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.,

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)

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.

, 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)

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

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)

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.

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 not attempt to bring the author’s translations in verses 14 through 20, but 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.

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.

, 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, “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.

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.

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.”

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

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)

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.]

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

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.

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 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 without a tight covering had been in contact with something ritually unclean all day it would need to be broken up completely to dispose of this impurity. There is no way that it could have been reinstated as fit for use.

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.

אשר יבא עליו מים יטמא, “(any food) 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.”

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.

תנור, and an oven for baking bread;

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.]

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

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.

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

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)

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

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).

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.]

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.

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 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.)

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.

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.

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