Midrash su Levitico 22:3

3) "and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, which is the L–rd's, then that soul shall be cut off from its people": I might think that there is tumah-kareth liability for peace-offerings alone. Whence do I derive that it obtains for all offerings? From (Vayikra 22:3): "Throughout your generations, every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things (… with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off before Me.") I might think (that there are included) only what is like peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night. Whence do I derive the same for those offerings that are eaten for one day? From (Vayikra 7:21) "of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." (For without this verse I would say:) This tells me only (of those offerings) whose remnants are eaten. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a burnt-offering, whose remnants are not eaten? From "the sacrifice." This tells me only of sacrifices. Whence do I derive for inclusion birds and meal-offerings, which are not kinds of sacrifices, (shechitah not obtaining there), until the inclusion (for tumah-kareth liability) of the log of oil of the leper? From (the generalization): "Every man who draws near of all your seed to the holy things, etc."

4) I might think that tumah-kareth liability obtains only with things for which there is piggul (thought) liability. And this, indeed, would follow, viz.: If piggul (transgression) which is subject to a standard (sin-offering) (for unwitting transgression) and which obtains with only one awareness, (at the end, after his having transgressed, his never having been aware that it was piggul before he ate it, [as opposed to tumah, where there is awareness in the beginning, awareness at the end, and non-awareness in the middle]), and where nothing of its class is permitted, (piggul being forbidden even where the entire congregation transgresses, as opposed to tumah, which was permitted in such an instance) — (If piggul) obtains only (with offerings) where there are "permitters" (see Chapter 13:5), then tumah transgression, which obtains with two awarenesses, and is subject to a sliding-scale (and not a standard) offering, and where something of its class (congregational tumah) is permitted — how much more so should it obtain only where there are "permitters." Whence, then, (do we derive tumah-kareth liability) for the fistful, the frankincense, the incense, the libation meal-offering, the meal-offering of Cohanim, and the meal-offering of the anointed (high-priest, where there are no "permitters")? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3): "to (eat) the holy things which they make holy," to include all.

4) You say that this is the purpose of these phrases of exclusion (like "it" above). But perhaps its intent is to limit what is said to peace-offerings alone, (that only they entail kareth liability for piggul and nothar). Whence do we derive the same for all offerings? From (Vayikra 22:3): "A man who draws near of all your seed to the holy things (all of the offerings), etc." — But perhaps only those offerings are included which are like peace-offerings, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are characterized by being eaten for two days, so, all that are thus characterized (are included). Whence do I derive (for inclusion) those which are eaten for only one day? From (the redundant) "flesh" (Vayikra 7:18 "the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings.") This tells me only of those (offerings) whose flesh is eaten. Whence do I derive (the same) for those who flesh is not eaten? From "the sacrifice" — even birds, which are a kind of sacrifice. And whence do I derive (the same) for meal-offerings, which are not a kind of sacrifice? (And whence do I proceed) until I derive (the same for) the log of oil of the leper? From (Vayikra 22:3) (all) "the holy things that the children of Israel make holy to the L–rd."

5) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "Every man who draws near." R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4): "A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc."?) What, then, is the intent of "who draws near"? The intent is that there is no (tumah-kareth) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are "permitted" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have "drawn near" (And this is the sense of "Every man who draws near"). An offering that does not have "permitters," (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the "eating" of the altar).

7) I might think that tumah liability obtains only where piggul (inappropriate thought) liability obtains. And this, indeed, would follow, viz.: If piggul (transgression), which is subject to a standard (sin-offering) (for unwitting transgression) and which obtains only with one awareness, (at the end, after his having transgressed, his never having been aware that it was piggul before he ate it, [as opposed to tumah, where there is awareness in the beginning, awareness at the end, and non-awareness in the middle]), and where nothing of its class is permitted, (piggul being forbidden even where the entire congregation transgresses, as opposed to tumah, which was forbidden in such an instance) — (If piggul) obtains only with offerings where there are "permitters" (see Chapter 13:5 in Tzav), then tumah transgression, which obtains with two awarenesses, and is subject to a sliding scale (and not a standard) offering, and where something of its class (congregational tumah) is permitted — how much more so should it obtain only where there are "permitters"! Whence, then, (do we derive tumah liability) for the fistful, the frankincense, the incense, the libation meal-offering, the meal-offering of Cohanim, and the meal-offering of the anointed (high-priest, where there are no "permitters')? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "to (eat) the holy things which they make holy," to include all.

8) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "Every man who draws near." R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4) "A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc."?) What, then, is the intent of "who draws near"? The intent is that there is no (tumah) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are "permitted" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have "drawn near" (And this is the sense of "Every man who draws near"). An offering that does not have "permitters" (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the "eating" of the altar). "and his uncleanliness is upon him": bodily uncleanliness. I might think the uncleanliness of the flesh (of the offering is being referred to). It is, therefore, written (here) "and his uncleanliness is upon him" (and there, [Bamidbar 19:13] in respect to uncleanliness in entering the sanctuary) "and his uncleanliness is upon him," for an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as there, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, so, here, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, and not uncleanliness of the flesh. Rebbi says: "and his uncleanliness is upon him": Scripture speaks (here) of bodily uncleanliness, and not of uncleanliness of the flesh. R. Chiyya says: The offerings are written in the plural and cleanliness (tumatho) in the singular. How, then, must "tumatho" be understood? As referring to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of the flesh (of the offerings). Others say: Scripture speaks of that from which tumah can depart (i.e., the man), as opposed to the flesh, from which tumah cannot depart.

8) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lelamed, lo lelamed al atzmo yatza ela lelamed al hakllal kulo yatza. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category to teach (something) — not in order to teach about itself did it depart, but in order to teach about the entire category did it depart): (Vayikra 7:20): "And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his uncleanliness is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from its people." Now were peace-offerings not in the category of all sacrifices? viz. (Vayikra 7:37): "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the offering of investiture (miluim), and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings," and (Vayikra 22:3): "Every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things that the children of Israel make holy unto the L–rd, with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off from before Me." (Why, then, do peace-offerings "depart" from the category for special, additional, mention?) When they depart from the category to teach, it is not to teach about themselves, but about the entire category, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in that their sanctity is altar sanctity (i.e., bodily sanctity), so, all whose sanctity is altar sanctity (are included in the interdict) — to exclude those things dedicated to bedek habayith (Temple maintenance, where the sanctity is not body-related but value-related).

R. Yehudah says: "shall you eliminate leaven from your houses": by burning. You say this, but perhaps in any manner? You reason as follows: Nothar (left-overs of the Paschal lamb) may not be eaten, and chametz may not be eaten. If you have learned of chametz (that it is eliminated) only by burning (viz. 29:34), so, chametz, only by burning. __ (No,) this is refuted by neveilah (carcass) which may not be eaten, yet need not be burned. __ Would you say that? There is a difference (between neveilah, [from which benefit may be derived] and chametz, [from which benefit may not be derived,], so that the resultant equation is:) Benefit may not be derived from nothar, and benefit may not be derived from chametz. If you have learned of nothar (that it is eliminated) only by burning, so, chametz only by burning. __ (No,) this is refuted by a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, need not be burned — Then say the same for chametz! Would you say that? There is a difference, viz.: (Eating) nothar is subject to kareth ("cutting-off") and chametz is subject to kareth. If you have learned of nothar (that it is to be eliminated) only by burning, so should you learn of chametz. __ (No,) this is refuted by (eating of the) fats of a stoned ox, which, though (the eating is) subject to kareth, the ox need not be burned. __ Would you say this? I will derive four determinants from four like determinants. Nothar is forbidden in eating, and in derivation of benefit, and it is subject to kareth, and it is time (i.e., Pesach)-conditioned, as is chametz. And this is not to be refuted by neveilah, which, though forbidden to be eaten, is not forbidden in derivation of benefit. Nor is it to be refuted by a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, is not subject to kareth. Nor is it to be refuted by (eating) the fats of a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, is not time-conditioned. But I will learn a thing from a (like) thing, and I will judge a thing from a (like) thing. And I will not learn a four-faceted thing from another which is not like it in one way or two ways or three ways. If you have learned, then, of nothar (that it is eliminated) only by burning, so, chametz (is to be eliminated only by burning). R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Do you think that you are being stringent with him (by having him burn it)? You are being lenient with him. For if he does not find fire, he will sit and not burn it! Rather, express it thus: Before the arrival of the time for eliminating it (by Torah mandate, i.e., the entire sixth hour), the mitzvah of eliminating it is by burning. Once that time has arrived, the mitzvah of eliminating it is in any manner. Rebbi says: We learn (that chametz is to be eliminated by burning) from its being subject to the ban on its being found or its being seen. And this is found (ideally) only by burning. (Exodus, Ibid.) "that soul": (This connotes) volition (as opposed to unwittingness). "from Israel": I might think that it is cut off from Israel but may annex itself to a different nation; it is, therefore, written (Leviticus 22:3) "and that soul shall be cut off from before Me; I am the L rd" — All places are My domain.