Commentaire de citation sur Le Lévitique 12:4

An unclean person who ate holy meat (Leviticus 7:20, 12:4);
One who entered the sanctuary while unclean (Leviticus 12:4, Numbers 5:3, 19:13);
One who ate forbidden fat or blood (Leviticus 3:16, 7:23-27);
Or leftover sacrificial meats (Leviticus 19:6-8);
Or sacrifices that had been offered up with improper intention (Leviticus 7:18);
Or [an offering] that has became unclean (Leviticus 7:19);
One who slaughters, or offers up a sacrifice, outside the Temple precincts (Leviticus 17:4);
One who ate leavened [bread] during Passover (Exodus 12:15, 19);
One who partakes of food [or drink] or does work on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-31);
One who puts together the ingredients for the [anointing] oil, or the ingredients for the incense, or anoints with the oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-28):
One who eats an animal that died a natural death (Deuteronomy 14:21);
Or was improperly slaughtered (Exodus 22:30);
Or any of the [creatures deemed] ‘abominable’ and ‘teeming’ (Leviticus 11:11, 40).
One who eats non-tithed produce, or first-tithe from which heave offering has not been removed, or unredeemed second-tithe, or unredeemed sanctified property.
How much untithed produce is one to eat to become liable? Rabbi Shimon says: “Any amount.” The Sages say: “An olive's size.” Rabbi Shimon said to them: “Do you not admit that if one ate the minutest ant that he would be liable? They said to him: “[Only] because it is a whole creature.” He said to them: “Even a grain of wheat is a whole entity.”
The first fourteen sections of our mishnah mostly lists different types of forbidden foods and a few other Temple related prohibitions for which one is to be flogged. Section fifteen discusses the amount of untithed produce that if one eats he is liable for a transgression.
Section fifteen: According to Rabbi Shimon one is liable for flogging if he eats any amount of untithed produce, even a single grain. The Sages disagree and state that only if one eats an olive’s size of untithed produce is he liable for flogging. Less than that and he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon attempts to prove his point by making an analogy to eating an entire ant. All agree that if one eats an entire ant (on purpose) he is liable to be flogged, even though the ant is smaller than an olive. The Sages respond that one is liable for eating an ant since it is an entire creature. Since it is a distinct, full entity it is enough to make one who consumes it liable for punishment. Rabbi Shimon responds that a single grain is also a whole entity, and therefore one who eats a single grain of untithed produce is liable to be flogged as well.

‎כל איש אשר יקרב WHOSOEVER HE BE THAT GOETH UNTO [THE HOLY THINGS… SHALL BE CUT OFF etc.] — This “approaching" unto the holy things signifies nothing else but eating of them. Similarly we find that the prohibition of eating holy things in a state of uncleanness is expressed by the term נגע, (which means, as does קרב, “approaching”): (Leviticus 12:4) “she shall approach near to nothing that is holy" — which is explained as a prohibition addressed to one who would eat of the holy things (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 12:4). And our Rabbis derived it (the fact that לא תגע means: she shall not eat) from a verbal analogy. It is indeed impossible to say that one is punishable for touching holy things in a state of uncleanness, because the penalty of excision for eating holy things in such a state is mentioned in the section commencing צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:20, 21) — twice is the punishment of כרת mentioned there, one immediately after the other; and if one really becomes liable to punishment for the mere touching of holy things it is unnecessary to pronounce him liable to punishment for eating them! In this sense also is it (our passage) expounded in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 7): But is a priest who merely touches holy things when he is unclean really liable to the punishment of excision? Surely not, since Scripture expressly states in the following verse that an unclean priest who eats of the holy things is liable to excision and this latter statement would be unnecessary since eating without touching is impossible. But if this be so, why does Scripture use the term יקרב and not יאכל which means "eating”? It is in order to intimate that this law applies only when an unclean priest eats of it after it becomes fit לקרב, “to be offered” — that one does not become liable on account of his uncleanness until its מתירין (its “permitting portions”) have been offered, and he then eats of it. And if you ask, “Why are three mentions of the כרת-punishment (Leviticus 7:21 and here) necessary in respect to priestly uncleanness? then I reply, they have already been interpreted in Treatise Shevuot 7a, one as being intended as a generalisation, the other as a specification, etc. (see Rashi on Leviticus 7:20).

So. too, there is no death in eating. This [the serpent’s argument] is puzzling: she might still die, for Hashem said, “On the day you eat from it you will certainly die,” and there is plenty of time left in the day! Another question: If [she thought] they would die for touching, then it goes without saying for eating. For one cannot eat without touching. If so, why does she [mention both and] say, “You shall not eat from it, neither shall you touch it”? It seems the answer is: [She thought that] for eating from it they would die, and for touching it they would fall sick immediately, and then grow more sick until they would die on that same day. When she saw that she did not fall sick from touching it, [she thought that] she surely would not die either. Some ask: What did the serpent prove by making her touch the tree and not die? In truth she was forbidden only on eating, not on touching, and she knew this herself! Why was she not afraid for her life [to eat]? Furthermore, why did she add to Hashem’s command? The answer is: The command was made to Adam, not to Chavah. But when Adam taught it to Chavah he warned her not to touch it either, for he knew that women are light-minded. Whereas she thought that Hashem actually forbade touching. Although Rashi says that she added, and in fact she added nothing to what Adam had told her in Hashem’s Name, nonetheless she should not have replied to the serpent more than what he asked her. [And in this way, she added.] He asked only about eating, not about touching! So when she saw that she did not die from touching — which she should have, according to her understanding of her husband’s command — she took of its fruit as well and ate. And some ask further: How does touching prove that for eating [she will not die]? She was forced to touch, since he pushed her. But she will eat willingly! The answer is: She thought that the tree was like a deadly poison. Anyone who eats from it will die, similar to the Tree of Life whose very fruit bestows life. Thus she said, “Neither shall you touch it.” She considered it like a very potent poison which, as is known, can be lethal upon touch. So the serpent pushed her and told her, “Just as there is no death in touching...” (source unknown) There is a famous question: Why did Chavah fool herself? She knew that she herself added the prohibition against touching, and that is why she did not die! The answer is: Chavah understood that Hashem’s prohibition against eating also included touching. This is similar to the verse (Vayikra 12:4), “She shall not touch anything holy,” which means, “She shall not eat...” (Nachalas Yaakov)