AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND TO AARON, SAYING UNTO THEM: 2. SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The commandments [mentioned] in these sections apply to both Israelites and the priests, but their subject-matter affects mostly the priests, for they must always guard themselves from touching impure objects, since they have to come into the Sanctuary and eat the hallowed food [which they may not do when they are impure]. Moreover, when an Israelite errs in these matters, he has to bring an offering [to effect atonement for his transgression],¹⁴⁹ which the priests offer up. Furthermore, He commanded them, *And that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean;*¹⁵⁰, etc. thus they must instruct Israel concerning the impure and the pure so that they can be careful of them. It was for this reason that the communication about these laws came to both Moses and Aaron, or to Moses to say to Aaron, commanding both of them, speak unto the children of Israel, and this is the reason why these laws were said in the Book of the Laws of the Priests [i.e., this Book of Leviticus]. In this section He also warns against eating impure foods, so as not to defile the Tabernacle and its hallowed things.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ See Ramban above, 5:2. ¹⁵⁰ Above, 10:10. It should be noted at this point that the terms “clean” or “cleanness,” and “unclean” or “uncleanness,” are here in the translation used interchangeably with those of “pure” or “purity” and “impure” or “impurity”. This was felt necessary in order to convey the thought that uncleanness in the Biblical sense is not something that can be rubbed off with some material object. On the other hand, the terms “pure” and “impure” suggest a far greater measure of spirituality. The same comment applies equally to the following portions of the Torah — Tazria, Metzora

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

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ Torath Kohanim, Shemini

WHATSOEVER PARTETH THE HOOF, AND IS WHOLLY CLOVEN-FOOTED, AND CHEWETH THE CUD, AMONG THE BEASTS; THAT MAY YE EAT. The meaning of this verse is that every animal which has these two signs, you may eat, but you may not eat it if it has only one sign. Now it would have been proper if He would merely state the law in this general way. However, He singled out the camel, the rock-badger, and the hare¹⁵² as having only the one sign of chewing the cud, and the swine as having the one sign of a parted hoof,¹⁵³ because there are no other animals in the world that have only one sign. He then repeated [as a general rule applying to those with no sign at all, and those with only one sign], Of their flesh ye shall not eat,¹⁵⁴ which denotes a negative commandment. Now Rashi wrote: “From this verse I know only about these [four animals mentioned]. Whence do I know that other unclean animals that have no signs of purity, may not be eaten? You derive it by the rule of kal vachomer.¹⁵⁵, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation. How is it with these four animals mentioned, that have some of the signs of purity? They are forbidden! [It follows all the more so that those which have none of the signs, are surely forbidden to be eaten!]” In the words of the Sifra:¹⁵⁶ 3:2. “What is the law concerning those animals that have some of the signs of purity? They are forbidden to be eaten by a negative commandment. Is it not logical that other unclean animals which have none of the characteristics of purity, should be forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment! Thus we find that the camel, the rock-badger, the hare and the swine are explicitly forbidden by Scripture, whilst the other impure animals are forbidden on the strnegth of a kal vachomer.¹⁵⁵, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation. It is also established that the positive commandment [regarding unclean animals] is Scriptural,¹⁵⁷ (Verse 2). From this we deduce the converse, negative commandment, that any animal which does not have these two characteristics of a permissible animal, is not allowed as food; and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment has the force of a positive commandment. Hence one who eats an impure animal violates both a positive commandment [these ye may eat, as explained above], and negative commandment [of their flesh ye shall not eat], See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 167-168). while the negative commandment regarding them is derived from a kal vachomer.” Thus far is the text of the Beraitha.¹⁵⁶ 3:2. But in my opinion this is not in accordance with the conclusion of the discussions in the Talmud. For if so, one would not be liable to whipping for eating of all the other unclean animals [which have none of the characteristics of purity], and which are forbidden only on the strength of a kal vachomer, for a law derived from logical argument is not one for which punishment can be administered.¹⁵⁸ Thus the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim¹⁵⁹ 10:10-11. with respect to [having intercourse with] one’s sister, which Scripture prohibited if she is the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother,¹⁶⁰ that it was necessary to find a Scriptural reference prohibiting one’s sister if she be the daughter of both one’s father and mother,¹⁶¹ (ibid., 20:17). even though that prohibition might have been derived from a kal vachomer[for if the Torah prohibited a sister who is the daughter of either one’s father or one’s mother, surely she is prohibited] if she be the daughter of both one’s father and mother! [But the special Scriptural reference was necessary to teach us the principle] that a law derived from logical argument is not one for which punishment can be administered, as is stated in Tractate Yebamoth, Chapter Keitzad.¹⁶² But this Beraitha [quoted by Rashi] may either be in accordance with the opinion of the Sages who say that a law derived from a logical argument is one for which punishment can be administered, as stated in Tractate Sanhedrin,¹⁶³ or it cannot be satisfactorily explained. Now the reason why whipping is [in fact] incurred for eating unclean beasts [which have none of the characteristics of purity, since they are only derived through a kal vachomer], is because Scripture states in connection with the rock-badger that it is prohibited because it parteth not the hoof,¹⁶⁴ the rock-badger is forbidden as food, it follows that any animal to which the same reason applies, is likewise forbidden on the strength of that verse, and not because of some other logical reasoning. and in connection with the swine, because it cheweth not the cud.¹⁵³ This being the case, any animal that does not chew the cud or have a parted hoof is included in the terms of this prohibition, and there is no need at all to derive them from a kal vachomer.¹⁵⁵, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation.

footnotes: ¹⁵² Verses 4-6. ¹⁵³ Verse 7. ¹⁵⁴ Verse 8. This is Ramban’s concluding opinion, that the verse applies to both — those animals having no sign at all, and the four mentioned as having only one sign. Ramban proceeds to show that from Rashi’s text it would appear that this verse applies only to the four mentioned animals, while the prohibition against those having no sign at all is derived from another source. This explanation Ramban differs from in the text which follows. ¹⁵⁵ I.e., a conclusion drawn from minor to major. See in Exodus, Seder Bo ¹⁵⁶ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ¹⁵⁵ I.e., a conclusion drawn from minor to major. See in Exodus, Seder Bo ¹⁵⁷ These ye may eat ¹⁵⁶ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ¹⁵⁸ Makkoth 5 b. ¹⁵⁹ Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim ¹⁶⁰ Further, 18:9. ¹⁶¹ This was found in the redundant expression, he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness ¹⁶² Literally: “How come …” Yebamoth 22 b. — See above, at end of Note 142. ¹⁶³ The name of the Sage is Rabbi Shimon (Sanhedrin 86 a). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 54. ¹⁶⁴ Verse 5. Thus, Scripture having stated the reason why ¹⁵³ Verse 7. ¹⁵⁵ I.e., a conclusion drawn from minor to major. See in Exodus, Seder Bo

THESE MAY YE EAT. “But not an unclean animal. Has it not already been forbidden by means of a negative commandment? But [this verse is stated] so that [if he eats of it] he transgresses both a positive and a negative commandment.” This is Rashi’s language, and so it is found in the Torath Kohanim.¹⁶⁵ 3:1. Now Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] said¹⁶⁶ 2:3. that this verse is in order to forbid human flesh – “these may ye eat, but not human flesh. Thus the flesh and the milk are forbidden by means of a positive commandment.” But we have not found such an interpretation by our Rabbis. Perhaps he [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] thought this to be the case because of that which we have learned there in the Torath Kohanim:¹⁶⁷ 4:4. “I might think that the flesh of those that walk on two legs and the milk of those that walk on two legs should also be forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment? Therefore Scripture says: These ye shall not eat — these are forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment, but the flesh of those that walk on two legs and the milk of those that walk on two legs are not forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment.” From this text the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] may have deduced that they are not forbidden by means of a negative commandment, but are forbidden by means of a positive commandment, and he derived it from the verse: these may ye eat. But the matter is not so. For our Rabbis have clearly said in connection with the blood of those that walk on two legs¹⁶⁸ and the milk of those that walk on two legs¹⁶⁹, 22 a). that there is not even a commandment to abstain from eating them by Rabbinical enactment. If the flesh thereof would be prohibited [by Scriptural law], then [the blood and milk thereof would also be prohibited in accordance with the general rule]: “anything that comes out of that which is impure, is also impure.”¹⁷⁰ The blood of crawling reptiles and that of human beings the Sages have excluded from the prohibition against blood, and they have said:¹⁷¹ “The blood of the crawling reptile is like its flesh, and one incurs whipping for eating a crawling reptile,” meaning that it is not forbidden as blood [for the wanton violation of which one incurs excision]; thus they made it like flesh [but we find no such statement in connection with human blood]. Rather, when they said that there is no negative commandment against eating them, they meant to say that you cannot exclude them on the basis of it [i.e., on the basis of a specific Scriptural verse], and they are thus permitted. According to my opinion, however, this only applies to flesh [or blood] of a live person [which can not be prohibited on the basis of a definitive verse and hence if a person’s teeth are bleeding he may suck the blood thereof and not be afraid of having committed a sin].¹⁷²). However, the Rabbis have learned in connection with a corpse by means of an analogous use of words found when speaking of it and of the heifer whose neck is broken¹⁷³ that it is forbidden to have any benefit from it.¹⁷⁴ prohibition entailed and the punishment to which the violator would be subject to by the hand of the court. Ramban and Rambam thus differ as to the nature of the prohibition the violator must be reminded of, in order that he be punishable by the court.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁵ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ¹⁶⁶ Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’acholoth Asuroth ¹⁶⁷ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ¹⁶⁸ Kerithoth 21 b. Hence if one’s teeth are bleeding he may suck the blood and not be afraid of having committed a sin. ¹⁶⁹ Such as milk of the human breast (ibid. ¹⁷⁰ Bechoroth 5 b. ¹⁷¹ Kethuboth 60 a. ¹⁷² However, if blood appears on the bread which he is eating he must first remove the blood stains from the bread before continuing to eat it in order to avoid the semblance of wrong-doing, since people might think that it is from the blood of an animal (ibid. ¹⁷³ Deuteronomy 21:4. ¹⁷⁴ Abodah Zarah 29 b. Thus Ramban agrees with Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) that the matters under discussion are forbidden, the difference of opinion among them being only as to which law is violated. It is a rule in the administration of punishment that the violator of the law must have been pre-warned by witnesses of the specific

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

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ Verse 16. ¹⁷⁶ Lamentations 3:10. The verb-form clearly shows that the word dov ¹⁷⁷ Isaiah 11:7. The verse clearly indicates that while parah ¹⁷⁸ Above 5:7. ¹⁷⁹ Bechoroth 28 b. Thus it seems that there is a special term for the female of the swine chazirah ¹⁸⁰ Ibid.

AND THEIR CARCASSES YE SHALL NOT TOUCH. This is not a prohibition [saying that] we are not to touch these carcasses [of the animals that we are forbidden to eat]. Rather, Scripture states, and their carcasses ye shall not touch, for they are unclean to you, meaning to say, “you cannot touch them without becoming unclean.” The meaning thereof is to state that all those who touch them should be aware that they have become unclean and should therefore be careful not to enter the Sanctuary nor [to eat] of the hallowed offerings. Perhaps the meaning of the interpretation which our Rabbis have said:¹⁸¹ “And their carcasses ye shall not touch — on a festival” is to say that “you should not touch them at a time when you want to be clean, for they are unclean [and by touching them you will also become unclean] and you will not be able to go up to the Sanctuary on the festival.” But the [mere] act of touching them is not forbidden by means of a negative commandment, for he who touches carrion [even] on a festival does not incur whipping [by law of the Torah]. Thus that which the Rabbis have said:¹⁸¹ “One is dutybound to purify oneself on a festival,” is a commandment of Rabbinic authority, there being according to Scriptural law neither a positive nor a negative commandment, concerning the touching of carrion, except that of going up to the Sanctuary.¹⁸² Or it may be that the interpretation,¹⁸¹ “And their carcasses ye shall not touch — on a festival,” is a Scriptural text used as a support for the Rabbinical enactment,⁸⁰, p. 314, Note 449. like many other laws of the Sages taught there in the Torath Kohanim, which use Biblical texts as a “support.” It is also taught there:¹⁸³ 2:6. “Other Rabbis¹⁸⁴ (others). See Horayoth 13 b, for the reason of this name. say: One might think that if a person touches a carcass [he violates a negative commandment and] is liable to whipping? Scripture therefore says, By these ye shall become unclean.¹⁸⁵ From this one might think that if a person sees a carcass he must go and render himself unclean by [touching] it? Scripture therefore says, and their carcasses ye shall not touch. How are we to reconcile these two verses? We must conclude that [touching a carcass] is optional” [i.e., neither obligatory, nor forbidden]. This is the main principle of the Scriptural law.

footnotes: ¹⁸¹ Rosh Hashanah 16 b. ¹⁸¹ Rosh Hashanah 16 b. ¹⁸² See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 60-61. ¹⁸¹ Rosh Hashanah 16 b. ⁸⁰ See in Exodus, Seder Yithro ¹⁸³ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ¹⁸⁴ According to tradition, Rabbi Meir is quoted under this anonymous term Acheirim ¹⁸⁵ Further, Verse 24.

SNAPIR V’KASKESES’ (FINS AND SCALES). “Snapirim — these are what [the fish] swim with. Kaskeses — these are the scales attached to [the body of the fish].” This is Rashi’s language, and so also it is found in the Gemara of Tractate Chullin.¹⁸⁶ But you should not [be led to] understand from their language that these scales are really [inflexibly] fixed to their bodies and attached to the skin of the fish [so that they do not come off at all]. Rather, they are called “fixed” because they do not move to and fro from the fish, nor do they quiver as do the fins. They are the round coverings, the plates of which are like finger-nails, and they can be removed from the skin of the fish by hand or knife. But those [scales] which are fixed and attached to the skin of the fish and cannot be removed from the skin at all, are not kaskeses (scales), and the fish [which has them] is prohibited food. It is for this reason that the Sages in the Gemara¹⁸⁷, 66 b. See in Exodus, Seder Bo, p. 132, for meaning of the word “Gemara.” said that “Kaskeses is the cover of the fish.” In the words of the Tosephta:¹⁸⁸ “The kaskasim are those [objects] which cover the fish, and the snapirim are those with which the fish moves.” This is also the translation of Onkelos, who rendered the word kaskeses as klippin, [which means literally “shells”], for they are the “shells” of the fish which can be taken off and peeled away like the bark of trees and the peel of fruits. Such is also the meaning of the verse stating, and he [Goliath] was clad with a coat of ‘kaskasim’,¹⁸⁹ for all their [war-] coats were made of rings, and some people made “scales” in them in order to close up the openings of the rings, so that thin arrows should not be able to penetrate them, and it was those “scales” that were called kaskasim. The Sages also mentioned them in the Gemara [Tractate Sanhedrin] in the Chapter *Cheilek:*¹⁹⁰ “Dressed in coats of mail made with scales.” Now Jonathan the son of Uziel¹⁹¹ translated [in the above-mentioned verse concerning Goliath that he was clad with] “a coat of galbin,” this being of the expression, *the razor of ‘hagalabim,’*¹⁹² which are “leather workers.” [By so translating, Jonathan thus] intended to say that the covering at the openings of the rings in this coat of mail was like that of the scales on a skin of a fish, as they used to boil hard skin and cover the coats of armor with them, a practice they do to this day. Understand this. The reason why fins and scales [are signs of permissibility as food] is that those fish which have them always dwell in the upper clear waters, and they are sustained through the air that enters there. Therefore their bodies contain a certain amount of heat which counteracts the abundance of moistness [of the waters], just as wool, hair and nails function in man and beast. Those fish which have no fins and scales always dwell in the lower turbid waters, and due to the great abundance of moistness and gatherings of water there, they cannot repel anything. Hence they are creatures of cold fluid,¹⁹³, Note 264. which cleaves to them and is therefore more easily able to cause death, and it [the cold fluid] does in fact cause death in some waters, such as stagnant lakes.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ Chullin 59 a. ¹⁸⁷ Ibid. ¹⁸⁸ Tosephta Chullin 3:27. See above, Note 101 for meaning of the term “Tosephta.” ¹⁸⁹ I Samuel 17:5. ¹⁹⁰ Literally: “A share” — “All Israel have a share in the World to Come” — Sanhedrin 95 b. The reference there is to Sennacherib, king of Assyria, who brought to his siege of Jerusalem countless thousands of trained soldiers “all dressed in coats of mail etc.” ¹⁹¹ See Genesis, Vol. I, p. 127, Note 152. ¹⁹² Ezekiel 5:1. ¹⁹³ See in Seder Vayikra

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

footnotes: ¹⁹⁴ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ¹⁹⁵ See my Hebrew commentary p. 57, Note 56, for another reading in the Torath Kohanim at this concluding point.

AND THEIR CARCASSES YE SHALL HAVE IN DETESTATION. “This includes [in the category of forbidden food] yavchushin which have been filtered [through water]. Yavchushin are insects called mousclions¹⁹⁶. — A native of France, Rashi explained many Scriptural and Talmudic terms in the French language of his times. These words of the old French language have indeed been an invaluable source of knowledge to students of the development of the French language. in [old] French.” This is Rashi’s language. But I wonder about it! For this species [of mousclions] always comes out of wine, and flies about in the air and rests on the earth, and even while still in the air [before creeping upon the earth] it is already forbidden [as food], as we say [in Tractate Chullin] in the Chapter *Eilu Treifoth:*¹⁹⁷ animals” [so that they may not be eaten]. Chullin 67b. See in the Book of Exodus, Seder Mishpatim, p. 373, Note 189. “Rav Yoseif raised the question: [if an insect which grew in a fruit] flew off into the air [and before it rested on the earth, was swallowed knowingly by a person] what is the law regarding it?”¹⁹⁸ of creeping upon the earth it is termed “a swarming thing that swarms upon the earth” and thus forbidden by Scripture as food or maybe it is only forbidden if it has actually swarmed upon the earth? How much more so that it is forbidden when it rests continually all day upon vessels and upon the earth far away from the wine cellar, for it is already called a swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth.¹⁹⁹ Rather, that species [mentioned by Rashi as mousclions] is called yitush (mosquito) — and breeds in wine, as the Rabbis have said in the tradition concerning the wicked Titus,²⁰⁰ (mosquito) which entered into his nostrils” and plagued him all his life (Vayikra Rabbah 22:2). Thus it is clear that the yitush breeds in wine: See Gittin 56 b for a full account of this mosquito in Titus’ brain. [and is not the yavchushin of our verse]. But the yavchushim which are mentioned here [by Rashi, on the basis of the Torath Kohanim] is a species which is concealed in water, and one searches for it with a ladle and removes it, [the term yavchushim being] of the expression:²⁰¹ “Ein bochashin (one may not stir) a drink prepared of flour mixed with honey on the Sabbath.” And in the Gemara of Tractate Zebachim, in the second chapter, [Resh Lakesh] said:²⁰² “All things which serve to fill up the required measure of an immersion-pool, may also serve to fill up the water in the laver [from which the priests washed their hands and feet before ministering in the Sanctuary];²⁰³ but they do not serve to fill up the required measure of one fourth of a log of water [for the washing of hands].” On this [saying of Resh Lakesh] the Rabbis asked: “[What did Resh Lakesh mean to exclude by saying that ‘they’ do not fill up the required measure of water for the washing of hands]? Shall we say that he meant to exclude red yavchushim? In that case even if the immersion-pool is full of them, it is also valid!²⁰⁴ (fill up), which implies merely a completion of measure by some addition, could therefore not have referred to these yavchushim, since even if the pool is composed entirely of them, it is also valid for immersion! — For Ramban’s intent in quoting this text, see further, Note 206. For we are taught [in a Beraitha]: Rabban²⁰⁵ (head) of the Sanhedrin. Shimon the son of Gamaliel says: Whatever originates from water, one may immerse oneself therein [to be rendered ritually pure],” and red yavchushim is a species which originates from water [therefore Resh Lakesh could not have intended them, when he gave his rule excluding certain objects from being valid for completing the required measure of one fourth of a log for the washing of hands].²⁰⁶ are found in water, and Rashi’s comment that yavchushim are those insects called [in old French] mousclions is therefore incorrect, since these germinate in wine, and in Hebrew they are called yitushim, while yavchushim germinate in water. Similarly there are always found in the sediment of wine very white worms which are formed from the thickness of the wine, and which people filter, [and these are akin to the mousclions mentioned by Rashi]. Now I have seen in Rashi’s commentaries there [in Tractate Zebachim]²⁰² that he wrote: “Red yavchushim, these are a sort of wingless yitushim (mosquitoes) just like the small yavchushim which germinate at the bottom of our barrels of wine on the outside; and they are also formed in water.” Perhaps it is this wingless species [of insects] which can only be removed from water through a filtering process, that Rashi refers to here [in his commentary to the Torah, when referring to yavchushim as mousclions], since in his vernacular these water-insects were also called by that name [not only the ones produced in wine]. However, in his commentary to Tractate Chullin²⁰⁷ Rashi wrote: ‘Yavchushim, these are like small yitushim (mosquitoes) found in wine-cellars,” [and he mentioned nothing concerning the yavchushim which are created in water; hence in his commentary here on the Torah, Rashi, in speaking of yavchushim, must be referring to that kind of insect which germinates in wine; if so, his explanation is refuted by the Rabbinic sources quoted above which show that yavchushim germinate in water]! The principle of the matter is that these yavchushim are a species that does not swarm upon the earth at all [and therefore is not included in the negative commandment mentioned further on in Verse 41, but is forbidden separately under the terms of the verse here dealt with].

footnotes: ¹⁹⁶ In our Rashi: moucherons ¹⁹⁷ “These are accounted as treifah ¹⁹⁸ Shall we say that since it was capable ¹⁹⁹ Further, Verse 41. ²⁰⁰ “The wicked Titus” was the Roman general who burnt the Second Temple, whose punishment in this world was, as the Midrash tells: “They poured him a cup of wine, and the Holy One, blessed be He, prepared for him one yitush ²⁰¹ Shabbath 156 a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 57, that the reading in our text of the Gemara there, is different [namely, “All authorities agree that one is permitted to stir etc.”], and the exact source of Ramban’s quotation is unknown to me. ²⁰² Zebachim 22 a. ²⁰³ The required measure of water for an immersion-pool is for [[illegible]] seahs. The laver had to have enough water in it for four priests to be able to wash their hands and feet at the same time. ²⁰⁴ Resh Lakesh who used the expression mashlim ²⁰⁵ The title “Rabban” (“our Rabbi” — instead of “Rabbi”) indicates that the person was the Nasi ²⁰⁶ Thus it is clearly shown that yavchushim ²⁰² Zebachim 22 a. ²⁰⁷ Chullin 67 a.

AND THESE YE SHALL HAVE IN DETESTATION AMONG THE FOWLS. Of all fowls [existent], only those mentioned expressly in this section and their species — such as those concerning which it says, after his kind,²⁰⁸ or after her kind²⁰⁹ — are prohibited, since Scripture did not mention any signs of unclean birds [by which we may know that they are] forbidden, or of clean birds [by which we may know that they are] permitted. Instead, it said, And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls — [so that only those specifically mentioned are prohibited], and no others apart from these. Similarly, in connection with the swarming things which convey impurity, which Scripture mentioned in detail,²¹⁰ only those mentioned by name in the section are included in that law. Our Rabbis, however, have specified certain signs [of impurity as food] in birds, so that one may recognize through them that the fowls which lack those signs are not amongst those which are prohibited [here]. Now the most important sign [of unfitness as food] in fowls is preying, for every bird of prey²¹¹) interprets it as a bird of prey that kills by attacking with its claws. Further on in the text here Ramban will also elaborate on this characteristic. is invariably unfit [as food]. The Torah removed it [from us] as food, because its blood becomes heated up due to its cruelty, and is dark and thick, which gives rise to that bitter [fluid in the body] which is mostly black²¹² Note 264. and tends to make the heart cruel. There is not another fowl in the whole world that is a bird of prey apart from those mentioned in this section,²¹³ and therefore one may know that any fowl which is a bird of prey, is one of those mentioned here. Thus if it is known for sure that it does not prey, it may definitely be eaten, for amongst all the forbidden fowls, there is only one which does not prey, namely the bearded vulture or the osprey, and the Sages were not concerned about it [being eaten because of reliance on the fact that it does not prey], since it is not found in habitated places, but dwells always in wilderness. Perhaps it is because it dwells in wastelands and its blood is affected for the worse by the burning heat, like that of the birds of prey, that the Torah prohibited it as food together with them. The Sages furthermore counted¹⁸⁶ amongst the signs [of fitness as food] that if a fowl be found which has an “extra” toe, and its crop and gizzard can be peeled, it is definitely fit [to be eaten], for the Sages knew that such a bird does not prey. But if it has only two of the three signs mentioned, we may not eat it; for the raven [which is a bird unfit as food, as stated in Verse 15], has an extra toe and a gizzard that can be peeled, and [therefore any bird that has only two signs of fitness] we suspect of being a raven or of its species, since they all have two tokens. It does not need to be said that if it has only one of the three signs mentioned we treat it as forbidden, for all the other forbidden fowls have one sign, except for the great vulture which has none of these three signs. Now the meaning of the term “preying” is that in hunting for food it chases after birds, catches them alive, presses on them with its claws and eats them, just as is done by the great hawk called astur, and the little hawk called ashproir,²¹⁴ (the hawk): Espervier in old French; in English, sparrow-hawk (see Rosenbaum-Silberman’s translation). and in Arabic, butz. The above is the correct law of birds, as to which are forbidden food and which are permitted, and that which is the final result of the [discussions in the] Gemara, and is in accordance with that which we have searched and found to be so through the examination of birds.²¹⁵ Thus the reason for certain birds being forbidden as food is on account of their cruel nature. It is also possible that the reason for certain animals [being forbidden] is similar, since no animal that chews the cud and has a parted hoof is a beast of prey, while the rest all devour others. There has also been found a difference in nature [between animals fit for food and those which are unfit], as the Sages have mentioned,²¹⁶ namely that all milks of animals fit for food, curdle, whereas all milks of those unfit for food, do not coagulate and cannot ever be made into cheese. Thus they are [physically] different. It is possible to say on the basis of this [difference in their natures, that those animals unfit for food] harm the procreative organs, so that the seed which gathers from their moisture is cold and extra-moist and will not beget at all, or not in the best and proper way, apart from the fact that there is a certain known benefit according to medical sciences [in eating those] animals that are permitted [by the Torah] as food. Now I have seen in some books of experiments²¹⁷ that if an infant drinks of the milk of a swine, that child will become a leper. This is a sign that there are very bad features to all unclean animals.

footnotes: ²⁰⁸ Verse 15. ²⁰⁹ Verse 14. ²¹⁰ Verses 29-30. ²¹¹ According to Rashi (Chullin 59 a) this means that the bird seizes its food from the ground in its claws, and eats it. Rabbeinu Tam explains it as meaning that it eats animals before they are dead. Ramban in his commentary (ibid. ²¹² See in Seder Vayikra ²¹³ Verses 13-19. ¹⁸⁶ Chullin 59 a. ²¹⁴ This term is mentioned by Rashi on the word haneitz ²¹⁵ In his commentary to Tractate Chullin 62 b, Ramban relates that in order to ascertain the meaning of the Talmudic texts on the difficult subject of the signs of birds, he conducted a lengthy investigation into the characteristics of all kinds of birds, realizing that “we cannot deny things visible to the eyes.” This is the background of his concise statement here: “It is something we have searched etc.” Discussions he held with hunters were also a part of that investigation. ²¹⁶ Abodah Zarah 38 b. ²¹⁷ “Experiments.” Rabbeinu Bachya in quoting this passage of Ramban writes “Medicine” (in my edition, Vol. II, p. 461).

SHERETZ HA’OPH’ (WINGED SWARMING THINGS). “These are the thin, lowly creatures which crawl upon the ground, such as flies and hornets, mosquitoes and grasshoppers.” This is Rashi’s language. But I do not consider it to be correct, for a bird is not called sheretz (a swarming thing) on account of its smallness, nor is the unqualified term oph (bird) used because of the largeness of its body. The bat has very small legs, and many kinds of grasshoppers have larger ones than it, so why is the bat not called sheretz ha’oph (a winged swarming thing) like the grasshoppers?²¹⁸ Rather, the meaning of sheretz ha’oph is written [in Scripture immediately] after it: that go upon all fours. For all fowls that walk upon two legs, have erect necks, and their heads face upwards, and they always depend on their wings and flap them; therefore they are called oph kanaph (winged fowl),²¹⁹ or just oph. But those that have [four] legs walk lowly, with their neck and head bent downwards like creeping things, and therefore they are called sheretz ha’oph (a winged creeping thing), as I have explained in Seder Bereshith.²⁰⁸ Similarly He referred back here and explained, And all ‘sheretz ha’oph’ (winged creeping things) which have four feet, are a detestable thing unto you,²²⁰ the meaning thereof being as if He had said: “all winged creeping things which have only four feet and do not have jointed legs [above their feet] as mentioned [in Verse 21 amongst the signs of purity], are a detestable thing unto you.” The interpretation thereof in Torath Kohanim is:²²¹ 3:10. “Rabbi²²² says: And all ‘sheretz ha’oph’ (winged creeping things) which have four feet, are a detestable thing.²²⁰ But if it has five feet, it is a clean species.” Now in this section regarding winged creeping things there is only a positive commandment,²²³ etc. (Verse 21), from which you derive the principle that those that do not meet these criteria, are forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment, and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment carries the force of the positive commandment. Hence he who eats forbidden winged swarming (or creeping) things transgresses a positive commandment, for which there is no punishment by the court. But in the Book of Deuteronomy, Ramban continues, there is also an express negative commandment against eating it. Hence he who eats it incurs whipping. but in the Book of Deuteronomy there is a prohibition mentioned in connection with it, [namely], And all ‘sheretz ha’oph’ (winged creeping things) are unclean unto you; they shall not be eaten.²²⁴ It is on the basis of that verse there that whipping is incurred for violation thereof.

footnotes: ²¹⁸ See Genesis, Vol. I, pp. 47-48, where Ramban discusses the same theme. Here the subject is more fully developed. ²¹⁹ Genesis 1:21. ²⁰⁸ Verse 15. ²²⁰ Verse 23. ²²¹ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ²²² See above, Note 117. ²²⁰ Verse 23. ²²³ I.e., Yet these may ye eat of all winged creeping things ²²⁴ Deuteronomy 14: 19. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 157-158; Vol. II, pp. 169-170.

AND BY THESE YE SHALL BECOME UNCLEAN. “By these which are to be mentioned further on in the section, ye shall become unclean. Here²²⁵ Scripture teaches you that the carcass of an animal unfit for food conveys impurity, and in the subject at the end of the section²²⁶ it explains [the law] concerning the carcass of an animal fit for food.” This is Rashi’s language. But if so, [the question arises], why did Scripture divide them and why did it treat them singly,²²⁷ animals, were discussed in Verses 24-28 in detail, with separate verses for each category of these unclean animals, when one general statement could have covered all subjects? when it should rather have said [in one general statement], “whosoever touches the carcass of any animal shall be unclean until the evening, and whosoever carries any of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening?” The correct interpretation is that here Scripture mentioned the carcass of them without qualification and did not mention “death” in connection with them, thus teaching that [the law of] ritual slaughtering [required to render animals fit for food] does not apply to them [the unclean animals mentioned here], and whoever touches them when they are no longer alive [whether they died by themselves or even if they were ritually slaughtered], becomes impure. But further on it states, And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die,²²⁸ thus teaching that if it [an animal fit for food] was ritually slaughtered, it does not convey impurity [to a person who touches it]. Now the meaning of the section in mentioning [here]: And by these ye shall become unclean, is to state that all things referred to above — namely, fishes, fowls, and grasshoppers — do not have this [law of] impurity, but only those which He is about to mention further on, these being Every beast … which is not cloven-footed, nor cheweth the cud.²²⁹ It is with reference to these that He states, they are unclean to you; every one that toucheth them shall be unclean²²⁹ with the uncleanness mentioned [in the preceding Verses 24-25: whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until the even. And whosoever beareth aught of the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even]. Then He continues by stating that any beast which walks upon its paws shall also convey impurity until the evening to a person who touches its carcass, and that a person who carries it shall, in addition, wash his clothes.²³⁰ Similarly, And these are they which are unclean unto you among the swarming things²³¹ means among those which are to be mentioned further on.²³² etc. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra erred here.²³³ (in Verse 24 before us) as referring to sheretz ha’oph (winged creeping things) and also to the fowls unfit for food as mentioned above in Scripture. But this is a mistake, since no impurity is conveyed by a fowl unfit for food, nor by a winged creeping thing unfit for food. Now above, in stating the prohibition of eating [an animal prohibited as food], Scripture mentioned those animals which are not cloven-footed and do not chew the cud, but it did not mention [the law] of beasts that walk upon their paws. Perhaps it is because it is not customary to eat them [on account of the danger involved in catching them] that He did not single them out, but left them [to be] included in the general principle which He had stated, that we should eat only the animal that parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, and not others, and chayah (beast) is included in the term beheimah (animal) as it is said, These are ‘ha’beheimah’ (the animals) which ye may eat … the hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck.²³⁴ and goes on to enumerate chayah (beasts). Our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim have interpretations on this whole section. [Thus they explain the expression], Every beast [which parteth the hoof, but is not cloven-footed …] is unclean to you,²²⁹ to include a limb cut off from a living animal [in the law of conveying impurity].²³⁵ 6:6. And whatsoever goeth upon its paws,²³⁰ to include a limb cut off from a dead animal [in the law of conveying impurity]. For Scripture speaks at length and mentions many expressions of impurity in order to allude [to the law] that they convey impurity in whole or in part, either through the death of the whole body or through the death of one of its limbs, as when it was cut off from a living body.

footnotes: ²²⁵ In Verse 26. This part of the quotation from Rashi is also found in our Rashi texts on that verse, hence the use of the word “here.” ²²⁶ Verses 39-40. ²²⁷ The twofold question is to be understood as follows: Why did Scripture divide and discuss them in two separate sections, and why was it necessary that the laws referring to the impurity conveyed by touching the carcasses of unclean ²²⁸ Further, Verse 39. ²²⁹ Verse 26. ²²⁹ Verse 26. ²³⁰ Verses 27 and 28. ²³¹ Verse 29. ²³² There in Verse 29 and in Verse 30: the weasel, and the mouse ²³³ Ibn Ezra explained the expression and by those ye shall become unclean ²³⁴ Deuteronomy 14:4-5. Scripture begins here with beheimah ²²⁹ Verse 26. ²³⁵ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ²³⁰ Verses 27 and 28.

HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. The meaning of this expression in the whole section is that at night he becomes pure, if he had bathed his flesh in water [before sundown]. Scripture, however, speaks briefly [and therefore omitted] the bathing of the body, because it mentioned the washing of clothes of the one who carries anything unclean,²³⁶ which means their immersion [in a ritual pool], and it follows all the more so that he must bathe his body. Then when Scripture finished mentioning all the impurities [conveyed by] carcasses and [dead] creeping things, it mentioned immersion [for those vessels which became impure through touching them]: it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; then shall it be clean,²³⁷ the same law applying to man, for it is from here that the principle is derived. In another section He explained, And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even,²³⁸ and He mentioned also the punishment for the violation thereof, But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity.²³⁹, Verse 16. I.e., if he ate holy food or entered the Sanctuary in an impure state. This is a general principle of all impurities [conveyed by] carrion, and from it the law is derived for [impurities conveyed by] creeping things. The matter of bathing [in the case of impurity conveyed by] creeping things has already been mentioned here, as I have written. Now Scripture was more severe in the case of a person who carries an impure object than in the case of a person who touches it, in requiring the bearer to wash his clothes, [but not one who only touches it], because it is natural that a person who touches does so with his hand lightly, while he who carries as a burden [does so in such a way] that it presses upon him, and in the majority of cases his clothes help him [in carrying].

footnotes: ²³⁶ Verse 25. ²³⁷ Further, Verse 32. ²³⁸ Further, 17:15. ²³⁹ Ibid.

AND EVERY THING UPON WHICH ANY PART OF THEM, WHEN THEY ARE DEAD, DOTH FALL, SHALL BE UNCLEAN: WHETHER IT SHALL BE ANY VESSEL OF WOOD etc. It appears to me in the interpretation of this verse that most likely the expression any of them, when they are dead, alludes to all those mentioned above — impure animals, creeping things, and beasts. For why should He mention the law of impurity of vessels and garments only with reference to creeping things, when it applies also to carcasses? Similarly, all the rules that He mentions with reference to making food susceptible to impurity²⁴⁰ [conveyed by creeping things], apply equally to all [forms of] impurity, and Scripture speaks of the general concept of them. Do not find it difficult to accept that the expression touch them when they are dead in the first verse²⁴¹. applies to the creeping things, while the same expression any of them when they are dead [in Verse 32 before us] applies to all things that convey impurity, for such is the case in many places in Scripture [where similar words apply to different things]. It is possible to say that Scripture waited until it had mentioned all impure things amongst cattle, beasts, and creeping things, and then at the end mentioned impurity of vessels with reference to one of them [namely, the creeping things], with which it had concluded this theme, in order that the law of all the others be derived from it, for the opinion of our Rabbis²⁴² is that the expression any of them when they are dead [in Verse 32 before us] refers [only] to creeping things, and from that they learn that a creeping thing in [a minimal] size of a lentil conveys impurity.²⁴³, it shows that even though one has not touched the whole creeping thing but “any” part of it, he is rendered impure. “Now since the sand-lizard [one of the eight creeping things that convey impurity] when born is the size of a lentil,” therefore that amount of any of the eight creeping things when dead also conveys impurity (Chagiga ibid.). Thus according to the interpretation of the Rabbis, Verse 32 before us also speaks only of the impurity conveyed by creeping things, and not, as explained above, about all other impurities. Scripture dealt likewise with the subject of immersion, in mentioning at the end of all [the laws of] impurity, the impurity [conveyed by creeping things] to vessels and their purification by immersion,²⁴⁴ and from it we learn the law of man and vessels with reference to all the impurities mentioned above.

footnotes: ²⁴⁰ Further, 34, 37-38. ²⁴¹ In Verse 31: These are which are unclean to you among all that creep; whosoever doth ‘touch them, when they are dead,’ shall be unclean until the even ²⁴² Chagigah 11 a. ²⁴³ Since Scripture (here in Verse 32) states ‘any of them’ when they are dead ²⁴⁴ Verses 34-36.

IT MUST BE PUT INTO WATER, AND IT SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN; AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. “Even after it has been immersed, it is still impure with regard to the heave-offering, until the setting of the sun, and afterwards at the setting of the sun it becomes pure.” This is Rashi’s language. And the interpretation in the Torath Kohanim is:²⁴⁵ 6:9. “And it shall be unclean until the even. I might think that [it shall be impure] for all [purposes]; Scripture therefore says, and it shall be clean. But if so, I might think that it is pure for all purposes; Scripture therefore says, and it shall be unclean until the even. How then can this be explained? It is pure with respect to ordinary food²⁴⁶ (the heave-offering) eaten by the priest. Thus if an Israelite who was impure immersed himself to be purified, he may straightaway eat of the Second Tithe, even though the sun has not yet set. But a priest who was impure and immersed himself before sunset, may not eat of the heave-offering until the sun has set and the stars have come forth. when it is still daytime [immediately after it was immersed to be purified], but regarding the heave-offering it is not held to be pure until it becomes dark.” The interpretation of the verse according to the explanation of the Torath Kohanim is thus: “it must be put into the water [before sundown] and it shall remain unclean till the evening.” But by way of the simple meaning of Scripture [the verse is to be transposed, thus]: “it must be put into water and it shall be clean, but it shall be unclean until the evening.” Now Scripture mentioned in all the sections [that the impurity is] “until the evening,”²⁴⁷ because it refers to the degree of purity required for the holy heave-offering, as He said, The soul that toucheth any such [unclean things] shall be unclean until the even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he bathe his flesh in water. And when the sun is down, he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the holy things, because it is his bread.²⁴⁸ (the heave-offering). But the purification required for ordinary food or the [Second] Tithe²⁴⁹ is attained after immersion alone, and it is not mentioned here because it is not mandatory upon an impure person to purify himself in order to eat ordinary food,²⁵⁰ for if he wants to, he may eat it in a state of impurity.²⁵¹ purify himself, and wait till evening, whereas for ordinary food there is no requirement that it must be eaten in a state of purity, and thus no necessity to immerse oneself. If he does wish to eat it in a state of purity, however, he attains this immediately after immersion and even before sundown, as explained above in Ramban and in Note 246.

footnotes: ²⁴⁵ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ²⁴⁶ In Tractate Yebamoth 74a the reading [instead of “ordinary food”] is “the Tithe;” i.e., eaten by the owner in the city of Jerusalem in a state of purity. But the law regarding it is less stringent than that which applies to terumah ²⁴⁷ Verses 24-25, 27-28, 31-32. ²⁴⁸ Further, 22:6-7. “The holy things” here mean the terumah ²⁴⁹ See above, Note 246. ²⁵⁰ As explained above in Ramban, Verse 8, at the end. ²⁵¹ Hence Scripture always speaks about the impure person being “unclean till the even,” because in order to be able to eat the heave-offering, the impure priest must

OF ALL THE FOOD WHICH MAY BE EATEN, THAT ON WHICH WATER COMETH, SHALL BE UNCLEAN. Rashi commented: “This verse according to its [Rabbinical] interpretations teaches many things. We learn that food does not become fit to be susceptible of impurity until water has once come upon it, and once water has come upon it, it can subsequently at any time become impure, even after it has become dry, etc. Our Rabbis have further learned from this verse that ‘a secondary impurity’²⁵² does not render vessels impure, for so we are taught etc. Again we learn that the coming of water upon vegetation makes it susceptible to impurity only after it has been plucked from the soil etc.” And included among the principles [we learn from this verse], Rashi said: “And we further learn that impure foodstuff does not convey impurity to other objects unless it [the former] consists of at least the size of an egg, for it says, of all the food which may be eaten, which means food which can be eaten in one gulp, and the Sages calculated that the esophagus does not hold more than a hen’s egg.” This is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi.]. But there is [too great a] brevity in Rashi’s comment. For this verse speaks about foodstuff itself becoming impure, and does not refer to its conveying impurity to others. The Rabbi [Rashi], however, derived this principle from what the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:²⁵³ 9:1. “Of all the food etc. shall be unclean. This teaches that food [upon which a dead creeping thing falls], is rendered impure even if it be of the smallest quantity. Now I might think that it can also convey impurity to other objects if the [original] impure food was of the smallest quantity; Scripture therefore says, which may be eaten. Thus you learn that it cannot render other things impure unless it is itself the size of an egg.”²⁵⁴ as applying to “impure” food conveying impurity to others, the verse teaching us that the conveyor of the impurity must be of the size which may be eaten, which is, as explained above, the size of an egg. The verse could not refer to the original foodstuff itself becoming impure because of having touched a dead creeping thing [or any “father of impurity” — see above Note 251], for in that case even the smallest quantity of food suffices to be rendered impure. — But, Ramban continues, other scholars have already differed with Rashi on this point, bringing proof etc. (see text). But other authorities have already differed²⁵⁵ with the Rabbi [Rashi], and they brought proofs that by Scriptural law foodstuffs do not [even] become impure at all unless they are of the size of an egg. Thus the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim [mentioned above] is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic law,⁸⁰, p. 314, Note 449. the Rabbis having added [the stricture] that foodstuffs of even the smallest size also become impure [although they cannot convey impurity to others unless they themselves are the size of an egg]. The main interpretation of the verse is as the Rabbis have said there [in the Torath Kohanim]:²⁵³ 9:1. “The food. This is to exclude food for cattle [that it is not susceptible to impurity]. Of all the food — this is to include food for cattle which one intended to use for human consumption. Which may be eaten, excepting decomposed foods.”

footnotes: ²⁵² Or as generally also referred to “a first degree of impurity.” Reference here is to a person or vessel that touched one of the eight dead creeping things enumerated in Verses 29-30, which are considered “fathers of impurity.” The person or vessel that touched them become “a first degree of impurity.” There are many “fathers of impurity.” Thus the carrier of those animals that are unfit for food, or of those which are fit for food but have not been slaughtered in the proper ritual manner, mentioned above in this section, also belong to this category [[illegible]] “a first degree of impurity.” Now “fathers of impurity” can convey impurity to people and vessels, whereas “a first degree of impurity” can only convey impurity to foodstuffs and liquids. ²⁵³ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ²⁵⁴ In other words, it was on the basis of this Torath Kohanim that Rashi interpreted the expression in the verse here, of all food which may be eaten ²⁵⁵ Tosafoth Shabbath 91 a. ⁸⁰ See in Exodus, Seder Yithro ²⁵³ Torath Kohanim, Shemini

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

footnotes: ²⁵⁵ Tosafoth Shabbath 91 a. ²⁵⁶ Further. 15:12. ²⁵⁷ Isaiah 30:14. ²⁵⁸ The novelty of this point is that generally whatever is attached to the ground is like the ground, and cannot become impure. The oven and range made of clay are thus an exception to this rule, for they are susceptible of impurity even though they are attached to the earth. ²⁵⁹ Ibid. ²⁶⁰ Further, 14:45.

NEVERTHELESS A FOUNTAIN OR A CISTERN WHEREIN IS A GATHERING OF WATER SHALL BE CLEAN. Scripture is stating that the waters in the immersion-pool whilst attached to the ground are not susceptible to impurity if any [source of] impurity should fall therein. BUT THAT WHICH TOUCHETH THEIR CARCASS SHALL BE UNCLEAN. The meaning thereof is as follows: “but waters which touch the carcass [of any of the creeping things] shall become impure, [meaning that waters which are separated [from a gathering of water] are rendered impure if they touch their carcass. [The phrase, and [waters] which touch their carcass shall be unclean, must be referring to detached waters], for when the waters are still attached to the pool, they cannot [be said to] ‘touch’ their carcass, but rather [Scripture should have said], their carcass ‘fell’ into it.” Scripture speaks of water in the singular [saying, v’nogeia — “and that which toucheth”], just as it says elsewhere, the water of sprinkling was not sprinkled upon him.²⁶¹ (was not sprinkled) in referring to water, although the Hebrew word ‘mayim’ is in the plural form. Or it may be that Scripture is saying, “and whatsoever touches their carcass shall be impure,” and the intent is to include water and [the other] drinks mentioned.²⁶² In general, this verse comes to teach that water is susceptible to impurity when it is detached [from a pool], but not when it is attached thereto, a principle that has not been mentioned heretofore. Now in the Torath Kohanim we find that [the Rabbis gave this interpretation]:²⁶³ 9:6. “Rabbi Yosei the Galilean²⁶⁴ said: But that which toucheth their carcass shall be unclean. By touching they [i.e., the eight dead creeping things] convey impurity, but not by carrying them.” This too is feasible, that [the verse] is referring back to all the laws mentioned [in Verses 24-5] previously, and saying that creeping things convey impurity only by touch. Our Rabbis have further interpretations of the redundant expressions in this [whole] verse, all of them laws given to Moses on Sinai. Now Scripture mentioned the purity of the immersion-pool and waters attached to the ground in speaking of [the impurity conveyed by] creeping things, but the same law applies to [that conveyed by] carrion [of animals forbidden as food, and of those permitted animals not slaughtered properly or which died by themselves]. It waited, however, to mention [the law concerning the purity of pools till now], until it had completed the enumeration of all objects that convey impurity. Or it may be that it is because creeping things frequently die in fountains or in cisterns. I have already mentioned my opinion²⁶⁵ [that this verse mentions the impurity of vessels conveyed by creeping things and their purification by immersion, and from it we learn the law of people and vessels in connection with the other forms of impurity mentioned above].

footnotes: ²⁶¹ Numbers 19:13. There too, Scripture uses the singular: lo zorak ²⁶² In Verse 34 above. ²⁶³ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ²⁶⁴ The Sage generally known as “Rabbi Yosei” was Rabbi Yosei ben Chalafta, a disciple of Rabbi Akiba. To distinguish between him and another great teacher of the same name, the epithet “Galilean” was added to the name of the latter. It is this Rabbi Yosei whose opinion is here quoted. ²⁶⁵ Above, Verse 32.

ZERA ZEIRUA’ (SEED OF SOWING). “Zera means ‘seed’ of any kind of seed-plant. Zeirua is the noun (‘sowing,’ ‘thing sown’), like the expression, and let them give us ‘zeiro’im’ (edible seeds) to eat.²⁶⁶ [And if aught of their carcass fall upon any seed of sowing which is to be sown] it is clean. This is to teach you that food is not fit and susceptible of becoming impure until water has once come upon it.” This is Rashi’s language. Now Scripture mentioned above, of all the food which may be eaten, that on which water cometh [shall be unclean],²⁶⁷ establishing the principle that foodstuff must first become susceptible to impurity [through coming into contact with water]. But there the Rabbis interpreted it to mean²⁶⁸, on basis of Torath Kohanim. the foodstuff is not rendered impure through the medium of the interior of an [impure] earthen vessel, unless it was made susceptible of receiving impurity by being moistened by water. But here Scripture added that even from [contact with] the creeping things themselves, foodstuff does not become impure unless it was made susceptible [by water]. So it is explained in the Torath Kohanim.²⁶⁹ 11:8. It is also possible to say that the expression of all the food which may be eaten.²⁶⁷ refers to the things mentioned above — meat and various foods. But here He states that even seeds when taken out to be sown, can be rendered impure if they have become susceptible to impurity by being moistened by water. The reason for foodstuffs having to be made susceptible by water [before they can become impure], is that the uncleanness of [dead] creeping things and the other sources of impurity, attaches to foodstuffs in their state of moisteness, but not when they are dry. The Torah then, as an extra precautionary measure, declared impure those foods on which water had once come, although they have [subsequently] become dry, [if they were then touched by any of the sources of impurity], in order that the rule should not vary according to different standards. Now the law of making food susceptible of becoming impure applies also to the impurity [conveyed] by carrion, Scripture having mentioned it here for the reason we have stated above.²⁷⁰

footnotes: ²⁶⁶ Daniel 1:12. ²⁶⁷ Verse 34. ²⁶⁸ Mentioned in Rashi ibid. ²⁶⁹ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ²⁶⁷ Verse 34. ²⁷⁰ See Ramban at end of Verse 36 above.

AND HE THAT EATETH OF THE CARCASS OF IT SHALL WASH HIS CLOTHES, AND BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse speaks here of one who eats in the way that people usually eat, namely, that he touches and carries what he eats, and therefore becomes impure by contact and by carrying. It was necessary to mention this case so that it should not occur to anyone that because of eating, his degree of impurity should be greater [than that resulting merely from contact and carrying]. It mentioned this law in regard to an animal fit for food [as mentioned in the preceding Verse 39], because a person can [easily] err with regard to it, thinking that it was slaughtered properly [and he will therefore eat it], but such errors do not normally occur with regard to forbidden animals, and the way of the Torah is to speak of what usually happens. But according to its [Rabbinic] interpretation,²⁷¹ the verse comes to prescribe the [minimum] size required to become impure through carrying or touching, namely an amount that can be called “eating,” which is the size of an olive and Scripture also mentioned this law in regard to carrion of an animal fit for food, whilst the same law applies to an animal not permitted as food, because He finished here the law of impurities.²⁷² According to the opinion of the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim,²⁷³ 4:2; 10:1-4. all impurities [conveyed] by carrion [of animals fit for food and those which are unfit animals] are included here, and the section above²⁷⁴ refers to limbs of animals. I have already mentioned this.²⁷⁵, in Verse 24.

footnotes: ²⁷¹ Niddah 42 b. ²⁷² And therefore He mentioned it in regard to the carrion of an animal fit for food, and from it we apply the rule to the carrion of an animal unfit for food. This is in accordance with similar explanations mentioned above. ²⁷³ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ²⁷⁴ Above, Verses 26-27. ²⁷⁵ Ibid.

AND EVERY CREEPING THING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH IS A DETESTABLE THING; IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN. The meaning of this verse is as follows: He mentioned above the [eight] creeping things²⁷⁶, Verses 29-30. in connection with impurity [conveyed through contact when they are dead], and expressly mentioned those that are impure, but did not speak at all of the prohibition of eating. It is for this reason that He now says, And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten, meaning to say that as far as eating is concerned, there is no difference between them, for they are all forbidden. Then He spoke of them again in detail [in the following verses], and increased the negative commandments about them, [in order to increase the liability] to whipping, just as Rashi mentioned.²⁷⁷. This is repeated to indicate that a person transgresses many negative commandments if he eats the detestable things” (Rashi).

footnotes: ²⁷⁶ Ibid. ²⁷⁷ Verse 44: “Neither shall ye defile yourselves

TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN. This means that we should distinguish between all things mentioned above, between the unclean and the clean, with regard to impurity[through contact]. AND BETWEEN THE ANIMAL THAT MAY BE EATEN. This is connected with the word “soul” mentioned [in the preceding verse], thus meaning: “and between the living animal that may be eaten.” Scripture is thus stating that we should distinguish as far as eating is concerned, between the living animal that may be eaten according to the Torah in the waters and upon the earth,²⁷⁸ and the animal in them that may not be eaten. In the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis said:²⁷⁹. “And ‘hachayah’ (the beast) that may not be eaten. The Sages say, this establishes a prohibition against eating a [forbidden type of] beast.”²⁸⁰ (beast) is included in the term beheimah (cattle), as explained above in Verse 24, yet Scripture mentioned here a specific prohibition with regard to a forbidden chayah. If so, there is a special negative commandment regarding it. Now Rashi wrote: “To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean. Is it necessary to tell us to distinguish between the cow and the ass? Have they not clearly been defined already [by distinguishing signs]? But the meaning is: [to make a distinction between] that which is forbidden for you and that which is permitted for you,²⁸¹ between the case of an animal of which only half of the windpipe was cut, [in which case, even if he cut through the whole gullet, it may not be eaten], and the case of an animal of which the greater part of the windpipe [or the entire windpipe] was cut through, [in addition to the gullet, or the greater part of it being cut through, which is permitted to be eaten].” There [in Tractate Chullin]²⁸² it is taught: “And how much is there between half and the greater part of it? As much as a hair’s breadth,” [and it is this which requires ‘making a distinction’]. Do not be disturbed here because of that which they said there in the Gemara²⁸² that it must be “a greater part which is apparent to the eyes” [thus a mere hair’s breadth would not be sufficient], for the meaning of that was only in order to exclude the opinion of the Sage²⁸³ who says that half and half is treated as if the majority [was cut through]; therefore they said that the part cut through must actually be a greater part, which is apparent to the eyes, not a half which we only treat in our minds [as the greater part], and we say that “the greater part” was cut through since the part not cut through is not larger than it [the part which was cut through]. But so long as more than half was [actually] cut through, it may be eaten, even if it be only by as much as a hair’s breadth, as is clearly explained in that Beraitha,²⁸² and as it emerges from the discussion of the Gemara. Tazria

footnotes: ²⁷⁸ Verse 46. ²⁷⁹ Torath Kohanim, at end of Shemini ²⁸⁰ For even though chayah ²⁸¹ I.e., between that which has been rendered forbidden for you because you have not slaughtered it properly, and that which has been rendered permitted for you through proper ritual slaughtering (Mizrachi). ²⁸² Chullin 293a. ²⁸² Chullin 293a. ²⁸³ The name of the Sage is Rav. ²⁸² Chullin 293a.