Leviticus 11

‎‎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.)

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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).

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).

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).

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 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.

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).

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).

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

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).

'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).

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.

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).

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).

על ארבע means UPON FOUR legs.

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].

'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).

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

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

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).

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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,

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

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).

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

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).

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).

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.

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

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)”].

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 וגו׳ 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.

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).

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".

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 ‎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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

‎‎‎‏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).

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.

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).

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.

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).

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),

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

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.

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).

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).

‎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).

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).