [in a mikveh] he needs the setting of the sun, for if not, it should say: “After he washes with water he shall be pure.” “הערב שמש” means the setting of the sun, which is the coming out of the stars, for the expression וטהר (22:7) means the cleansing of the day. Otherwise, it should say ויטהר (Berachos 2b). Rashi explains this here and not in another place [where it says “he is unclean until the evening”] because this verse does not come to teach that he should be impure until the evening [and not seven days] as the others. Rather, it teaches the minimal amount for the one who carries or touches. Meaning, although it says in Parshas Emor (22:7): “ובא השמש וטהר (When the sun sets he is pure),” that is said in regard to the other types of impurity, but this one is for the carcass of an animal. The Torah writes it for both. Up to this point are the words of Re’m, but I wrote what appears [to be correct] in my eyes (Minchas Yehudah).