## Or HaChaim on Leviticus Chapter 11

###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:1:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:1:1)

**אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן.** אָמַר **וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן**, אוּלַי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶם יַחַד שְׁלִיחוּת מִצְוָה זוֹ אֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכֵן גָּמַר אוֹמֶר **דַּבְּרוּ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל**, וְכֵן אָמַר בְּפָרָשַׁת בֹּא (שמות יב:א) ״אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן וְגוֹ׳ דַּבְּרוּ״ וְגוֹ׳, כִּי לְעִנְיַן הַקְדָּמָה שֶׁיַּקְדִּים מֹשֶׁה לוֹמַר לְאַהֲרֹן קֹדֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּבָר לָמַדְנוּ זֶה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:1:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:1:2)

**לֵאמֹר אֲלֵיהֶם.** רַזַ״ל אָמְרוּ (תורת כהנים) ״אֲלֵיהֶם״ – פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁיֹּאמַר לְאֶלְעָזָר וּלְאִיתָמָר, וְהַכַּוָּנָה בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְהַקְדִּימָם בַּלִּמּוּד קוֹדֶם, כִּדְתַנְיָא (עירובין נד.) בְּסֵדֶר הַלִּמּוּד. וְאוּלַי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהַצְרִיכָם לְהוֹרוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל דֶּרֶךְ (מלאכי ב:ז) ״כִּי שִׂפְתֵי כֹהֵן״ וְגוֹ׳, וַאֲשֶׁר עַל כֵּן סָמַךְ לָזֶה ״דַּבְּרוּ״ וְגוֹ׳. עוֹד יִתְבָּאֵר אָמְרוֹ **לֵאמֹר אֲלֵיהֶם** לְפִי מַה שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁתִּי בִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֲחֵרִים (שמות כ:א) כִּי טַעַם אָמְרוֹ ״לֵאמֹר״ כִּי הַדִּבּוּר הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּי אֵל עֶלְיוֹן הָיָה נוֹצָר מִמֶּנּוּ מַלְאָךְ וְהוּא הָיָה מְדַבֵּר עִם מֹשֶׁה, וּפֵרוּשׁ ״לֵאמֹר״ הוּא הַדִּבּוּר יֹאמַר לְמֹשֶׁה, וּכְמוֹ כֵן אָמַר כָּאן ״לֵאמֹר אֲלֵיהֶם״ – פֵּרוּשׁ הַדִּבּוּר יֹאמַר לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן. וְאֵין פֵּרוּשׁ זֶה מַכְחִישׁ דִּבְרֵי רַזַ״ל שֶׁאָמְרוּ (תורת כהנים א) לֹא הָיָה הַדִּבּוּר אֶלָּא לְמֹשֶׁה וְלֹא לְאַהֲרֹן, כִּי גַּם לְדַרְכֵּנוּ לֹא הָיָה שׁוֹמֵעַ דִּבְרֵי ה׳ אֶלָּא מֹשֶׁה, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַמַּלְאָךְ הַמִּתְהַוֶּה מֵהַדִּבּוּר הָיָה מְדַבֵּר לְשׁוֹן רַבִּים, וּמֹשֶׁה הָיָה מַגִּיעַ הַדְּבָרִים לְאַהֲרֹן.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:2:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:2:1)

**אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר.** אָמַר תֵּיבַת **לֵאמֹר**, יִרְצֶה כִּי מִצְוָה זוֹ הִיא בְּחִינַת הַמַּעֲלָה וְהַכָּבוֹד לָהֶם, לְהִשָּׁמֵר מִדְּבָרִים הַטְּמֵאִים, וּכְאָמְרָם בַּזּוֹהַר (ויקרא רבה יג:ב) אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹחַאי בַּפָּסוּק (חבקוק ג:ו) ״עָמַד וַיְמֹדֶד אֶרֶץ״, מָדַד ה׳ אֶת כָּל הָאוּמּוֹת וְלֹא מָצָא אוּמָּה שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה וְכוּ׳, וּפֵרוּשׁ תֵּיבַת ״לֵאמֹר״ כָּאן הוּא עַל דֶּרֶךְ (ישעיה ג:י) ״אִמְרוּ צַדִּיק״ וְגוֹ׳. עוֹד יִרְצֶה עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ ״לֵאמֹר זֹאת״ וְגוֹ׳, פֵּרוּשׁ, שֶׁיִּקְחוּ בְּיָדָם כָּל מִין חַיָּה וְיֹאמְרוּ לָהֶם זֹאת תֹּאכְלוּ וְזֹאת לֹא תֹאכְלוּ, וְלֹא יַסְפִּיק לוֹמַר לָהֶם בְּעַל פֶּה.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:2:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:2:2)

**זֹאת הַחַיָּה וְגוֹ׳.** טַעַם שֶׁמְּכַנֶּה שֵׁם חַיָּה בְּהֵמָה, כְּבָר כָּתַבְתִּי בְּכַמָּה מְקוֹמוֹת כִּי בְּחִינַת הָרַע לֹא יִתְיַחֵס אֵלָיו בְּחִינַת הַחַיִּים, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ **זֹאת הַחַיָּה** פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ בְּחִינָה הַנִּקְרֵאת חַיָּה, לִשְׁלֹל שְׁאָר בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם קְדֻשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא בְּחִינַת הַחַיִּים:

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:3:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:3:1)

**כֹּל מַפְרֶסֶת וְגוֹ׳ מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה.** יִתְבָּאֵר עַל דֶּרֶךְ אָמְרָם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (חולין נט.) כָּל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁמַּפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה הִיא מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה, חוּץ מִן הַחֲזִיר, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ **כֹּל מַפְרֶסֶת** וְגוֹ׳ **מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה**, פֵּרוּשׁ בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה, וּמִעֵט אַחַר כָּךְ הַחֲזִיר שֶׁיָּצָא מֵהַכְּלָל. וְאוּלַי מִמַּה שֶׁלֹּא הוֹצִיא מִן הַכְּלָל סָמוּךְ לְהוֹדָעַת הַכְּלָל רָמַז שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הַחֲזִיר בַּכְּלָל, עַל דֶּרֶךְ אָמְרָם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (רבינו בחיי בשם תנחומא) לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ חֲזִיר שֶׁעָתִיד לַחְזֹר לִהְיוֹת מֻתָּר, וּמֵעַתָּה כְּלָל ״כֹּל מַפְרֶסֶת״ וְגוֹ׳ הִיא ״מַעֲלַת״ וְגוֹ׳ לֹא יָצָא מִכְּלָלוֹ דָּבָר, וְעַל זְמַן מֵהַזְּמַנִּים אָמַר הַחֲזִיר שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִיס וְכוּ׳ לֹא יִגָּר.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:4:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:4:1)

**מִמַּעֲלֵי וְגוֹ׳ וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי וְגוֹ׳.** רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה אָמְרוּ (תורת כהנים; בכורות ו.) שֶׁבָּא לֶאֱסוֹר אֲפִלּוּ מַעֲלֶה וּמַפְרִיס אִם נִמְצְאוּ בִּמְעֵי טְמֵאָה. וּפְשַׁט הַכָּתוּב הוּא עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ: ״מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה״ – זֶה הַגָּמָל, ״וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי״ וְגוֹ׳ – זֶה הַחֲזִיר, אוֹ זֶה אוֹ זֶה קָאָמַר, וְלָזֶה דִּיֵּק לוֹמַר ״וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי״ וְגוֹמֵר, וְלֹא אָמַר ״וּמַפְרִיסֵי״, וְהָבֵן:

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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."


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:6:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:6:1)

**וְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת.** טַעַם זִכְרוֹן הַמִּין בִּלְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה, לְצַד שֶׁבְּחִינַת הַטֻּמְאָה לִפְעָמִים תִּהְיֶה הַנְּקֵבָה לְמַעְלָה מִזָּכָר וְיִהְיֶה הַזָּכָר טָפֵל לָהּ, וְתִזָּכֵר הַנְּקֵבָה מֵהַטַּעַם עַצְמוֹ שֶׁיִּזָּכֵר הַזָּכָר תָּמִיד וְלֹא הַנְּקֵבָה, שֶׁהוּא הַטַּעַם כִּי הִיא הָעִקָּר. וְתִמְצָא שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּזֹּהַר (פנחס רלא:) בְּסוֹד יוֹתֶרֶת הַכָּבֵד כִּי הַנּוּקְבָּא נוֹתֶנֶת יוֹתֶרֶת לַזָּכָר, וּכְבָר כָּתַבְנוּ שֶׁכָּל מִין הַנֶּאֱסָר הִיא בְּחִינַת הַקְּלִפָּה הַמֻּשְׁלָל מֵהַחַיִּים וְהַטּוֹב.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:7:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:7:1)

**וְהוּא גֵּרָה לֹא יִגָּר.** פֵּרוּשׁ, תְּנַאי הוּא הַדָּבָר לִזְמַן שֶׁהוּא לֹא יִגָּר, אֲבָל לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא יַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה וְיַחְזוֹר לִהְיוֹת מֻתָּר, וְלֹא שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בְּלֹא גֵּרָה וְיֻתַּר, כִּי תּוֹרָה לֹא תְשֻׁנֶּה.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:10:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:10:1)

**שֶׁקֶץ הֵם לָכֶם.** פֵּרוּשׁ, וּלְצַד זֶה שֶׁקֶץ יִהְיוּ לָכֶם. וְטַעַם אָמְרוֹ **וְשֶׁקֶץ** בְּתוֹסֶפֶת וָא״ו, יִתְבָּאֵר עַל דֶּרֶךְ אָמְרָם בְּחוּלִין (ה.) אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא תַּקָּלָה וְכוּ׳, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן עַל יְדֵי צַדִּיקִים עַצְמָן, וְכָתְבוּ הַתּוֹסָפוֹת (שָׁם) כִּי דַּוְקָא בְּעִנְיַן אִסּוּר אֲכִילָה גְּנַאי הוּא לַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁיָּבֹא לְתוֹךְ גּוּפָן דְּבַר אִסּוּר, פֵּרוּשׁ וַאֲפִילוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג, וְזֶה הוּא שֶׁרָמַז כָּאן בְּאָמְרוֹ **וְשֶׁקֶץ יִהְיוּ לָכֶם**, פֵּרוּשׁ לְרַבּוֹת אֲפִילוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְכַּוְּנוּ לְאָכְלָם, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן יְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ. עוֹד יִרְמוֹז כִּי הֵם יְשַׁקְּצוּהוּ וִיסַבְּבוּהוּ לְהָרִים תּוֹלָעִים בְּמוֹתוֹ, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ **שֶׁקֶץ יִהְיוּ לָכֶם**, פֵּרוּשׁ לְעַצְמְכֶם יַעֲשׂוּ אֶתְכֶם שֶׁקֶץ.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:14:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:14:1)

**וְאֶת הָאַיָּה לְמִינָהּ.** (הָאַיָּה) הָאֲמוּרָה כָּאן כּוֹלֵל הַרְבֵּה מִינִין שֶׁכֻּלָּם מִין אַיָּה, וְתִמְצָא שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (חולין סג:) כִּי ק״ך מִינֵי עוֹפוֹת הָיוּ יְדוּעִים לָהֶם שֶׁכֻּלָּם מִין אַיָּה, וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עוֹד כָּהֵנָּה, וְכֵן בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁל עוֹרֵב יִמָּצְאוּ כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה הֲגַם שֶׁאֵינָם דּוֹמִין וּשְׁמָם מְשֻׁנֶּה כְּסִינוּנִית לְבָנָה (תורת כהנים; חולין סב.) שֶׁהִיא מִין עוֹרֵב.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:21:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:21:1)

**אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְרָעַיִם.** כְּבָר הֶאֱרַכְתִּי בְּחִבּוּרִי עַל טוּר יוֹרֶה דֵעָה (סימן פה) שֶׁהָעִקָּר כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ״י בָּזֶה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לוֹ כְּרָעַיִם הָאֲרוּכִים סְמוּכִים לְצַוָּארוֹ. וְהַטּוֹעִים לְהַתִּירָהּ כִּי אֵין מִין זֶה בַּנִּמְצָא, אַף אֲנִי הֲשִׁיבוֹתִי אוֹתוֹ גַּם אֵין מְצוּיִים אֶלָּא מִין אֶחָד מֵהָאַרְבָּעָה שֶׁהֵם שְׁמֹנָה אֲשֶׁר רָשַׁם ה׳ בַּטָּהֳרָה (חולין סה.), גַּם אֵינָם מְצוּיִים לְפָנֵינוּ מִינִים הַטְּמֵאִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם הַכְּרָעַיִם בְּדֶרֶךְ זֶה, וְהֵם הָרַבִּים, לְמַה שֶׁקָּדַם לָנוּ (חולין סג.) כִּי לֹא יִמְנֶה הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא הַמּוּעָטִים, וְכָאן מָנָה הַטְּהוֹרִים אִם כֵּן הַטְּמֵאִים הֵם הַמְּרֻבִּין, וּמֵעַתָּה אֵין רְאָיָה מִמַּה שֶׁאֵין מָצוּי מִין זֶה לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינֶנּוּ בָּעוֹלָם שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ מִינִים הַרְבֵּה וַדַּאי וְאֵינָם מְצוּיִים כָּל עִקָּר אֶצְלֵנוּ. לָכֵן כָּל יָרֵא וְחָרֵד יִירָא וְיִפְחַד לְבַל יוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לְשֶׁקֶץ זֶה, וְיִמְחֶה בְּשׁוֹלְחֵי יָד. וְהִנֵּה מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּשְׁמְעוּ דְבָרַי בַּמַּעֲרָב וּפֵרְשׁוּ מֵהֶם הָרַבִּים לֹא נָגַע ה׳ עוֹד בְּמַכָּה זוֹ וְלֹא נִרְאוּ זֶה יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, כִּי תּוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים כִּתְרִיס בִּפְנֵי הַפֻּרְעָנוּת.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:23:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:23:1)

**אֲשֶׁר לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלָיִם.** בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים דָּרְשׁוּ שֶׁבָּא לְהַתִּיר מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חָמֵשׁ. וְנִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא הַדִּין מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֵׁשׁ וְשֶׁבַע וְלָאו דַּוְקָא חָמֵשׁ, וְצָרִיךְ לָדַעַת לְאֵיזֶה עִנְיָן הִתִּיר בַּת חָמֵשׁ מִן הַדִּיּוּק, וְלֹא אָמַר בְּפֵרוּשׁ ״כֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם״ אוֹ עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ ״מֵאַרְבַּע רַגְלַיִם וָמַעְלָה תֹּאכֵלוּ״. וְאוּלַי שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ לְהַשְׁמִיעַ גַּם כֵּן דִּין הֶתֵּר צִיר חֲגָבִים טְמֵאִים, שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ זַ״ל (תורת כהנים) מֵאָמְרוֹ בְּפָסוּק זֶה ״שֶׁקֶץ הוּא״ פְּרָט לְעֵרוּבָיו שֶׁהוּא צִיר כְּמַאֲמָרָם שָׁם, וְלָזֶה בָּחַר לְהַשְׁמִיעֵנוּ הֶתֵּר בַּת חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם בְּאֹפֶן זֶה.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:24:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:24:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:24:1)

**וּלְאֵלֶּה תִּטַּמָּאוּ.** בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים פֵּרְשׁוּ אָמְרוֹ **וּלְאֵלֶּה** עַל הָעֲתִידִים לֵיאָמֵר בָּעִנְיָן לְמַטָּה. וְקָשֶׁה לִי, לָמָּה אָמַר ״וּלְאֵלֶּה״ בְּתוֹסֶפֶת וָא״ו, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שַׁיָּכוּת דִּין זֶה עִם מַה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה עִמּוֹ.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:24:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:24:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:24:2)

וְאוּלַי נִתְכַּוֵּן לִיתֵּן הָעֶלְיוֹן כַּתַּחְתּוֹן, פֵּרוּשׁ, שֶׁכָּל מִין בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה – בֵּין טְמֵאִים שֶׁאֵינָם לֹא מַעֲלֵה גֵּרָה וְלֹא מַפְרִיסֵי פַּרְסָה שֶׁלֹּא נִרְשְׁמוּ כָּאן בַּכָּתוּב, וּבֵין טְהוֹרִים שֶׁמַּעֲלִים גֵּרָה וּמַפְרִיסִים פַּרְסָה וְשׁוֹסַעַת שֶׁסַע שֶׁלֹּא נִרְשְׁמוּ גַּם כֵּן בַּכָּתוּב וּרְמָזָם בְּאָמְרוֹ ״לְכָל הַבְּהֵמָה״, וּכְלָל זֶה חוֹזֵר לְמַה שֶׁרָשַׁם בְּפָרָשַׁת סִימָנֵי בְּהֵמָה, וְלָזֶה אָמַר ״וּלְאֵלֶּה״ בְּוָא״ו. כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִטְעֶה לִיתֵּן כָּל הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה, לָזֶה פֵּרֵט שֶׁאֵין דְּבָרָיו אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:24:3
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:24:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:24:3)

אוֹ יִרְצֶה לְהַסְמִיךְ דִּין טֻמְאָה לְדִין אֲכִילָה הָאָמוּר בַּפָּרָשָׁה שֶׁלְּפָנֶיהָ וְגוֹ׳, מַה אֲכִילָה בְּכַזַּיִת גַּם טֻמְאָה בְּכַזַּיִת.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:24:4
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:24:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:24:4)

וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים הֶעֱמִידוּ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁלֹּא בָּא אֶלָּא לְטֻמְאַת אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, וְדָרְשׁוּ טֻמְאָה בְּכַזַּיִת מִפָּסוּק אַחֵר, דִּכְתִיב (ויקרא יא:מ) ״וְהָאֹכֵל מִנִּבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב״, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם: לֹא בָּא אֶלָּא לִיתֵּן שִׁיעוּר לַנּוֹגֵעַ וְלַנּוֹשֵׂא בְּכַזַּיִת כְּמוֹ הָאוֹכֵל. וְאֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר עוֹד שֶׁרָמַז בִּסְמִיכוּת זֶה לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם יָלְדָה כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה הַסָּמוּךְ לָהּ, דִּינוֹ שָׁוֶה.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
*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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:24:5
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:24:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:24:5)

וְרָאִיתִי לְרַבִּי אַבְרָהָם אִבְּן עֶזְרָא זַ״ל שֶׁכָּתַב שֶׁלְּדַעְתּוֹ נִרְאֶה שֶׁמִּלַּת ״אֵלֶּה״ חוֹזֶרֶת עַל כָּל הַנִּזְכָּרִים לְמַעְלָה, וְדָחָה דַּעַת הָאוֹמֵר ״אֵלֶּה לְכָל הַבְּהֵמָה״ וְכוּ׳. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁיּוֹתֵר הָיָה לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לוֹמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁמָע וְלֹא יַחְלוֹק עַל מְקַבְּלֵי תּוֹרָה, כִּי מִי יִשְׁמַע לִדְבָרָיו כָּאן וַאֲפִלּוּ לְלָמְדָם וְהֵם הֵפֶךְ קַבָּלַת תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה, וּמַה גַּם בִּפְשַׁט הַכָּתוּב שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בֵּי רַב זוּטַר כֵּן יָבִין בִּתְחִלַּת הַהַשְׂכֵּל, וּמִמִּי נֶעְדַּר אֶת אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינָיו וְיוֹתֵר מֵהֵמָּה, וּמַה כֹּחוֹ לַחְלוֹק עִמָּהֶן גַּם בְּלֹא הֶכְרֵחַ, וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם יִהְיֶה הַמְּנַגְּדוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, וּמִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן גְּדוֹלִים מִמֶּנּוּ, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר אֲשֶׁר קָטָנָּם עָבָה מִמָּתְנָיו, וְצֵא וּלְמַד מַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ הָאָמוֹרָאִים עַל גְּדוֹלִים שֶׁקְּדָמוּם (שבת קיב:) ״אִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים״ וְכוּ׳. וּלְלַמֵּד עַל הָרַב זַ״ל זְכוּת אוּלַי שֶׁפֵּרוּשׁ זֶה לֹא כְּתָבוֹ אֶלָּא לְסִבָּה יְדוּעָה לוֹ, וְנָהַג מִנְהַג שִׁבְעִים זְקֵנִים (מגילה ט.) שֶׁשִּׁנּוּ בְּכַמָּה מְקוֹמוֹת, וְגַם לָזֶה ה׳ יְכַפֵּר בַּעֲדוֹ.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.]


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:29:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:29:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:29:1)

**וְזֶה לָכֶם הַטָּמֵא.** טַעַם אָמְרוֹ ״וְזֶה״, לְפִי מַה שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה שֶׁלְּפָנֶיהָ, שֶׁבָּא לְטֻמְאַת אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, אָמַר ״וְזֶה״ לְהַשְׁווֹת לְמַה שֶׁלְּפָנָיו, שֶׁגַּם הוּא מְדַבֵּר בְּדִין טֻמְאַת אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, שֶׁהָאֵבֶר הוּא שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא וְלֹא הַבָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ, בֵּין בִּשְׁרָצִים בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:29:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:29:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:29:2)

עוֹד נִרְאֶה כִּי וָא״ו הָאֲמוּרָה כָּאן בַּתְּחִלָּה, לֹא לְהַסְמִיךְ בָּאָה, אֶלָּא לִרְמֹז תּוֹסֶפֶת טֻמְאָה בַּשֶּׁרֶץ, שֶׁהוּא טֻמְאַת דָּמוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מְטַמֵּא כִּבְשָׂרוֹ, מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, כְּמַאֲמַר רַזַ״ל בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (כָּאן), וּכְאִלּוּ אָמַר ״וְעוֹד תּוֹסֶפֶת טֻמְאָה בָּזֶה״.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
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).


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:29:3
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:29:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:29:3)

וְאָמְרוֹ **לָכֶם** דָּרְשׁוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (תורת כהנים כאן) שֶׁבָּא לְמַעֵט שֶׁלֹּא יַכְשִׁיר הַזְּרָעִים, דְּדַוְקָא לְטֻמְאָה וְלֹא לְהַכְשִׁירָהּ, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ לָכֶם הוּא טָמֵא וְלֹא מַכְשִׁיר. עוֹד יִרְצֶה **לָכֶם** הוּא שֶׁהֵם טְמֵאִים אֲבָל לֹא לַגּוֹיִם, שֶׁאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְקַבְּלִים טֻמְאָה כַּבְּהֵמוֹת.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:29:4
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:29:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:29:4)

וְיֵשׁ לַחְקוֹר זֹאת, אֵיךְ לֹא מָנָה הַכָּתוּב הַנָּחָשׁ שֶׁהוּא אַב הַטֻּמְאָה לְכָל טֻמְאַת הַשְּׁרָצִים וְדוֹמֵיהֶם? וְאוּלַי שֶׁטֻּמְאַת הַנָּחָשׁ הוּא בְּנַפְשׁוֹ וְלֹא בְּגוּפוֹ, וּבְמוֹתוֹ יִשָּׁאֵר הַגּוּף רֵיקָם מִכֹּל כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ, כִּי אֵין טֻמְאָה דְּבֵקָה בְּגוּפוֹ לְצַד שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ וְלֹא כְּלוּם. וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה תִּמְצָא שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (בבא מציעא קיד:) גּוֹיִם אֵין מְטַמְּאִים בְּאֹהֶל, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְטַמְּאִים בְּאֹהֶל, וְהוּא מֵהַטַּעַם עַצְמוֹ. וְטֻמְאַת הַשְּׁרָצִים בְּגוּפָם יוֹתֵר מִבְּנַפְשָׁם, וְלָזֶה יְטַמְּאוּ בְּמוֹתָם וְלֹא בְּחַיֵּיהֶם. הָא לָמַדְתָּ כִּי הַנָּחָשׁ טֻמְאָתוֹ יוֹתֵר מִטֻּמְאַת הַשְּׁרָצִים.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:29:5
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:29:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:29:5)

**לְמִינֵהוּ.** פְּשַׁט ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ יַגִּיד כִּי יֵשׁ הַרְבֵּה מִינֵי צָב, וְכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִינִים הַרְבֵּה אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ מִין אֶחָד לְבַד יֹאמַר הַכָּתוּב ״לְמִינֵהוּ״. אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּהָעוֹר וְהָרוֹטֶב (חולין קכב:) תַּנְיָא וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם: ״הַטְּמֵאִים״ – לְרַבּוֹת עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן, יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ כֻּלָּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֵלֶּה״, וְהָא ״אֵלֶּה״ אַכּוּלְהוּ כְּתִיב? אָמַר רַב: ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ הִפְסִיק, עַד כָּאן. וְקָשֶׁה, מִנַּיִן לְרַב לוֹמַר כִּי ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ בָּאָה לְהַפְסָקָה וְלֹא לְגוּפָהּ לוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִינִים? וְנִרְאֶה כִּי רַב אֵינוֹ מַכְחִישׁ מַשְׁמָעוּת הַכָּתוּב, וְכַוָּנָתוֹ הִיא כִּי לְצַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְפָנֵינוּ רִבּוּי שֶׁל ״הַטְּמֵאִים״ לְרַבּוֹת עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן, וְאָמַר הַכָּתוּב סָמוּךְ לְרִבּוּי זֶה מִעוּט דִּכְתִיב ״אֵלֶּה״, וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה תֵּבַת ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ בְּאֵיזֶה דֶּרֶךְ נַחֲלֹק אוֹתָן שֶׁבָּא עֲלֵיהֶם הָרִבּוּי וְאוֹתָן שֶׁמִּעֵט. וּמֵאָמְרוֹ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״, הֲגַם שֶׁבָּאָה לְגוּפָהּ, תּוֹעִיל גַּם כֵּן לְהַפְרִיד בֵּין הַמִּתְרַבִּים בְּטֻמְאַת עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהַכָּתוּב גִּלָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ חֲלוּקָּה בֵּינֵיהֶם לְעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה, הֲרֵי זֶה מַרְאֶה כִּי ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ בָּא גַּם כֵּן לְסַמֵּן הַחֲלוּקָּה. וּבָזֶה נִתְיַשְּׁבָה קֻשְׁיַת הַתּוֹסָפוֹת שָׁם בְּדִבּוּר הַמַּתְחִיל ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ וְכוּ׳: תֵּימָה כֵּיוָן דְּהִפְסִיק בָּעִנְיָן, ״אֵלֶּה״ לָמָּה לִי? עַד כָּאן. וּלְדַרְכֵּנוּ לֹא קָשֶׁה. גַּם לְדִבְרֵי תַּנָּא דְּמַתְנִיתִין שָׁם דִּמְטַמֵּא עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר גִּישְׁתָּא, אֵין לְהַקְשׁוֹת עָלָיו ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ לָמָּה לִי, שֶׁעַל כָּל פָּנִים אִצְטְרִיךְ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ לְגוּפָהּ כַּנִּזְכָּר.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:31:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:31:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:31:1)

**הַטְּמֵאִים.** לַתַּנָּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵשׁ טוּמְאַת עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן מֵ״הַטְּמֵאִים״ לְמָה אִיצְטְרִיךְ, אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (תורת כהנים, שמיני, פרשה ז) שֶׁבָּא לְרַבּוֹת בֵּיצַת הַשֶּׁרֶץ שֶׁרָקְמָה. גַּם דָּרְשׁוּ (תורת כהנים שם; מעילה יז.) שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ לְטוּמְאָה דָּם בְּדָם דָּם בְּבָשָׂר בֵּין בְּמִין אֶחָד בֵּין בִּשְׁנֵי מִינִים.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:31:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:31:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:31:2)

וְצָרִיךְ לָדַעַת תֵּיבַת **אֵלֶּה** מַה בָּא לְמַעֵט לְדַרְכּוֹ. וְנִרְאֶה לְפָרְשָׁהּ עַל דֶּרֶךְ מַה שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ״ם בְּפֶרֶק ד׳ מֵהִלְכוֹת אֲבוֹת הַטֻּמְאוֹת, דַּם הַשֶּׁרֶץ כִּבְשָׂרוֹ וּמִצְטָרֵף לְכַעֲדָשָׁה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא מְחֻבָּר לִבְשָׂרוֹ, לָזֶה אָמַר ״אֵלֶּה״ לְמַעֵט אִם פֵּרַשׁ הַדָּם מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ לֹא יִצְטָרֵף עִם הַבָּשָׂר.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:40:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:40:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:40:1)

**וְהָאֹכֵל מִנִּבְלָתָהּ וְגוֹ׳.** בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים אָמְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לִיתֵּן שִׁעוּר לְנוֹגֵעַ וּלְנוֹשֵׂא שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת כַּזַּיִת. וְאֵין כַּוָּנַת הַכָּתוּב כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁתְּטַמְּאֶנּוּ בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי מָצִינוּ שֶׁאָמַר בְּנִבְלַת עוֹף הַטָּהוֹר (ויקרא כב:ח) ״לֹא יֹאכַל לְטָמְאָה בָהּ״, בָּהּ אַתָּה מִטַּמֵּא בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה וְאִי אַתָּה מִטַּמֵּא בְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. וְצָרִיךְ לָדַעַת לָמָּה לֹא אָמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה הַדָּבָר בְּפֵרוּשׁ. וְאוּלַי כִּי נִתְכַּוֵּן הַכָּתוּב לְהַרְבֵּה דִּינִים שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָם בְּדִין אֲכִילָה מִלְּבַד שִׁעוּר כַּזַּיִת. גַּם אָמְרוּ (חולין עא.), בְּשַׂר הַשֶּׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּפְסַד וְהִבְאִישׁ וְנִפְסַל מִלֶּאֱכוֹל הַכֶּלֶב טָהוֹר, עַד כָּאן, וְדָבָר זֶה נִלְמַד מִדִּין אֲכִילָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסָפוֹת (בכורות כג.) מִמַּה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (מלכים ב׳ ט:י) ״בְּחֵלֶק יִזְרְעֶאל יֹאכְלוּ הַכְּלָבִים״, אַלְמָא אֲכִילַת כְּלָבִים שְׁמָהּ אֲכִילָה וְכוּ׳. וְאִם כֵּן לְצַד שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן הַכָּתוּב לְהַשְׁווֹת הַטֻּמְאָה לְדִין אֲכִילָה, בֵּין לַשִּׁעוּר בֵּין לִשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים, לָזֶה אִם הָיָה בָּא לְלַמֵּד כָּל פְּרָטֵי הַדִּינִים צָרִיךְ לְהוֹסִיף דְּבָרִים רַבִּים, וְכֶסֶף נִבְחָר לְשׁוֹן צַדִּיק.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:43:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:43:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:43:1)

**אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ וְגוֹ׳.** צָרִיךְ לָדַעַת לָמָּה חָזַר עוֹד לְצַוּוֹת לָזֶה? וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (בתורת כהנים) אָמְרוּ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ לָאָרֶץ וְחָזְרוּ. וּדְרָשָׁה זוֹ אֱמֶת אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ, וְכִי בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁחָזְרוּ יִהְיוּ מֻתָּרִים? וְיֵשׁ לְיַשֵּׁב דִּבְרֵיהֶם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה. וְאוּלַי שֶׁבָּא הַכָּתוּב לְהוֹדִיעַ כִּי הָאוֹכֵל מֵהַשְּׁרָצִים תֵּעָשֶׂה נַפְשׁוֹ עַצְמָהּ שֶׁרֶץ, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ **אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם**, פֵּרוּשׁ, לֹא תַּעֲשׂוּ נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם שֶׁקֶץ, וּבַמֶּה? **בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשּׁוֹרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ** כְּשֶׁתֹּאכְלוּ אוֹתָהּ. וְלֵךְ נָא רְאֵה מַה שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ בְּפָרָשַׁת בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֶמֶז פָּסוּק (בראשית א:כו) ״וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם״ וְגוֹ׳. וְתִמְצָא מַאֲמָרָם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (פסחים מט:) שֶׁאָמְרוּ עַל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ, הֵם שֶׁרֶץ וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁקֶץ וְגוֹ׳, וְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בְּרוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ נֶאֶמְרוּ וְהֵם דְּבָרֵינוּ עַצְמָם.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:43:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:43:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:43:2)

וְאָמְרוֹ **וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם**, אוּלַי שֶׁיְּכַוֵּן לוֹמַר שֶׁצְּרִיכִין יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהִזָּהֵר לְבַל יִכָּנְסוּ לְפִיהֶם אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֶסֵּחַ הַדַּעַת, כִּי הַהֶפְרֵשׁ שֶׁבֵּין הַשּׁוֹגֵג לַמֵּזִיד בִּמְצִיאוּת זֶה כְּשׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד, כִּי הַתִּעוּב יַעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂהוּ בְּנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֶסֵּחַ הַדַּעַת, אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּנֶּה הַפְּגָם בְּמַעֲשֶׂה מֵזִיד תַּעֲשֶׂה נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁקֶץ וּבְשׁוֹגֵג תִּטְמָא נַפְשׁוֹ וְתִטַּמְטֵם, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ **וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם.** וְצָרִיךְ הָאָדָם לִיזָּהֵר בְּתוֹסֶפֶת זְהִירוּת וּזְרִיזוּת בְּכָל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִכָּנֵס בְּגֶדֶר סָפֵק שִׁקּוּץ זֶה, וּמַה גַּם בִּזְמַנִּים אֵלּוּ שֶׁנִּזְהָם הָאֲוִיר וְהָאֲרָצוֹת כֻּלָּן יַחַד וְאֵין לְךָ גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם מֵהַשִּׁקּוּץ, שׁוֹמֵר נַפְשׁוֹ יִשְׁמֹר אֶת הַדָּבָר.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:44:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:44:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:44:1)

**כִּי אֲנִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.** פֵּרוּשׁ, וּמְשׁוּנָּה אוּמָּה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית לִקְדוּשָּׁה וְטַהֲרָה, שֶׁלֹּא בָּחַר ה׳ לִקָּרֵא אֱלוֹהַּ אֶלָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לָזֶה צָרִיךְ לְהַרְחִיק מִן הַטּוּמְאָה.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:44:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:44:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:44:2)

**וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם וְגוֹ׳.** פֵּירוּשׁ, אִם אַתֶּם מִתְקַדְּשִׁים אֲנִי אֲקַדֵּשׁ אֶתְכֶם לְבַל יִכָּנֵס לְגוּפְכֶם דְּבַר שִׁקּוּץ, עַל דֶּרֶךְ אָמְרָם (חולין ה.) אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא וְכוּ׳, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן צַדִּיקִים עַצְמָן, וְהֶעֱמִידוּ הַתּוֹסָפוֹת מַאֲמָר זֶה בִּדְבַר אִסּוּר הַנִּכְנָס לְגוּפוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, כִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יִשְׁמְרֵהוּ בָּזֶה.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:44:3
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:44:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:44:3)

**עוֹד** יִרְצֶה **וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם** – תַּעֲשׂוּ גְּדָרִים וּסְיָגִים לְבַל תִּטַּמְּאוּ, וּבָזֶה אֲנִי מַבְטִיחֲכֶם שֶׁתִּהְיוּ קְדוֹשִׁים. וְחָזַר וּפֵרֵשׁ בְּאֵיזֶה דָּבָר יִהְיוּ קְדוֹשִׁים, וְאָמַר **כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אָנִי** – הִנֵּה מַה שֶׁתּוֹלֶה טַעַם קְרִיאָתָם קְדוֹשִׁים שֶׁהוּא לְצִדּוֹ, הָא לָמַדְתָּ כִּי הִשְׁרָה שְׁכִינָתוֹ עַל הַפְּרוּשִׁים וְלָזֶה יִקָּרְאוּ עַל שְׁמוֹ. וְאָמְרוֹ **וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ** וְגוֹ׳ – פֵּרוּשׁ מִלְּבַד דְּבָרִים שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ לִשְׁמֹר עַצְמְךָ מֵהֶם, עוֹד אֲנִי מַבְטִיחֲךָ שֶׁלֹּא יְאֻנֶּה לְךָ כָּל מִין הָרַע, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ ״בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרוֹמֵשׂ״ וְגוֹ׳. עוֹד יִרְמֹז שֶׁבְּאֶמְצָעוּת שְׁמִירַת מִצְוָה זוֹ לֹא יִשְׁלְטוּ עַכּוּ״ם בְּעַם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַכּוּ״ם יִקָּרְאוּ שְׁרָצִים וּשְׁקָצִים הָרוֹמְשִׂים עַל הָאָרֶץ.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:45:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:45:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:45:1)

**כִּי אֲנִי ה׳ הַמַּעֲלֶה וְגוֹ׳.** נוֹתֵן הוֹכָחָה לְעֵינֵיהֶם כִּי ה׳ יִשְׁמֹר אוֹתָם מֵהִכָּשֵׁל בֶּעָווֹן הַהוּא, כִּי הוּא הֶעֱלָה וּבֵרַר נַפְשׁוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ נְתוּנִים בִּקְלִפַּת מִצְרַיִם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, וְאִם יִזּוֹנוּ מֵהַתִּיעוּב הִנֵּה הִנָּם חוֹזְרִים לְשַׁקֵּעַ נַפְשָׁם בַּקְּלִפָּה כְּבָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַאֲשֶׁר עַל כֵּן כְּשֶׁיִּתְקַדְּשׁוּ הוּא יִגְמֹר בַּעֲדָם לְשָׁמְרָם. עוֹד יִרְצֶה לוֹמַר כִּי אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כִּבְיָכוֹל יָכוֹל לְיַחֵד שְׁמוֹ וּלְהַשְׁרוֹת שְׁכִינָתוֹ אֶלָּא עַל הַמּוּשְׁלָל מִמִּין הָרַע הַהוּא, וְלָזֶה לֹא יִחֵד שְׁמוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וְאִם לֹא יִשְׁמְרוּ עַצְמָם מֵהַתִּיעוּב הִנֵּה הִנָּם חוֹזְרִים לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ קֹדֶם עֲלוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וְיִהְיוּ מוּשְׁלָלִים מִבְּחִינָה זוֹ.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:46:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:46:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:46:1)

**זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף.** כָּל הַכָּתוּב מְיֻתָּר. וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים אָמְרוּ (חולין כז:) כִּי בָא לוֹמַר מִשְׁפַּט שְׁחִיטַת הָעוֹף בְּמַה שֶׁסִּדֵּר הָעוֹף בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה וּבֵין הַדָּגִים שֶׁהֵם נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה, לוֹמַר חֶצְיוֹ בְּהֵמָה וְחֶצְיוֹ דָּג, לָזֶה צָרִיךְ סִימָן אֶחָד בָּעוֹף אוֹ רֻבּוֹ. וּלְפִי זֶה מָצָאנוּ טַעַם נָכוֹן שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ הַכָּתוּב לְמַעֵט הַדָּגִים מִן הַשְּׁחִיטָה, דִּכְתִיב (במדבר יא:כב) ״יֵאָסֵף״, כִּי מִנַּיִן יַעֲלֶה עַל הַדַּעַת שֶׁצְּרִיכָה, שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ לְמַעֵט, אֶלָּא לְצַד שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ לִכְתֹּב דְּגֵי הַיָּם לָתֵת בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין הַבְּהֵמָה הָעוֹף, חָשׁ לְטָעוּת כִּי כַּוָּנַת הַכָּתוּב הוּא שֶׁהִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב הָעוֹפוֹת וְהַדָּגִים לַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁכֻּלָּן צְרִיכִין שְׁחִיטָה שְׁנֵי סִימָנִים, לָזֶה אָמַר בַּדָּגִים אֲסִיפָה. וּבָזֶה תָּבִין כַּוָּנַת ה׳ בַּפָּסוּק שֶׁלֹּא בָּא אֶלָּא לָעוֹף לְהַצְרִיכוֹ סִימָן אֶחָד כַּנִּזְכָּר.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:46:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:46:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:46:2)

וְאִם תֹּאמַר, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ לְהַזְכִּיר כָּאן ״נֶפֶשׁ הַשּׁוֹרֶצֶת״, שֶׁהֵם הַחֲגָבִים? וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁחָשׁ הַכָּתוּב לְטָעוּת מִפָּסוּק שֶׁמִּעֵט שְׁחִיטָה בְּדָגִים, דִּכְתִיב ״יֵאָסֵף״ וְגוֹ׳ (במדבר יא:כב), כִּי לֹא מִעֵט אֶלָּא דָּגִים וְלֹא חֲגָבִים, לָזֶה סִדְּרָם אַחַר הַדָּגִים לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָם צְרִיכִין שְׁחִיטָה כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַדָּגִים:

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:46:3
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 11:46:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/11:46:3)

**חסלת פרשת שמיני**