AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND TO AARON. For Aaron is the kohen who teaches and who differentiates between the unclean and the clean.¹

footnotes: ¹ Aaron teaches Israel how to differentiate between the unclean and unclean. Hence God’s word was also directed to Aaron.

PARTETH. Mafreset (parteth) is an adjective.² (whatsoever parteth the hoof) as whatsoever has parted hoofs. Similarly makrin mafris³ and mafris are adjectives. (horned and hoofed) (Ps. 69:32).⁴ It means all animals which are described as having a hoof.

footnotes: ² Even though it has the form of a verb. I.E. renders kol mafreset parsah ³ Makrin ⁴ Translated according to I.E.

AND IS WHOLLY CLOVEN-FOOTED. Shosa’at (wholly cloven) is an adjective. The meaning of ve-shosa’at shesa perasot (and is wholly cloven-footed) is, whose hoofs are cloven.

AND CHEWETH THE CUD. Gerah (cud) is related to the word garon (throat).⁵. The word ma’alat⁶ (cheweth) is a verb in the present.⁷ and shosa’at. Scripture mentions the camel (v. 4), the rockbadger (v. 5), the hare (v. 6), and the swine (v. 7) because each one has one sign.⁸ It is the style of Scripture to mention the male of each species because the masculine also takes in the feminine.⁹ Scripture mentions the arnevet (hare).¹⁰ is feminine and so does not seem to follow the rule stated by I.E. Some say that it does so because the male is not found among them.¹¹ There are others who say that the male turns into a female and vice versa. However, the first interpretation appeals to me.

footnotes: ⁵ The root of which is gimel, resh, resh ⁶ Literally, brings up. ⁷ Unlike mafreset ⁸ They either chew the cud or have split hoofs. These animals are enumerated in order to emphasize the fact that the law requires a clean animal to have both signs. ⁹ The masculine form of a noun at times refers to males and females; that is, the term “man” sometimes refers to males and females. Most of the names of the animals mentioned in verses 4-7 are in the masculine. I.E. points out that the same law applies to females of the species. Otherwise only the male animals listed would be forbidden to be eaten. ¹⁰ Arnevet ¹¹ Some interpret this to mean that the male of the species is rarely seen. However, this opinion seems to be saying that this species has no male.

AND THEIR CARCASSES YE SHALL NOT TOUCH. Scripture does not mention that one who touches their carcasses shall be unclean until evening.¹² However, we know this from tradition. Now, the one who deliberately touches their carcass incurs the penalty of flogging, for he violated a negative commandment.¹³ (p. 47) I.E. interprets this verse in accordance with the opinion of the rabbis. He writes: “The one who touches them does not incur the penalty of karet or stripes.”

footnotes: ¹² As it does with regard to winged swarming things (v. 24), animals that walk on their paws (v. 27), and other creatures. See verses 31, 32, 39, and 40. ¹³ This is I.E.’s opinion based on a literal reading of the text. However, in the Yesod Mora

[9. IN THE SEAS.] If we pursue the literal meaning of the verse without the tradition of the rabbis, then the fish that are found in the lakes (agammim) are prohibited, for Scripture specifies the seas and the rivers.

FINS AND SCALES. Snappir ve-kaskeset (fins and scales) is to be rendered as the Aramaic translator does.¹⁴ as tzitzin ve-kalfin.

footnotes: ¹⁴ Onkelos renders snappir ve-kaskeset

OF ALL THAT SWARM IN THE WATERS. They are the small creatures that were created from the water.¹⁵ The waters contain living creatures that are both male and female.¹⁶. After stating they are a detestable thing unto you Scripture goes on to say, and they shall be a detestable thing unto you (v. 11) in order to explain in what way they shall be detestable namely, ye shall not eat of their flesh (Ibid.). Note, fish are called flesh.¹⁷. However, what the sages of blessed memory said with regard to vows¹⁸ 104a, “One who takes a vow not to eat flesh is permitted to eat fish and locusts.” refers to the custom of their generations.¹⁹ Scripture adds, Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales to include all waters, for Scripture earlier mentioned only the seas and the rivers.

footnotes: ¹⁵ See Gen. 1:20. ¹⁶ I.E.’s interpretation of and of all living creatures that are in the waters ¹⁷ For our verse states, ye shall not eat of their flesh ¹⁸ The rabbis say that fish are not considered flesh. See Hullin ¹⁹ Post-Biblical generations. In Rabbinic and contemporary times fish are not considered flesh.

THE GREAT VULTURE The meaning of nesher (the great vulture) is known. This is also the bird which has the same name in the language of the Ishmaelites.²⁰ in Arabic. Hence we have additional proof of the identity of this bird. There is something of a proof that this is the case, because the two languages are related.

footnotes: ²⁰ It is called niser

AND THE OSPRAY. Even though there is an individual opinion that it (the osprey) is not found in inhabited places, the Gaon erred in rendering it al enka, for this term in the language of the Ishmaelites refers to something that never existed. It refers to something that was not created and never was. It is only employed metaphorically. The Arab grammarians admit this. This being the case, it is not possible that the Torah would prohibit something that never existed.²¹

footnotes: ²¹ Hence the first quoted opinion is superior to that of the Gaon.

AND THE KITE. The term da’ah (kite) is a general term which takes in two kinds, namely, the da’ah (kite) and the dayyah (falcon).²². 38 reads: “The term da’ah (kite) is a general term which takes in two kinds, namely, the ra’ah (kite) and the dayyah (falcon).” The latter are mentioned in Deut. 14:13 but omitted in our verse. Thus there is no contradiction between the list of the 20 prohibited birds in our chapter and the 21 in Deut. 14. Also, see I.E. on Deut. 14:11 (Vol. 5, pp. 93,94). Compare, tzippor (birds), the word used for a turtle-dove and a young pigeon in but the birds divided he not (Gen. 15:10). Now the transmitters of tradition who said that the ra’ah²³ (glede) is to be identified with the da’ah (kite)²⁴ 63:2. are correct.²⁵ (kite) is a general term and takes in the ra’ah The argument of Rabbi Jonah,²⁶, root resh, alef, heh. who asked how is it possible to say be on guard because of the aryeh (lion) and the layyish (lion),²⁷ and the layyish, for both words have one meaning. Rabbi Jonah argues that the ra’ah is not to be identified with the da’ah, for the Torah would not say do not eat the ra’ah and the da’ah if both referred to the same kind (Krinsky). is turned aside.²⁸ is a general term, and layyish is a specific term. Others say that nesher (the great vulture) is connected to the word ashurennu (I see him) (Num. 23:9);²⁹ thus means the bird who sees great distances. peres (bearded vulture) is related to the word pros (deal)³⁰ in Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry (Is. 58:7);³¹ thus means the bird that breaks. ozniyyah (osprey) is related to the word oz (mighty)³² thus means the mighty bird. and its nun is superfluous.³³ in oz. It is the bird which is called akba;³⁴ da’ah (kite) is related to the word yideh (swoopeth) in as the vulture swoopeth down (Deut. 28:49);³⁵ means the swooping bird. ayyah (falcon) is so called because it is accustomed to dwell in certain well-known islands (iyyim);³⁶ means the island-dwelling bird.

footnotes: ²² Which is not in our verse but is mentioned in Deut. 14:13. Vat. Ebr ²³ Mentioned in Deut. 14:13. ²⁴ Mentioned in our verse. See Chullin ²⁵ For the term da’ah ²⁶ In the Sefer Ha-Shoroshim ²⁷ According to Rabbi Jonah an intelligent person would not say watch out for the aryeh ²⁸ For aryeh ²⁹ Nesher ³⁰ Literally, break. ³¹ Peres ³² Ozniyyah ³³ For there is no nun ³⁴ In Arabic. ³⁵ Da’ah ³⁶ Ayyah

orev (raven) is related to the word erev (evening). It is so called because of its darkness.

AND THE OSTRICH. Some say that the bat ha-ya’anah (ostrich)³⁷ is feminine. is a kind among whom males are not found.³⁸ It is like the hare. There is no argument from the word ka-ye’enim (like the ostriches)³⁹ is a masculine plural form. The singular of this form is ya’an. We thus see that males are found among the ostriches. (Lam. 4:3), for the reference is to females as in the case of ye’elim (wild goats) (Ps. 104:18)⁴⁰ is a masculine plural form. However, it is the plural of ye’elah, which is feminine. and rechelim⁴¹, which is feminine. We thus see that there are instances in which a feminine singular has a plural masculine form. (ewes) (Gen. 32:15).

footnotes: ³⁷ Bat ha-ya’anah ³⁸ Hence Scripture mentions only the feminine. ³⁹ Ye’enim ⁴⁰ Ye’elim ⁴¹ Which is a masculine plural form but is actually the plural of rechelah

AND THE NIGHT-HAWK. Tachmas (night-hawk) is related to the word chamas (violence) (Gen. 5:11).

THE SEA-MEW. The shachaf (sea-mew) gives birth to consumption (shachefet) (Lev. 26:16).

AND THE HAWK. The netz (hawk) has many feathers.⁴². It most likely refers to the well-known bird which always spreads its wings to the south,⁴³ (netz) soar by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south? for it seeks a warm place.

footnotes: ⁴² The Hebrew word for feather is notzah ⁴³ See Job 39:26, Doth the hawk

AND THE LITTLE OWL. The word kos (little owl) is similar to the word kos (owl) in as an owl of the waste places (Ps. 102:7). Some say that the bird is hidden (nikhseh) from the eyes of people. It therefore rests in uninhabited places.

AND THE CORMORANT. Some say that the shalakh (cormorant) is so called because its nature is to cast (le-haslikh) its offspring down.

AND THE GREAT OWL. The yanshuf (great owl) is a bird that flies at night (neshef), for it cannot see during the day because of the brightness of the sun light.

AND THE HORNED OWL. Whoever looks at the tinshemet (the horned owl) is astonished (yishom). The term tinshemet is also found among the swarming things (v. 30).⁴⁴ refers to both a bird and a reptile. This is an anomaly which I.E. points out.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ In other words, the word tinshemet

AND THE PELICAN. Some say that the ka’at (pelican) is a bird whose nature is to regurgitate (le-haki) its food.

AND THE CARRION-VULTURE. The Gaon⁴⁵ says that the racham (carrion-vulture) is the animal which is similarly called in Arabic,⁴⁶. with the chet interchanging with a khaf, for they are written with the same letter.⁴⁷ and khaf are similarly writtten. Others say that racham refers to a bird that has pity (merachem) upon its offspring.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Rabbi Saadiah Gaon. ⁴⁶ The rakham ⁴⁷ The Arabic chet

AND THE STORK. Some say the chasidah (stork) is the bird which appears at certain well-known times in the year. Others say that it scatters loving kindness (chesed).⁴⁸? It is so called because it acts kindly towards its fellow creatures with regard to food.” See also Chullin 63a. This is far-fetched.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ See Rashi: “Why is it called “chasidah

AND THE HERON. The anafah (heron) grows angry (yitannef) quickly.⁴⁹ 63a.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ See Chullin

AND THE HOOPOE. The Sadducees say that the dukhifat (hoopoe) refers to the chicken. However, they are the world’s greatest fools, for who told them this?

AND THE BAT. A small bird that flies at night. The word atalef (bat) is a quadriliteral; that is, it comes from a four-letter root.

Note that the word teshakketzu in teshakketzu min ha-of (these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls) (v. 13) has a slightly different grammatical meaning from teshakketzu in al teshakketzu et nafshotekhem (ye shall not make yourselves detestable) (v. 43). In the latter instance the word nafshotekhem (yourselves) is the object, while in the case of the fowl (v. 13) its meaning is, you shall know that they are detestable and they shall be considered detestable to you. All winged swarming things that at times fly and at times go upon all fours are detestable.⁵⁰

footnotes: ⁵⁰ I.E.’s interpretation of verse 20.

WHICH HAVE JOINTED LEGS. The main reading is the one that spells lo with a vav.⁵¹. The ketiv spells lo with a vav. With a vav the phrase means “which have jointed legs;” without a vav it reads, “which does not have jointed legs.” According to the rabbis the meaning of the latter is: which does not have jointed legs now but will grow them later. See Sifra on this verse.

footnotes: ⁵¹ The kre

TO LEAP. The word le-natter has no brother.⁵² The Aramaic translator renders le-natter ba-hen by le-kappatza behen; since the word le-kappatza is similar to mekappetz (leaping) (Cant. 2:8),⁵³ means wherewith to leap. its meaning is leaping. He translated correctly.

footnotes: ⁵² The word is not found again in Scripture. ⁵³ Thus le-kappatza ve-hon

[THE LOCUST.] The word arbeh (locust) is connected to the word ribbuy (large amount).

AND THE BALD LOCUST. The sale’am (bald locust) refers to a kind of locust which climbs on rocks (sela’im).⁵⁴ means a rock. Thus sela’im means the “rocker,” i.e., the grasshopper that climbs a rock.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ Sela

AND THE CRICKET. If the word chargol (cricket) is a quadriliteral, then it has no brother.⁵⁵ If it is a combination of two words⁵⁶ (trembling). See I. E. on Ps. 18:46 and regel (foot). like the word palmoni (certain one) in unto that certain one who spoke (Dan 8:13), then the nature of the chargal is the reverse of the nature of the sale’am (bald locust).⁵⁷ climbs rocks while the chargal has “trembling feet” and is not adept at climbing.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ There is no similar word in Scripture. ⁵⁶ Charag ⁵⁷ For the sale’am

AND THE GRASSHOPPER. Its meaning is known from the language of the Ishmaelite.⁵⁸ in Arabic.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ A grasshopper is called chajaba

[BUT ALL WINGED SWARMING THINGS.] Scripture had previously stated, that go upon all fours (v. 20).⁵⁹ (v. 21). Why then state here, But all winged swarming things which have four feet are…detestable? The Torah now states, But all winged swarming things, which have four feet, because it is possible that there is a swarming creature that has four legs but that does not walk upon them but only flies.⁶⁰

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Scripture had previously stated that go on all four are…detestable ⁶⁰ Verse 20 teaches that a swarming creature that walks on four legs is detestable. Our verse teaches that a swarming creature that has four legs is detestable even if it does not walk upon them. Our verse thus not repeat verse 20.

AND BY THESE YE SHALL BECOME UNCLEAN. By all winged swarming things that have four feet; And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls.⁶¹ Others believe that the word elleh (these) (v. 24) refers to among all the beasts and to And whatsoever goeth upon its paws (v. 27).⁶² I believe that the word elleh refers to all those mentioned above.⁶³

footnotes: ⁶¹ See verse 13. In other words, verses 24 and 25 refer to that which comes before, that is to unclean fowl and unclean winged swarming things. ⁶² In other words, verses 23 and 24 introduce that which follows. See Rashi and Rashbam. ⁶³ Unclean fowl and unclean winged swarming things.

YE SHALL BECOME UNCLEAN. The word tittamma’u (ye shall become unclean) is a hitpa’el. The tet receives a dagesh because the tav⁶⁴. is swallowed. The same is the case with the word middabber (speaking) in then he heard the Voice speaking unto him (Num. 7:89) and the word mittaher (cleansed) in And he that is to be cleansed shall wash (Lev. 14:8).⁶⁵ whose tav is compensated for by a dagesh.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ Of the hitpa’el ⁶⁵ Both words are hitpa’els

SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. Scripture chose the path of brevity, for the unclean must bathe in water.

AND WHOSOEVER BEARETH. Bearing is more serious than touching. Therefore the bearer must wash his garments. How much more so [must he bathe] his body. The same law applies to all beasts.⁶⁶ Scripture also follows the path of brevity here.⁶⁷ The verse is to be understood as follows, or is clovenfooted but cheweth not the cud or cheweth the cud but is not cloven-footed.⁶⁸. However, this contradicts verses 4-7 which teache that an animal with only one kosher sign is unclean. Hence I.E. points out that the above clause is short for: a beast which cheweth the cud and parteth the hoof but is not cloven-footed, or a beast that cheweth not the cud but which parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed. Scripture has previously stated, and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you (v. 8).⁶⁹

footnotes: ⁶⁶ It does not apply only to unclean fowl and unclean winged swarming things. ⁶⁷ As it did in verse 24. ⁶⁸ Our verse seems to imply that only an animal that has two signs of uncleanliness is unclean, for it speaks of a beast which parteth the hoof, but is not cloven-footed, nor cheweth the cud ⁶⁹ Hence Scripture does not mention here that their carcasses are unclean (Weiser).

[EVERY ONE THAT TOUCHETH THEM.] This means everyone who touches any of the above-mentioned carcasses shall become unclean until the evening, for that is the law regarding the previously mentioned carcasses. There is a type of misbeliever who belongs to the Sadducee heresy who says that every one that toucheth them means whoever touches them while they are alive shall be unclean. There is no need to respond to insane talk, for Scripture only prohibited their flesh.⁷⁰ (v. 8). Hence the prohibition against touching unclean animals applies only to their carcasses. It states, and their carcasses ye shall not touch (v. 8).

footnotes: ⁷⁰ To be eaten. The point is that the law dealing with touching unclean animals only concerns dead unclean animals, for Scripture explicitly states, and their carcasses ye shall not touch

AND WHATSOEVER GOETH UPON ITS PAWS. At first⁷¹ the law is the same.⁷² Similarly And he that beareth the carcass of them (v. 28).⁷³ This verse affirms my explanation of the words And by these ye shall be come unclean (v. 24),⁷⁴ applies to what comes before, not what follows. See I.E. on verse 24. for Scripture there states, And whosoever beareth aught of the carcass of them (v. 25).⁷⁵ he that beareth the carcass of them. According to I.E., Scripture is not repeating itself, for verse 25 refers to winged creatures while verse 28 refers to animals that walk on all fours. Both of them are in one section.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Before they died. ⁷² They have the same law as the animals mentioned in verse 26. ⁷³ The law that governs the animals mentioned in verse 28 applies here too. ⁷⁴ According to I.E., And by these ye shall be come unclean ⁷⁵ And verse 28 states, And

The reason Scripture states, They are unclean unto you, is that it wants to include all of Israel: men, women, and children.⁷⁶. Hence unclean unto you in our verse is not a mere repetition of the same statement. One law applies to all.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Verse 26 states, Every one that toucheth them shall be unclean

AND THESE ARE THEY WHICH ARE UNCLEAN UNTO YOU. By touch.⁷⁷ We also are not able to actually know what these eight creatures⁷⁸ refer to. This is also true of the fowl.⁷⁹ We can only know their identity by tradition.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ One becomes unclean by touching their dead carcasses. ⁷⁸ Mentioned in verses 29 and 30. ⁷⁹ Mentioned in verses 13-19.

[THESE ARE THEY WHICH ARE UNCLEAN.] It means that these alone are the unclean⁸⁰ which, when dead, defile you.⁸¹

footnotes: ⁸⁰ These eight swarming things alone among the things that swarm upon the earth defile the one who touches them. ⁸¹ Hence Scripture enumerates them.

The meaning of shall be unclean until the even is, after he bathes he shall be unclean until the evening.⁸²

footnotes: ⁸² See I.E. on verse 25.

IT MUST BE PUT INTO WATER. The garment or the sack or the vessel which is susceptible of uncleanness. We have a need for tradition regarding these things.⁸³ (vessels) dedicated to this topic.

footnotes: ⁸³ To tell us which vessels are susceptible to uncleanliness. There is a section of the Mishnah called kelim

WHEREIN TO ANY OF THEM FALLETH. Me-hem⁸⁴ is to be rendered, any one of them. Compare, And was buried in the cities of Gilead⁸⁵ (Jud. 12:7).⁸⁶

footnotes: ⁸⁴ Literally, of them. This might be taken to mean all of them; that is, if all of the creatures mentioned in verses 29 and 30 fall into a vessel it becomes unclean. However, if one or two of them fall into a vessel it is not unclean. Hence I.E.’s comment. ⁸⁵ Translated literally. ⁸⁶ The meaning of which is, and was buried in one of the cities of Gilead.

AND ALL DRINK. Mashkeh (drink) is a noun.⁸⁷ Mashkeh in Now I was giving drink to the king (Neh. 1:11) is a verb in the present tense.⁸⁸

footnotes: ⁸⁷ Even though it has the form of a verb. ⁸⁸ Translated according to I.E.

Now, an oven (v. 35) which is used to bake bread and a range (Ibid.) which is used to cook meat shall be broken into pieces,⁸⁹ for they are unclean. This is the decree of the king.⁹⁰ (p. 112), I.E. points out that there are many laws whose meaning only the very intelligent can ascertain. I.E.’s comments here seem to be directed to this group of people.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ If the carcass of one of the eight swarming things falls into it. ⁹⁰ There does not appear to be any reason for this law. In the Yesod Mora

A CISTERN. The Hebrew word be’er (well) is a feminine. It bubbles forth. Compare, As a well (bir)⁹¹ is a variant of be’er. Translated according to I.E. welleth with her waters (Jer. 6:7). However, a bor (cistern) is dug or excavated to store the rain from the sky. If so,⁹² the well is a fountain.⁹³ There is no need to mention rivers.⁹⁴ Mikveh mayim (a gathering of water) is connected to bor (cistern),⁹⁵ (v. 36). for there are borot (cisterns) without water.⁹⁶ follows bor. Some say that mikveh is missing a vav.⁹⁷ should be read as if written, u-mikveh mayim. According to this interpretation our verse reads, or a cistern, or a gathering of water. Compare, Reuben, Simeon (Ex, 1:2),⁹⁸ (Reuben and Simon). and shemesh yare’ach (the sun moon) (Hab. 3:11).⁹⁹ (the sun and the moon).

footnotes: ⁹¹ This is the ketiv. Bir ⁹² If the water in the well bubbles forth. ⁹³ Mentioned in our verse. ⁹⁴ In our verse, for the waters in the rivers have their origin in underground fountains. ⁹⁵ Bor mikveh mayim means a cistern wherein is a gathering of water ⁹⁶ Hence mikveh mayim ⁹⁷ Mikveh mayim ⁹⁸ Which is to be interpreted as if written, re’uven ve-shimon ⁹⁹ Which is to be interpreted as if written, shemesh ve-yare’ach

BUT HE WHO TOUCHETH THEIR CARCASS. The water that touches their carcasses will be unclean.¹⁰⁰

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Water that is removed from the ground.

SOWING. Zeru’a (sowing) is an adjective.¹⁰¹ (seed). It is similar to a pa’ul.¹⁰². On the other hand, there might be two nouns for the word seed.¹⁰³ and zeru’a. Compare, Rashi: “Zera zeru’a (sowing seed) means any kind of seed. Zeru’a is a noun.” And gave them pulse (zeronim¹⁰⁴ is a variation of the plural of zeru’a.) (Dan. 1:16) is proof of this.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Modifying zera ¹⁰² It is an adjective vocalized like a verb in the pu’al ¹⁰³ Zera ¹⁰⁴ Zeronim

BUT IF WATER BE PUT. If they water their field and aught of their carcasses fall on the seed.¹⁰⁵ (thereon) refers to the seed. This opinion interprets our verse as follows: But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcass fall upon the seed, the seed is unclean. Some say on the water.¹⁰⁶ (thereon) refers to the water. This opinion interprets our verse as follows: But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcass fall upon the water, the seed is unclean. The word yuttan (be put), which is singular, governs mayim (water).¹⁰⁷ We find a similarity in because the water (meh) of sprinkling was not dashed (zorak)¹⁰⁸ is singular. It governs meh, which is plural. against him (Num. 19:13). The word yuttan is similar to yukkach (be fetched) in Let now a little water be fetched (Gen. 18:4). It belongs to the heavy conjugation to which a letter is added.¹⁰⁹ as “the heavy conjugation to which a letter is added.” However, yuttan and yukkach are hofals. We either have a scribal error or I.E. was not exact in his language.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ The seed is unclean. According to this interpretation the word alav ¹⁰⁶ In other words, the word alav ¹⁰⁷ Which is a plural. I.E. points this out because verbs governing nouns in the plural are normally in the plural. ¹⁰⁸ Zorak ¹⁰⁹ I.E. usually refers to the hifil

OF WHICH YE MAY. Asher hi la-khem le-okhlah means of which ye may eat.¹¹⁰ literally means which is to you for food, i.e., which you are about to eat. Hence I.E.’s comment.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Any animal of which you are permitted to eat. Asher hi la-khem leokhlah

SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. After he bathes in water.¹¹¹

footnotes: ¹¹¹ See Lev. 15:5,6.

[AND HE THAT EATETH.] The law regarding he that eats¹¹² is stricter.¹¹³ It is similar to the law governing he that that carries,¹¹⁴ for both bear.¹¹⁵ One carries outside¹¹⁶ and the other¹¹⁷ inside.¹¹⁸

footnotes: ¹¹² Of the carcass of the animal that dies of itself. ¹¹³ Than the law regarding one who touches. ¹¹⁴ The carcass of the animal that dies of itself. ¹¹⁵ The carcass. ¹¹⁶ On the outside of the body. ¹¹⁷ The one who eats. ¹¹⁸ Of his or her body.

[AND EVERY SWARMING THING.] This means all swarming things of the earth. The eight swarming creatures¹¹⁹ are included. Scripture mentions that they¹²⁰ are not to be eaten.¹²¹

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ Mentioned in verse 29 and 30. ¹²⁰ The eight swarming creatures. ¹²¹ This was not stated earlier.

THE BELLY. The word gachon (belly) is similar to the word gechonekha (thy belly) in upon thy belly shalt thou go (Gen. 3:14).

AND WHATSOEVER GOETH UPON ALL FOURS. Among the swarming things which are small, as I explained with regard to the swarming things in the water.¹²²

footnotes: ¹²² See I.E. on verse 10.

MANY FEET. The word marbeh (many) is an adjective. It is in the construct.¹²³ (feet).

footnotes: ¹²³ With raglayim

YE SHALL NOT MAKE YOURSELVES DETESTABLE. By being filthy and dirty.¹²⁴

footnotes: ¹²⁴ By eating filthy and dirty things.

NEITHER SHALL YE MAKE YOURSELVES UNCLEAN. For it is known that that which is eaten turns into the flesh of the one who ingests it.¹²⁵

footnotes: ¹²⁵ Hence one who eats filthy things turns into a filthy thing himself.

THAT YE SHOULD BE DEFILED THEREBY. The word ve-nitmetem (that ye should be defiled) is missing an alef.¹²⁶ is spelled nun, tet, mem, tav, mem. It should be spelled nun, tet, mem, alef, tav, mem, for the root of tame is tet, mem, alef. Compare, reshit¹²⁷, though it should have been spelled with an alef. (beginning) in from the beginning of the year (Deut. 11:12). Others say that they come from two roots.¹²⁸, and tet, mem, heh. The word nitmetem in our verse comes from the latter root. Hence there is no alef in it. The word nitminu (unclean) in And reputed unclean in your sight¹²⁹ (Job 18:3) is proof. It¹³⁰. means that you do not become dumb-witted.¹³¹ means that you do not become dull-witted thereby.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ Nitmetem ¹²⁷ Which is spelled without an alef ¹²⁸ There are two words in Hebrew for unclean: tet, mem, alef ¹²⁹ Translated literally. ¹³⁰ That ye should be defiled thereby ¹³¹ In other words, that ye should be defiled thereby

YE SHALL THEREFORE BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY. Hence I told you neither shall ye defile yourselves (v. 44). The vav¹³² (ye shall therefore be). is similar to the unaspirated fah in Arabic.¹³³ is not a continuation of the first half of the verse. It is an independent clause. Similarly the vav in va-ya’azov (left) in left his servants (Ex. 9:21).¹³⁴ (left) in Ex. 9:21 is to be rendered as left, not and he left. There are many such instances.¹³⁵ has the meaning of an unaspirated fah in Arabic.

footnotes: ¹³² In vi-heyitem ¹³³ It does not always serve as a connective. See I.E. on Gen. 1:2 (Vol. 1, p. 30). In other words, vi-heyitem kedoshim ¹³⁴ Va-ya’azov ¹³⁵ Where the vav

[FOR I AM THE LORD.] This means I did not take you out of Egypt for any reason but to be your God. If you will not be holy, I will not be a God to you. Hence if you want Me to be your God you must be holy.

TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN. Among the fowl and that which swarms in the water.

THAT MAY BE EATEN. That is permitted to be eaten.

THAT MAY NOT BE EATEN. According to the words of the Torah.¹³⁶ is to be rendered, that may not be eaten. Asher lo te’ackhel can be rendered, which is inedible. Hence I.E.’s comment.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ In other words, asher lo te’ackhel