Komentarz do Kapłańska 11:49

‎‎משה ואל אהרן‏ ‎‎‏ אל[AND THE LORD SPOKE] TO MOSES AND TO AARON — He spoke to Moses that he should in turn tell Aaron (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1:1 s. v.אליו.)

AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND TO AARON, SAYING UNTO THEM: 2. SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The commandments [mentioned] in these sections apply to both Israelites and the priests, but their subject-matter affects mostly the priests, for they must always guard themselves from touching impure objects, since they have to come into the Sanctuary and eat the hallowed food [which they may not do when they are impure]. Moreover, when an Israelite errs in these matters, he has to bring an offering [to effect atonement for his transgression],¹⁴⁹See Ramban above, 5:2. which the priests offer up. Furthermore, He commanded them, And that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean;¹⁵⁰Above, 10:10. It should be noted at this point that the terms “clean” or “cleanness,” and “unclean” or “uncleanness,” are here in the translation used interchangeably with those of “pure” or “purity” and “impure” or “impurity”. This was felt necessary in order to convey the thought that uncleanness in the Biblical sense is not something that can be rubbed off with some material object. On the other hand, the terms “pure” and “impure” suggest a far greater measure of spirituality. The same comment applies equally to the following portions of the Torah — Tazria, Metzora, etc. thus they must instruct Israel concerning the impure and the pure so that they can be careful of them. It was for this reason that the communication about these laws came to both Moses and Aaron, or to Moses to say to Aaron, commanding both of them, speak unto the children of Israel, and this is the reason why these laws were said in the Book of the Laws of the Priests [i.e., this Book of Leviticus]. In this section He also warns against eating impure foods, so as not to defile the Tabernacle and its hallowed things.

אל משה ואל אהרון, to Moses and to Aaron, etc. Perhaps the extra word ואל in ואל אהרון is intended to put Aaron on the same footing as Moses in their duty to communicate the laws of forbidden foods to the Israelites. G'd also addressed them as equals when He said: דברו (pl) אל בני ישראל. We find something similar in Exodus 12,1 where G'd used the same wording to introduce the legislation of the Passover. This interpretation is possible seeing that from an exegetical point of view we have other verses which teach us that Moses was to teach Aaron the law before the latter was able to communicate it to the Israelites.

לאמור אליהם, to Moses and Aaron. What proof is there that that every time the Torah writes וידבר ה' אל משה לאמור that the meaning is: “to say to Moses?” Seeing that previously G’d had addressed only Aaron (10,12) the Torah here writes אליהם, “to them,” to tell us that G’d addressed both of them.

The prohibition to eat [certain foods] is to separate [the Jewish people] from the nations and also to uplift the soul because eating disgusting things leads to a lessening of the soul. And, the reason [for kashrut] is not for health reason because camel meat is good for health and is beloved by people of the east.

וידבר ה' אל משה ואהרן, “Hashem spoke to Moses and Aaron,” even though the section commencing now applies equally to Israelites and priests, in some respects the priests are affected by it more than the ordinary Israelites, as some of the forbidden foods are apt to confer ritual impurity on the priests upon physical contact, and the priests are under constant constraints not to allow themselves to become ritually impure. Whenever the priests are in a state of impurity they cannot eat any sacrificial meat, nor may they enter the holy precincts, etc. Furthermore, if, inadvertently, the Israelites would commit a trespass against the legislation in this chapter, they would require the services of a priest to offer a sin offering on their behalf so as to re-establish themselves in good standing with Hashem. In addition to that, the chapter concludes (verse 47) with the need to distinguish between what is ritually pure and what is not, and it is the task of the priests to educate the Israelites at large in the laws of ritual purity. This is the reason why this legislation is included in the Book of Leviticus, a Book that deals largely with the duties and privileges of the priests.

To tell Aharon. Thirteen instances of “speaking” are recorded in the Torah [directed] to Moshe and Aharon, and thirteen exclusions corresponding to them, [in order] to teach you that Hashem did not speak to Aharon but to Moshe alone, as mentioned above in Parshas Vayikro. Although Rashi already explains above in Parshas Vayikro (1:1), he explains here again so that you will not explain that as a reward for “Aharon was silent” Aharon merited that the Divine word was specially [directed] to him alone, together with Moshe, as he merited regarding the laws of those intoxicated by wine. Furthermore, we can explain that although in general the Divine word was spoken simultaneously by the two of them — that was when they spoke to Israel. Here, however, Moshe told Aharon that he alone would be the messenger to tell them (Nachalas Yaakov).

Saying to them. The phrase “to them” hints at a very precious matter; it comes to exclude the nations of the world, along the lines of what many commentators write about the reason for the forbidden foods. Some thought they are forbidden for the sake of physical health and healing, because these foods cause harmful fluids in the body; this is the reason favored by Ramban. However, this is not so. We know that all the nations of the world eat the flesh of the repulsive creatures and they are nonetheless healthy and fit.

לאמר אליהם SAYING UNTO THEM (more lit. “to say unto them”) — He said to Aaron that he should tell it to Eleazar and Ithamar. But perhaps this is not the meaning, but it means that he should tell Israel? When, however, it states (v. 2) “Speak unto the children of Israel”, we have the command of speaking to Israel mentioned there; how then can I explain the words “to say to them?” — to say it to his sons, to Eleazar and Ithamar (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 1).

לאמור אליהם, to say to them. Torat Kohanim on our verse explains the word אליהם, "to them," as a reference to Eleazar and Ittamar. The idea is that these two sons of Aaron were to be acquainted with this legislation before it was to be taught to the entire people. This is based on Eyruvin 54. Perhaps the Torah had in mind to emphasize a point made by the prophet in Maleachi 2,6 that the lips of the priests are to preserve knowledge and that people seek to obtain knowledge of Torah from the priests. The words לאמור אליהם may also reflect what I have explained in connection with Exodus 20,1 that the reason for the word לאמור is that the word emanates from the Supreme G'd and that G'd made an angel out of it and that it was that angel who spoke to Moses. [The concept is that the "word" is something in between a totally abstract concept and something which has at least a semblance of something physical about it. The absolute abstract, i.e. the Essence of G'd, cannot communicate with a human being who is part body by means of something entirely abstract. G'd therefore created an intermediary called an "angel" to accomplish communication by word of "mouth." Ed.] The word לאמור refers to that angel who would communicate with Moses and Aaron. This explanation is not at variance with what our sages said in Torat Kohanim at the beginning of the Book of Leviticus that G'd communicated verbally from the inside of the Tabernacle only with Moses, not with Aaron. What it means is simply that the angel who addressed Moses used the plural form דברו! when addressing him instead of saying to him דבר! (singular). Moses relayed the words to Aaron before he spoke to anyone else.

It must be that these animals are prohibited because they affect the soul’s health; they make the pure soul repulsive and drive away the holy and pure spirit from a human being, causing an intellectual obtuseness and traits of cruelty; and so we find in the Akeidah.

דברו אל בני ישראל SPEAK TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (The word “speak” is in the plural) — He made all of them (Moses, Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar) alike His messengers in communicating this utterance, because they were all alike in remaining silent and lovingly accepted the decree of the Omnipresent God in respect to the death of Nadab and Abihu.

AMONG ALL THE BEASTS THAT ARE ON THE EARTH. The plain meaning thereof is “among all the beasts that are on ‘the face of the earth,” the expression being similar to “all the beasts that are in the world.” But the interpretation of the Rabbis is as follows:¹⁵¹Torath Kohanim, Shemini 2:6. Since there are creatures in the sea whose law does not depend on these signs, but is like that of the fish, therefore He said, that are on the earth, excluding what is in the sea.

זאת החיה אשר תאכלו, after the Israelites had divested themselves of their spiritual jewelry which they had acquired at Mount Sinai when receiving the Torah, something which if they had been able to retain it, would have given them direct access to the Shechinah without the need for an intermediary, as stated by G’d in the wordsבכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבא אליך וברכתיך, “in any place where I hear My name mentioned I will come to you and bless you, (Exodus 20,24) a change had now occurred due to the people’s sin at the golden calf. G’d stated that the purpose of the Tabernacle was for Him to take up residence therein so that His essence should not feel disgust at the Jewish people. (Leviticus 26,11). Unfortunately, the golden calf episode had brought about a cardinal change in G’d’s relationship with the people so that He would not allow His Presence to dwell among them even briefly, refused to accompany them on their journey (Exodus 33,3) By means of his lengthy prayers Moses accomplished some improvement in this relationship of G’d to the Israelites by means of the Tabernacle and its furnishings, the priests performing service there, etc. Finally, the people attained the state of grace described as וירא כבוד ה' אל כל העם, “the glory of the Lord appeared to the whole people.” (Leviticus 9,23.) This manifestation of the “glory of the Lord” was the descent of fire from heaven to devour the offerings of the people in the Tabernacle. A way had now been found to refine the character of the people in attitudes and by application of their intelligence so that they would qualify for eternal life (life after death of the body). The method chosen for this was the refinement of the foods eaten by the people. G’d forbade consumption of the kinds of foodstuffs which exert –over a period of time- a negative influence on the people’s character and their intelligence. This is spelled out by the Torah in verse 43 of our chapter where the rationale of the legislation is אל תשקצו בנפשותיכם, another way of saying “do not contaminate your souls.” This is only the effect of observing the negative commandment not to eat forbidden things. There is a positive aspect to this legislation also called והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים “if you will sanctify yourselves you will remain holy.” (Leviticus 15,31). When G’d added כי קדוש אני, this was an incentive to attain the dimension of eternal life similar to G’d. In addition to legislation involving our physical foodstuffs, the Torah introduced legislation designed to refine our body’s other appetites, that of the libido. Legislation governing a husband’s marital relation with a woman who is a menstruant, or who suffers diseases of her sexual organs, or experiencing childbirth (נדה, זבה, יולדת) are intended to sanctify human sperm and to cleanse if from all spiritual contamination, טומאת הגוף. Compare Leviticus 15,31 והזהרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם, “caution the Children of Israel to abstain from their pollutants.” If they would fail to do so they would forfeit this claim to eternal life. Here the Torah introduces this subject of ritual impurity in connection with animals. In this whole paragraph “defilement” is brought about either by direct touch, indirect touch such a carrying or moving the object by pushing it. Only such animals a are liable to confer contamination of our souls are capable of conferring immediate ritual impurity. Fish, birds, locusts and other creeping things are not capable of conferring such ritual contamination of a person by means of contact other than by means of ingesting them.. The Torah uses the expression שיקוץ to describe their negative fallout when dead instead of the expression טומאה. (compare verse 10,13, 41-42) to describe the negative result if we were to eat such creatures.

אל בני ישראל לאמור. to the children of Israel saying. The word לאמור here indicates that the legislation following conferred a distinction upon the Israelites who were to keep their distance from matters considered impure. Vayikra Rabbah 13,2 quotes Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai commenting on Chabakuk 3,6: "When He stands He measures the earth;" Rabbi Shimon interprets that G'd measured all the nations and found not one of them deserving to receive the Torah except the generation travelling through the desert. G'd measured all the mountains and the only one fit to hand down the Torah from was Mount Sinai. The word לאמור in this context must be understood along the lines of Isaiah 3,10: אמרו צדיק כי טוב כי פרי מעלליהם יאכלו. "Hail the just man, for he shall fare well; he shall eat the fruit of his works." The sequence of לאמור זאת means that Moses and Aaron are to take every kind of creature into their hands and display them saying: "this you may eat and this you may not eat." It was not enough to instruct the Israelites only orally.

מכל הבהמה אשר על הארץ, “from among all the animals that are on the earth.” According to the plain meaning of the text our verse refers to animals everywhere. According to the Midrash the words אשר על הארץ, are intended to exclude animals whose habitat is in the waters, in the sea, as these are not subject to the identifying marks of the mammals described here.

An expression of life. Otherwise, it should say: “These are living things (חיה instead of החיה) that you may eat from among all the animals.”

זאת החיה THESE ARE THE ANIMALS — the word חיה is an expression denoting life and is purposely used here in preference to בהמה to express the following idea: because Israel cleave to the Omnipresent and therefore deserve to remain in life, [זאת החיה is thus taken to mean: This, O living nation (or, nation that lives), is what ye may eat!]. He therefore separated them from what is unclean, and imposed commandments upon them, whilst to the other nations who do not cleave to him He prohibited nought. A parable! It may be compared to the case of a physician who goes to visit a sick person: one who is incurable he permits to eat whatever he chooses, while to the patient who may recover he gives directions as to what he may eat and may not eat — as may be found in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma 3:3:6.

Hold. Meaning: [Rashi adds this explanation] because the word זאת [implies] one points with his finger to the subject about which he is hinting, but when Hashem was speaking to him there was nothing impure there. Re’m wrote at length [but] I made it brief.

זאת החיה אשר תאכלו; "these are the living things which you may eat;" I have already explained elsewhere why the term חיה is applied here to domesticated animals בהמה. The term חיה implies that nothing evil adheres to these creatures. This term is used in contradistinction to other domesticated beasts which are not associated with the concept of sanctity at all.

זאת החיה THIS IS THE ANIMAL — This! the expression זאת teaches us that Moses held each animal and showed it to Israel, saying, “This ye may eat, and this ye may not eat” (Chullin 42a). Similarly Scripture states of fish (v. 9) 'את זה תאכלו וגו‎‎ THIS YE MAY EAT etc. — also of the swarming creatures of the waters he held some of every species and showed them to them (to the Israelites). So, too, in the case of birds: (v. 13) “And these are they which ye shall have in abomination amongst the fowls”, and similarly as regards the swarming reptiles (v. 29): “And these are unclean to you” (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 2; cf. Menachot 29a).

This teaches. [Rashi knows this] because it should only say: זאת (these are), why does it say החיה? [You might ask:] Rashi [already] derived from the word החיה — “an expression of life”! The answer is: He derives that from the extra ה in the word החיה. However, [the extra word itself] comes to teach [that animals...]

מכל הבהמה ....... ‎זאת החיה ‎THESE ARE THE ANIMALS (החיה) [WHICH YE MAY EAT]; AMONG ALL THE CATTLE (הבהמה) [YE MAY EAT] etc. — This teaches us that בהמה is included in the term חיה (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 8; Chullin 71a).

מפרסת — Explain this as the Targum does: that is split.

WHATSOEVER PARTETH THE HOOF, AND IS WHOLLY CLOVEN-FOOTED, AND CHEWETH THE CUD, AMONG THE BEASTS; THAT MAY YE EAT. The meaning of this verse is that every animal which has these two signs, you may eat, but you may not eat it if it has only one sign. Now it would have been proper if He would merely state the law in this general way. However, He singled out the camel, the rock-badger, and the hare¹⁵²Verses 4-6. as having only the one sign of chewing the cud, and the swine as having the one sign of a parted hoof,¹⁵³Verse 7. because there are no other animals in the world that have only one sign. He then repeated [as a general rule applying to those with no sign at all, and those with only one sign], Of their flesh ye shall not eat,¹⁵⁴Verse 8. This is Ramban’s concluding opinion, that the verse applies to both — those animals having no sign at all, and the four mentioned as having only one sign. Ramban proceeds to show that from Rashi’s text it would appear that this verse applies only to the four mentioned animals, while the prohibition against those having no sign at all is derived from another source. This explanation Ramban differs from in the text which follows. which denotes a negative commandment.
Now Rashi wrote: “From this verse I know only about these [four animals mentioned]. Whence do I know that other unclean animals that have no signs of purity, may not be eaten? You derive it by the rule of kal vachomer.¹⁵⁵I.e., a conclusion drawn from minor to major. See in Exodus, Seder Bo, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation. How is it with these four animals mentioned, that have some of the signs of purity? They are forbidden! [It follows all the more so that those which have none of the signs, are surely forbidden to be eaten!]” In the words of the Sifra:¹⁵⁶Torath Kohanim, Shemini 3:2. “What is the law concerning those animals that have some of the signs of purity? They are forbidden to be eaten by a negative commandment. Is it not logical that other unclean animals which have none of the characteristics of purity, should be forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment! Thus we find that the camel, the rock-badger, the hare and the swine are explicitly forbidden by Scripture, whilst the other impure animals are forbidden on the strnegth of a kal vachomer.¹⁵⁵I.e., a conclusion drawn from minor to major. See in Exodus, Seder Bo, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation. It is also established that the positive commandment [regarding unclean animals] is Scriptural,¹⁵⁷These ye may eat (Verse 2). From this we deduce the converse, negative commandment, that any animal which does not have these two characteristics of a permissible animal, is not allowed as food; and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment has the force of a positive commandment. Hence one who eats an impure animal violates both a positive commandment [these ye may eat, as explained above], and negative commandment [of their flesh ye shall not eat], See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 167-168). while the negative commandment regarding them is derived from a kal vachomer.” Thus far is the text of the Beraitha.¹⁵⁶Torath Kohanim, Shemini 3:2.
But in my opinion this is not in accordance with the conclusion of the discussions in the Talmud. For if so, one would not be liable to whipping for eating of all the other unclean animals [which have none of the characteristics of purity], and which are forbidden only on the strength of a kal vachomer, for a law derived from logical argument is not one for which punishment can be administered.¹⁵⁸Makkoth 5 b. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim¹⁵⁹Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 10:10-11. with respect to [having intercourse with] one’s sister, which Scripture prohibited if she is the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother,¹⁶⁰Further, 18:9. that it was necessary to find a Scriptural reference prohibiting one’s sister if she be the daughter of both one’s father and mother,¹⁶¹This was found in the redundant expression, he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness (ibid., 20:17). even though that prohibition might have been derived from a kal vachomer[for if the Torah prohibited a sister who is the daughter of either one’s father or one’s mother, surely she is prohibited] if she be the daughter of both one’s father and mother! [But the special Scriptural reference was necessary to teach us the principle] that a law derived from logical argument is not one for which punishment can be administered, as is stated in Tractate Yebamoth, Chapter Keitzad.¹⁶²Literally: “How come …” Yebamoth 22 b. — See above, at end of Note 142. But this Beraitha [quoted by Rashi] may either be in accordance with the opinion of the Sages who say that a law derived from a logical argument is one for which punishment can be administered, as stated in Tractate Sanhedrin,¹⁶³The name of the Sage is Rabbi Shimon (Sanhedrin 86 a). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 54. or it cannot be satisfactorily explained.
Now the reason why whipping is [in fact] incurred for eating unclean beasts [which have none of the characteristics of purity, since they are only derived through a kal vachomer], is because Scripture states in connection with the rock-badger that it is prohibited because it parteth not the hoof,¹⁶⁴Verse 5. Thus, Scripture having stated the reason why the rock-badger is forbidden as food, it follows that any animal to which the same reason applies, is likewise forbidden on the strength of that verse, and not because of some other logical reasoning. and in connection with the swine, because it cheweth not the cud.¹⁵³Verse 7. This being the case, any animal that does not chew the cud or have a parted hoof is included in the terms of this prohibition, and there is no need at all to derive them from a kal vachomer.¹⁵⁵I.e., a conclusion drawn from minor to major. See in Exodus, Seder Bo, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation.

כל מפרסת פרסה, Whatsoever parts the hoof; Chulin 59 explains that any beast which has cleft hooves also ruminates except for the pig. If the Torah nonetheless says "every animal with cleft hooves…is chewing the cud," and subsequently mentions the pig as being the exception to this rule, there is a deeper reason. Rabbeynu Bachyah, quoting a Midrash Tanchuma, states that even the pig will conform to the pattern of chewing the cud in the idyllic future foreshadowed by our prophets. The very word חזיר from the root חזר, to return, i.e. to reverse oneself, alludes to that future in an ideal world when even the pig will revert to being a pure animal fit for consumption by Jews. When viewed in this light, the fact that the Torah commences with the words כל מפרסת פרסה is quite appropriate as it does not exclude anything in the long run.

מפרסת פרסה, a nail similar to a shoe; the word, though it sounds like it does not mean “two or more separate nails,” such as are found on the toes of rabbits, etc.

“Split.” I.e., this is not translated as “hoof,” but rather as “split.” And the word פרסה means plante in Old French, or kaput (hoof) in German. The Targum’s proof is that it is written (v. 5): “The rabbit, for it chews its cud but does not have a cloven hoof (ופרסה לא יפריס),” but in fact, all ruminants have hooves with which they walk upon the earth. Perforce, מפרסת is translated as “split.”

מעלת גרה, “chewing the cud;” the word גרה is derived from גרון, “throat,” as is also גרגרותיך in Proverbs 3,3, which means: “(around) your throat.” The meaning of the term is that after having already eaten the food, these animals regurgitate it once more up to their throats. An alternate explanation (Karney Or); the word is similar to the word מוגרים in Michah 1,4: מים מוגרים, “cascading waters,” i.e. that it describes the mixing of what the animal ate and drank, before the mixture descends to its intestines.,

פרסה — plante in O. F.; English= hoof.

THESE MAY YE EAT. “But not an unclean animal. Has it not already been forbidden by means of a negative commandment? But [this verse is stated] so that [if he eats of it] he transgresses both a positive and a negative commandment.” This is Rashi’s language, and so it is found in the Torath Kohanim.¹⁶⁵Torath Kohanim, Shemini 3:1.
Now Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] said¹⁶⁶Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’acholoth Asuroth 2:3. that this verse is in order to forbid human flesh – “these may ye eat, but not human flesh. Thus the flesh and the milk are forbidden by means of a positive commandment.” But we have not found such an interpretation by our Rabbis. Perhaps he [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] thought this to be the case because of that which we have learned there in the Torath Kohanim:¹⁶⁷Torath Kohanim, Shemini 4:4. “I might think that the flesh of those that walk on two legs and the milk of those that walk on two legs should also be forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment? Therefore Scripture says: These ye shall not eat — these are forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment, but the flesh of those that walk on two legs and the milk of those that walk on two legs are not forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment.” From this text the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] may have deduced that they are not forbidden by means of a negative commandment, but are forbidden by means of a positive commandment, and he derived it from the verse: these may ye eat.
But the matter is not so. For our Rabbis have clearly said in connection with the blood of those that walk on two legs¹⁶⁸Kerithoth 21 b. Hence if one’s teeth are bleeding he may suck the blood and not be afraid of having committed a sin. and the milk of those that walk on two legs¹⁶⁹Such as milk of the human breast (ibid., 22 a). that there is not even a commandment to abstain from eating them by Rabbinical enactment. If the flesh thereof would be prohibited [by Scriptural law], then [the blood and milk thereof would also be prohibited in accordance with the general rule]: “anything that comes out of that which is impure, is also impure.”¹⁷⁰Bechoroth 5 b. The blood of crawling reptiles and that of human beings the Sages have excluded from the prohibition against blood, and they have said:¹⁷¹Kethuboth 60 a. “The blood of the crawling reptile is like its flesh, and one incurs whipping for eating a crawling reptile,” meaning that it is not forbidden as blood [for the wanton violation of which one incurs excision]; thus they made it like flesh [but we find no such statement in connection with human blood]. Rather, when they said that there is no negative commandment against eating them, they meant to say that you cannot exclude them on the basis of it [i.e., on the basis of a specific Scriptural verse], and they are thus permitted. According to my opinion, however, this only applies to flesh [or blood] of a live person [which can not be prohibited on the basis of a definitive verse and hence if a person’s teeth are bleeding he may suck the blood thereof and not be afraid of having committed a sin].¹⁷²However, if blood appears on the bread which he is eating he must first remove the blood stains from the bread before continuing to eat it in order to avoid the semblance of wrong-doing, since people might think that it is from the blood of an animal (ibid.). However, the Rabbis have learned in connection with a corpse by means of an analogous use of words found when speaking of it and of the heifer whose neck is broken¹⁷³Deuteronomy 21:4. that it is forbidden to have any benefit from it.¹⁷⁴Abodah Zarah 29 b. Thus Ramban agrees with Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) that the matters under discussion are forbidden, the difference of opinion among them being only as to which law is violated. It is a rule in the administration of punishment that the violator of the law must have been pre-warned by witnesses of the specific prohibition entailed and the punishment to which the violator would be subject to by the hand of the court. Ramban and Rambam thus differ as to the nature of the prohibition the violator must be reminded of, in order that he be punishable by the court.

ושסעת שסע, the hoof being completely split into two parts, unlike the hoof of a horse or donkey which is all in one piece. According to the plain meaning of the text and the opinion of the heretics all the domesticated beasts, free roaming beasts, birds and fish and certain types of locusts and other creeping creatures that G’d has outlawed for consumption by Jews is due to the fact that they cause excessive heat in our bodies when eaten, affecting our health detrimentally, and therefore they are called טמאים, impure. There is support for this theory also among physicians. Even in the Talmud (Shabbat 86) the opinion is offered that gentiles who do consume these creeping creatures damage their bodies thereby.

Extraneous. [Rashi knows this] because it is already written (v. 2): “that you may eat from among all the animals.” Rather, [it must be that] this is an [apparently] extraneous word... It is as if it is written, “You may eat the animal that is inside an animal,” which refers to the embryo found within an animal, for the phrase “that you shall eat from among all the animals” refers to the entire section.

ושסעת שסע AND HATH CLOVEN FEET — which are divided above and below into two nails (The hoof must be cloven over the entire height, so that from top to bottom they are split, and the hoofs are covered therefore not by one nail but by two); as the Targum has it: which has nails (plural). For there are animals whose hoofs are cleft on top but are not cleft and separated entirely, because they are joined below (cf. Rashi on v. 26).

מעלה גרה; regurgitating the food into the foodpipe before finally digesting it.

A positive commandment. [It is a positive commandment] because a negative command that is derived from a positive command is considered a positive commandment. The negative commandment is written clearly nearby (v. 4): “However, these in particular you may not eat...” However, it does not come to teach the plain meaning — that it is permitted to eat — for it already says (v. 2): “That you may eat from among all the animals.”

מעלת גרה WHICH CHEWETH THE CUD — which brings up and spues up the food from its entrails and returns it into its mouth to pound it small and to grind it thin.

גרה THE CUD — This is its name (that of the food thus returned to the mouth); and it seems likely that it is of the same derivation as the word we find in (II Samuel 14:14) “water which is drawn towards (הנגרים) the earth”, and it (the cud) is so called because it is drawn towards the mouth. The translation of the Targum,however, is פשרא which denotes something dissolved, for through the rumination the food is dissolved and becomes pulpy (cf. Bava Kamma 28b).

בבהמה AMONGST (lit., in) THE BEAST — This is a redundant word and therefore may be used for an Halachic derivation — to permit the embryo found within the dam (בבהמה — within the beast) to be used as food without itself being slaughtered (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 1; Chullin 69a).

אתה תאכלו THAT YE MAY EAT, and not an unclean animal. But is not this implied in the prohibition in the following verse? But what is here expressed in a positive form is there stated as a negative command, so that now, one who eats such food transgresses thereby a positive and a negative command (because a prohibition that is not plainly expressed, but can only be drawn by inference from a positive command, is itself regarded only as a positive command — לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 2).

ממעלי הגרה זממפריסי הפרסה, of those which chew the cud or only part the hoof, etc. According to Bechorot 6 the apparent duplication in these words is to teach that if an unborn animal which has parted hooves and chews the cud is found inside a mother-animal which belongs to a forbidden category, such an unborn animal may not be eaten. However, the plain meaning of the verse is as follows: the words "of the ones which chew the cud" i.e. the camel, or of "the ones which part the hoof," i.e the pig. The letter ו is not a conjunctive letter but has the same meaning as או, "or."

For he chews his cud. Why does the Torah always begin with their sign of purity first? The explanation is because their pure sign adds extra impurity to their impurity, as we find that Chazal compared Esov to a pig that sticks out its hoofs when it lies down to make it appear as if it is kosher, but its innards are full of deceit. This represents anyone whose inside is not like his outside, in the manner of the hypocrites … Therefore, the pig’s split hoof is a sign of impurity because the split hoof can deceive people and make it appear as if it is kosher.

אך את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה .“however only the following you must not eat even though they either have cleft hooves or are chewing the cud;” the reason that the animals mentioned now are forbidden is that they possess only one of the two distinguishing marks mentioned in the previous verse. For instance: the pig, the camel and the hare and rabbit. The Torah did not have to spell out that animals which do not possess even one of the above distinguishing features are also forbidden. Most of them are not even considered as worthwhile eating by the gentile nations (because they are predators and their meat is not tasty). (B’chor shor)

V’ETH HA’ARNEVETH’ (AND THE HARE). This is a species of which both the male and female are so called in the Sacred Language, [although the word itself is feminine]. A similar case is haya’anah (the ostrich)¹⁷⁵Verse 16. [although the actual word is feminine in form, both male and female are indicated]. In fowls [a word of the same structure is] yonah (a pigeon), the name for the male not being different from that of the female. [On the other hand], there are many [animal species] the names of which are masculine in form, while their females have no specific name, such as gamal (camel), shafan (rock-badger), chazir (swine), ‘dov oreiv’ (a bear lying in wait),¹⁷⁶Lamentations 3:10. The verb-form clearly shows that the word dov is masculine in form. ‘parah v’dov tir’enah’ (the cow and the bear shall feed)¹⁷⁷Isaiah 11:7. The verse clearly indicates that while parah is feminine in form, and dov is masculine in form, it nonetheless refers also to the female, as is shown by the feminine form of the verb tir’enah. A similar case amongst fowls is the word tor (turtle-dove) [which, though masculine in form, denotes also the female]. It is for this reason that Scripture states, ‘shtei’ (two) turtle-doves, or ‘shnei’ (two) young pigeons,¹⁷⁸Above 5:7. thus mentioning [the feminine form] shtei with reference to torim (turtle-doves) which is masculine in form, and [the masculine shnei] with reference to yonah (the young pigeon) [which is feminine in form], in order to inform us that there it does not matter which of them [one brings as an offering, whether male or female]. Do not refute me from the expressions of our Rabbis who say: “cow and chazirah (sow);”¹⁷⁹Bechoroth 28 b. Thus it seems that there is a special term for the female of the swine chazirah, as opposed to the masculine chazir in Verse 7. “a camel born of a gamlah (a she-camel),”¹⁸⁰Ibid., 6 b. Here too, the Rabbis use a special term for the female of the camel. for these are terms they improvised from similar forms in the language in order to make their intent clear. Now the reason why these four animals [the camel, rock-badger, hare, and swine] are forbidden [to be eaten] is that they do not have the two characteristics of purity.

ואת הארנבת, and the rock-badger. The reason the Torah chooses to describe the whole species by its female gender is because when one deals with concepts of impurity one finds on occasion that the female is on top of the male making the male subordinate to the female. Mention of the female of the species first then is for the very same reason that the male is mentioned first most of the time, i.e. to describe the dominant part of the species. There is an interesting comment in the Zohar on פרשת פנחס page 231 according to which the mystical aspect of the יותרת הכבד (Leviticus 3,4 et al) is that the female input results in the male achieving whatever excess it possesses. [Seeing the word כבד, liver, is masculine, one would have expected the Torah to describe the lobe, יותרת as something masculine rather than something feminine. Ed.] We have already pointed out that all the forbidden species originate or have become part of the קליפה, the domain described in Kabbalah as part of the negative side of the emanations, that which is not destined for eternal life.

The hare. This is written in the feminine form because that it what it was called by Adam, the first man. The names used by Adam in the Holy Tongue are based on the activity he recognized in the inner aspect of that creature, and in a species where that activity was stronger in the female it was named after the female.

ואת הארנבת, “and the arnevet”; some commentators say that this animal is one that are not found as male, [as all the other animals that are mentioned are always mentioned as feminine; Ed.] the same would be true of the bird called בת היענה. The objection raised by some scholars that this cannot be so as we know of masculine יעינים found in deserts (Lamentations 4,3) Those are also feminine, in spite of the masculine endings in their names, as are ,דובים עזים, רחלים גמלים, דובים, shegoats, shecamels, etc.; they all have masculine sounding endings, even though the respective animal in question may be a female specimen.

והוא גדה לא יגר, but it does not chew the cud, etc. The Torah uses these words as a condition, i.e. as long as the pig has not reverted to chewing the cud it may not be eaten. In the future, when it undergoes evolutionary changes so that it will become a ruminant, it will again be fit to be eaten by Jews. It is not the Torah which will adapt to "realities," but "reality" which will adapt to Torah; the laws of the Torah are immutable, the nature of the pig is not.

מבשרם לא תאכלו OF THEIR FLESH SHALL YE NOT EAT — I have here only a law about these animals mentioned here! Whence can I derive that the same applies to other unclean animals which have no sign of cleanness at all? You must admit that it is a conclusion a fortiori: How is it with these that have some signs of cleanness? They are forbidden! how much the more must this be so in the case of cattle which do not possess even one sign of cleanness! (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 2).

AND THEIR CARCASSES YE SHALL NOT TOUCH. This is not a prohibition [saying that] we are not to touch these carcasses [of the animals that we are forbidden to eat]. Rather, Scripture states, and their carcasses ye shall not touch, for they are unclean to you, meaning to say, “you cannot touch them without becoming unclean.” The meaning thereof is to state that all those who touch them should be aware that they have become unclean and should therefore be careful not to enter the Sanctuary nor [to eat] of the hallowed offerings. Perhaps the meaning of the interpretation which our Rabbis have said:¹⁸¹Rosh Hashanah 16 b. “And their carcasses ye shall not touch — on a festival” is to say that “you should not touch them at a time when you want to be clean, for they are unclean [and by touching them you will also become unclean] and you will not be able to go up to the Sanctuary on the festival.” But the [mere] act of touching them is not forbidden by means of a negative commandment, for he who touches carrion [even] on a festival does not incur whipping [by law of the Torah]. Thus that which the Rabbis have said:¹⁸¹Rosh Hashanah 16 b. “One is dutybound to purify oneself on a festival,” is a commandment of Rabbinic authority, there being according to Scriptural law neither a positive nor a negative commandment, concerning the touching of carrion, except that of going up to the Sanctuary.¹⁸²See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 60-61. Or it may be that the interpretation,¹⁸¹Rosh Hashanah 16 b. “And their carcasses ye shall not touch — on a festival,” is a Scriptural text used as a support for the Rabbinical enactment,⁸⁰See in Exodus, Seder Yithro, p. 314, Note 449. like many other laws of the Sages taught there in the Torath Kohanim, which use Biblical texts as a “support.” It is also taught there:¹⁸³Torath Kohanim, Shemini 2:6. “Other Rabbis¹⁸⁴According to tradition, Rabbi Meir is quoted under this anonymous term Acheirim (others). See Horayoth 13 b, for the reason of this name. say: One might think that if a person touches a carcass [he violates a negative commandment and] is liable to whipping? Scripture therefore says, By these ye shall become unclean.¹⁸⁵Further, Verse 24. From this one might think that if a person sees a carcass he must go and render himself unclean by [touching] it? Scripture therefore says, and their carcasses ye shall not touch. How are we to reconcile these two verses? We must conclude that [touching a carcass] is optional” [i.e., neither obligatory, nor forbidden]. This is the main principle of the Scriptural law.

ובנבלתם לא תגעו. At a time when you need to touch sacred matters or when you are about to eat sacrificial meat, for instance, you are not to touch the dead bodies of such creatures, as we know from כל הנוגע בהם יקדש, (Exodus 30,29) “anyone touching it (the altar) will become (must become) holy.” (consecrated) [In other words, before coming into contact with something sacred one must first become ritually pure, as otherwise one cannot share the sanctity with the object one wishes to consume. Ed.] The legislation mentioned here applies also to touching holy vessels, or the altar, or anything concerning which the Torah has written the words כל הנוגע בהם יקדש.

מבשרם לא תאכלו, “you must not eat of their flesh. According to Rashi this line refers to animals not listed here by name that have no distinguishing marks making them fit for consumption by Jews. We arrive at this by simple logic, seeing that the Torah forbids the eating of animals that possess only one of the two distinguishing marks. Nachmanides writes that if that were so we could not administer the penalty of 39 lashes to anyone eating animals that lacked both distinguishing marks, as such a penalty cannot be administered to prohibitions not specifically spelled out in the text. He claims that the ability to administer the penalty of 39 lashes to people eating animals which have neither of the two distinguishing marks is derived from the שפן, hyrax, concerning which the Torah emphasizes that though it chews the cud, it does not have split hooves, and on the other hand, the Torah spells out that the pig is forbidden though it does have split hooves because it does not chew the cud. From these two verses it is clear that any animal not possessing split hooves or/and is chewing the cud is forbidden for Israelites on pain of the penalty of 39 lashes. There is no need to apply logic, as mentioned by Rashi.

Kal vachomer. You might ask: We may not derive a warning [for punishment] based on a kal vachomer! The answer is: It is different here where there is a positive command (v. 3): “You may eat it,” upon which Rashi explains: “And not an impure animal.” This refers to every impure animal, since it is written, “you may eat it,” which implies that the ones written in the parshah are permitted to be eaten, but the rest of the animals that do not have signs are forbidden to be eaten although they are not written in the parshah. If so, since there is a positive command also for the animal that has no permitting sign, we may derive a warning based on a kal vachomer so that there will be a negative command as well. However, where there is no positive command we may not derive the warning from a kal vachomer (Re’m). [Alternatively:] Perhaps we do not derive a warning from a kal vachomer where we wish to derive from the essence of the law. [For example,] the Torah prohibited [relations with] one’s granddaughter and we wish to derive [the prohibition also applies to] one’s daughter from this. In such a case we say that we may not derive a warning [based on a kal vachomer], for perhaps it is a Scriptural decree and thus we cannot derive the warning based on a kal vachomer. However, when the Torah gives a reason [for prohibiting] and states: “The rabbit, for it chews its cud but does not have a cloven hoof,” then certainly we may clearly derive that if an animal has no sign at all there is more reason to forbid it, and it may be derived correctly through a kal vachomer. When [the Torah gives] a reason it is not applicable [to say] “we do not derive a warning...” (Gur Aryeh).

, מבשרם לא תאכלו, “you must not eat any of their meat.” This prohibition is applicable regardless of whether the animal in question has died of natural causes or has been slaughtered ritually, something that saves an animal from being labelled as neveilah, cadaver. (compare Ibn Ezra)

מבשרם OF THEIR FLESH [SHALL YE NOT EAT] — with respect to their flesh one is placed under a prohibition to eat, but not in respect to the bones, sinews, horns and claws (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4 8).

ובנבלתם לא תגעו, “and you must not touch their carcasses.” This is not phrased as an outright prohibition, but it means that touching such a carcass confers ritual impurity on the person doing this, with all the consequences that follow, such as the inability to consume any parts of sacrificial offerings, inability to approach the consecrated ground of the Temple Mount. Our sages (Rosh Hashanah 16) understand the verse as a warning that one must purify oneself before the festivals requiring one’s presence in Jerusalem for offering the requisite sacrifices. At any rate, they view this as a אסמכתא, a Biblical support for a Rabbinic injunction.

On a festival. “On a festival” means on Yom Tov, i.e., when the people of Israel are obligated to purify themselves on the festival, because one is obligated to bring the burnt-offering of being seen, to the Temple courtyard. This [reason] is not applicable during the rest of the year.

ובנבלתם לא תגעו, “and you are not to touch their cadavers.”

ובנבלתם לא תגעו AND THEIR CARRION SHALL YE NOT TOUCH — One might think that Israelites (i. e. non-priests) are prohibited from touching a carcass at any time! It, however, states, (Leviticus 21:1) in reference to uncleanness in touching a corpse: “Speak unto the priests etc.” — priests are prohibited (from touching it) and Israelites in general are not prohibited. Well, you can draw a conclusion a fortiori from now (i. e. consequent upon what you have now stated): How is it in the case of uncleanness caused by a corpse, which is a stringent kind of uncleanness? The Torah prohibits it only to priests, but ordinary Israelites may touch a corpse. Surely in the case of uncleanness caused by a carcass which is less stringent this is all the more so! Then why does it state here: “[and their carrion] shall ye not touch”? — It means on a festival when every male Israelite was obliged to appear in the Sanctuary and should therefore be in a state of cleanness (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4 8-9; Rosh Hashanah 16b).

סנפיר — These are what it (the fish) swims with — FINS.

SNAPIR V’KASKESES’ (FINS AND SCALES). “Snapirim — these are what [the fish] swim with. Kaskeses — these are the scales attached to [the body of the fish].” This is Rashi’s language, and so also it is found in the Gemara of Tractate Chullin.¹⁸⁶Chullin 59 a. But you should not [be led to] understand from their language that these scales are really [inflexibly] fixed to their bodies and attached to the skin of the fish [so that they do not come off at all]. Rather, they are called “fixed” because they do not move to and fro from the fish, nor do they quiver as do the fins. They are the round coverings, the plates of which are like finger-nails, and they can be removed from the skin of the fish by hand or knife. But those [scales] which are fixed and attached to the skin of the fish and cannot be removed from the skin at all, are not kaskeses (scales), and the fish [which has them] is prohibited food. It is for this reason that the Sages in the Gemara¹⁸⁷Ibid., 66 b. See in Exodus, Seder Bo, p. 132, for meaning of the word “Gemara.” said that “Kaskeses is the cover of the fish.” In the words of the Tosephta:¹⁸⁸Tosephta Chullin 3:27. See above, Note 101 for meaning of the term “Tosephta.” “The kaskasim are those [objects] which cover the fish, and the snapirim are those with which the fish moves.” This is also the translation of Onkelos, who rendered the word kaskeses as klippin, [which means literally “shells”], for they are the “shells” of the fish which can be taken off and peeled away like the bark of trees and the peel of fruits. Such is also the meaning of the verse stating, and he [Goliath] was clad with a coat of ‘kaskasim’,¹⁸⁹I Samuel 17:5. for all their [war-] coats were made of rings, and some people made “scales” in them in order to close up the openings of the rings, so that thin arrows should not be able to penetrate them, and it was those “scales” that were called kaskasim. The Sages also mentioned them in the Gemara [Tractate Sanhedrin] in the Chapter Cheilek:¹⁹⁰Literally: “A share” — “All Israel have a share in the World to Come” — Sanhedrin 95 b. The reference there is to Sennacherib, king of Assyria, who brought to his siege of Jerusalem countless thousands of trained soldiers “all dressed in coats of mail etc.” “Dressed in coats of mail made with scales.” Now Jonathan the son of Uziel¹⁹¹See Genesis, Vol. I, p. 127, Note 152. translated [in the above-mentioned verse concerning Goliath that he was clad with] “a coat of galbin,” this being of the expression, the razor of ‘hagalabim,’¹⁹²Ezekiel 5:1. which are “leather workers.” [By so translating, Jonathan thus] intended to say that the covering at the openings of the rings in this coat of mail was like that of the scales on a skin of a fish, as they used to boil hard skin and cover the coats of armor with them, a practice they do to this day. Understand this.
The reason why fins and scales [are signs of permissibility as food] is that those fish which have them always dwell in the upper clear waters, and they are sustained through the air that enters there. Therefore their bodies contain a certain amount of heat which counteracts the abundance of moistness [of the waters], just as wool, hair and nails function in man and beast. Those fish which have no fins and scales always dwell in the lower turbid waters, and due to the great abundance of moistness and gatherings of water there, they cannot repel anything. Hence they are creatures of cold fluid,¹⁹³See in Seder Vayikra, Note 264. which cleaves to them and is therefore more easily able to cause death, and it [the cold fluid] does in fact cause death in some waters, such as stagnant lakes.

כל אשר לו סנפיר וקשקשת אותם תאכלו, “all that has fins and scales, it you may eat.” The reason why these distinguishing features make fish “pure” is that fish which possess these features always make their habitat in the upper parts of the sea or rivers. The waters there are clear and absorb a certain amount of daylight and sunshine. This influences their growth and development. The scales are for fish what hair and wool are for mammals, helping them retain warmth. Fish which lack these features make their habitat in lower layers of the water being exposed to the darkness prevailing there and the murkiness of the waters. They have no protection against these negative influences prevailing in their habitat. (based on the writings of Nachmanides). [The reader is aware of the speculative nature of these comments, especially at a time when the authors did not know of such phenomena as the gulf-stream and other “streams” some warm some cold, which are present in different parts of the oceans. Ed.]

קשקשת — These are the scales attached to it (see Chullin 59a) as it is said (I Samuel 17:5) "in a scaly coat of mail (שריון קשקשים) was he clothed".

שרץ THE PROLIFIC CREATURES — Everywhere this word denotes a low (small) being that creeps and moves along upon the ground (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:20).

OF ALL THAT SWARM (‘SHERETZ’) IN THE WATERS, AND OF ALL THE LIVING CREATURES THAT ARE IN THE WATERS. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that sheretz (“swarming” things) are the small species that are born [and bred] in the waters, while “the living creatures” are the species of male and female. But in my opinion the term ‘sheretz’ that swarm in the waters denotes the fish which swim in the waters, for every expression of sheretz means movement, and the term all the living creatures that are in the waters, refers to the sea-animals, some of which have legs which they walk upon like creatures of the field. Thus there is one law alike for all of them [namely that those which do not have fins and scales are forbidden to be eaten]. The interpretation of the Torath Kohanim is:¹⁹⁴Torath Kohanim, Shemini 4:7. “Living, this denotes the sea-animal. Creature, this includes the siren. I might think that its carcass conveys impurity in a tent [like that of a human body], as Ben Chachinai indeed says? Scripture therefore says [in the verse before us], they are detestable” [as food, but they do not convey impurity to a person who comes into the tent where their carcass lies].¹⁹⁵See my Hebrew commentary p. 57, Note 56, for another reading in the Torath Kohanim at this concluding point.

שקץ הם לכם, they are a detestable thing unto you. The letter in ו verse 11, beginning with the words ושקץ יהיו לכם, is to be understood as the rationale; "because the Torah has determined in verse 10 that certain kinds of fish and other animals which populate the sea and the rivers are detestable, they must be regarded as detestable by Jews." We are taught in Chulin 5 that G'd protects the animals of the righteous so that they will not consume the kind of food forbidden to their owners. If G'd is so concerned about the food eaten by the property of the righteous, how mcuh more concerned must He be that the righteous themselves do not consume such food? Tossaphot comment there that we observe that a famous scholar committed judicial murder by executing a certain witness believing him to be an עד זומם, the type of false witness for whom the Torah legislated this penalty. How do we square this with the statement just quoted? Tossaphot answer that the rule applies only to food-intake, not to the commission of other sins. It would be demeaning for the צדיק to eat something the Torah characterised as שקץ even if he did so inadvertently. It is this idea the Torah refers to by writing ושקץ יהיו לכם, i.e. to include even people who eat these creatures inadvertently. The negative effect on the Jewish soul is not determined by whether such foods have been eaten deliberately or unintentionally. The words יהיו לכם tell us of the permanent effect consumption of such fish or crustaceans has on our personality, נפש.

וכל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת, “and any fish that has neither a fin or scales, etc.” Nachmanides, in speculating on the significance of these features, claims that any creatures inhabiting the waters that possess fins and scales, are always found in the upper regions of the water. They therefore use the air above the surface of the water to promote their growth. They also benefit from a degree of warmth provided by the sun. The effect on their general well being is similar to the effect of the wool on the well being of sheep, or as human hair and nails act as protection against excess moisture. He reasons that the creatures which are not equipped with such protective, life extending, armour-like scales, are too cold and are too wet to enjoy an existence of any duration, are constantly on the threshold of death. Nachmanides speaks primarily of creatures found in lakes and ponds, no one in his time having much knowledge about creatures at or near the bottom of the ocean. He describes the death of these creatures in the lakes as largely due to some kind of pestilence, the waters at that level being polluted and the fish not having anything to fight off the disease with. The reason why the Torah does not list any fish as having names may be that Adam had never given them any names either. [perhaps this very fact accounts for fish being considered as inferior forms of life. Ed.]

מכל שרץ המים ומכל נפש החיה, “from all that teems in the water, and from all living creatures in the water, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to Ibn Ezra שרץ המים refers to the tiny living parasites that are spawned by the waters, whereas the expression נפש החיה refers to creatures which mate with one another, there being males and females of these species. Nachmanides’ own view is that the expression שרץ המים includes the fish that swim on the surface of the water, seeing that whenever we encounter the term שרץ it refers to mobile creatures. On the other hand, the expression נפש החיה in his view, refers to the creatures which make the water their habitat, but are equipped with feet that they move on, not fins. Regardless of all this, they are all subject to the same rule, unless they have both fins and scales they are not “kosher.”

ושקץ יהיו AND THEY SHALL BE AN ABOMINABLE THING — This statement is here repeated to prohibit all things with which it (the שרץ) is mixed if they contain so much of the שרץ as to impart its taste to them (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 9).

AND THEIR CARCASSES YE SHALL HAVE IN DETESTATION. “This includes [in the category of forbidden food] yavchushin which have been filtered [through water]. Yavchushin are insects called mousclions¹⁹⁶In our Rashi: moucherons. — A native of France, Rashi explained many Scriptural and Talmudic terms in the French language of his times. These words of the old French language have indeed been an invaluable source of knowledge to students of the development of the French language. in [old] French.” This is Rashi’s language.
But I wonder about it! For this species [of mousclions] always comes out of wine, and flies about in the air and rests on the earth, and even while still in the air [before creeping upon the earth] it is already forbidden [as food], as we say [in Tractate Chullin] in the Chapter Eilu Treifoth:¹⁹⁷“These are accounted as treifah animals” [so that they may not be eaten]. Chullin 67b. See in the Book of Exodus, Seder Mishpatim, p. 373, Note 189. “Rav Yoseif raised the question: [if an insect which grew in a fruit] flew off into the air [and before it rested on the earth, was swallowed knowingly by a person] what is the law regarding it?”¹⁹⁸Shall we say that since it was capable of creeping upon the earth it is termed “a swarming thing that swarms upon the earth” and thus forbidden by Scripture as food or maybe it is only forbidden if it has actually swarmed upon the earth? How much more so that it is forbidden when it rests continually all day upon vessels and upon the earth far away from the wine cellar, for it is already called a swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth.¹⁹⁹Further, Verse 41. Rather, that species [mentioned by Rashi as mousclions] is called yitush (mosquito) — and breeds in wine, as the Rabbis have said in the tradition concerning the wicked Titus,²⁰⁰“The wicked Titus” was the Roman general who burnt the Second Temple, whose punishment in this world was, as the Midrash tells: “They poured him a cup of wine, and the Holy One, blessed be He, prepared for him one yitush (mosquito) which entered into his nostrils” and plagued him all his life (Vayikra Rabbah 22:2). Thus it is clear that the yitush breeds in wine: See Gittin 56 b for a full account of this mosquito in Titus’ brain. [and is not the yavchushin of our verse]. But the yavchushim which are mentioned here [by Rashi, on the basis of the Torath Kohanim] is a species which is concealed in water, and one searches for it with a ladle and removes it, [the term yavchushim being] of the expression:²⁰¹Shabbath 156 a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 57, that the reading in our text of the Gemara there, is different [namely, “All authorities agree that one is permitted to stir etc.”], and the exact source of Ramban’s quotation is unknown to me. “Ein bochashin (one may not stir) a drink prepared of flour mixed with honey on the Sabbath.” And in the Gemara of Tractate Zebachim, in the second chapter, [Resh Lakesh] said:²⁰²Zebachim 22 a. “All things which serve to fill up the required measure of an immersion-pool, may also serve to fill up the water in the laver [from which the priests washed their hands and feet before ministering in the Sanctuary];²⁰³The required measure of water for an immersion-pool is for [[illegible]] seahs. The laver had to have enough water in it for four priests to be able to wash their hands and feet at the same time. but they do not serve to fill up the required measure of one fourth of a log of water [for the washing of hands].” On this [saying of Resh Lakesh] the Rabbis asked: “[What did Resh Lakesh mean to exclude by saying that ‘they’ do not fill up the required measure of water for the washing of hands]? Shall we say that he meant to exclude red yavchushim? In that case even if the immersion-pool is full of them, it is also valid!²⁰⁴Resh Lakesh who used the expression mashlim (fill up), which implies merely a completion of measure by some addition, could therefore not have referred to these yavchushim, since even if the pool is composed entirely of them, it is also valid for immersion! — For Ramban’s intent in quoting this text, see further, Note 206. For we are taught [in a Beraitha]: Rabban²⁰⁵The title “Rabban” (“our Rabbi” — instead of “Rabbi”) indicates that the person was the Nasi (head) of the Sanhedrin. Shimon the son of Gamaliel says: Whatever originates from water, one may immerse oneself therein [to be rendered ritually pure],” and red yavchushim is a species which originates from water [therefore Resh Lakesh could not have intended them, when he gave his rule excluding certain objects from being valid for completing the required measure of one fourth of a log for the washing of hands].²⁰⁶Thus it is clearly shown that yavchushim are found in water, and Rashi’s comment that yavchushim are those insects called [in old French] mousclions is therefore incorrect, since these germinate in wine, and in Hebrew they are called yitushim, while yavchushim germinate in water. Similarly there are always found in the sediment of wine very white worms which are formed from the thickness of the wine, and which people filter, [and these are akin to the mousclions mentioned by Rashi].
Now I have seen in Rashi’s commentaries there [in Tractate Zebachim]²⁰²Zebachim 22 a. that he wrote: “Red yavchushim, these are a sort of wingless yitushim (mosquitoes) just like the small yavchushim which germinate at the bottom of our barrels of wine on the outside; and they are also formed in water.” Perhaps it is this wingless species [of insects] which can only be removed from water through a filtering process, that Rashi refers to here [in his commentary to the Torah, when referring to yavchushim as mousclions], since in his vernacular these water-insects were also called by that name [not only the ones produced in wine]. However, in his commentary to Tractate Chullin²⁰⁷Chullin 67 a. Rashi wrote: ‘Yavchushim, these are like small yitushim (mosquitoes) found in wine-cellars,” [and he mentioned nothing concerning the yavchushim which are created in water; hence in his commentary here on the Torah, Rashi, in speaking of yavchushim, must be referring to that kind of insect which germinates in wine; if so, his explanation is refuted by the Rabbinic sources quoted above which show that yavchushim germinate in water]! The principle of the matter is that these yavchushim are a species that does not swarm upon the earth at all [and therefore is not included in the negative commandment mentioned further on in Verse 41, but is forbidden separately under the terms of the verse here dealt with].

To forbid their mixtures. [Rashi knows this] because this is an extra verse, for it is written above: “They are repulsive.”

מבשרם OF THEIR FLESH — One is,however, not prohibited in respect to the fins and the bones (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 10).

[Enough to] impart [their] taste. This is only when one kind is mixed with a different kind, but if one kind was mixed with its own kind, one impure mixed with two hundred pure is permitted.

ואת נבלתם תשקצו BUT YE SHALL HAVE THEIR CARRION IN ABOMINATION — This serves to include in the category of abominable things יבחושין found in liquids which one has filtered. יבחושין are moucherons in O. F., (English = gnats).

Gnats. Meaning: A [creeping] thing that originates and develops in the water inside of vessels is not subject to the prohibition. The verse: “And their carcasses shall be repulsive to you” comes to include [in the prohibition] immediately when [the creeping things] are separated from the water, for instance, he filtered them from the water. They are forbidden because they have been separated from the place of their proliferation.

'כל אשר אין לו וגו‎ WHATEVER HATH NO [FINS] etc. — For what purpose is this repeated? Because I might think that in verse 9 I have only the law that permits the eating of a fish which brings up its signs of cleanness (i. e. fins and scales) to dry land. Whence, however, could I learn that if it sheds them whilst it is in the waters such is also permitted as food? Therefore it states here: whatever hath no fins and scales in the water [that shall be an abomination to you]”. Thus, if it did have them whilst it was in the water, even though it shed them when it came up on dry land, it is permissible as food! (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 11).

What does this verse tell [us]? This is an extra verse, for it is written above (v. 10): “All that do not have fins...”

שקץ הוא לכם, “it is detestable for you.” When this expression is used it means we must not even trade in such animals, much less not eat them. (Sifra)

I might know only... I.e., were this verse not written, I would have thought: “I know only...”

כל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת, any (marine) creature without fins or scales, etc.;” the reason why the Torah does not mention any of these species by name is that the vast majority of them is hidden from our view by being under water.

Although it lost them in being brought up. However, this cannot be derived from the first verse (10), for if so, it should say “in the water,” and not “in the oceans and rivers.” Rather, it teaches that in the oceans and rivers, which are running, flowing water, the fish without signs are forbidden, but in vessels, ditches, and cisterns, even though they have no signs they may be eaten. See there (Chulin 67a).

לא יאכלו THEY (the fowls to be mentioned) SHALL NOT BE EATEN — The prohibition is put in this form and not in the words “Ye shall not eat them” (v. 42) to declare liable to punishment those who give them as food to minors, the latter themselves not being liable, for the following is what it implies: They shall not be eaten through any act of yours. But perhaps this is not the meaning, but the words are intended to prohibit any beneficial use to be made of them? It says, however, in reference to a similar case (v. 42) “Ye shall not eat them” — for eating they are forbidden, for any other use they are permitted! And the same is the case here (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 5 1; Zevachim 114a). — In reference to every fowl of which it is stated למינהו ,למינו ,למינה, “after its kind”, there are in that species some that are not alike one to the other either in their color or in the names they bear, and yet they are all one species.

AND THESE YE SHALL HAVE IN DETESTATION AMONG THE FOWLS. Of all fowls [existent], only those mentioned expressly in this section and their species — such as those concerning which it says, after his kind,²⁰⁸Verse 15. or after her kind²⁰⁹Verse 14. — are prohibited, since Scripture did not mention any signs of unclean birds [by which we may know that they are] forbidden, or of clean birds [by which we may know that they are] permitted. Instead, it said, And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls — [so that only those specifically mentioned are prohibited], and no others apart from these. Similarly, in connection with the swarming things which convey impurity, which Scripture mentioned in detail,²¹⁰Verses 29-30. only those mentioned by name in the section are included in that law. Our Rabbis, however, have specified certain signs [of impurity as food] in birds, so that one may recognize through them that the fowls which lack those signs are not amongst those which are prohibited [here].
Now the most important sign [of unfitness as food] in fowls is preying, for every bird of prey²¹¹According to Rashi (Chullin 59 a) this means that the bird seizes its food from the ground in its claws, and eats it. Rabbeinu Tam explains it as meaning that it eats animals before they are dead. Ramban in his commentary (ibid.) interprets it as a bird of prey that kills by attacking with its claws. Further on in the text here Ramban will also elaborate on this characteristic. is invariably unfit [as food]. The Torah removed it [from us] as food, because its blood becomes heated up due to its cruelty, and is dark and thick, which gives rise to that bitter [fluid in the body] which is mostly black²¹²See in Seder Vayikra Note 264. and tends to make the heart cruel. There is not another fowl in the whole world that is a bird of prey apart from those mentioned in this section,²¹³Verses 13-19. and therefore one may know that any fowl which is a bird of prey, is one of those mentioned here. Thus if it is known for sure that it does not prey, it may definitely be eaten, for amongst all the forbidden fowls, there is only one which does not prey, namely the bearded vulture or the osprey, and the Sages were not concerned about it [being eaten because of reliance on the fact that it does not prey], since it is not found in habitated places, but dwells always in wilderness. Perhaps it is because it dwells in wastelands and its blood is affected for the worse by the burning heat, like that of the birds of prey, that the Torah prohibited it as food together with them.
The Sages furthermore counted¹⁸⁶Chullin 59 a. amongst the signs [of fitness as food] that if a fowl be found which has an “extra” toe, and its crop and gizzard can be peeled, it is definitely fit [to be eaten], for the Sages knew that such a bird does not prey. But if it has only two of the three signs mentioned, we may not eat it; for the raven [which is a bird unfit as food, as stated in Verse 15], has an extra toe and a gizzard that can be peeled, and [therefore any bird that has only two signs of fitness] we suspect of being a raven or of its species, since they all have two tokens. It does not need to be said that if it has only one of the three signs mentioned we treat it as forbidden, for all the other forbidden fowls have one sign, except for the great vulture which has none of these three signs. Now the meaning of the term “preying” is that in hunting for food it chases after birds, catches them alive, presses on them with its claws and eats them, just as is done by the great hawk called astur, and the little hawk called ashproir,²¹⁴This term is mentioned by Rashi on the word haneitz (the hawk): Espervier in old French; in English, sparrow-hawk (see Rosenbaum-Silberman’s translation). and in Arabic, butz. The above is the correct law of birds, as to which are forbidden food and which are permitted, and that which is the final result of the [discussions in the] Gemara, and is in accordance with that which we have searched and found to be so through the examination of birds.²¹⁵In his commentary to Tractate Chullin 62 b, Ramban relates that in order to ascertain the meaning of the Talmudic texts on the difficult subject of the signs of birds, he conducted a lengthy investigation into the characteristics of all kinds of birds, realizing that “we cannot deny things visible to the eyes.” This is the background of his concise statement here: “It is something we have searched etc.” Discussions he held with hunters were also a part of that investigation.
Thus the reason for certain birds being forbidden as food is on account of their cruel nature. It is also possible that the reason for certain animals [being forbidden] is similar, since no animal that chews the cud and has a parted hoof is a beast of prey, while the rest all devour others. There has also been found a difference in nature [between animals fit for food and those which are unfit], as the Sages have mentioned,²¹⁶Abodah Zarah 38 b. namely that all milks of animals fit for food, curdle, whereas all milks of those unfit for food, do not coagulate and cannot ever be made into cheese. Thus they are [physically] different. It is possible to say on the basis of this [difference in their natures, that those animals unfit for food] harm the procreative organs, so that the seed which gathers from their moisture is cold and extra-moist and will not beget at all, or not in the best and proper way, apart from the fact that there is a certain known benefit according to medical sciences [in eating those] animals that are permitted [by the Torah] as food. Now I have seen in some books of experiments²¹⁷“Experiments.” Rabbeinu Bachya in quoting this passage of Ramban writes “Medicine” (in my edition, Vol. II, p. 461). that if an infant drinks of the milk of a swine, that child will become a leper. This is a sign that there are very bad features to all unclean animals.

ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף, “and these are the species of birds which you are to abominate;” Nachmanides writes that only the species named hereafter are forbidden, as well as their sub species where the Torah adds the word למינו or למינהו, to indicate that there are such sub species. Our sages have provided us with physical peculiarities of the forbidden categories of birds, seeing that not all of us are familiar with all these birds by name, and some may be known by different names in different parts of the globe. The most easily recognizable physical abnormality of these forbidden birds, something they all have in common, is that they are predators. In fact, if we encounter a bird that attacks other birds or even larger animals, it is certain that it belongs to a forbidden species regardless of any other marks of identification to that effect. These birds are hot blooded especially when they are on the attack, and consuming such victims. While engaged in attack, their blood turns black from the cruelty with which they kill their prey. This cruel streak leaves it mark on its heart, i.e. its personality. However, the only such birds in the whole globe are the ones mentioned by name in our chapter here. When we encounter a species of bird with which we are not familiar, but we are sure that it is not a bird of prey, we can be certain that it belongs to the large majority of “pure” birds, and that after the proper procedures we may eat it. There are only two species of the forbidden birds listed here that are not birds of prey, and they are not found in parts of the globe inhabited by man. They are the פרס and the עזניה. Possibly, the nature of their habitat, a primitive, creature-hostile environment, left its marks on the blood of these two creatures so that the Torah forbade them in spite of the fact that neither category of bird fits the description דורס, bird of prey. The underlying reason for the 24 species of birds which the Torah singled out as forbidden for the Israelites is the fact that we observe that they transmit their cruel streak also to their offspring. The reason why the Torah chose seven categories of mammals that chew the cud and have spilt hooves as acceptable for consumption by Israelites, is the fact that none of them feed on live creatures. All the others look for living creatures to become their source of sustenance. Our sages, (Avodah Zarah 35), as well as Maimonides maachalot assurrot basing themselves on empirical; knowledge, state that milk from animals not permitted to us is easily distinguishable by the fact that the milk of all the forbidden animal does not curdle, and even when mixed with milk of “kosher” animals does not lose its characteristics. He speculates that milk of the ritually forbidden animals may have a negative influence on the semen of the person consuming it, thus making him less likely to produce sperm that develops normally. When the infant would drink the milk of a mother who had born a child by a father who had eaten ritually unclean mammals, her milk would be affected. This would be in addition to the health and growth promoting nutrients provided by the milk and meat of the ritually clean mammals. I have personally read in a number of medical; textbooks (Nachmanides writing) that children raised on pig’s milk are liable to be afflicted with tzoraat, a terribly serious skin disease.

“To be eaten.” [Rashi knows this] from the fact Moshe Rabbeinu changed the expression in Mishneh Torah (Devarim 14:12) and wrote: לא תאכלו, and did not write לא יאכלו, which implies both the prohibition of eating and obtaining benefit, as he heard the Divine word from Hashem. Rather, it must be that this was how he received it at Sinai: [The phrase] לא יאכלו written regarding impure birds does not come to prohibit one to receive any benefit from them. Perforce, then, it [comes to make] liable one who feeds them to a minor.

הנשר, “the eagle;” its is called such as it can see even small objects from a long distance and identify them. The word is reminiscent of Bileam’s describing his visions of future events with his eyes as: אשורנו. (Numbers, 23,9)[Translation of these birds presents the editor with a problem as there is disagreement among the scholars. Basically, seeing that the Torah did not give clear guidelines how to recognise the few species (20) we are not allowed to eat, I will limit myself to the statement by our sages that they are all birds of prey and that the arrangement of their toe nails is a clue as to their nature. The Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 63 deals with this. Principally, if the bird has two toes at the back of its leg and two in front, it is a sign that it is a bird of prey, as that enables it to better grab and hold on to its prey. In ritually pure birds the three toes are at the front and only one at the back. In addition to this if it has a zaphak a crop, and/or a korkovov, gizzard, maw beneath its chin that can be peeled off without difficulty this is a sign that it is a forbidden species. Reserved for illustrations

All of them are of one species. You might ask: How does this relate to what Rashi explains beforehand? The answer is: Since he explains beforehand that the impure birds written in the Torah explicitly are permitted for one to receive benefit, for it is written: לא תאכלם, we can explain where it is written, למינה למינו למינהו, even if they do not resemble each other, either in appearance or name, they are of one species. However, if those that were written in the Torah explicitly were forbidden for one to receive benefit, because it is written: לא יאכל, we would then explain that where it is written למינה למינו למינהו it does not teach they are actually one species, but rather those that resemble each other in appearance and name are prohibited [also for one to receive benefit] as these which are written explicitly. However, those that do not resemble them, either in appearance or name, are not the same species, and are not as stringent as the ones written explicitly in the Torah in that they are not forbidden for one to receive benefit; they are only prohibited to be eaten. But now that we say even those that are written in the Torah explicitly do not have a prohibition for one to receive benefit, if so, we cannot say those that are written explicitly are more stringent. Perforce, it comes to teach that they are of one species.

ואת האיה למינה, and the falcon after its kind. The falcon mentioned here includes many different kinds of birds all of which are sub-categories of the falcon family. Our sages in Chulin 63 state that at the time they were familiar with 120 different species of birds all of which belonged to that family. There may be even more than that number. The same applies to the many varieties of ravens, though the Torah mentions only the word "the raven" as if there were only one such bird.

הנץ — Espervier in O. F., (English = sparrow-hawk)

שלך — Our Rabbis explained that this is a bird that draws up (שלה = שלך) fish out of the sea (Chullin 63a) and that is why Onkelos translates it by ושלי נונא “and that which draws up fishes” (a common heron; according to others a kind of pelican).

כוס וינשוף — These are chouettes in O. F. that shriek at night (kinds of owl), and have their cheek-bones formed like those of a human being; and there is another bird similar to it which is called hibou in O. F.

תנשמת — This is the chauvesouris in O. F.: it is similar to a mouse which flies about at night (a “bat”). The תנשמת mentioned among the creeping things (v. 30) is somewhat like it but it has no eyes, and it is called “talpa”, (English = mole) (cf. Chullin 63a).

החסידה — This is the white stork, cigogne in old French And why is it called חסידה? Because it deals kindly (חסד) with its fellows in respect to food (Chullin 63a).

הדוכיפת, “the duchifass.” This is a wild rooster whose comb is doubled over and according to Rashi the bird known as hoopoe. It brought the shamir worm to the Temple (not deliberately) to enable Solomon to split stones without having to use metal tools (Chulin 63.). There is a comment in Gittin 68 that relates that the prince of the demons Ashmadai told Solomon that he had no idea where to get the shamir and that perhaps the duchifass could get it for him. The Talmud relates how the duchifass was tricked into releasing that worm, explaining the strange-sounding translation by Onkelos who renders the word as נגר טורא. “carpenter of the mountains.”

Rashi s.v. The Chasida (bird that is not Kosher): "That it performs kindness with her friends with food." This does not come from Rashi's wisdom in the ways of nature, but rather it is from a Gemara in the words of Rav Yehuda (Chullin 63a). And the fact that she is impure (unkosher) even because of her kindness, I heard those who say that it is because she only performs kindness to her friends. And the source for these words is in the Chiddushei HaRim on the Torah.

האנפה — This is the hot-tempered דיה, and it seems to me that it is what is called heron.

הדוכיפת — the wild cock which has a double comb (כרבלת). In O. F., herupé; (English = hoopoe). And why is its name called דוכיפת? Because its ornament (הודו) is tied tegether (כפות): this refers to its comb (which being doubled, appears to be tied up). It is also called נגר טורא, mountain-splitter, because of its doings, just as our Rabbis explained in Tractate Gittin 68b in the chapter commencing שאחזו ‎‎מי.

העוף ‎שרץ PROLIFIC CREATURES AMONGST FOWL — These are the thin, lowly creatures which move upon the ground, such as flies and hornets and gnats and grasshoppers (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:20).

SHERETZ HA’OPH’ (WINGED SWARMING THINGS). “These are the thin, lowly creatures which crawl upon the ground, such as flies and hornets, mosquitoes and grasshoppers.” This is Rashi’s language. But I do not consider it to be correct, for a bird is not called sheretz (a swarming thing) on account of its smallness, nor is the unqualified term oph (bird) used because of the largeness of its body. The bat has very small legs, and many kinds of grasshoppers have larger ones than it, so why is the bat not called sheretz ha’oph (a winged swarming thing) like the grasshoppers?²¹⁸See Genesis, Vol. I, pp. 47-48, where Ramban discusses the same theme. Here the subject is more fully developed. Rather, the meaning of sheretz ha’oph is written [in Scripture immediately] after it: that go upon all fours. For all fowls that walk upon two legs, have erect necks, and their heads face upwards, and they always depend on their wings and flap them; therefore they are called oph kanaph (winged fowl),²¹⁹Genesis 1:21. or just oph. But those that have [four] legs walk lowly, with their neck and head bent downwards like creeping things, and therefore they are called sheretz ha’oph (a winged creeping thing), as I have explained in Seder Bereshith.²⁰⁸Verse 15. Similarly He referred back here and explained, And all ‘sheretz ha’oph’ (winged creeping things) which have four feet, are a detestable thing unto you,²²⁰Verse 23. the meaning thereof being as if He had said: “all winged creeping things which have only four feet and do not have jointed legs [above their feet] as mentioned [in Verse 21 amongst the signs of purity], are a detestable thing unto you.” The interpretation thereof in Torath Kohanim is:²²¹Torath Kohanim, Shemini 3:10. “Rabbi²²²See above, Note 117. says: And all ‘sheretz ha’oph’ (winged creeping things) which have four feet, are a detestable thing.²²⁰Verse 23. But if it has five feet, it is a clean species.”
Now in this section regarding winged creeping things there is only a positive commandment,²²³I.e., Yet these may ye eat of all winged creeping things etc. (Verse 21), from which you derive the principle that those that do not meet these criteria, are forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment, and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment carries the force of the positive commandment. Hence he who eats forbidden winged swarming (or creeping) things transgresses a positive commandment, for which there is no punishment by the court. But in the Book of Deuteronomy, Ramban continues, there is also an express negative commandment against eating it. Hence he who eats it incurs whipping. but in the Book of Deuteronomy there is a prohibition mentioned in connection with it, [namely], And all ‘sheretz ha’oph’ (winged creeping things) are unclean unto you; they shall not be eaten.²²⁴Deuteronomy 14: 19. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 157-158; Vol. II, pp. 169-170. It is on the basis of that verse there that whipping is incurred for violation thereof.

ההולך על ארבע; similar to bees.

על ארבע means UPON FOUR legs.

אשר לו כרעים. which have jointed legs above their feet, etc. In my treatise on Tur Yore Deyah 85 I have explained in detail that Rashi is correct that these winged creatures have to have legs which are attached close to their throats. People who permit these creatures to be eaten because there are no species which conform to this description are in error. The fact is that of the four, respectively eight categories of winged creatures listed in verses 22 as permitted to eat, only one category is found in our parts of the world. The eight kinds of forbidden swarming things listed in verses 29 and 30 also do not have their habitat in parts of the globe inhabited by Jews. Most of the winged things that do abound in our part of the globe do not have the kind of jointed legs that would make them edible according to the Torah's criteria. Most of these details are discussed in Chulin 63-65. The important thing is that the fact that we do not find the species mentioned in the Torah in our parts of the globe is no proof that they do not exist and that our sages have misinterpreted the Torah. Any G'd-fearing Jew will abstain therefore from eating any of these things and will protest when he sees other Jews eating them. For the last 12 years after I have published these words and people stopped eating these kinds of "grasshoppers," our land has not been afflicted by the plague of locusts. This is proof that observance of Torah and the commission of good deeds protects us against natural disasters.

לנתר, to jump, to shake, as per Onkelos. The root occurs in this sense in Chabakuk 3,6 ויתר גוים, “He makes the earth shake.” This transitive mode of the root נתר, natar, also occurs in Genesis 2,21 from the root נפל, nafal.

אשר לו כרעים, “which have jointed legs,” The word לו is spelled לא in the text, to hint at the dual nature of these (additional) legs. It is read as if it had been spelled as shown.

ממעל לרגליו ABOVE ITS FEET — Quite close to its neck it has something like two feet, in addition to its real feet; when it wants to fly and to spring off the ground it presses itself strongly on the ground with those two knees and so it flies. There are many of these, such, as those which we call longouste (sea-locusts), but we are not expert in regard to them, — as to which we are not permitted as food, — because four characteristic marks of cleanness are mentioned by our Rabbis in respect to them, viz., four feet, four wings, and קרסולים, i. e. the כרעים mentioned here, and that their wings cover the greater part of them. All these characteristics are present in these which are found amongst us, but there are some of them which have a long head and there are some which have no tail, matters which do not affect the question of cleanness (Chullin 59a). It is, however, necessary in order that they shall belong to the clean species that they should bear the name חגב (Chullin 55b), and in this respect we do not know how to distinguish one from another [i. e. we have no tradition as regards to these locusts whether they belong to the species which was in olden (Talmudic) times called חגב or not, and consequently in spite of the other four marks of cleanness we cannot distinguish them from unclean locusts which also show the same marks but are unclean because they do not bear the name חגב].

, הארבה, “the species known as locusts. The word is related to הרבה, “many,” there being so many different subcategories.

הסלעם, “the cricket,” a species dwelling in rocks, i.e. .סלע

החרגל, “the grasshopper;” [details of this kind of locust are sketchy. Ed.]

'וכל שרץ העוף וגו‎ BUT ALL PROLIFIC CREATURES AMONG FOWL etc. — This repetition of the statement already made in verse 20 is intended to teach that if it has five feet it is clean (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 5 10).

אשד לו ארבע דגלים, which have four legs. Torat Kohanim explains that the reason the Torah appears to repeat something here that has been written in verse 20 is to tell us that if such a creature has five legs it is permitted to be eaten. It would appear that the same holds true if such creatures have six or more legs. We need to examine why the Torah saw fit to write this legislation in an indirect way requiring us to arrive at the ruling that 5-legged winged swarming things are permitted by exegesis instead of writing outright that if such creatures have five legs we may eat them. Alternatively, the Torah could have written that any such creatures moving on more than 4 legs are permissible. Perhaps the Torah also had to inform us about the permissibility of brine in which forbidden locusts had been stored. Torat Kohanim had interpreted the repetition of the word שקץ הוא to be an exclusion, i.e. only the actual body of the winged swarming thing is prohibited. The Torah therefore had to write this verse in order to get this point across.

וכל שרץ העוף, “every flying teeming creature etc.,” Rashi explains the term שרץ העוף as applying to all small insect like creatures that move slowly on the ground, such as the common fly, etc. Nachmanides disagrees, as he cannot agree that any species of bird can be described as שרץ just because it is small in size. Neither is a bird called עוף just because it has a certain size. The עטלף is small and is listed as by the Torah as an עוף, whereas many species of locusts have legs which are larger than their bodies. If we accept Rashi’s definition of שרץ העוף, why is the עטלף not included as one of the שרץ העוף? Size of the body clearly is not the decisive factor in determining the difference between these two groups of flying creatures. The fact is that the Torah itself explains the nature of שרץ העוף in our verse, when it is described as walking on four legs, and as having jumping legs above its wings, these legs being employed as a launching pad to enable it to fly or jump. This is also why these creatures are not called עוף כנף, “winged bird,” or plain עוף, “bird.” Another feature of these שרץ העוף is that their neck and head instead of being above their bodies, are generally lower than the highest parts of the rest of their bodies.

It has five [feet], it is [ritually] clean. Otherwise, why does it say this when above it is written (v. 21-22): “However, these you may eat of all the flying insects that walk on four [legs]...” which implies that only these four species [mentioned] are permitted, but the rest of the flying insects that have four feet are prohibited to be eaten? Rather, it must be: “[This] comes and teaches [us]...” This raises a difficulty: Perhaps [we should instead learn] from this that if it has two legs it is pure? [The answer is:] It seems that a verse is surely not needed for one with two legs, for Scripture only says: “that walk on four [legs]” and not on two. A verse is needed, however, for five legs, because four legs are included in five. Therefore, it is needed to exclude that if it has five it is pure (Gur Aryeh).

וכל שרץ העוף, “and all winged swarming things;” in respect of fish and birds that are forbidden to eat, the Torah did not use the term טומאת מגע, ritual contamination through touching, it only wrote that we should detest them. The reason is that seeing that seeing that they have mostly been created in water, they are treated as if part of that domain. In accordance with this approach, we find that our sages in tractate keylim 17,13, state that any creatures that live in water are not subject to ritual contamination.

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.]

וכל הנשא מנבלתם AND WHOSOEVER BEARETH OUGHT OF THE CARRION OF THEM [SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN] — In every passage where there is mentioned uncleanness consequent upon the bearing of anything unclean it is more stringent than uncleanness which is the result of contact, inasmuch as the former requires also the washing of the clothing one happens to wear whilst carrying the unclean thing (Sifra, Shemini, Section 4 8).

וכל הנושא מנבלתם יכבס בגדיו, “and anyone carrying part of such a carcass, etc.” The Torah applied more stringent laws for carrying such a cadaver than for merely coming into contact with it without moving it. The latter is required to also immerse his garments before he and they can become purified. The reason may be that ”touching” is presumed to be a light touch, something merely incidental, whereas “carrying” implies major preoccupation with the cadaver in question. The garments of a carrier had an active part in the cadaver being transported.

The uncleanness [caused by] carrying is more severe than [that caused by] touch. Re’m writes: I have not heard a correct explanation as to what Rashi is coming to let us know with this rule. It is explicitly written here that the impurity caused by touch does not require washing of clothing and impurity caused by carrying requires washing of clothing! If it is to inform us that everywhere else it is as it is written here — what practical difference does that make? Perhaps the answer is: Rashi is coming to let us know that the impurity of touch is not derived through a kal vachomer from the impurity of carrying and it would thus require washing of clothing, [as follows:] [The impurity acquired by] carrying is not applicable to creeping creatures [and the impurity of a seminal discharge], yet it requires washing of clothing, then [the impurity of] touch, which is applicable to all types of impurities, is it not logical that it requires washing of clothing? For this reason Rashi explains: “Wherever the uncleanness [caused by] carrying is mentioned, it is more severe than [that caused by] touch,” and you will not find any place where Scripture obligates washing clothing for the impurity of touch. If the impurity of touch required washing of clothes from a kal vachomer, then Scripture would not have neglected to write in some place regarding the impurity of touch: “He shall wash his garments.” The same type of argument is found in the first chapter of Chulin (22b) (Re’m). This does not seem to be true, because if Rashi means this, he should say the opposite: “Wherever the uncleanness [caused by] touch is mentioned, it does not require washing of clothing.” And a further difficulty: Rashi should explain that Scripture is coming to let us know that the impurity of carrying is not derived from the impurity of touch to be exempt from washing clothing, [as the Sages derived in Toras Kohanim]: [The impurity of] touch is more allencompassing, yet it does not cause impurity to clothing, then [the impurity of] carrying, which encompasses less [types of impurities], is it not logical that it should not cause impurity [to clothing]? Therefore, the Torah teaches, etc. It seems to me that Rashi is coming to inform us not to say [the impurities of] touch and carrying are the same. Because if so, when the Torah writes that creeping creatures and seminal discharge cause impurity through touch, they should also cause impurity by carrying. With regard to this Rashi says in any case the impurity [caused by] carrying is more severe than [that caused by] touch, in that it requires washing of clothing. If Scripture’s intent was that they [creeping creatures and seminal discharge] cause impurity also with carrying, it would not have remained silent, for washing of clothing cannot be derived from [the impurity of] touch, since, “it is sufficient for that which is derived through logical means [such as through comparison or kal vachomer, to be like that from which is was derived]...” (Nachalas Yaakov).

מפרסת פרסה ושסע איננה שסעת WHICH DIVIDETH THE HOOF AND IS NOT CLOVEN FOOTED, such as the camel, the hoof of which is split on top but is attached below (see Rashi on v. 3); here it tells you that the carcass of an unclean animal causes uncleanness and in the paragraph which is at the end of this section (vv. 39–40) it sets forth the law concerning the carcass of a clean animal.

הבהמה, even though such a mammal does have hooves instead of toes, but it does not have them split all the way making two hooves out of it. וגרה איננה מעלה, or it does not regurgitate its food; כל הנוגע בהם, anyone touching their carcasses regardless if they died of natural causes or were ritually slaughtered. The Torah did not spell out on this occasion במותם, while they are dead, but when speaking of the ritually pure beasts it did add this rider. (compare verse 39) This had to be added so that we would know that only if such an animal died of natural causes or non ritual slaughter would the carcass confer ritual impurity, if, however, it had been slaughtered while still alive although mortally wounded, טרפה,

At the end of the parshah it explains [the rule] regarding a [ritually] clean animal. I.e., Scripture divides them into two categories to tell us that the [proper] slaughter of a treifah (debilitated animal) renders it pure from the impurity of neveilah (carcass, an animal that died without slaughter). For this reason it is written there (v. 39): “If [any animal] dies...” [which implies] specifically one that dies [without slaughter] causes the impurity of neveilah, but a treifah, although it will eventually die, if it was slaughtered it is pure from the impurity of neveilah. However, an impure animal, whether it died or was slaughtered, is not purified from the impurity of neveilah by means of slaughtering. Therefore, it is written regarding it (v. 27): “[All who touch] their carcasses,” without specifying whether it died or was slaughtered (Re’m).

לכל הבהמה אשר היא, “all of the above mentioned four legged domestic beasts (when dead) that do not possess the features mentioned confer ritual impurity upon people touching them or carrying them even if death had been caused by ritual slaughter. (Compare verse 8)

כל הנוגע בהם יטמא, “everyone who touches them will be considered ritually unclean.” This is the verse that makes clear that there is no way such animals can escape conferring ritual contamination by any manner of death.

על כפיו UPON ITS PAWS — such as a dog, bear and cat (which have no hoofs).

על כפיו, on its paws such as bears and dogs.

וכל הולך על כפיו, “and all creatures that ”walk,” i.e. move on their paws, etc.” Whereas in connection with the mammals that are forbidden to eat, the Torah had lumped them together under the heading of בהמה, here the Torah uses the heading חיה as neither having split hooves nor chewing the cud. Why did not the Torah mention the disqualification from being as a “Kosher” being one that walks on paws already at the beginning of our chapter? Nachmanides speculates that possibly the reason is that even gentiles as a rule do not eat animals that walk on their paws. [this sounds strange to this editor, as surely in Nachmanides’ time eating of hares and rabbits which walk on their paws was already commonplace? Ed.] At any rate the term חיה is a sub category of the comprehensive term בהמה, so that there was no need to refer to that feature earlier.

Bear and cat. Meaning: Their paws are not covered with hooves.

טמאים הם לכם ARE UNCLEAN UNTO YOU, in respect to any contact with them.

והנושא, not necessarily carrying it, but even moving it, indirectly. However, if he carried a carcass on his shoulder without touching it and without moving from his spot he does not become ritually impure as a result. This is what we learned in Zavim 5,3: “even if the dead body is lying on the bed and there is some piece of paper underneath the body separating from other objects such a body does not confer ritual impurity unless any of these objects had been moved. A dead body only confers impurity by even minimal motion.” In the Targum Yerushalmi the word נושא is translated as “moved.”

והנושא את נבלתם, “and anyone carrying their cadavers, etc.” By repeating this the Torah teaches that merely moving such a carcass, even without directly touching it confers ritual impurity on the person doing so. The Jerusalem Targum uses the word מסיט to describe such indirect “carrying.”

וזה לכם הטמא THESE ALSO SHALL BE UNCLEAN TO YOU — All these statements regarding uncleanness that follow are not intended as a prohibition against eating them (not as טמאה ,טמא in vv. 4—7 in the beginning of this section which is the result of eating the animals mentioned) but refers to actual uncleanness, — that one becomes unclean by contact with them and is thereby forbidden to eat the heave-offering and the holy sacrifices, and to enter the Sanctuary.

וזה לכם הטמא. This is what is impure for you among the swarming things which swarm on the earth; considering that Torat Kohanim on the previous paragraph explained the word ואלה as teaching that eating living tissue of an animal causes impurity, the word וזה may be interpreted as comparing present legislation to previously announced legislation. Accordingly, this word teaches that our paragraph also speaks about אבר מן החי, teaching us that it is the limb size and not the size of the meat on it which determines when one becomes culpable regardless of whether we speak of mammals or swarming creatures.

The author quotes Rabbi Avraham Bing, of Wuerzburg, Germany who calculated that the numerical value of the word השורץ is equivalent to the numerical values of the word כשעורה, a measure that our sages established as the minimum quantity of bone of such a cadavar which has the ability to confer ritual impurity on those contacting it. [These numbers do not match, i.e word כשעורה having a numerical value of 601, whereas the word השורץ as spelled here without the letter ו amounting only to 595. Ed.] Later authorities question the relevance of this as the minimum size of such a piece of bone is not the size of a kernel of barley, i.e. כשעורה, but the much greater size of כעדשה, corresponding to the size of a lentil. I have heard an answer concerning this apparent inconsistency, by a statement that the author of the book שמרה רוחי in which this gimmatria appeared meant כשערה, “as the size of the width of a hair”. His words would then be in line with those expressed in a baraitha in Chulin folio 126 according to which the size of hole in an eggshell of the egg of such a teeming creature (the inside of which already contained the beginnings of an embryo) so that he who touches it on the outside is perceived as having touched that embryo, would need to be of that thickness. Our verse would hint at this, seeing that the word השורץ is spelled with the letter ו missing, i.e. as השרץ. Once we accept this the supposed numerical value of the word השרץ spelled effectively would match that of the word כשעורה, =595. Personally, I find all this difficult.

על הארץ, “on the earth;” as opposed to the ones “in the water.”

החלד — moustille in O. F.; (English = weasel).

Furthermore, the letter ו before the word זה does not have to mean that we are to make the legislation in this paragraph interchangeable with that in the previous paragraph (as is the usual function of this letter ו at the beginning of a new pragaraph), but to give us warning that an additional type of impurity is conferred upon the person contacting the dead שרץ, namely having contacted merely its blood. Touching or otherwise being in contact with the blood of a dead mammal does not confer ritual impurity on a person (compare Torat Kohanim on our verse).

והצב — bot in old French; (English = toad), which is like a frog.

The word לכם, "unto you," is explained by Torat Kohanim as excluding blood from such creatures making plants susceptible to impurity as opposed to water and certain other liquids. The word also means that impurity is conferred by such creatures only on Jews, not on Gentiles.

We need to examine why the Torah did not include the snake, the original cause of all ritual impurity, in the list of creatures whose carcass causes impurity on contact? Perhaps the reason is that the impurity caused by the serpent was of a spiritual rather than a physical nature. When the serpent dies, its body remains devoid of any vestige of spirituality so that impurity has nothing to attach itself to. We find a similar reasoning in Baba Metzia 114 where we are told that the reason the corpse of a pagan does not confer ritual impurity when one finds oneself under the same canopy with such a body is for this very reason. [The Talmud reports the prophet Elijah explaining that the term אדם is not applicable to pagans; hence their dead bodies cannot confer impurity by one being under the same canopy with such bodies. Ed.] Whereas the bodies of Israelites confer impurity when one is under the same canopy with them, this is because there is a residue of spirituality adhering to such bodies. [in kabbalistic terms there has not yet been a clean break between the fusion of soul (source of spirituality) and body which existed when the person was alive. Ed.] שרצים confer impurity by their bodies rather than by their spirits and this is why they confer such impurity only after they are dead. The impurity of the serpent by contrast is far more intense than that of the שרצים.

למינהו, according to its kind. The meaning of the word is that there are numerous categories of turtles and lizards. Even if there were only one category of lizards the Torah would still use the word למינהו. In Chulin 122 we find the following Baraitha: "when the Torah speaks of הטמאים, the impure ones (an unnecessary letter ה ), this includes the skin of the soft skinned שרצים being considered as part of their flesh [when the skin is attached to the flesh. Ed.]; I might think that this rule applies to all of the animals listed; to inform me that this is not so the Torah writes אלה in the following verse (30). To the question that the word אלה is a collective term including all the previously mentioned animals, Rav answered that the word למינהו separates between what was described in the previous verses and what follows from here on in." Whence does Rav know that the word למינהו is intended to serve as an interruption of what was listed before instead of telling us that there are several varieties of turtles and lizards? We must assume that Rav did not mean to invalidate the plain meaning of the verse, i.e. that there are different varieties of lizards. He considered the fact that on the one hand the word הטמאים is used inclusively to extend the ritual impurity to the skins of these animals. On the other hand, the verse immediately adds an exclusion by writing the word אלה. If the word למינהו had not been written in between I would not have known how to apply the inclusive ה in the word הטמאים and the exclusive message contained in the word אלה. Now, -even though the word למינהו - is required in its own right, it also serves to separate between what was written in the previous verse and what is written in verse 30. This also answers the question raised by Tossaphot on that folio that if the word למינהו acts as separating the previous verse from the following one, why did the Torah have to write the word אלה? (Tossaphot remain with the question). When you adopt our approach there is no problem even according to the opinion that the word הטמאים includes the legislation that the skin of these animals also confers impurity. If we follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, the determining factor of whether the skin is treated like the flesh of the animal depends on the feel of the skin relative to the flesh. It does not depend on the verse these animals are mentioned in relative to other verses. [it appears that the main disagreement concerns the skin of the lizard which according to Rabbi Yehudah (Shabbat 107) would certainly not be considered as integral to the rest of the body. Ed.] At any rate, the word למינהו is certainly needed in its own right.

אנקה hérisson in O. F.; English hedgehog.

הלטאה — lizard in old French; English lizard.

חמט — limace in old French: English snail.

תנשמת — talpa in O. F.; English mole.

הטמאים. the impure ones. How does the Rabbi who did not derive the impurity for the skins of these animals from the word הטמאים explain this word? According to Torat Kohanim on this verse that Rabbi derives from this word that the eggs of such שרצים are impure if they have developed to a stage where they clearly contained an embryo. Me-ilah 17 also teaches that the blood of one category of שרץ and another category of שרץ combine to form the minimal quantity which confers impurity on those contacting same.

כל הנוגע בהם, anyone touching any of the aforementioned creatures (from verse 29 on) when dead, will confer ritual impurity if the size of the creature or its part touched, is at least the size of a lentil. (Sifra)

We have to know what the word אלה is to exclude according to the exegetical approach adopted by that Rabbi. Perhaps we must understand that Rabbi in terms of what Maimonides wrote in the fourth chapter of his treatise Avot Hatumah, namely that the blood of a שרץ conforms to the same rules as the שרץ itself as long as it is part of the animal. The word אלה teaches that when the blood of such a שרץ is no longer part of it, it does not combine with the animal it was taken from to form the minimal quantity which would confer impurity on someone who comes in contact with it.

במים יובא IT MUST BE PUT INTO WATER — but even after it has been immersed, טמא IT IS UNCLEAN in respect to using it to hold the heave - offering,

AND EVERY THING UPON WHICH ANY PART OF THEM, WHEN THEY ARE DEAD, DOTH FALL, SHALL BE UNCLEAN: WHETHER IT SHALL BE ANY VESSEL OF WOOD etc. It appears to me in the interpretation of this verse that most likely the expression any of them, when they are dead, alludes to all those mentioned above — impure animals, creeping things, and beasts. For why should He mention the law of impurity of vessels and garments only with reference to creeping things, when it applies also to carcasses? Similarly, all the rules that He mentions with reference to making food susceptible to impurity²⁴⁰Further, 34, 37-38. [conveyed by creeping things], apply equally to all [forms of] impurity, and Scripture speaks of the general concept of them. Do not find it difficult to accept that the expression touch them when they are dead in the first verse²⁴¹In Verse 31: These are which are unclean to you among all that creep; whosoever doth ‘touch them, when they are dead,’ shall be unclean until the even. applies to the creeping things, while the same expression any of them when they are dead [in Verse 32 before us] applies to all things that convey impurity, for such is the case in many places in Scripture [where similar words apply to different things].
It is possible to say that Scripture waited until it had mentioned all impure things amongst cattle, beasts, and creeping things, and then at the end mentioned impurity of vessels with reference to one of them [namely, the creeping things], with which it had concluded this theme, in order that the law of all the others be derived from it, for the opinion of our Rabbis²⁴²Chagigah 11 a. is that the expression any of them when they are dead [in Verse 32 before us] refers [only] to creeping things, and from that they learn that a creeping thing in [a minimal] size of a lentil conveys impurity.²⁴³Since Scripture (here in Verse 32) states ‘any of them’ when they are dead, it shows that even though one has not touched the whole creeping thing but “any” part of it, he is rendered impure. “Now since the sand-lizard [one of the eight creeping things that convey impurity] when born is the size of a lentil,” therefore that amount of any of the eight creeping things when dead also conveys impurity (Chagiga ibid.). Thus according to the interpretation of the Rabbis, Verse 32 before us also speaks only of the impurity conveyed by creeping things, and not, as explained above, about all other impurities. Scripture dealt likewise with the subject of immersion, in mentioning at the end of all [the laws of] impurity, the impurity [conveyed by creeping things] to vessels and their purification by immersion,²⁴⁴Verses 34-36. and from it we learn the law of man and vessels with reference to all the impurities mentioned above.

מכל כלי עץ, the legislation mentioned here does not apply to vessels constructed out of stone or out of earth.

וכל אשר יפול עליו מהם במותם, “and anything which falls upon them when they are dead, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to our sages this verse applies only to the eight species of “teeming creatures” mentioned in verse 29. They derived from this verse that the minimum size of such a teeming creature’s ability to confer ritual impurity is the size of a lentil. (Compare Chagigah 11) According to the plain meaning of the text it would appear that the words מהם במותם, “of them when they are dead,” refer to what the Torah had written earlier in the context of בהמה טמאה, חיה, שרץ, mammals and all land based animals which are ritually unclean and cannot serve as food for Israelites, for why would the Torah mention ritual impurity affecting clothing as a separate subject, seeing that the same rules of impurity also apply to cadavers. Similarly, they all require the same qualifying symptoms in order to potentially be fit for consumption by Israelites. The Torah therefore is presumed to speak of all of these categories here.

After its immersion it is unclean. I.e., you should not say that because it was put into water, that is, it was immersed, it would be impure until evening, as would be understood from, “shall be brought into water and is unclean until the evening.” Therefore, Rashi adds “even after its immersion” — it does not depart from its impurity until after the setting of the sun. Meaning: For terumah, whereas for ma’aser (tithes) it is pure immediately after it is immersed and comes out, as it says in Yevamos (75a) (Kitzur Mizrachi).

מכל כלי עץ, “be it any vessel made of wood;” the letter מ at the beginning of the word מכל, teaches that if a piece of wood, or a tree, is too large to be carried by one person falls on to such a dead creature, the wooden object would not become ritually unclean. (Sifra) [The same limitation applies to the other raw materials mentioned in this verse. Ed.]

עד הערב UNTIL THE EVENING, AND — afterwards — וטהר IT BECOMETH CLEAN at the setting of the sun (Yevamot 75a).

IT MUST BE PUT INTO WATER, AND IT SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN; AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. “Even after it has been immersed, it is still impure with regard to the heave-offering, until the setting of the sun, and afterwards at the setting of the sun it becomes pure.” This is Rashi’s language. And the interpretation in the Torath Kohanim is:²⁴⁵Torath Kohanim, Shemini 6:9. “And it shall be unclean until the even. I might think that [it shall be impure] for all [purposes]; Scripture therefore says, and it shall be clean. But if so, I might think that it is pure for all purposes; Scripture therefore says, and it shall be unclean until the even. How then can this be explained? It is pure with respect to ordinary food²⁴⁶In Tractate Yebamoth 74a the reading [instead of “ordinary food”] is “the Tithe;” i.e., eaten by the owner in the city of Jerusalem in a state of purity. But the law regarding it is less stringent than that which applies to terumah (the heave-offering) eaten by the priest. Thus if an Israelite who was impure immersed himself to be purified, he may straightaway eat of the Second Tithe, even though the sun has not yet set. But a priest who was impure and immersed himself before sunset, may not eat of the heave-offering until the sun has set and the stars have come forth. when it is still daytime [immediately after it was immersed to be purified], but regarding the heave-offering it is not held to be pure until it becomes dark.” The interpretation of the verse according to the explanation of the Torath Kohanim is thus: “it must be put into the water [before sundown] and it shall remain unclean till the evening.” But by way of the simple meaning of Scripture [the verse is to be transposed, thus]: “it must be put into water and it shall be clean, but it shall be unclean until the evening.”
Now Scripture mentioned in all the sections [that the impurity is] “until the evening,”²⁴⁷Verses 24-25, 27-28, 31-32. because it refers to the degree of purity required for the holy heave-offering, as He said, The soul that toucheth any such [unclean things] shall be unclean until the even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he bathe his flesh in water. And when the sun is down, he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the holy things, because it is his bread.²⁴⁸Further, 22:6-7. “The holy things” here mean the terumah (the heave-offering). But the purification required for ordinary food or the [Second] Tithe²⁴⁹See above, Note 246. is attained after immersion alone, and it is not mentioned here because it is not mandatory upon an impure person to purify himself in order to eat ordinary food,²⁵⁰As explained above in Ramban, Verse 8, at the end. for if he wants to, he may eat it in a state of impurity.²⁵¹Hence Scripture always speaks about the impure person being “unclean till the even,” because in order to be able to eat the heave-offering, the impure priest must purify himself, and wait till evening, whereas for ordinary food there is no requirement that it must be eaten in a state of purity, and thus no necessity to immerse oneself. If he does wish to eat it in a state of purity, however, he attains this immediately after immersion and even before sundown, as explained above in Ramban and in Note 246.

שק, a garment made of goat’s hair.

וטמא עד הערב וטהור, “he will remain in a state of ritual impurity until nightfall, and then he will become ritually clean.” This verse speaks of terumah, the heave (gift) from the grain given to the priest, which after immersion in a ritual bath remains in a state of impurity until evening. Nachmanides writes that the reason why this formula of עד הערב, until nightfall,” is repeated on so many occasions, is that in each of these examples we speak of terumah or something like it, i.e. something which possesses a degree of holiness by definition. Food that is of a secular type, may be consumed by the ordinary Israelites, even when they are in a state of ritual impurity without their having been immersed in a ritual bath. Therefore, if such food has been immersed in a ritual bath there is certainly no need to await sundown before it may be eaten.

או שק, or sack, ”woven or embroidered materials,” but not vessels constructed of ropes and cords (Rash’bam).

אשר יעשה מלאכה בהם, something that is being actively used, as opposed to something which only serves as a cover.

אשר יעשה מלאכה בהם, “wherewith any work is being done;” this excludes fabrics used only as covers, or whose insides by definition remain empty.

במים יובא, “it shall be put into water (ritual bath); the whole vessel must be immersed in water at one and the same time.” Just as the process of becoming ritually clean again at sunset occurs at one moment, so the removal of contamination must also occur at one and the same time, not piecemeal.

אל תוכו [AND EVERY EARTHEN VESSEL] WHEREINTO [ANY OF THEM FALLETH SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — An earthen vessel does not become unclean except through the medium of its interior (i. e. only if something unclean is inside it) but not by something unclean touching its exterior) (cf. Chullin 24b).

Except through its interior. I.e., if the impurity entered its interior space but did not touch it, it is impure. From the outside, however, it remains pure even if the impurity touches it. This is derived from, “everything that is within it becomes unclean,” [by means of a comparison:] We find that the interior — when the vessel causes impurity to the food within — even if the impurity never touches [all the food contents] it becomes impure, for even if the vessel was full of mustard seeds, everything is impure, although the vessel does not [directly] touch all the seeds, but only the seeds that are adjacent to its walls. You cannot say that this seed causes impurity to that one, and this one causes impurity to that one, since food cannot cause impurity to food. Furthermore, if it did, this would become a Second [level of impurity], and the next one a Third, but a Third does not cause impurity to make a Fourth. Perforce, the mustard seeds become impure by being in the interior of the vessel. So too, the interior mentioned in the imparting of impurity to the vessel — even though the impurity never touches the vessel, but it is only suspended within [the interior of] the vessel, the vessel becomes impure (Re’m).

אשר יפול מהם, “when into one of them falls;” we find a similar construction to this in Judges 12,7, i.e. באחד מערי גלעד where according to the text as written, ויקבר בערי גלעד, literally: “he was buried in the cities of Gilead,” we might have thought that different parts of his body were buried in different cities, which is of course absurd. The author simply did not feel it necessary to add the word במים אחד, “one of,” in order for the reader to understand his meaning. אל תוכו, “into its inside;” Rashi comments here that earthen vessels do not become ritually unclean except through the airspace they enclose. The reason for this is that because there is no way to dispose of this contamination except by breaking the vessel in question, the Torah, out of concern for the owner, did not want to make it easy for such vessels to become ritually contaminated, as by its outside coming into contact with ritually polluted items. This is why the Torah wrote: (Numbers 19,15) וכל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו טמא הוא, “and any open vessel which has no covering which closes it tightly on it, is ritually unclean.” In other words, if it had had a tight lid on it, it would not have become ritually unclean. If the outside of this vessel had been in contact with something all day it would need to be broken up completely to dispose of this impurity. It could not have been reinstated as fit for use.

כל אשר בתוכו יטמא WHATSOEVER IS INSIDE IT SHALL BE UNCLEAN — the vessel, in turn, renders anything inside it unclean.

In turn causes impurity. [Rashi knows this] from the fact that it is not written “everything that it touches within it.” Rather, even if it does not touch anything but only enters the interior, whatever is in it is impure (Minchas Yehudah). Alternatively, it is not as if the vessel is full of impurity and whatever is in it is touching the impurity, for if so, why are vessels excluded from the law of becoming impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel, as Rashi explains later (v. 34)? Rather, it must be that the vessel itself becomes impure from the creeping creature in its interior, and the vessel becomes a First [source of impurity]. It then in turn causes impurity to whatever is in its interior to make it a Second. Thus, vessels are excluded, because a vessel that is a First does not cause impurity to another vessel (Re’m).

ואתו תשבות, “and you will have to break it.” The reason is that it had absorbed too much impurity.” Besides, seeing that it is not expensive to replace, the financial loss for the owner is minimal.

ואתו תשברו AND IT SHALL YE BREAK — This teaches that there is no purification for it by immersion in a ritual bath, (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 7 13).

Cannot be purified. I.e., if you want to purify it from its impurity you must break it until it is no longer fit for its original use. If it was made to hold food items, one makes a hole until olives would fall out, and if it was made for liquids, he bores a hole until it can no longer hold liquid.

מכל האכל אשר יאכל OF ALL THE FOOD WHICH MAY BE EATEN — This is to be connected with the preceding verse (consequently the words ואתו תשברו v. 33 are a parenthesis): “whatsoever is in it shall be unclean”; viz., anything of all food which may be eaten upon which water has once come, if it is in an earthen vessel which is unclean, itself becomes unclean. [And similarly all drink that may be drunk in any vessel, if it is in an earthen vessel that is unclean, itself becomes unclean]. From this we learn several things: we learn that food is not fitted and liable to become unclean until water has once come upon it, and after water has once come on it it can any time after become unclean, and even after it has become dry; that wine and oil and anything which is termed משקה, liquid, (besides the three mentioned, also blood, milk, dew and honey of bees; cf. Mishnah Makhshirin 6:4) makes vegetation fitted to become unclean even as water does, for thus must the verse be expounded: any food upon which there cometh water or any liquid which may be drunk out of any vessel, that food shall become unclean. Further our Rabbis derive from here the law that a “secondary uncleanness” (ולד הטומאה) cannot render “vessels” (a term used to denote anything except food and animate beings) unclean. For thus we read in a Boraitha (Pesachim 20a): One might think, since Scripture states v. 33: anything that is inside it shall be unclean, that all “vessels” that are placed inside an earthen vessel become unclean through the medium of the interior of an earthen vessel (i. e. because they are in contact with the earthen vessel which has itself become unclean through something unclean having been inside it)! It, however, says: all that is within it shall become unclean … of any food etc., — i.e., food [and liquids] may become unclean through the medium of the interior of an unclean earthen vessel, but no “vessels” can become unclean through the medium of the interior of an unclean earthen vessel. Now since a dead שרץ, “reptile” (which causes the uncleanness to the earthen vessel) is a primary source of uncleanness (אב הטומאה) and the object which has been rendered unclean by it (in this case the כלי חרס) is a secondary uncleanness (ולד הטומאה), consequently we have the rule that the latter a secondary uncleanness — cannot in turn render unclean “vessels” which are in it. And we further learn from this (Pesachim 20a) that if a dead reptile (שרץ) falls into the interior of an earthen oven in which there is bread, but the reptile does not come in contact with the bread, the oven becomes a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree (ראשון לטומאה) and the bread one of the second degree (because the bread only becomes unclean through having come in contact with the oven which is only a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree, and not a primary source): and we do not say that we regard the oven which contains the primary source as though it were full of uncleanness, and is itself a primary source, so that the bread should be a secondary uncleanness of the first degree (תחלה), as though it had itself touched the primary source; for if you argue so, then any article which is in an earthen vessel is not excluded from becoming unclean through the medium of its interior (whilst we have just stated that “vessels” are excluded — that in such a case they do not become unclean), because you see, if we assume that the whole interior is full of a primary source of uncleanness, it would be as though this uncleanness itself has touched them (the objects) on their outside and then the objects would indeed have become unclean: we, however, have stated that in such a case they do not become unclean; therefore we do not assume that the primary source of uncleanness fills the whole interior: the bread therefore receives the uncleanness not from the carcass but from the oven and is thus a secondary uncleanness of the second degree which does not further transfer its uncleanness to things which have no sacred character. — And we further learn (Chullin 118b; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 8 2) in regard to the “coming of water”, that this does not render vegetation fitted to become unclean unless it falls upon them after they have been plucked; because if you say that they (the vegetation) can acquire this fitness whilst still attached to the soil, then the law has no significance at all, for you have no growing vegetation upon which water does not fall at some time or other, and what, then, is the sense of Scripture saying, “upon which water cometh”? — And we further learn (Yoma 80a) that articles of food which are unclean do not render other food unclean unless the former contains at least a volume equal to that of an egg, for it says: “[food] which may be eaten”, i.e. food which may be eaten at one time, and our Rabbis calculated that the gullet does not hold more than a hen’s egg (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 9 1; cf. also Yoma 80a).

OF ALL THE FOOD WHICH MAY BE EATEN, THAT ON WHICH WATER COMETH, SHALL BE UNCLEAN. Rashi commented: “This verse according to its [Rabbinical] interpretations teaches many things. We learn that food does not become fit to be susceptible of impurity until water has once come upon it, and once water has come upon it, it can subsequently at any time become impure, even after it has become dry, etc. Our Rabbis have further learned from this verse that ‘a secondary impurity’²⁵²Or as generally also referred to “a first degree of impurity.” Reference here is to a person or vessel that touched one of the eight dead creeping things enumerated in Verses 29-30, which are considered “fathers of impurity.” The person or vessel that touched them become “a first degree of impurity.” There are many “fathers of impurity.” Thus the carrier of those animals that are unfit for food, or of those which are fit for food but have not been slaughtered in the proper ritual manner, mentioned above in this section, also belong to this category [[illegible]] “a first degree of impurity.” Now “fathers of impurity” can convey impurity to people and vessels, whereas “a first degree of impurity” can only convey impurity to foodstuffs and liquids. does not render vessels impure, for so we are taught etc. Again we learn that the coming of water upon vegetation makes it susceptible to impurity only after it has been plucked from the soil etc.” And included among the principles [we learn from this verse], Rashi said: “And we further learn that impure foodstuff does not convey impurity to other objects unless it [the former] consists of at least the size of an egg, for it says, of all the food which may be eaten, which means food which can be eaten in one gulp, and the Sages calculated that the esophagus does not hold more than a hen’s egg.” This is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi.].
But there is [too great a] brevity in Rashi’s comment. For this verse speaks about foodstuff itself becoming impure, and does not refer to its conveying impurity to others. The Rabbi [Rashi], however, derived this principle from what the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:²⁵³Torath Kohanim, Shemini 9:1. “Of all the food etc. shall be unclean. This teaches that food [upon which a dead creeping thing falls], is rendered impure even if it be of the smallest quantity. Now I might think that it can also convey impurity to other objects if the [original] impure food was of the smallest quantity; Scripture therefore says, which may be eaten. Thus you learn that it cannot render other things impure unless it is itself the size of an egg.”²⁵⁴In other words, it was on the basis of this Torath Kohanim that Rashi interpreted the expression in the verse here, of all food which may be eaten as applying to “impure” food conveying impurity to others, the verse teaching us that the conveyor of the impurity must be of the size which may be eaten, which is, as explained above, the size of an egg. The verse could not refer to the original foodstuff itself becoming impure because of having touched a dead creeping thing [or any “father of impurity” — see above Note 251], for in that case even the smallest quantity of food suffices to be rendered impure. — But, Ramban continues, other scholars have already differed with Rashi on this point, bringing proof etc. (see text). But other authorities have already differed²⁵⁵Tosafoth Shabbath 91 a. with the Rabbi [Rashi], and they brought proofs that by Scriptural law foodstuffs do not [even] become impure at all unless they are of the size of an egg. Thus the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim [mentioned above] is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic law,⁸⁰See in Exodus, Seder Yithro, p. 314, Note 449. the Rabbis having added [the stricture] that foodstuffs of even the smallest size also become impure [although they cannot convey impurity to others unless they themselves are the size of an egg]. The main interpretation of the verse is as the Rabbis have said there [in the Torath Kohanim]:²⁵³Torath Kohanim, Shemini 9:1. “The food. This is to exclude food for cattle [that it is not susceptible to impurity]. Of all the food — this is to include food for cattle which one intended to use for human consumption. Which may be eaten, excepting decomposed foods.”

אשר יבא עליו מים יטמא, those who wish to find a reason for G’d’s commandments in order to confound the heretics, and in order to make them intelligible in terms of the laws of nature, would do well to consider this piece of legislation. Foodstuffs, originating in the earth, though subject to ritual impurity under certain conditions, are free from even potential impurity as long as they have not been in contact with water The first step in preparing earth grown food is to wash it, etc. Therefore, as long as no water has fallen on such potential food it is free from such impurity or potential impurity. [Water which fell on it against the wishes of its owner does not count. Ed.]

To the verse. This is because it is not connected with the juxtaposed verse: “you shall break it.” The meaning of “אשר יבא עליו מים (upon which water comes),” is: “אשר באו עליו (upon which [water] came).” This is because the expression אשר יבא [seemingly] instructs that after the food was within the impure earthenware vessel — if water will come upon it — it will become impure. This, however, is not so, for the Torah enjoins (v. 38): “If water was once placed on seeds and part of their carcasses fall upon them” — then it will become impure. Rashi then adds: “While it is within an unclean earthenware vessel.” So that you will not say that since the food entered the interior of an impure vessel and then was taken out from the vessel, it will become impure if water now came upon it, because we would say the impurity returned and awakened after the water came upon it. Therefore, Rashi says: “[Water comes] while it is within the vessel” (Re’m).

אשר יבא עליו מים יטמא, “(any food inside it) which has become wet through contact with water has become subject to ritual impurity.”The Torah had found it as necessary to spell out the rules governing how different kinds of food or drink and seeds may become subject to ritual contamination until this point. [As long as fruit or grain is on the tree or attached to the soil, no rainfall can contaminate it. Ed.] As soon as it had been mixed with water it became fit as food and seeing that water was no longer connected to its origin, river or pond, liquids other than water when not integral to the fruit from which they have been squeezed, confer basic susceptibility to ritual defilement. Orange juice, etc, while in the orange is therefore not considered as a “liquid” at that stage. Wine, dew, oil, blood, which are not part of their original status anymore are subject to the same rules as water that is no longer part of the earth it came forth from. This is also the reason why the Torah had written: מים, “water,” and not כל מים, “water, “any (kind of) water.”

Even when dry. This is because Scripture makes its being subject to impurity dependant only on whether water comes on it, without specifying; it does not differentiate whether it is dry or moist.

בכל כלי, “in any such vessel,” the logic is that just as the vessel is no longer attached to the origin from which its craftsman had detached it, so any other material which has been attached from its origin is liable to become a source directly or indirectly of ritual defilement. This rule means that water contained in cisterns and caves is not liable to make the vessels in that airspace subject to ritual defilement as long as they have not been detached.

Food or liquid become unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel. Re’m writes: It seems to me that the phrase “or liquid” is a misprint, and the correct text is “food becomes unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel,” and not “food or liquid.” This is because the word “beverage” that is written in the verse was already explained by Rashi as referring to preparing it for impurity, and according to Rabbi Eliezer, but it does not refer to causing impurity from a beverage, as the view of Rabbi Yuda and Rabbi Yossi (Pesachim 16a). If so, [that “beverage” refers to preparing for impurity], how could Rashi write later: “Furthermore, our Rabbis learned from here [food or liquid becomes unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel, but not vessels]...”? Also, in Toras Kohanim and in Pesachim (20b) it is only written: “Food becomes impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel, but vessels do not become impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel.”

After it had been picked. Meaning: After the food had been detached from the earth, otherwise, there is no [vegetation] that had not been exposed to water [through rain], so why then does it say [impurity is only applicable]: “Upon which water comes”?

Unless there is an egg’s-volume. I.e., people that eat less than this amount are not impure. However, this does not mean that food does not cause other items to become impure when it does not have this amount, because even if it has the minimum amount through which it becomes impure it does not cause other things to become impure. This is because foodstuffs do not cause other foodstuffs to become impure by Torah law (so I found). The fact that it does not cause impurity to other things is derived from [the fact] that Scripture does not write טמא but rather, יטמא, which is as if it says: It is impure but it will not cause other things to become impure.

תנור וכרים OVEN OR RANGES FOR POTS — These are movable objects, and they are of earthenware, they have an interior and one places the pot over the opening of the hollow space (the cavity); both have their openings on top.

AND EVERYTHING WHEREUPON ANY PART OF THEIR CARCASS FALLETH SHALL BE UNCLEAN; WHETHER OVEN, OR RANGE FOR POTS, ‘YUTATZ’ (IT SHALL BE BROKEN DOWN). Scripture teaches you here that the law of the oven and range for pots which are made of clay — in which fire is kindled and bread baked — is, [although they are] attached to the ground, like the law of earthenware pottery such as pots and jugs, which are burnt in a furnace and are movable objects, in that they too [oven and ranges], can become impure, and cannot [thereafter] be purified in an immersion-pool [in the same way that movable pottery cannot be purified].²⁵⁵Tosafoth Shabbath 91 a. Scripture states ‘yutatz’ (it shall be broken down) and does not say yishaber [“it shall be broken in pieces” — as it says in speaking of movable earthenware which has become impure,]²⁵⁶Further. 15:12. in order to teach that the oven and range need not be broken so that there shall not be found among the pieces thereof a shard to take fire from the hearth,²⁵⁷Isaiah 30:14. but instead they should be destroyed to the extent that they should no longer be capable of serving their [original] purpose. [The word ‘yutatz’ is] further used to teach that they become impure even though they are attached to the earth,²⁵⁸The novelty of this point is that generally whatever is attached to the ground is like the ground, and cannot become impure. The oven and range made of clay are thus an exception to this rule, for they are susceptible of impurity even though they are attached to the earth. and [the owner] must break down what he built, for the meaning of the term nethitzah is the breaking down of something built, such as the expressions: ‘vatitzu’ (and ye broke down)the houses;²⁵⁹Ibid., 22:10. ‘v’nathatz’ (and he shall pull down) the house.²⁶⁰Further, 14:45.

תנור וכירים יותץ, “an oven or stove must be smashed;” the news in this verse is that although these ovens or stoves are fastened to the ground they stand on, something which normally would make them immune to becoming affected with ritual impurity, in the situation described they are subject to the same rules as are earthenware vessels which are not fastened to the ground anymore. In order for such vessels to lose their contamination they must be broken up into pieces small enough to make them practically useless in terms of what they were made for. The reason why the Torah employed the expression יותץ instead of the more common ישבר, for describing something broken, is because the term יותץ which describes the destruction of a building, contains within it the hint that even stoves and ovens which are like buildings must also be destroyed in order to shed their ritual impurity. We find this expression in connection with houses afflicted with tzoraat, as in Leviticus

Which may be moved. [Rashi knows this] because if they were vessels that are not movable, but rather attached to the ground, they would not become impure, for every item attached to the ground is like the ground [which does not become impure]. And from the fact it is written, “it shall be shattered,” which implies it cannot be purified in a mikveh, Rashi infers that the verse refers to earthenware vessels. And since they are earthenware vessels, we must say they have an interior, for earthenware vessels become impure only from their interior. However, this does not mean specifically earthenware, for an oven is not fired in a kiln. Rather, since ovens are made from clay and dried in the sun they are called earthenware, and they have the same law as earthenware vessels (Re’m). This raises a difficulty: Scripture already wrote the law of earthenware vessels, as it is written (v. 33): “Every earthen vessel”! Re’m wrote that an earthenware vessel is fired [in a kiln] and is made from clay, but the oven and hearth are only made from clay and dried in the sun. However, I do not know what difference this makes. Thus, it appears to me that above it lets us know that an earthenware vessel that became impure can be rectified through purification by breakage, as it says in Toras Kohanim: “And you shall break it” — it has rectification through breaking it. [If it was used for food] he breaks it partially until it has a hole that makes it unable to be used for foodstuff. If Scripture had only written the verse above, I would think (v. 33) “and you shall break it” means entirely, and it cannot be purified by partially breaking it. Thus, the verse (35): “it shall be shattered” lets us know, [because] it means that it cannot be purified through immersing [in a mikveh] and remain as it is. Boring a hole, however, helps. This is because we cannot say “it shall be shattered” means literally [to completely shatter it], for it says afterwards “and they shall be unclean to you,” upon which Rashi explains he is not obligated to shatter it, but may keep it for the days when he is impure. However, [if it only said this verse, “and he shall shatter it,” I might think it has no purification in a mikveh and he must keep it for the days of his impurity, but] to purify it through breakage does not help, thus, it lets us know with the verse above that it can be purified through boring a hole (Divrei Dovid).

תנור, and an oven for baking bread;

יתץ SHALL BE BROKEN DOWN — because for an earthenware article there can be no purification by immersion in water.

כירים, a kitchen range, for boiling meat, will be considered as having been contaminated and unfit for further use. These vessels are usually made of earthenware [in those days. Ed.]

וטמאים יהיו לכם AND THEY SHALL BE UNCLEAN TO YOU — In order that you should not say, “I am under a command to break it down”, it therefore states וטמאים יהיו לכם — i. e. if one wishes to let them remain in their state of uncleanness (when they may still be used for חולין) one has the right to do so (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 10 10). [יתץ therefore means: “should be broken down”, and the following words signify: “but though they are unclean (וטמאים) they may remain with you ‎(יהיו לכם‎)”].

The warning is addressed to both men and women as well as to children.

עין ובור מקוה מים‎אך מ NEVERTHELESS A FOUNTAIN OR A PIT WHERE THERE IS A GATHERING OF WATERS which are attached to the ground are not receptive of uncleanness (not being included in וכל משקה ונו׳ בכל כלי mentioned in v. 34, since it states here יהיה טהור, it shall remain clean). But you may also give it the meaning: יהיה טהור, he shall be clean i.e. he who immerses himself in them to free himself from his uncleanness.

NEVERTHELESS A FOUNTAIN OR A CISTERN WHEREIN IS A GATHERING OF WATER SHALL BE CLEAN. Scripture is stating that the waters in the immersion-pool whilst attached to the ground are not susceptible to impurity if any [source of] impurity should fall therein. BUT THAT WHICH TOUCHETH THEIR CARCASS SHALL BE UNCLEAN. The meaning thereof is as follows: “but waters which touch the carcass [of any of the creeping things] shall become impure, [meaning that waters which are separated [from a gathering of water] are rendered impure if they touch their carcass. [The phrase, and [waters] which touch their carcass shall be unclean, must be referring to detached waters], for when the waters are still attached to the pool, they cannot [be said to] ‘touch’ their carcass, but rather [Scripture should have said], their carcass ‘fell’ into it.” Scripture speaks of water in the singular [saying, v’nogeia — “and that which toucheth”], just as it says elsewhere, the water of sprinkling was not sprinkled upon him.²⁶¹Numbers 19:13. There too, Scripture uses the singular: lo zorak (was not sprinkled) in referring to water, although the Hebrew word ‘mayim’ is in the plural form. Or it may be that Scripture is saying, “and whatsoever touches their carcass shall be impure,” and the intent is to include water and [the other] drinks mentioned.²⁶²In Verse 34 above. In general, this verse comes to teach that water is susceptible to impurity when it is detached [from a pool], but not when it is attached thereto, a principle that has not been mentioned heretofore.
Now in the Torath Kohanim we find that [the Rabbis gave this interpretation]:²⁶³Torath Kohanim, Shemini 9:6. “Rabbi Yosei the Galilean²⁶⁴The Sage generally known as “Rabbi Yosei” was Rabbi Yosei ben Chalafta, a disciple of Rabbi Akiba. To distinguish between him and another great teacher of the same name, the epithet “Galilean” was added to the name of the latter. It is this Rabbi Yosei whose opinion is here quoted. said: But that which toucheth their carcass shall be unclean. By touching they [i.e., the eight dead creeping things] convey impurity, but not by carrying them.” This too is feasible, that [the verse] is referring back to all the laws mentioned [in Verses 24-5] previously, and saying that creeping things convey impurity only by touch. Our Rabbis have further interpretations of the redundant expressions in this [whole] verse, all of them laws given to Moses on Sinai.
Now Scripture mentioned the purity of the immersion-pool and waters attached to the ground in speaking of [the impurity conveyed by] creeping things, but the same law applies to [that conveyed by] carrion [of animals forbidden as food, and of those permitted animals not slaughtered properly or which died by themselves]. It waited, however, to mention [the law concerning the purity of pools till now], until it had completed the enumeration of all objects that convey impurity. Or it may be that it is because creeping things frequently die in fountains or in cisterns. I have already mentioned my opinion²⁶⁵Above, Verse 32. [that this verse mentions the impurity of vessels conveyed by creeping things and their purification by immersion, and from it we learn the law of people and vessels in connection with the other forms of impurity mentioned above].

אך מעיין ובור, according to the plain meaning of the text, water connected to the earth, though in a container such as a pool, is not subject to ritual impurity as mentioned in verse 34, except water which is in a man made container, the container having already become subject to such purity before any water was poured into it.

Attached. You might ask: Above, Rashi derives that (v. 34): “Every beverage that is drunk, in any vessel, shall be impure” refers to the preparation [of foodstuffs] for impurity, and not impurity [of liquids themselves]. This is because Rashi holds like the view that there is no impurity of liquids by Torah law, and this is according to Rabbi Eliezer’s view (Pesachim 16a). Here, though, Rashi explains that specifically the water attached to the ground do not acquire impurity. Hear from this that there is impurity of liquids by Torah law, which follows the view of Rabbi Yuda (ibid.)! The answer is: This is why Rashi adds: “Moreover, you have still to learn...” which is according to Rabbi Eliezer. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not say, “And there are those that explain”? The answer is: Rabbi Yuda would also agree with this, for he holds that both can be derived, since they are equal, and therefore both may be learned (Re’m). It appears that there is proof for both these teachings, for the first explanation alone presents a difficulty: Why does it say: יהי' טהור? Why doe we need the word יהי'? Rather, it refers to someone who is now impure that he can be pure through immersion in these waters. And the second explanation alone poses a difficulty [as well:] What is the relevancy of this to here, which deals with the way in which a vessel acquires impurity? Perforce, here also it lets us know that water cannot become impure in any way (Divrei Dovid).

ונגע בנבלתם יטמא BUT THAT WHICH TOUCHES THEIR CARRION SHALL BE UNCLEAN — even if one is in the fountain or pit and comes in contact with their uncleanness (their carcasses) he shall be unclean. This is specifically stated in order that you should not argue à fortiori as follows: since it cleanses the unclean from their uncleanness, it follows à fortiori that it will save the clean from becoming unclean, — it stales therefore, “but whoever touches their carrion shall be unclean” (Sifra, Shemini, Section 9 5; Nedarim 75b).

Well-spring or pit. I.e., if he touches a carcass and he is inside a well-spring or pit, he becomes impure. This exegesis is based on the extra verse, which is expounded as follows: “However, a well-spring and a pit, a gathering of water” — an impure person that immerses in them — “shall be pure.” But — a pure person that stands in them and touches a creeping creature that falls into it — “shall be unclean.”

For you should not propose a ק"ו. Re’m writes: However, [the Rabbis] taught in Toras Kohanim: The earth uplifts impure items from their impurity, for if impure seeds were planted, which then took root in the earth, they become pure, and a mikveh also purifies the impure, thus, just as the earth saves the pure, i.e., the seeds that take root in the earth [are saved] from becoming impure, so too, water [accomplishes] the same. Therefore, it says: “That which touches their carcasses shall be unclean” — water does not save from becoming impure.

זרע זרוע means seed of any kind of seed-plant. The word זרוע is a noun (not a passive participle, when it would be punctuated ‎זָרוע), like (Daniel 1:12) "and let them give us of pulse — זֵרוֹעִים".

ZERA ZEIRUA’ (SEED OF SOWING). “Zera means ‘seed’ of any kind of seed-plant. Zeirua is the noun (‘sowing,’ ‘thing sown’), like the expression, and let them give us ‘zeiro’im’ (edible seeds) to eat.²⁶⁶Daniel 1:12. [And if aught of their carcass fall upon any seed of sowing which is to be sown] it is clean. This is to teach you that food is not fit and susceptible of becoming impure until water has once come upon it.” This is Rashi’s language.
Now Scripture mentioned above, of all the food which may be eaten, that on which water cometh [shall be unclean],²⁶⁷Verse 34. establishing the principle that foodstuff must first become susceptible to impurity [through coming into contact with water]. But there the Rabbis interpreted it to mean²⁶⁸Mentioned in Rashi ibid., on basis of Torath Kohanim. the foodstuff is not rendered impure through the medium of the interior of an [impure] earthen vessel, unless it was made susceptible of receiving impurity by being moistened by water. But here Scripture added that even from [contact with] the creeping things themselves, foodstuff does not become impure unless it was made susceptible [by water]. So it is explained in the Torath Kohanim.²⁶⁹Torath Kohanim, Shemini 11:8.
It is also possible to say that the expression of all the food which may be eaten.²⁶⁷Verse 34. refers to the things mentioned above — meat and various foods. But here He states that even seeds when taken out to be sown, can be rendered impure if they have become susceptible to impurity by being moistened by water. The reason for foodstuffs having to be made susceptible by water [before they can become impure], is that the uncleanness of [dead] creeping things and the other sources of impurity, attaches to foodstuffs in their state of moisteness, but not when they are dry. The Torah then, as an extra precautionary measure, declared impure those foods on which water had once come, although they have [subsequently] become dry, [if they were then touched by any of the sources of impurity], in order that the rule should not vary according to different standards. Now the law of making food susceptible of becoming impure applies also to the impurity [conveyed] by carrion, Scripture having mentioned it here for the reason we have stated above.²⁷⁰See Ramban at end of Verse 36 above.

אשר יזרע (בקרקע) טהור. Anything still connected to the earth is not subject to ritual defilement.

על כל זרע זרוע, “upon any edible seed that has been planted;” we learn from here that what has been planted as potential food will never be able to be ritually contaminated unless, after having been separated from the earth, it also has undergone a process of making it potentially fit to be ritually contaminated. In most cases, such as here, it means that it had become wet with the active or passive consent of the owner. Although we have already derived this rule from the verse (34) commencing with the words מכל האוכל, I would have had reason to think that such food is immune from contamination in the airspace of an earthenware vessel only. Alternately, previously the Torah only spoke about the kind of foodstuffs that are ready to be eaten in their present state, whereas in our verse here the Torah includes the seed, i.e potential food. As for the reason why these foodstuffs require a preparatory step approved by their owner before they are liable to become ritually contaminated, according to Nachmanides, the reason is that the dirt from these teeming creatures have a tendency to adhere to wet foodstuffs, (fruit) but not to dry ones. The Torah therefore decreed that wet foodstuffs are liable to be contaminated ritually. To the question why they should still be capable of becoming contaminated even if the owner had thoroughly dried these foodstuffs after they had become wet, the answer is that the sages never make their rules apply only partially, i.e. to some scenarios and not to others.

To be called “food.” Meaning: From that which it is written in the next verse: “If water was once placed on seeds and part of their carcasses fall upon them, they are unclean,” it implies that previously where it is written, “it remains [ritually] clean,” is dealing in a case where a part of their carcasses fell upon them before water came upon them. See Re’m where he cites the difficulties raised by Toras Kohanim and the Talmud: Why do we need a verse when it can be derived from that above (v. 34)? He brings the answers the Sages answered there. This raises a difficulty: This can be derived from (v. 38): “If water was once placed,” which implies that without water it cannot become impure! It appears to me that upon analysis of Scripture that first it says: “on any sowing seed that will be planted,” and then afterwards it says, “If water was once placed on seeds” where it mentions only “seeds.” Consequently, one could err and make a distinction between seeds that grow on their own without planting and those that are planted. I might think that when we say seeds are prepared to acquire impurity specifically through water being placed on them — that refers only to seeds that grew on their own without any action, but seeds that were planted and designated as food do not need require that they be prepared with water [in order to become impure]. Therefore, Scripture lets me know [that this is not true] (Divrei Dovid).

אשר יזרע, “which is to be sown;” which is to take root in the soil. This teaches that even seed which had been ritually impure will be transformed and be ritually clean once it has taken root. (Rash’bam.

טהור הוא HE SHALL BE CLEAN — Scripture by means of this and the following verse teaches you that it does not become fitted and proper to be termed food and therefore to be receptive of uncleanness, until water comes upon it.

זרע זרוע, the seed inside seed kernels. The word zerua is the singular mode of the word zeronim, זרעונים in Daniel 1,12, meaning “pulse.” [Alshich explains that it is a reference to raw pulse. At any rate this is the kernel containing the reproductive power of the plant in question. Ed.]

‎זרע‎‎ ‎על‎‎ מים‎ וכי יתן BUT IF ANY WATER BE PUT ON THE SEED, after it has been plucked, … it shall be unclean; for if you assert that there can be fitness to receive uncleanness whilst it is still attached to the soil, you will never have any seed which has not become thus fitted (Chullin 118b; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 8 2 and Rashi on v. 34).

Or other liquids. For we derive a gezeirah shavah from מים מים, from the word מים above (v. 34) regarding earthenware vessels, where other liquids are regarded the same as water.

ונפל מנבלתם, “and part of their carcass fell upon them;” not if it fell on bones free from flesh. Teeth and horns and hair are also not included in the definition “carcass.”

מים על זרע WATER ON SEED — whether it be water or any other liquids, whether these are on the seed or the seed falls into them — all this is derived in Torath Cohanim (from the wording) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 11 7-10).

Whether the seed falls into them. As it is written: “If water was once placed on seeds,” and it is written nearby: “ונפל וגו' (and falls...).” [Thus,] the word ונפל should also be read with what precedes it: And seed falls into water. [And the word זרע is interpreted both with the previous phrase and the next phrase: “Water upon seed,” and “seeds falls...”] (Re’m).

ונפל מנבלתם עליו AND ANY PART O. THEIR CARRION FALL THEREON, even after it has become dry from the water, because the Torah is particular only that the name “food” should be applicable to it. Consequently as soon as the fitness to receive uncleanness has once fallen upon it, it can never again be removed from it even if it becomes dry again (cf. Bava Metzia 22a).

בנבלתה [HE THAT TOUCHETH] THE CARRION THEREOF [SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — but not if he touches the bones and sinews, nor the horns and claws, and not the hide after these have been removed from the body (Sifra, Shemini, Section 10 5; Chullin 117b).

'וכי ימות מן הבהמה אשר היא לכם לאכלה וגו, however if it did not die until after it had been slaughtered ritually, even if subsequently found as having been unfit to eat due to a terminal disease, contact with it does not confer any ritual impurity at all on the person having been in contact with it.

וכי ימות מן הבהמה, “if any of the animals (which are pure) has died by natural causes, etc.” The Torah should have used the expression תמות, (feminine form of “it will die”) seeing that the noun בהמה is feminine. Had the Torah written the word תמות we would have concluded that such a carcass can confer ritual impurity only when it is whole, but that sections of it could not confer impurity. By using the masculine ימות we infer that any part of it חלק (masc.) is capable of conferring ritual impurity through contact with it. The expression מן הבהמה must be understood as “part of the beast,”‘ not as “any of certain categories called בהמה.” The expression matches the words וכי יפול מנבלתם “if part of their carcass falls, etc.,” in verse 37. Seeing that the word נבלה which is the subject in that verse is feminine, the Torah could also have been expected to write וכי תפול instead of וכי יפול. Seeing it did not, we can surmise that the same considerations which prompted the use of the masculine form in verse 39 also prompted the use of the masculine form in verse 37.
As to the words: “he who touches their carcass” (verse 36), or the words: “who eats of them” in verse 40, our sages explained that such parts of the carcass as the hooves, antlers, horns, skin and hair are exempt from the rule that they confer impurity provided these parts are no longer attached to the flesh when one touches them or eats them. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Ma-achalot Assurot 4,18). Proof of this is that we find that the Israelites took as part of their booty in war numerous vessels made of leather after the campaign against Midian (Numbers 31,20) and the Torah okayed their use by the Israelites after they had been duly immersed in a ritual bath. If these items had possessed the same degree of impurity as the carcasses they had been removed from, no amount of immersion in a ritual bath or other process of purification would have sufficed to permit their use by the Israelites. We also find that Solomon made for himself a throne of ivory (tusk of the elephant, same category as horns) as reported in Kings I 10,18.

Not bones. Meaning: This is when they are separated from where they are attached. But when they are attached to the flesh, one who touches them is like he is touching the flesh — either because they serve as a ‘handle’ or as a ‘protective agent.’

וכי ימות מן הבהמה, “if any beast (of the ones you may eat) dies;” if it dies by a cause other than ritual slaughter; once it has been slaughtered ritually, even if found diseased afterwards and therefore unfit to be eaten, it will not become ritually contaminated. (Sifra)

Our sages (Chulin 74) derive from the expression מן הבהמה that on occasion an animal confers ritual impurity whereas on another occasion the same animal does not. This refers to the fact that ritual slaughter of a species of animal fit to be eaten by Jews is protected against its carcass conferring ritual impurity as long as the immediate cause of death was ritual slaughter.

אשר היא, this word is spelled with the letter י in the Torah.

והנשא את נבלתה HE ALSO THAT BEARETH THE CARRION OF IT [SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — The uncleanness resulting from bearing the carrion is more stringent than the uncleanness resulting from contact with it; for he who bears it thereby renders his garments unclean, whilst as for him who touches it his garments do not thereby become unclean, since it does not state regarding him in the preceding verse: “he shall wash his garments” (cf. Rashi on v. 25).

AND HE THAT EATETH OF THE CARCASS OF IT SHALL WASH HIS CLOTHES, AND BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse speaks here of one who eats in the way that people usually eat, namely, that he touches and carries what he eats, and therefore becomes impure by contact and by carrying. It was necessary to mention this case so that it should not occur to anyone that because of eating, his degree of impurity should be greater [than that resulting merely from contact and carrying]. It mentioned this law in regard to an animal fit for food [as mentioned in the preceding Verse 39], because a person can [easily] err with regard to it, thinking that it was slaughtered properly [and he will therefore eat it], but such errors do not normally occur with regard to forbidden animals, and the way of the Torah is to speak of what usually happens. But according to its [Rabbinic] interpretation,²⁷¹Niddah 42 b. the verse comes to prescribe the [minimum] size required to become impure through carrying or touching, namely an amount that can be called “eating,” which is the size of an olive and Scripture also mentioned this law in regard to carrion of an animal fit for food, whilst the same law applies to an animal not permitted as food, because He finished here the law of impurities.²⁷²And therefore He mentioned it in regard to the carrion of an animal fit for food, and from it we apply the rule to the carrion of an animal unfit for food. This is in accordance with similar explanations mentioned above. According to the opinion of the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim,²⁷³Torath Kohanim, Shemini 4:2; 10:1-4. all impurities [conveyed] by carrion [of animals fit for food and those which are unfit animals] are included here, and the section above²⁷⁴Above, Verses 26-27. refers to limbs of animals. I have already mentioned this.²⁷⁵Ibid., in Verse 24.

והאכל מנבלתה, anyone eating of its carcass, etc. According to Torat Kohanim the only reason this verse was written is to inform us that the size of an animal which confers ritual impurity on someone carrying or touching its carcass is the same as that of someone eating of it, i.e. the size of an olive. The verse does not intend to convey the meaning that a reader who did not read any of the aforegoing would have derived from it, namely the prohibition of eating from such a carcass and that swallowing it confers impurity. The reason that we cannot understand the verse in that way is that we already have a clear verse in Leviticus 22,8: "he must not eat it on pain of becoming impure through it." The word בה in that verse is an exclusion and means that only the carcass of a pure bird which died of natural causes confers such impurity as soon as one swallows it but not the swallowing of parts of a mammal which dies of natural causes rather than ritual slaughter. Dead birds do not confer impurity through contact; therefore the Torah had to tell us that if the bird was a pure bird it does confer impurity as soon as it reaches one's esophagus and if a priest ate from that bird he is disqualified from performing his duties unless he purifies himself. Why did the Torah not spell out such a regulation but depended on our deriving it through exegesis? Perhaps the Torah intended to teach us numerous halachot from a single verse, something that would have been difficult if the verse had only stated that the carrion of a clean bird is capable of conferring impurity by one's swallowing it. We are taught in Chulin 71, for instance, that if the meat of a dead swarming thing has deteriorated to the extent that a dog would reject it as unfit to eat, it no longer confers impurity. This halachah is derived by Tossaphot in Bechorot 23. We have a verse in Kings II 9,10 where Izzevel, wife of king Achav, is described as being eaten by the dogs, not being buried. We note that consumption of meat by dogs is described by the term אוכל the same term used for humans consuming food. Seeing that it is the intention of our verse to establish a linkage between eating and impurity, it is only logical that other halachot of that nature may be derived from this verse.

מנבלתה , our sages in Niddah 42 understand the wording as telling us something about the minimum size of the carcass which can confer such ritual impurity. [based on the preposition מ in the word מנבלתה, meaning “part of its carcass.” If one carries a sufficient quantity of such a carcass which would qualify halachically as “food,” i.e. consumption of this quantity of forbidden food would make the party culpable for a penalty, then it confers ritual impurity on the person carrying it. The amount is the equivalent of the size of an olive. According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that if one eats of this carcass one become ritually impure even if one never touched any part of it. (compare what the Torah writes in Leviticus 22,8)

והאוכל מנבלתה יכבס בגדיו, “and he who eats from that cadaver must wash his clothes (immerse them in a ritual bath)”. Our sages explained this verse as an attempt by the Torah to apply the same yardstick regarding purification of someone who had consumed ritually contaminated food, as to someone whose clothing had become contaminated by it. In both instances contamination, i.e. eating the size of an olive results in the person becoming contaminated, just as contact through carrying of an amount of an olive’s size, results in the carrier becoming ritually unclean. According to the plain meaning of the text, the Torah describes a normal person’s eating habits. He both touches and lifts up the food that he is eating. You might have thought that a worse degree of contamination occurs when the party concerned has not only touched the contaminated food but has also eaten it. The Torah teaches that this is not so. This point is made by the Torah in conjunction with the discussion of “kosher” animals because it is easy to err and to assume that because the animal in question had been prepared for consumption by being ritually slaughtered, that it could not become ritually contaminated. To disabuse us of such thinking the Torah used as its model for this legislation specifically a “kosher” animal. The error the Torah tries to head off, is not likely to occur in conjunction with ritually unclean animals, and it is the habit of the Torah to address the most common scenarios.

The uncleanness of carrying is more severe. I explained this above (v. 25). [You might ask:] Why does Rashi explain this here when he already explained it above? The answer is: Since it is written here: “Whoever eats of its carcass” — To provide a [minimum] measure for one who carries or touches [it] — I might think that since Scripture equates them for the minimum measure of impurity, the same also applies for the washing of clothing. For this reason, Rashi needed to once again explain here. We should not ask: How does Rashi know this? Re’m already answered: Since Scripture would not have neglected to mention in some place regarding impurity [caused by] touch that one must wash his clothing.

והאכל מנבלתה, והנושא את נבלתה, “and anyone who eats from its carcass, or anyone who carries part of that carcass;” the same law applies even if one person carries the carcass while outside sacred grounds and his partner is within sacred grounds. You cannot argue that instead of repeating the words: את נבלתה a second time, the Torah need only have written the pronoun: “it;” different measurements are applied to what is called “eating,” and what is called “carrying;” therefore the noun “its carcass,” had to be repeated. (Compare Rashi)11,43. ונטמתם בם, “so that you have become ritually contaminated by them.” The word ונטמתם has the letter א after the letter מ missing. We find more such examples in the Torah, as in Genesis 20,6: מחטו לי, “from sinning against Me, or Numbers 10, 13, צב instead of צבא, as well as Deuteronomy 11,12, מרשית instead of מראשית. [Our author cites similar examples also from the Books of the prophets. Ed.]

והאכל מנבלתה AND HE THAT EATETH OF ITS CARRION [… SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — One might think from this statement that the act of eating therefrom makes him unclean! But this is not so because when it states of the carcass of a clean fowl (Leviticus 22:8) “that which dies of itself (נבלה) or that which is torn he shall not eat to defile himself therewith”, we may learn from it: בה “therewith” — only that (the carcass of a clean fowl) makes a person’s clothes unclean by the very act of eating therefrom, but the carcass of cattle does not make a person’s clothes unclean by the very act of eating therefrom if there is no carrying involved, e. g., if another person inserts it into his gullet (for one it not regarded as carrying something which is inside his body). But if this be so, why is it here stated “he that eateth”? In order to prescribe as a minimum for making unclean him who bears or touches such carrion a quantity as much as can be called “eating” viz., a piece as large as an olive (Sifra, Shemini, Section 10 7; Niddah 42b).

Perhaps. Rashi explains this out of order, after the phrase “Whoever carries its carcass,” so that he could connect the one who carries with the one who touches — to inform us about the difference between them, that is, that the impurity of carrying is more severe than the impurity of touch, as explained above, for otherwise, what is it coming to let us know?

עד הערב ‎‎וטמא AND HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTO THE EVEN — although he may have immersed himself in water he must await sunset before he becomes clean.

As much as for eating — and that is an olive’s-bulk. That is, a half of an egg. [You might ask:] Rashi explains above (v. 34): “food which is eaten in one [gulp], and the Sages estimated that the gullet cannot hold more than a hen’s egg [at once],” i.e., an entire egg! [The answer is:] That is referring to a forced situation and here it is referring to an unforced situation. This raises a strong difficulty: In the end, it is not possible that Scripture should write a falsehood! The one who eats it does not need to wash his clothing, only the one who carries it! It appears to me: Certainly, the verse goes according to its plain meaning, that is, whoever eats of its carcass, in that he stuck it into his gullet by himself, is not impure due to the eating but he is impure due to carrying the [minimal] amount of eating (Gur Aryeh).

The setting of the sun. I already explained this above regarding (v. 32): “shall be brought [put] into water, and remains unclean until the evening,” and here its explanation is the same. Re’m explains this in another way: Although he immerses [in a mikveh] he needs the setting of the sun, for if not, it should say: “After he washes with water he shall be pure.” “הערב שמש” means the setting of the sun, which is the coming out of the stars, for the expression וטהר (22:7) means the cleansing of the day. Otherwise, it should say ויטהר (Berachos 2b). Rashi explains this here and not in another place [where it says “he is unclean until the evening”] because this verse does not come to teach that he should be impure until the evening [and not seven days] as the others. Rather, it teaches the minimal amount for the one who carries or touches. Meaning, although it says in Parshas Emor (22:7): “ובא השמש וטהר (When the sun sets he is pure),” that is said in regard to the other types of impurity, but this one is for the carcass of an animal. The Torah writes it for both. Up to this point are the words of Re’m, but I wrote what appears [to be correct] in my eyes (Minchas Yehudah).

‎‎‎‏על הארץ ‎ושרץ THAT CREEPETH ON THE EARTH — the law is worded thus in order to exclude the insects in peas and in beans and the mites in lentils, for, you see, these do not move about on the ground but inside the food, but so soon as they have emerged into the air and have moved about they become prohibited to be eaten (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 1; Chullin 67b).

AND EVERY CREEPING THING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH IS A DETESTABLE THING; IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN. The meaning of this verse is as follows: He mentioned above the [eight] creeping things²⁷⁶Ibid., Verses 29-30. in connection with impurity [conveyed through contact when they are dead], and expressly mentioned those that are impure, but did not speak at all of the prohibition of eating. It is for this reason that He now says, And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten, meaning to say that as far as eating is concerned, there is no difference between them, for they are all forbidden. Then He spoke of them again in detail [in the following verses], and increased the negative commandments about them, [in order to increase the liability] to whipping, just as Rashi mentioned.²⁷⁷Verse 44: “Neither shall ye defile yourselves. This is repeated to indicate that a person transgresses many negative commandments if he eats the detestable things” (Rashi).

וכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ, “and every teeming creature whose habitat is the earth (land, as opposed to the water and oceans).” Seeing that there are only 8 of these species whose cadavers confer ritual contamination, one might have thought that all the other species are also fit to be eaten. The Torah therefore spells out that none of these species may be eaten.

וכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ שקץ הוא לא יאכל, “and all teeming creatures that teem on the ground, it is something abhorrent, it shall not be eaten.” This refers to the worms growing in fruit such as in dates and figs, as well as the ones in lentils and peas (Chulin 67). In verse 42 the Torah mentions לכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ, which sounds like a repetition. Actually, there the Torah had modified the word השורץ first by saying ההולך על הארץ. The animals mentioned in verse 42 are the result of the male and female of those species having mated in the accepted manner. Man endangers himself by eating these creatures. The ones described as “walking on its belly” are the snakes; the ones described as “walking on four,” are the hornets; the expression כל, i.e. “all,” is applied to four-legged dung beetles and the like. The word מרבה רגלים, “having many feet,” refers to centipedes of all kinds. The words על הארץ repeated once more, refer to such moths, worms, etc., which are generated in mould, garbage, compost, etc.

Short feet. You might ask: How does this relate to what Rashi explained beforehand? He should have brought this explanation on the verse! The answer is: This is so that you will not contend: Perhaps “לא יאכל (it may not be eaten)” comes to prohibit one from deriving any benefit from שרצים (creeping creatures), and the phrase (v. 42): “לא תאכלם (you may not eat them)” of שרצים comes to prohibit eating a creature which is low with short feet although it is not considered [in the category of] שרצים. For this reason Rashi explains: “[The word] שרץ denotes only a [creature which is low, with short feet].” If so, something low is the שרצים spoken of in the Torah. Therefore, “לא תאכלם” (v. 42) comes only with regard to שרצים. Consequently, perforce, “לא יאכל” (v. 41) does not come to teach a prohibition of deriving benefit, for later it is written, “לא תאכלם” (see Pesachim 21b). Similarly, that which Rashi explains above (v. 13): “Any fowl of which it is said: ‘to its kind’...” needs to be explained in this way (so I found).

לא יאכל IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN — This passive form; it shall not become the object of eating, is used to make the liability to punishment fall upon the one who gives these abominable things to others (to‎ minors) to eat just the same as upon him who himself eats them (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 1; cf. Rashi on v. 13). — Only that is called שרץ which is low and has short feet and which seems only to progress by a creeping movement.

‎גחון‎ הולך על THAT GOETH ON THE BELLY — This is the serpent (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2; Chullin 67b), and the expression גחון denotes bending low, so that the phrase means: that which walks bent down and fallen upon its belly.

Worms. These are the long worms that come out of the ground that have no legs, found in garbage, and especially in the summer days after the rain stops.

Regarding all creeping creatures that crawl on the ground. The Torahs prohibits eating types of tiny insects that were born in seeds or fruit after they went out from the fruit and crawled on the ground. The same applies when they originated inside the fruit while it was still [attached to the tree that is] connected to the ground, even if they never went out from the fruit and crawled on the ground, they are called a creature that crawls on the ground, since they were formed in a fruit while it is connected to the ground. However, those small insects that are born inside seeds or something after it has been picked, for example, in types of fruits, rice, or flour, are prohibited by rabbinic law because they were concerned that perhaps they crawled upon the ground or on the walls of the vessel.

כל הולך EVERYTHING THAT GOETH — The word “everything” is employed to include worms and whatever is similar to anything similar to it (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2).

And whatever is similar to anything similar to it. I.e., they have slight signs of legs but they crawl on their belly like a snake.

הולך על ארבע THAT GOETH UPON ALL FOUR — This is the scorpion (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2).

כל EVERYTHING [THAT GOETH UPON ALL FOUR] — The word “everything” is intended to include the beetle, — escarbot in O. F. — and whatever is similar to anything similar to it (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2).

מרבה רגלים [AND] WHAT HATH MANY FEET — This is the centipede (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2) — an insect which has feet from its head to its tail on both sides of its body, and it is called centpies in old French

אל תשקצו YE SHALL NOT MAKE [YOUR SOULS] ABOMINABLE, by eating these (Meilah 16b): this must be the meaning, because you see it is written “[ye shall not make] your souls [abominable]” and no soiling of the soul arises from touching these creatures. And similarly the words (v. 44) “neither shall ye defile [your souls]” mean: by eating them.

ולא תטמאו בהם כי אני ה' אלוקיכם והתקדשתם, do not contaminate yourselves in a manner that will make this contamination really serious, i.e. by eating these creatures or parts of them. Seeing that I am your G’d I desire you to sanctify yourselves so that you will be in a state capable of absorbing holiness on an ongoing basis.

בכל השרץ השורץ, “through any of the teeming creatures which teem.” Significantly, the words “on earth,” are absent in this verse. If the Torah had added these words (as previously) we would have thought that the warning not to allow these abhorrent things to contaminate us was limited to the creatures moving about on the earth. We are aware already that the creature known as עכבר, exists both on land and in the sea (compare Chulin 126). When seen on land we know it as “a mouse.” The same applies to some of the species which we are not familiar with. By omitting mention of “on land,” the Torah ensures that we know that all the creatures bearing the names mentioned here, be they land-based or water-based, fall under the same prohibition. He who eats them makes himself an abomination and defiles himself ritually.

אל תשקצו את נפשותיכם, "Do not make something detestable out of your persons, etc." Why did the Torah repeat this commandment? Torat Kohanim writes that this includes separate culpability for someone who after having contacted the dead part, let it go, and then touched it again. Granted that what is stated in Torat Kohanim is true and that one is indeed culpable for repeated contact with carrion, why did the Torah have to write this? Who would have imagined that the second time one contacted the carrion one would not be culpable? Perhaps the verse wants to inform us that if someone eats these swarming things his soul will become something detestable and the Torah warns us in clear terms not to cause our souls to become something detestable. The Torah hints at the same time how much or how little of such carrion will have such an effect on our souls. Look at what we have written on Genesis 1,26 on the words וירדו בדגת הים, "and they are to have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc." You will find there that our sages in Pessachim 49 referred to עמי הארץ, unlearned and therefore not truly observant Jews, as שקץ and that they compared the daughters of such people to שרץ also. All such statemnents of our sages are inspired by the Holy Spirit. These words are identical to what we have written here.

ונטמתם בם, “so that you have become ritually contaminated by them.” The word ונטמתם has the letter א after the letter מ missing. We find more such examples in the Torah, as in Genesis 20,6: מחטו לי, “from sinning against Me, or Numbers 10, 13, צב instead of צבא, as well as Deuteronomy 11,12, מרשית instead of מראשית. [Our author cites similar examples also from the Books of the prophets. Ed.]

ונטמתם בם THAT YE SHOULD BE DEFILED THEREBY — If you become defiled thereby on earth I will treat you as defiled in the world-to-come and in the heavenly academy (cf. Yoma 39a).

The Torah says here ולא תטמאו בהם, "do not make yourselves unclean with them." We need to be very circumspect concerning anything which may possibly infringe on this warning. Whenever we are in doubt about contacting something which may or may not fall under the category of things that would confer impurity on our souls we must avoid such things at all costs. There is no vegetable or other produce which is not infested with some of the things which are detestable; we must therefore be most careful in examining all such produce before consuming it.

כי אני ה׳ אלהיכם FOR I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Just as I am holy, I, Who am the Lord your God, similarly והתקדשתם MAKE YOURSELVES HOLY below on earth ( (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 3),

כי אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "for I am the Lord your G'd." The major difference between Israel and any other nation is that G'd has not described Himself as the "Lord G'd" of any other nation. This obligates us to keep our distance from anything which contaminates us.

As I am holy. Meaning, because every use of the word כי is to provide a reason for what precedes it. Therefore Rashi explains: “Just as I...”

והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני, so that your holiness will endure indefinitely. The reason why I desire this is because I am holy, and I would like you to become as close to My own essence as it is possible for a creature to become. All of this you will be able to achieve by adhering strictly to the legislation governing what you may eat and what you must eschew. Our sages paraphrased the result of observing this legislation in the following words: “when man sanctifies himself a little, the additional amount of sanctity supplied for him from the heavenly regions is many more times this.” (Yuma 39).

והייתם קדשים AND YE WILL BE HOLY, because I will then treat you as holy, above and in the world-to-come (Yoma 39a).

Sanctify yourselves. This is an extra phrase, for it would be sufficient to say: “You shall sanctify yourselves for I am Holy,” [and omit the phrase: “and you shall become holy”]. Rather, it is extra in order to expound in this manner.

והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים, "sanctify yourselves and be holy." The meaning of this statement is that if we do our share in trying to deserve the appellation "holy," G'd on His part will bestow such a title upon us by not allowing such contaminating elements to enter our bodies. We have already quoted the Talmud Chulin 4 in which G'd is described as insuring that even the beasts of the righteous do not eat matters unfit for the owner to eat. G'd would certainly protect the צדיק himself against erroneously consuming such matters.

ולא תטמאו NEITHER SHALL YE DEFILE [YOUR SOULS] etc. — This is repeated in order to bring it about that a person transgresses many negative commands when he eats such abominable things: and every single negative commandment involves for its transgression the punishment of lashes. This is the meaning of what they said in the Talmud (Makkot 16b): if one has eaten a Putisa (a shell fish or water reptile), he receives floggings (39 lashes) four times, (because four of the different prohibitions referring to שרצים apply to such a water reptile); if he has eaten an ant, he receives five such floggings; a hornet, six such floggings.

Many negative commandments. Otherwise, it is already written above (v. 43): “and do not make yourselves unclean...”

Another meaning of the word והתקדשתם is "sanctify yourselves by means of erecting protective legal fences," i.e. rabbinic ordinances designed to reduce the likelihood of contacting and absorbing impure material. G'd tells us that if you do this: "I in turn will help you become holy." The Torah then spells out in what respect you are going to be holy. כי קדוש אני, "for I am holy;" G'd made His presence amongst us dependent on our keeping ourselves apart from contaminating influences. This is why such people are entitled to the same appellation "holy" as is applied to G'd Himself. ולא תטמאו "and you will not become defiled, etc." This is a promise by G'd that if we make every effort not to become contaminated by the שרצים ושקצים swarming detestable things mentioned in this chapter, G'd's appreciation will become manifest in that we will not become the passive victims of other kinds of impurity. Pagans are included in the terminology שרצים ושקצים. G'd promises that if we make every effort not to become contaminated by the swarming or creeping things mentioned in this chapter, He will make sure that we will not be under the dominion of pagans.

כי אני ה׳ המעלה אתכם FOR I AM THE LORD THAT BRINGETH YOU UP [OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT] — On condition that you should accept My commandments did I bring you up (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 4). Another explanation of: FOR I AM THE LORD THAT BRINGETH YOU UP — In all other places it is written, “I brought (you) forth”, and here it is written “that bringeth (you) up” — in reference to this it was taught in the school of R. Ishmael: If I had brought up Israel from Egypt only to effect this one thing — that they do not defile themselves by reptiles as do the other peoples, that should be sufficient for them (Bava Metzia 61b), and it should be regarded by them as an elevation for themselves — this is what is implied in the expression used here: מעלה (I raised you above the people of the land of Egypt).

כי אני ה' המעלה אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלוקים. It is no more than appropriate that you do all this in order to attain this level of holiness in order to carry out My will; for indeed when I took you out of Egypt this was expressly in order for you to achieve this spiritual level and for Me to be your G’d, a G’d to Whom you could relate directly without any intermediary. You are meant to be holy forever by emulating My attributes and My way of thinking, in other words, you are to emulate that part of Me which I describe as קדוש, holy, beyond compare.

כי אני ה׳ המעלה אתכם מארץ מצרים, "For I am the Lord who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, etc." The Torah provides proof that G'd will protect the Jewish people from becoming enmeshed in the sin of contamination by impuriy. He took the Israelites out of such a contaminated environment in which their souls were completely submerged. We have mentioned this concept on previous occasions. If the Israelites will now take active steps to preserve their isolation from such contamination, G'd will certainly do His share to see that it does not occur again. If, on the other hand, the Israelites were to absorb any of these forbidden שקצים ורמשים as nutrients, they would revert to the environment dominated by the spiritually negative forces of the world, the קליפות. In such a case G'd could not be their companion as He does not associate His name with such forces. This was the reason He never associated His name with the Israelites until after the people had left Egypt.

כי אני ה' המעלה אתכם מארץ מצרים, “for I am the Lord Who has brought you up from the land of Egypt.” I did so in order that you accept the Torah from Me.

God. According to the Vilna Gaon the main meaning of this name of God [Elohim] is that His providence is in the affairs of this world.

להיות לכם לאלוקים, “in order for me to be your G-d.” Even if you had not wanted to become My servants. Compare (Sifra) on this verse. [I believe that the words: ”even against your will,” in Sifra refer to what follows, i.e. “having accepted My Torah you cannot help becoming holy, seeing that I am Holy.” Ed.],,

זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף, this is the underlying motivation of the regulations governing the prohibitions affecting forbidden foods mentioned earlier.

זאת תודת הבהמה והעוף, "This is the law of the beast and of the fowl, etc." The entire verse appears superfluous. Chulin 27 explains that the reason for the verse is to teach us that birds too require ritual slaughter; we learn this from the fact that the word עוף appears between the word בהמה and the word חיה הרומשת, the fish. Placing the bird where it did, the Torah indicated it was part חיה and part דג, fish. This is why when you slaughter a bird you need to sever only either the gullet or the windpipe not both, as in the case of mammals. We now understand why the Torah (Moses) in Numbers 11,22 does not use the expression ישחט when describing the fish of the sea. We never would have expected that fish would require ritual slaughter; why did the Torah have to exclude it by writing יאסף in that verse? Answer: seeing that the Torah in our verse listed mammals, birds, and fish in one sequence, I might have thought that the common denominator is that all of them require ritual slaughter. The word יאסף in conjunction with the words: "the fish of the sea" in Numbers 11,22 ensures that we do not arrive at the conclusion that fish need to be slaughtered in the regular way. Once we know that mammals need to have two vital pipes severed by slaughter and fish none, it is easy to arrive at the conclusion that birds need to have only one vital pipe severed by slaughter.

זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף וכל נפש החיה הרומשת במים .“This is the law of the beast, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moves on the earth. The Torah inserted the fowl between the beasts that live on the land and the creatures that inhabit the waters. It was impossible to allow the fowl to be killed regardless of certain rites to make it permissible to be eaten, but on the other hand, the Torah did not want to treat it as it had the mammals. The Rabbis therefore decided that when killing fowls ritually, only one of the vital windpipe and gullet need to be severed in order for the bird to qualify as food for Israelites. (Talmud, Chulin, folio 27.)

You may ask that if this is so why did the Torah bother to also mention נפש השורצת על הארץ "every creature that swarms on earth" i.e. the grasshoppers or locusts in our verse? Answer: The Torah was concerned that since these creatures were not mentioned as exempt from ritual slaughter by the word יאסף in connection with fish in Numbers 11,22 that I might conclude locusts have to be slaughtered. By mentioning them in our verse after the fish which do not require slaughter the Torah precludes us from making such an error.

ולכל נפש השרצות, “and for any creature that swarms upon the earth. The first letter ל in the word לכל is unnecessary, as it is in Exodus 27,3 in לכל כליו.

להבדיל TO MAKE A DISTINCTION — Not that one should only learn the laws, but it is a command that you should know and recognize the differences and be expert in them (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 6).

TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN. This means that we should distinguish between all things mentioned above, between the unclean and the clean, with regard to impurity[through contact]. AND BETWEEN THE ANIMAL THAT MAY BE EATEN. This is connected with the word “soul” mentioned [in the preceding verse], thus meaning: “and between the living animal that may be eaten.” Scripture is thus stating that we should distinguish as far as eating is concerned, between the living animal that may be eaten according to the Torah in the waters and upon the earth,²⁷⁸Verse 46. and the animal in them that may not be eaten. In the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis said:²⁷⁹Torath Kohanim, at end of Shemini. “And ‘hachayah’ (the beast) that may not be eaten. The Sages say, this establishes a prohibition against eating a [forbidden type of] beast.”²⁸⁰For even though chayah (beast) is included in the term beheimah (cattle), as explained above in Verse 24, yet Scripture mentioned here a specific prohibition with regard to a forbidden chayah. If so, there is a special negative commandment regarding it.
Now Rashi wrote: “To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean. Is it necessary to tell us to distinguish between the cow and the ass? Have they not clearly been defined already [by distinguishing signs]? But the meaning is: [to make a distinction between] that which is forbidden for you and that which is permitted for you,²⁸¹I.e., between that which has been rendered forbidden for you because you have not slaughtered it properly, and that which has been rendered permitted for you through proper ritual slaughtering (Mizrachi). between the case of an animal of which only half of the windpipe was cut, [in which case, even if he cut through the whole gullet, it may not be eaten], and the case of an animal of which the greater part of the windpipe [or the entire windpipe] was cut through, [in addition to the gullet, or the greater part of it being cut through, which is permitted to be eaten].” There [in Tractate Chullin]²⁸²Chullin 293a. it is taught: “And how much is there between half and the greater part of it? As much as a hair’s breadth,” [and it is this which requires ‘making a distinction’]. Do not be disturbed here because of that which they said there in the Gemara²⁸²Chullin 293a. that it must be “a greater part which is apparent to the eyes” [thus a mere hair’s breadth would not be sufficient], for the meaning of that was only in order to exclude the opinion of the Sage²⁸³The name of the Sage is Rav. who says that half and half is treated as if the majority [was cut through]; therefore they said that the part cut through must actually be a greater part, which is apparent to the eyes, not a half which we only treat in our minds [as the greater part], and we say that “the greater part” was cut through since the part not cut through is not larger than it [the part which was cut through]. But so long as more than half was [actually] cut through, it may be eaten, even if it be only by as much as a hair’s breadth, as is clearly explained in that Beraitha,²⁸²Chullin 293a. and as it emerges from the discussion of the Gemara.
Tazria

ובין החיה הנאכלת, “and between the animal that may be eaten;” Rashi (quoting Torat Kohanim) writes that actually we would have expected the Torah to write:בין צבי לערוד, i.e. between a gazelle (a permitted species of free roaming mammal, and the wild ass, (a “non kosher” free roaming mammal). Seeing that these two species could not possibly be mistaken for another, seeing they do not look alike at all, the meaning of the verse must be “to distinguish between permitted species which display symptoms that would make it “treifah” (injuries) and others displaying similar symptoms which however do not result in that animal being pronounced treifah.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that if these symptoms are below the knee joint, the symptom is ignored and the animal remains “kosher” and can be slaughtered and eaten. If, however, the symptom is above the knee joint, the animal can no longer be eaten even if slaughtered forthwith. People nowadays are very particular in their attitude to all these definitions of symptoms of a terminal disease. The very fact that the halachah recognizes a term such as טרפה כשרה, “treifah which is kosher, creates some confusion. An example of such a “kosher” symptom of ”treifah” symptoms would be an animal whose windpipe and gullet have been cut but not cut through, or instances when a small hole pierces the lung of the animal, such a hole not being necessarily fatal within 12 months. The question arises there that seeing the lung is directly dependent on the windpipe, damage to both would appear to be especially serious. The subject is discussed in Chulin 32, and basically, if the slaughtering proceeded to the point where it is deemed completed, [most of the windpipe and most of the gullet. Ed.] this animal will not be considered as treifah unless another major problem such as a pierced lung is present. Similarly, these sages discuss that if an animal has 5 legs instead of 4 and the fifth has an injury that, if it occurred on any of the other 4 legs would have made it treifah, whether this is a case of “treifah” that is treated as kosher. It would appear that such interpretation of the written text here is excessive.

You must know. Meaning: That which it cautions: “To distinguish...” is not only that he should learn and know their laws, but he also needs to put in an effort so that he is able to recognize which is impure and which is pure as well.

To distinguish. It is a positive commandment to investigate and check anything that is a doubt if it is unclean or clean according to the signs … And even according to the Rambam’s view that a doubt in a matter of Torah law is permitted according to Torah law, nevertheless, as long as it is possible to clarify it is a positive commandment by Torah law to check and clarify …

בין הטמא ובין הטהור, “between the ritually pure and the ritually contaminated. This refers to the earth based mammals, the creatures in the water, other than fish, and the fowl. After the Torah has spelled out the details concerning the above, it spells out details concerning free roaming beasts, followed by the laws concerning women giving birth, the phenomenon of the dreaded skin diseases tzoraat, which can afflict human skin, clothing, or houses. The common denominator of all these is that they are subject to becoming ritually contaminated.

‎הטהור‎‎ בין הטמא ‎ובין‎ BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN — Is it necessary to say. that one should understand to distinguish between the ass and the cow? Have they not already been closely defined as to their distinguishing characteristics? But the meaning is: that you should thoroughly understand to distinguish between what is unclean for you and what is clean for you (i. e. between what is forbidden and what is permitted to you) — between the case of an animal only half of whose wind-pipe has been cut through by the knife, and the case when the greater part has been cut through (in the former case the animal is forbidden, in the latter it is permitted as food) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 7).

A donkey and a cow. Meaning: Their signs were already explained as to which are impure and which are pure. If so, why does it say: “To distinguish”?

בין החיה הנאכלת, “between living creatures that may be eaten, etc.;” on this phrase Rashi comments regardless of whether these animals displayed such symptoms, such as when one of the abovementioned pipes had been duly cut whereas the other had been punctured prior to having been cut i.e. after it had already displayed the symptom of being treyfah. A punctured lung is also a definite symptom of such an animal being treyfah, as the life expectancy of such an animal had it not been slaughtered would have been less than 12 months. (Compare Chulin folio 32)

ובין החיה הנאכלת AND BETWEEN AN ANIMAL THAT MAY BE EATEN — Is it necessary to say that one should learn to distinguish between a stag and a wild ass? Have not these already been closely defined as to their distinguishing characteristics? But the meaning is: that you should thoroughly understand to distinguish between the case when there have arisen in it (in the animal) signs by which one might regard it as forbidden (טרפה) and yet it is permitted as food (כשרה), and the case when there have arisen in it signs by which one might regard it as forbidden and because of which it is actually unfitted to be eaten (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 8).

That which is clean to you. Meaning: What is unclean for you by your own doing or clean for you by your own doing.

ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל, “and between a living creature that may not be eaten.” (Sifra on this verse explains why this line is not superfluous.)

And when the greater part of has been cut through. I.e., if you slaughter the animal’s entire gullet but only half of the wind-pipe, you have made it unclean for eating although it is a clean species. However, when [the entire gullet and] the greater part of the wind-pipe is cut, you have made it clean for eating. Although it was forbidden to be eaten until now due to the prohibition of a limb from a living animal (Nachalas Yaakov).

Characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden [but] it is kosher. For instance, the windpipe had a hole, or the skull was opened but the brain’s membrane was not pierced, and the like, which are kosher.

Characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden. And these are all the eighteen treifos enumerated by the Sages. See all this in the Chazkuni commentary. Chazkuni writes: “Between [those] in which there have arisen characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden [but] it is kosher” — for instance, he cut the wind-pipe and then the lung developed a hole before he cut the gullet, which is a characteristic of treifah but it is kosher, because the lung’s vitality depends on the wind-pipe [and the lung is as if it is “placed in a basket” after the wind-pipe is severed, thus, it has no influence on the kashrus of the animal]. “And [those] in which there have arisen characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden and it is [indeed] not kosher” — for instance, the lung developed a hole before the cutting of the wind-pipe. This is found in Maseches Chulin (32b). However, I say this is not the way, since Rashi did not say these words on his own, but rather, it is a Baraisa in Toras Kohanim, and the majority agree that the halachah is not like Reish Lakish [who says if he cut the wind-pipe and then the lung developed a hole before cutting the gullet it is kosher] (Tzeidah L’Derech).

That is that He commanded us that when any person touches a carcass, he becomes impure. And this commandment includes the impurity of a carcass and all of its laws. And I will now present a preface that is appropriate that we remember anytime we mention the various types of impurity. And it is that that which we count each type as a positive commandment - its content is not that we are obligated to become impure with a certain impurity, and also not that we are prohibited from becoming impure from it and that it be a negative commandment. Rather the Torah said that anyone who touches this type [of object] becomes impure; or that this thing renders one who touches it impure according to this description. And that is the positive commandment - meaning that this law with which we have been commanded is a positive commandment. And that is His saying, whoever touches this according to this description has become impure; and whoever according to that description does not become impure. But the matter itself is optional - if he wants, he becomes impure; if not, he doesn't become impure. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4:10) is, "'And their carcass do not touch' (Leviticus 11:8) - I might think that if one touched a carcass, he receives lashes. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and to these you shall become impure' (Leviticus 11:24). I might [then] think that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become impure from it. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and their carcass do not touch.' How is this? You shall say, it is an option." And this commandment that has been told to us about this law - that one who touches this become impure; and that he will be impure, such that he will be obligated about everything that impure people are obligated, [such as] to exit from the camp of the Divine Presence, not to eat consecrated food, not to touch it and other things besides this - this is the command. That means to say, one becoming impure from this type when he touches it or was proximate to [it] in such a manner. And remember this matter with every one of the types of impurity. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement 1.)

That is that He commanded us to [administer the laws of impurity] of eight creeping creatures. This commandment includes the impurity of the creeping creature and its regulations. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement 1.)

That is that He commanded us to administer [the laws of] impurity of foods and drinks. And this commandment includes the impurity of foods and drinks in its entirety. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods 16.)