Midrash su Levitico 11:24

1) (Vayikra 11:24) "And by (touching) these you will become unclean; all who touch their carcass will be unclean until evening." (Vayikra 11:26) By (touching) every beast whose hoof (parsah) is parted (mafreseth), and cloven (shesa) is not cloven (shosa'ath) or the cud (gera) does not chew …" I might think that in respect to all that is mentioned in the (preceding) section, viz.: Beasts, animals, birds, fish, and grasshoppers, (I would think that) ever min hechai (flesh torn from a living animal) [to which these verses also refer, viz., below; 2) and Vayikra 11:5)]) renders one unclean in all of them; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26) "beast." I would exclude fish, which are found in the sea, which do not contract tumah, but I would not exclude grasshoppers; it is, therefore, written "mafreseth." I would exclude grasshoppers, in whose species we do not find tumah, but I would not exclude birds, in whose species we do find tumah; it is, therefore, written "parsah." I would exclude unclean birds, but I would not exclude clean birds. And it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If a beast, which does not render one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, ever min hechai of it does confer tumah, then a bird, that renders one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, how much more so should ever min hechai confer tumah. It is, therefore, written "shesa." This tells me (that ever min hechai tumah is conferred) only on a clean beast. Whence do I derive the same for an unclean beast? From "every beast." Whence do I derive (the same for) a clean animal? From "mafreseth." Whence do I derive (the same for) an unclean animal? From "parsah." Whence do we derive (the same for) the cloven-footed? From "and shesa." Whence do we derive the (same for) the non cloven-footed? From "is not shosa'ath." Whence do we derive (the same for) one that chews the cud? From "that chews gera." Whence do we derive (the same for) one that does not chew the cud? From "that does not chew."

2) Of what is this (Vayikra 11:24) speaking? If (of beasts) in their death (i.e., neveilah), this has already been stated (viz. Vayikra 11:39). If of flesh torn from a dead animal, this has already been stated below (see Chapter 6:6). What, then, must it be speaking of? Ever min hechai.

3) (But why is a verse needed for this?) Can it not be derived through reason, viz.: There is tumah in a man and tumah in a beast. Just as with a man, ever min hechai from him confers tumah, so with a beast, ever min hechai from it confers tumah. (Why, then, do I need 11:24 to tell me this?)