Komentarz do Kapłańska 11:24

ולאלה AND TO THESE which are to be mentioned further on in the section,

AND BY THESE YE SHALL BECOME UNCLEAN. “By these which are to be mentioned further on in the section, ye shall become unclean. Here²²⁵In Verse 26. This part of the quotation from Rashi is also found in our Rashi texts on that verse, hence the use of the word “here.” Scripture teaches you that the carcass of an animal unfit for food conveys impurity, and in the subject at the end of the section²²⁶Verses 39-40. it explains [the law] concerning the carcass of an animal fit for food.” This is Rashi’s language. But if so, [the question arises], why did Scripture divide them and why did it treat them singly,²²⁷The twofold question is to be understood as follows: Why did Scripture divide and discuss them in two separate sections, and why was it necessary that the laws referring to the impurity conveyed by touching the carcasses of unclean animals, were discussed in Verses 24-28 in detail, with separate verses for each category of these unclean animals, when one general statement could have covered all subjects? when it should rather have said [in one general statement], “whosoever touches the carcass of any animal shall be unclean until the evening, and whosoever carries any of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening?”
The correct interpretation is that here Scripture mentioned the carcass of them without qualification and did not mention “death” in connection with them, thus teaching that [the law of] ritual slaughtering [required to render animals fit for food] does not apply to them [the unclean animals mentioned here], and whoever touches them when they are no longer alive [whether they died by themselves or even if they were ritually slaughtered], becomes impure. But further on it states, And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die,²²⁸Further, Verse 39. thus teaching that if it [an animal fit for food] was ritually slaughtered, it does not convey impurity [to a person who touches it]. Now the meaning of the section in mentioning [here]: And by these ye shall become unclean, is to state that all things referred to above — namely, fishes, fowls, and grasshoppers — do not have this [law of] impurity, but only those which He is about to mention further on, these being Every beast … which is not cloven-footed, nor cheweth the cud.²²⁹Verse 26. It is with reference to these that He states, they are unclean to you; every one that toucheth them shall be unclean²²⁹Verse 26. with the uncleanness mentioned [in the preceding Verses 24-25: whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until the even. And whosoever beareth aught of the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even]. Then He continues by stating that any beast which walks upon its paws shall also convey impurity until the evening to a person who touches its carcass, and that a person who carries it shall, in addition, wash his clothes.²³⁰Verses 27 and 28. Similarly, And these are they which are unclean unto you among the swarming things²³¹Verse 29. means among those which are to be mentioned further on.²³²There in Verse 29 and in Verse 30: the weasel, and the mouse etc. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra erred here.²³³Ibn Ezra explained the expression and by those ye shall become unclean (in Verse 24 before us) as referring to sheretz ha’oph (winged creeping things) and also to the fowls unfit for food as mentioned above in Scripture. But this is a mistake, since no impurity is conveyed by a fowl unfit for food, nor by a winged creeping thing unfit for food.
Now above, in stating the prohibition of eating [an animal prohibited as food], Scripture mentioned those animals which are not cloven-footed and do not chew the cud, but it did not mention [the law] of beasts that walk upon their paws. Perhaps it is because it is not customary to eat them [on account of the danger involved in catching them] that He did not single them out, but left them [to be] included in the general principle which He had stated, that we should eat only the animal that parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, and not others, and chayah (beast) is included in the term beheimah (animal) as it is said, These are ‘ha’beheimah’ (the animals) which ye may eat … the hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck.²³⁴Deuteronomy 14:4-5. Scripture begins here with beheimah and goes on to enumerate chayah (beasts). Our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim have interpretations on this whole section. [Thus they explain the expression], Every beast [which parteth the hoof, but is not cloven-footed …] is unclean to you,²²⁹Verse 26. to include a limb cut off from a living animal [in the law of conveying impurity].²³⁵Torath Kohanim, Shemini 6:6. And whatsoever goeth upon its paws,²³⁰Verses 27 and 28. to include a limb cut off from a dead animal [in the law of conveying impurity]. For Scripture speaks at length and mentions many expressions of impurity in order to allude [to the law] that they convey impurity in whole or in part, either through the death of the whole body or through the death of one of its limbs, as when it was cut off from a living body.

ולאלה תטמאו. And by these you will become unclean; According to Torat Kohanim the word ולאלה refers to the future, i.e. the animals mentioned in the paragraph commencing now. If this were so, I do not understand the letter ו in the word ואלה. There was no need for that letter if all the Torah wanted to introduce here was the list of animals which confer impurity if one touches their carcass.

ולאלה תטמאו, “if you touch any of the following (dead carcasses) you will become ritually impure.” The list of such animals follows.

ולאלה תטמאו, “through the following you will become ritually unclean.” The reason the Torah prefaces this verse with the restrictive ובאלה, “through these,” an expression not found in connection with either the fish, the fowl, or the teeming creatures including the locusts, is to teach that the ritual defilement resulting from contact with the dead bodies of these creatures applies only to the ones mentioned in the verse preceding, i.e. 4 legged שרץ העוף, or the ones mentioned forthwith. Note that the carcass of an animal permitted for consumption by Israelites after the appropriate preparations, does not confer ritual contamination on contact if it died by ritual slaughter. This is why the Torah does not refer to מיתה, death, but to נבלתם, their carcass, i.e. their having died by natural causes. Anyone touching such cadavers becomes ritually defiled. The Torah also speaks of such animals “dying,” as כי ימות, (11,39) meaning that if the animal had not “died”’ but had been slaughtered, its cadaver does not confer ritual impurity.

תטמאו YE CAN BECOME UNCLEAN — that is, by touching them there is uncleanness.

HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. The meaning of this expression in the whole section is that at night he becomes pure, if he had bathed his flesh in water [before sundown]. Scripture, however, speaks briefly [and therefore omitted] the bathing of the body, because it mentioned the washing of clothes of the one who carries anything unclean,²³⁶Verse 25. which means their immersion [in a ritual pool], and it follows all the more so that he must bathe his body. Then when Scripture finished mentioning all the impurities [conveyed by] carcasses and [dead] creeping things, it mentioned immersion [for those vessels which became impure through touching them]: it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; then shall it be clean,²³⁷Further, Verse 32. the same law applying to man, for it is from here that the principle is derived. In another section He explained, And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even,²³⁸Further, 17:15. and He mentioned also the punishment for the violation thereof, But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity.²³⁹Ibid., Verse 16. I.e., if he ate holy food or entered the Sanctuary in an impure state. This is a general principle of all impurities [conveyed by] carrion, and from it the law is derived for [impurities conveyed by] creeping things. The matter of bathing [in the case of impurity conveyed by] creeping things has already been mentioned here, as I have written. Now Scripture was more severe in the case of a person who carries an impure object than in the case of a person who touches it, in requiring the bearer to wash his clothes, [but not one who only touches it], because it is natural that a person who touches does so with his hand lightly, while he who carries as a burden [does so in such a way] that it presses upon him, and in the majority of cases his clothes help him [in carrying].

כל הנוגע בנבלתם יטמא עד הערב, “anyone touching its cadaver will remain ritually impure until nightfall.” The evening” by itself does not remove the ritual contamination. If the affected person has immersed himself in a ritual bath prior to sunset on the day he came into contact with the cadaver, then, and only then, does the expiry of that day remove such impurity from him. The Torah did not bother to elaborate on that point as it had already explained that a garment which had become ritually contaminated needs to be “washed,” i.e. immersed in a ritual bath, in order to rid itself of such contamination. (Compare verse 28) If even a garment cannot regain ritual purity without a ritual bath, how much more is this required for the body that had been in contact with the cadaver. In the case of contact with the teeming creatures whose cadaver confers ritual impurity, the Torah not only mentions the need to immerse oneself in a ritual bath, but it adds the punishment awaiting those who ignore the legislation and come into contact with sacred objects, or who enter sacred grounds in such a state. This punishment, i.e. death at the hand of heaven, usually premature death, is the standard punishment for all who ignore the need to purify themselves before entering sacred ground or coming into contact with holy objects, or sacrificial meat, etc.

There is uncleanness with their touch. I.e., not that He commands them to become impure. Rather, this is what it means: If you touch them you will be made unclean.

Perhaps Torat Kohanim meant that the animals listed in the paragraph commencing here have the same הלכה concerning impurity as the ones already mentioned in the previous paragraph. In other words, every species of domestic animal and free-roaming animals whether of the pure or the impure categories which do not chew the cud or have parted hooves and are not listed by name are all included in the expression כל הבהמה. This would justify the extra letter ו before the word ולאלה. The letter ו then includes all the unnamed animals. This same rule applies also to all the animals listed in the paragraph detailing which identifying features make an animal suitable for consumption by Jews. Hence the Torah wrote the letter ו. In order that we should not make a mistake and include everything which had been mentioned earlier in this regulation, the Torah had to spell out that this legislation applies only to בהמה וחיה, to mammals.

Another possibility is that the Torah was very interested in writing the regulations about impurity immediately adjoining the regulations about what may and what may not be eaten. The lesson is then that just as culpability for eating something forbidden commences when one has consumed a minimum amount of meat the size of an olive, so one does not become defiled unless one had contact with some dead animal or part of an animal not smaller than the size of an olive.

Torat Kohanim posits that the verse deals with אבר מן החי, the law that one may not eat living tissue, i.e. tissue of an animal still alive regardless of whether the animal is of the permitted or the forbidden category. The author of Torat Kohanim derives the rule about the minimum size of an animal which confers impurity through contact with its carcass from verse 40 where the Torah writes that האוכל מנבלתם טמא עד הערב, that someone eating of the carcass of such dead animals remains impure until the evening of that day (after immersion). The exact wording in Torat Kohanim is that "the words ולאלה תטמאו were only written in order to provide us with the minimum quantity that someone in contact with dead animals has to either consume or carry in order to become impure by such contact or eating." Perhaps one may say that an additional allusion found in these words is that if the animal gave birth to a category of animal such as the ones listed it is subject to the same ruling.

I have seen that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote that he believed that the word אלה referred back to all the animals mentioned earlier including the winged swarming creatures. I think he would have done well not to write such a comment and to quarrel with the ancient commentators seeing that what he wrote cannot be supported at all. Who is going to take him seriously especially when he teaches something which contradicts our accepted tradition? Even a junior scholar can determine that this could not be the plain meaning of the verse. [The author continues to lambast Ibn Ezra in this vein. Ed.]