Midrash su Levitico 11:26
לְֽכָל־הַבְּהֵמָ֡ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר הִוא֩ מַפְרֶ֨סֶת פַּרְסָ֜ה וְשֶׁ֣סַע ׀ אֵינֶ֣נָּה שֹׁסַ֗עַת וְגֵרָה֙ אֵינֶ֣נָּה מַעֲלָ֔ה טְמֵאִ֥ים הֵ֖ם לָכֶ֑ם כָּל־הַנֹּגֵ֥עַ בָּהֶ֖ם יִטְמָֽא׃
Ogni bestia che separa lo zoccolo, ma non ha le zampe di garofano, né mastica il coccolone, è impuro per te; tutti quelli che li toccano saranno impuri.
Sifra
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."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sifra
1) (Vayikra 11:26) "By (touching) every beast": to include the embryo, that ever min hechai from it confers tumah (i.e., if one cut a limb from it in the womb, it is tamei as ever min hechai.). (Vayikra 11:26): "They are tamei": We are hereby taught that they combine with each other (i.e., half a limb from one beast and half a limb from another combine to constitute the required amount for tumah). I might think that they (half-limbs of a beast also) combine with (half-limbs of) dead (men to constitute the required amount for ever min hechai tumah). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26): "They are tamei to you," (to exclude the above). I might think that they do not combine with (the tumah of) the dead, which is stringent (seven days), but they do combine with (the tumah of) neveiloth (of beasts), which is "light" (one day). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:27): "They are tamei to you" (and not half a limb of ever min hechai in combination with half a limb of neveilah). (Vayikra 11:26): "Everyone who touches them shall be tamei": to include an unclean beast, its shechitah not freeing it (of neveilah tumah).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sifra
2) (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow inductively? viz.: A sheretz (a creeping thing) may not be eaten and an unclean beast may not be eaten — Just as the shechitah of a sheretz does not free it (of neveilah tumah, viz. Chapter 7:5), so, the shechitah of an unclean beast does not free it (of neveilah tumah).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy