פירוש על ויקרא 22:8

נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה CARRION, OR THAT WHICH IS TORN HE SHALL NOT EAT TO BECOME UNCLEAN THEREBY — It is with regard to the defilement that Scripture lays down this prohibition: that if he (the priest) eats the carrion of a clean bird — which has no defiling effect through being touched or carried but has a defiling effect only when eaten, as soon as it is in the gullet — he is forbidden to eat holy things (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 6). And it was necessary for Scripture to mention טרפה also, in order to define what נבלה is here intended, viz., one that can have a טרפה amongst the individuals of its class: therefore the נבלה of an unclean bird is excluded, for in its class a טרפה can never occur (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 17:15).

N’VEILAH’ (THAT WHICH DIETH OF ITSELF) ‘U’TREIFAH’ (OR IS TORN OF BEASTS) HE SHALL NOT EAT TO DEFILE HIMSELF THEREWITH. Scripture is stating that [the priest] should be careful not to eat n’veilah or treifah so that he should not become defiled therewith, and then it will be necessary for him to be separated from the holy things,⁹⁰With this interpretation Ramban avoids the difficulty as to why the Torah singled out here the priests in mentioning the prohibition of n’veilah and treifah, since the law applies to all Israelites (See Exodus 22:30 on treifah, and Deuteronomy 14:21 on n’veilah). Ramban’s explanation is that since the main theme of this section is to warn the priests to separate themselves from holy things when they are in a state of impurity, therefore the Torah mentions here the admonition against their eating n’veilah and treifah, since by so doing they will not only have transgressed a law which applies to all Israel, but they will also have to separate themselves from the Sanctuary and its holy things, as they will have been rendered impure. and he will not be able to eat of them until he bathes his flesh in water, and when the sun is down, he shall be clean.⁹¹Verse 7. And the reason [why He mentioned here the prohibition against eating n’veilah and treifah], is that since He had referred to every sort of impurity which can occur to a person, seeing that He mentioned leprosy and an issue,⁹²Verse 4. which includes male and female, and the impurity of the dead,⁹³This is not expressly mentioned in this section here. But the Rabbis interpreted: “Or a man (Verse 5), this refers to the dead.” (Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:4). of semen,⁹²Verse 4. and of a swarming thing,⁹⁴Verse 5. therefore He goes back [in the verse before us] to warn [the priests to separate themselves] from the holy things when they are impure because of n’veiloth, and He warned them about this by way of an admonition against eating them. And the reason [why He singled out n’veilah and treifah in warning the priests not to eat them, and He did not mention those creeping things which also render the eater impure], is because a man’s soul finds it loathsome to eat creeping things, but it does not find n’veilah and treifah loathsome. Therefore He mentioned here [the prohibition against eating food which conveys] impurity in the case of [that food] which it is common [to eat]. Now the word treifah mentioned here [which renders the eater impure, must perforce] mean an animal that was torn by a lion or bear which killed it in the field, for when it is still alive [and is then slaughtered ritually] it does not convey impurity [although it may not be eaten. The term treifah which the Torah mentions here as conveying impurity to one who eats it, is applicable, however, even to an animal that was not killed when torn by beasts], for from the moment when it is torn by the lion [or any beast] it is called treifah (“torn”), whether it is alive or after its death.⁹⁵Therefore even after the animal torn by beasts has died, when strictly speaking it may be referred to as n’veilah since it was not ritually slaughtered, the Torah still calls it here treifah, for from the moment when it is torn by the beast it is called treifah, whether it is alive or after its death. Thus He mentioned here all sources of impurity, for having stated that animals of the forbidden species [which are not mentioned here, although they do convey impurity to one who eats them], cannot be [made permissible by] ritual slaughtering,⁹⁶An animal that may not be eaten, even if ritually slaughtered, conveys impurity to the one who eats of it [in addition of course to having violated the prohibition against eating it], because there is no law of ritual slaughter regarding it, and it is therefore included under the term n’veilah. An animal of the permitted species, which, when ritually slaughtered, is found to have an organic disease which renders it forbidden for eating, does not convey impurity to the person who eats it, although he has transgressed the law which prohibits the eating of treifah. as I have explained in the section of ‘Vay’hi Bayom Ha’shemini’ (And it came to pass on the eighth day),⁹⁷Above, 9:1. — Ibid., 11:24. it is [automatically] included under the term of n’veilah [which is mentioned here]. This is by way of the plain meaning of Scripture. The [Rabbinical] explanation⁹⁸Chullin 100 b, and mentioned here in Rashi. likewise interprets [this verse as an admonition] about holy things with reference to impurity, namely that the verse speaks of the carrion of a bird of a permissible species⁹⁹But a bird of a forbidden species has no defiling effect if eaten unintentionally (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Aboth Hatumoth 3:14). If there is, however, an intention to eat it, and it has been rendered susceptible to impurity [by having come into contact with liquid], it is like any other food and may itself contract a first grade impurity, but only if it itself comes into contact with an object that conveys impurity. It is not, however, capable of rendering the eater impure, as human beings cannot become impure through contact with food. The case of the carrion of a bird of a permitted species is a special exception, because in that case the Torah declared that it conveys impurity automatically if eaten [but not if merely touched], although it itself has not received impurity from another object. In short, it is, if eaten, a primary source of impurity which renders the eater impure. [i.e., which died by itself, or has not been slaughtered properly], which has no defiling effect by means of contact or carrying, but [conveys] impurity only when in the [eater’s] gullet, and thus it forbids him to eat [subsequently] of the holy things. And we must then explain [that when Scripture states here] ‘u’treifah’ (or is torn of beasts),¹⁰⁰In other words, since as explained, the verse before us has reference only to the carrion of a permitted species of bird, which is n’veilah, why then did Scripture here mention treifah altogether? The answer is: it was necessary for Scripture to state here also u’treifah etc. [it is in order to define the term n’veilah, and to explain that this law of impurity of n’veilah refers only] to those kinds [of birds] that can have a treifah [i.e., to those species which may usually be eaten if slaughtered properly, but which are nonetheless treifah if found to be suffering from certain organic diseases, and consequently forbidden to be eaten], thus excluding the carrion of a bird of one of the forbidden species, for in its class no treifah is ever possible [for such a bird, even if ritually slaughtered, is still n’veilah, since the law of treifah only applies to such birds which, if they were healthy, would be permitted as food by means of ritual slaughter, which does not apply to these forbidden species], as is stated in the language of Rashi [here]. And as far as the impurity of other n’veiloth is concerned, [so that the priest must be careful not to be defiled by them as this will make it necessary for him to be separated from the holy things, although they are not expressly mentioned in Scripture], they have been included in the Torath Kohanim on the basis of the following interpretation:¹⁰¹Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:4. “Or whosoever toucheth ‘b’chol’ (any) swarming thing.¹⁰²Above, Verse 5. I would only know the swarming thing. How do I know to include n’veilah? From the expression b’chol (any).”

נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל, even though they were permitted to eat the sacrificial birds without such procedure as slaughter, by simply snipping off, מליקה, their windpipe or food pipe.

נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל, “He shall not eat from a carcass or a fatally injured animal.” Nachmanides reminds us that our sages in Torat Kohanim Emor 4,4 explain that the news here is that seeing that there are species of birds not subject to the ritual contamination caused by carcasses of mammals, we might have thought that the priests do not need to be on guard against contact with or eating same when they were part of an offering. The Torah therefore had to write our verse, even though, naturally, the priests were included in all the carcasses and treyfah animals mentioned in chapter 11. If we were to look at the plain meaning of the text, [something we must never disregard, Ed.] the injunction for the priests here does not repeat the ordinary prohibition against eating נבלה וטרפה, applicable to all Israelites, but it adds the new dimension of the priest violating their status of ritual purity when they do this, a dimension that does not apply to the ordinary Israelite unless these animals had been sanctified at some time prior to their death. Seeing that the various ways a human being can become ritually contaminated had been discussed in previous chapters, as well as the definitions of such ritual impurity of sperm, and other effluences from the body, this was the place to add this reminder to the priests. In case you wonder why the Torah used the wording “he shall not eat” such animals (on the basis of the פשט), an expression not normally used with the contaminating factor of such repulsive creatures as insects, vermin, rodents, and the like, it is the Torah’s awareness that most people would not eat these creatures even if the Torah had not expressly prohibited this. However, this consideration does not apply to mammals which had died by an arrow or a gunshot wound, or had been fatally wounded but had undergone decapitation immediately afterwards. The word טרפה in our verse refers to animals that had been mauled by predators such as lions or bears or wolves. While prohibited as food, such injured animals do not transmit ritual contamination until after they have died. The Torah here expands the prohibition by referring even to such animals that had not yet died as included in those that confer ritual contamination on contact. The expression נבלה automatically includes this aspect of conferring ritual contamination.

Regarding the matter of uncleanness. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah already wrote [this prohibition earlier], “An animal which has died on its own, or an animal that was fatally maimed, he must not eat,” [earlier, verse (11:40)]? When Rashi writes, “[This verse] warns regarding the matter of uncleanness, etc.,” he means that this prohibition does not pertain to its eating but to its imparting impurity, telling us “That if he ate, etc.” Regarding what he says, “Except for the uncleanness [caused by] eating as soon as it is in the gullet,” see above in parshas Acharei Mos (17:15) in the verse “that will eat an improperly slaughtered animal.”

נבלה וטרפה, “that which dies of itself, or has been torn;” the Torah refers to the carcass of a pure bird, (one that could be eaten if it had been ritually slaughtered) and of flesh from sacrificial meat of mammals which could have been eaten, had it not been removed, but which because it had been removed from the sacred domain within which it could have been eaten had now become treif; or similarly since such a bird had at one point been fit to eat, it is compared to something that had died of its own accord. The priests are not to eat of it as it would confer ritual impurity on them. (Compare Ezekiel 44,31)

Which has no [rule of] uncleanness of touch. You might ask: Why does Rashi mention that it does not impart uncleanness [of touch]? He should have [only] said that if one eats the carcass of a ritually clean bird, he gets the uncleanness caused by eating as soon as it is in the gullet? The answer is: Rashi wants to prove his statement that the verse is talking about the carcass of a ritually pure bird, and not about the carcass of an animal: Since in the verse it is written “An animal which has died on its own, or an animal that was fatally maimed, he must not eat to defile himself with it,” [this indicates specifically] eating. I.e., [the creature spoken of] imparts uncleanness only through eating and not through touching or carrying. But if it was talking about the carcass of an animal, this it would also impart uncleanness through touching and carrying! This problem is resolved if the verse is talking about the carcass of a ritually pure bird, since it imparts uncleanness only through eating. If one ate the carcass of a ritually clean bird, the carcass does not impart uncleanness by touching and carrying. It only imparts uncleanness by eating when it enters the person’s gullet.