To tell Aharon. Thirteen instances of “speaking” are recorded in the Torah [directed] to Moshe and Aharon, and thirteen exclusions corresponding to them, [in order] to teach you that Hashem did not speak to Aharon but to Moshe alone, as mentioned above in Parshas Vayikro. Although Rashi already explains above in Parshas Vayikro (1:1), he explains here again so that you will not explain that as a reward for “Aharon was silent” Aharon merited that the Divine word was specially [directed] to him alone, together with Moshe, as he merited regarding the laws of those intoxicated by wine. Furthermore, we can explain that although in general the Divine word was spoken simultaneously by the two of them — that was when they spoke to Israel. Here, however, Moshe told Aharon that he alone would be the messenger to tell them (Nachalas Yaakov).

An expression of life. Otherwise, it should say: “These are living things (חיה instead of החיה) that you may eat from among all the animals.”

Hold. Meaning: [Rashi adds this explanation] because the word זאת [implies] one points with his finger to the subject about which he is hinting, but when Hashem was speaking to him there was nothing impure there. Re’m wrote at length [but] I made it brief.

This teaches. [Rashi knows this] because it should only say: זאת (these are), why does it say החיה? [You might ask:] Rashi [already] derived from the word החיה — “an expression of life”! The answer is: He derives that from the extra ה in the word החיה. However, [the extra word itself] comes to teach [that animals...]

**“Split.”**I.e., this is not translated as “hoof,” but rather as “split.” And the word פרסה means plante in Old French, or kaput (hoof) in German. The Targum’s proof is that it is written (v. 5): “The rabbit, for it chews its cud but does not have a cloven hoof (ופרסה לא יפריס),” but in fact, all ruminants have hooves with which they walk upon the earth. Perforce, מפרסת is translated as “split.”

Extraneous. [Rashi knows this] because it is already written (v. 2): “that you may eat from among all the animals.” Rather, [it must be that] this is an [apparently] extraneous word... It is as if it is written, “You may eat the animal that is inside an animal,” which refers to the embryo found within an animal, for the phrase “that you shall eat from among all the animals” refers to the entire section.

A positive commandment. [It is a positive commandment] because a negative command that is derived from a positive command is considered a positive commandment. The negative commandment is written clearly nearby (v. 4): “However, these in particular you may not eat...” However, it does not come to teach the plain meaning — that it is permitted to eat — for it already says (v. 2): “That you may eat from among all the animals.”

Kal vachomer. You might ask: We may not derive a warning [for punishment] based on a kal vachomer! The answer is: It is different here where there is a positive command (v. 3): “You may eat it,” upon which Rashi explains: “And not an impure animal.” This refers to every impure animal, since it is written, “you may eat it,” which implies that the ones written in the parshah are permitted to be eaten, but the rest of the animals that do not have signs are forbidden to be eaten although they are not written in the parshah. If so, since there is a positive command also for the animal that has no permitting sign, we may derive a warning based on a kal vachomer so that there will be a negative command as well. However, where there is no positive command we may not derive the warning from a kal vachomer (Re’m). [Alternatively:] Perhaps we do not derive a warning from a kal vachomer where we wish to derive from the essence of the law. [For example,] the Torah prohibited [relations with] one’s granddaughter and we wish to derive [the prohibition also applies to] one’s daughter from this. In such a case we say that we may not derive a warning [based on a kal vachomer], for perhaps it is a Scriptural decree and thus we cannot derive the warning based on a kal vachomer. However, when the Torah gives a reason [for prohibiting] and states: “The rabbit, for it chews its cud but does not have a cloven hoof,” then certainly we may clearly derive that if an animal has no sign at all there is more reason to forbid it, and it may be derived correctly through a kal vachomer. When [the Torah gives] a reason it is not applicable [to say] “we do not derive a warning...” (Gur Aryeh).

On a festival. “On a festival” means on Yom Tov, i.e., when the people of Israel are obligated to purify themselves on the festival, because one is obligated to bring the burnt-offering of being seen, to the Temple courtyard. This [reason] is not applicable during the rest of the year.

To forbid their mixtures. [Rashi knows this] because this is an extra verse, for it is written above: “They are repulsive.”

[Enough to] impart [their] taste. This is only when one kind is mixed with a different kind, but if one kind was mixed with its own kind, one impure mixed with two hundred pure is permitted.

**Gnats.**Meaning: A [creeping] thing that originates and develops in the water inside of vessels is not subject to the prohibition. The verse: “And their carcasses shall be repulsive to you” comes to include [in the prohibition] immediately when [the creeping things] are separated from the water, for instance, he filtered them from the water. They are forbidden because they have been separated from the place of their proliferation.

**What does this verse tell [us]?**This is an extra verse, for it is written above (v. 10): “All that do not have fins...”

**I might know only...**I.e., were this verse not written, I would have thought: “I know only...”

Although it lost them in being brought up. However, this cannot be derived from the first verse (10), for if so, it should say “in the water,” and not “in the oceans and rivers.” Rather, it teaches that in the oceans and rivers, which are running, flowing water, the fish without signs are forbidden, but in vessels, ditches, and cisterns, even though they have no signs they may be eaten. See there (Chulin 67a).

“To be eaten.”[Rashi knows this] from the fact Moshe Rabbeinu changed the expression in Mishneh Torah (Devarim 14:12) and wrote: לא תאכלו, and did not write לא יאכלו, which implies both the prohibition of eating and obtaining benefit, as he heard the Divine word from Hashem. Rather, it must be that this was how he received it at Sinai: [The phrase] לא יאכלו written regarding impure birds does not come to prohibit one to receive any benefit from them. Perforce, then, it [comes to make] liable one who feeds them to a minor.

All of them are of one species. You might ask: How does this relate to what Rashi explains beforehand? The answer is: Since he explains beforehand that the impure birds written in the Torah explicitly are permitted for one to receive benefit, for it is written: לא תאכלם, we can explain where it is written, למינה למינו למינהו, even if they do not resemble each other, either in appearance or name, they are of one species. However, if those that were written in the Torah explicitly were forbidden for one to receive benefit, because it is written: לא יאכל, we would then explain that where it is written למינה למינו למינהו it does not teach they are actually one species, but rather those that resemble each other in appearance and name are prohibited [also for one to receive benefit] as these which are written explicitly. However, those that do not resemble them, either in appearance or name, are not the same species, and are not as stringent as the ones written explicitly in the Torah in that they are not forbidden for one to receive benefit; they are only prohibited to be eaten. But now that we say even those that are written in the Torah explicitly do not have a prohibition for one to receive benefit, if so, we cannot say those that are written explicitly are more stringent. Perforce, it comes to teach that they are of one species.

It has five [feet], it is [ritually] clean. Otherwise, why does it say this when above it is written (v. 21-22): “However, these you may eat of all the flying insects that walk on four [legs]...” which implies that only these four species [mentioned] are permitted, but the rest of the flying insects that have four feet are prohibited to be eaten? Rather, it must be: “[This] comes and teaches [us]...” This raises a difficulty: Perhaps [we should instead learn] from this that if it has two legs it is pure? [The answer is:] It seems that a verse is surely not needed for one with two legs, for Scripture only says: “that walk on four [legs]” and not on two. A verse is needed, however, for five legs, because four legs are included in five. Therefore, it is needed to exclude that if it has five it is pure (Gur Aryeh).

There is uncleanness with their touch. I.e., not that He commands them to become impure. Rather, this is what it means: If you touch them you will be made unclean.

**The uncleanness [caused by] carrying is more severe than [that caused by] touch.**Re’m writes: I have not heard a correct explanation as to what Rashi is coming to let us know with this rule. It is explicitly written here that the impurity caused by touch does not require washing of clothing and impurity caused by carrying requires washing of clothing! If it is to inform us that everywhere else it is as it is written here — what practical difference does that make? Perhaps the answer is: Rashi is coming to let us know that the impurity of touch is not derived through a kal vachomer from the impurity of carrying and it would thus require washing of clothing, [as follows:] [The impurity acquired by] carrying is not applicable to creeping creatures [and the impurity of a seminal discharge], yet it requires washing of clothing, then [the impurity of] touch, which is applicable to all types of impurities, is it not logical that it requires washing of clothing? For this reason Rashi explains: “Wherever the uncleanness [caused by] carrying is mentioned, it is more severe than [that caused by] touch,” and you will not find any place where Scripture obligates washing clothing for the impurity of touch. If the impurity of touch required washing of clothes from a kal vachomer, then Scripture would not have neglected to write in some place regarding the impurity of touch: “He shall wash his garments.” The same type of argument is found in the first chapter of Chulin (22b) (Re’m). This does not seem to be true, because if Rashi means this, he should say the opposite: “Wherever the uncleanness [caused by] touch is mentioned, it does not require washing of clothing.” And a further difficulty: Rashi should explain that Scripture is coming to let us know that the impurity of carrying is not derived from the impurity of touch to be exempt from washing clothing, [as the Sages derived in Toras Kohanim]: [The impurity of] touch is more allencompassing, yet it does not cause impurity to clothing, then [the impurity of] carrying, which encompasses less [types of impurities], is it not logical that it should not cause impurity [to clothing]? Therefore, the Torah teaches, etc. It seems to me that Rashi is coming to inform us not to say [the impurities of] touch and carrying are the same. Because if so, when the Torah writes that creeping creatures and seminal discharge cause impurity through touch, they should also cause impurity by carrying. With regard to this Rashi says in any case the impurity [caused by] carrying is more severe than [that caused by] touch, in that it requires washing of clothing. If Scripture’s intent was that they [creeping creatures and seminal discharge] cause impurity also with carrying, it would not have remained silent, for washing of clothing cannot be derived from [the impurity of] touch, since, “it is sufficient for that which is derived through logical means [such as through comparison or kal vachomer, to be like that from which is was derived]...” (Nachalas Yaakov).

**At the end of the parshah it explains [the rule] regarding a [ritually] clean animal.**I.e., Scripture divides them into two categories to tell us that the [proper] slaughter of a treifah (debilitated animal) renders it pure from the impurity of neveilah (carcass, an animal that died without slaughter). For this reason it is written there (v. 39): “If [any animal] dies...” [which implies] specifically one that dies [without slaughter] causes the impurity of neveilah, but a treifah, although it will eventually die, if it was slaughtered it is pure from the impurity of neveilah. However, an impure animal, whether it died or was slaughtered, is not purified from the impurity of neveilah by means of slaughtering. Therefore, it is written regarding it (v. 27): “[All who touch] their carcasses,” without specifying whether it died or was slaughtered (Re’m).

Bear and cat. Meaning: Their paws are not covered with hooves.

After its immersion it is unclean. I.e., you should not say that because it was put into water, that is, it was immersed, it would be impure until evening, as would be understood from, “shall be brought into water and is unclean until the evening.” Therefore, Rashi adds “even after its immersion” — it does not depart from its impurity until after the setting of the sun. Meaning: For terumah, whereas for ma’aser (tithes) it is pure immediately after it is immersed and comes out, as it says in Yevamos (75a) (Kitzur Mizrachi).

Except through its interior. I.e., if the impurity entered its interior space but did not touch it, it is impure. From the outside, however, it remains pure even if the impurity touches it. This is derived from, “everything that is within it becomes unclean,” [by means of a comparison:] We find that the interior — when the vessel causes impurity to the food within — even if the impurity never touches [all the food contents] it becomes impure, for even if the vessel was full of mustard seeds, everything is impure, although the vessel does not [directly] touch all the seeds, but only the seeds that are adjacent to its walls. You cannot say that this seed causes impurity to that one, and this one causes impurity to that one, since food cannot cause impurity to food. Furthermore, if it did, this would become a Second [level of impurity], and the next one a Third, but a Third does not cause impurity to make a Fourth. Perforce, the mustard seeds become impure by being in the interior of the vessel. So too, the interior mentioned in the imparting of impurity to the vessel — even though the impurity never touches the vessel, but it is only suspended within [the interior of] the vessel, the vessel becomes impure (Re’m).

In turn causes impurity. [Rashi knows this] from the fact that it is not written “everything that it touches within it.” Rather, even if it does not touch anything but only enters the interior, whatever is in it is impure (Minchas Yehudah). Alternatively, it is not as if the vessel is full of impurity and whatever is in it is touching the impurity, for if so, why are vessels excluded from the law of becoming impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel, as Rashi explains later (v. 34)? Rather, it must be that the vessel itself becomes impure from the creeping creature in its interior, and the vessel becomes a First [source of impurity]. It then in turn causes impurity to whatever is in its interior to make it a Second. Thus, vessels are excluded, because a vessel that is a First does not cause impurity to another vessel (Re’m).

Cannot be purified. I.e., if you want to purify it from its impurity you must break it until it is no longer fit for its original use. If it was made to hold food items, one makes a hole until olives would fall out, and if it was made for liquids, he bores a hole until it can no longer hold liquid.

To the verse. This is because it is not connected with the juxtaposed verse: “you shall break it.” The meaning of “אשר יבא עליו מים (upon which water comes),” is: “אשר באו עליו (upon which [water] came).” This is because the expression אשר יבא [seemingly] instructs that after the food was within the impure earthenware vessel — if water will come upon it — it will become impure. This, however, is not so, for the Torah enjoins (v. 38): “If water was once placed on seeds and part of their carcasses fall upon them” — then it will become impure. Rashi then adds: “While it is within an unclean earthenware vessel.” So that you will not say that since the food entered the interior of an impure vessel and then was taken out from the vessel, it will become impure if water now came upon it, because we would say the impurity returned and awakened after the water came upon it. Therefore, Rashi says: “[Water comes] while it is within the vessel” (Re’m).

**Even when dry.**This is because Scripture makes its being subject to impurity dependant only on whether water comes on it, without specifying; it does not differentiate whether it is dry or moist.

**Food or liquid become unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel.**Re’m writes:****It seems to me that the phrase “or liquid” is a misprint, and the correct text is “food becomes unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel,” and not “food or liquid.” This is because the word “beverage” that is written in the verse was already explained by Rashi as referring to preparing it for impurity, and according to Rabbi Eliezer, but it does not refer to causing impurity from a beverage, as the view of Rabbi Yuda and Rabbi Yossi (Pesachim 16a). If so, [that “beverage” refers to preparing for impurity], how could Rashi write later: “Furthermore, our Rabbis learned from here [food or liquid becomes unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel, but not vessels]...”? Also, in Toras Kohanim and in Pesachim (20b) it is only written: “Food becomes impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel, but vessels do not become impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel.”

After it had been picked. Meaning: After the food had been detached from the earth, otherwise, there is no [vegetation] that had not been exposed to water [through rain], so why then does it say [impurity is only applicable]: “Upon which water comes”?

Unless there is an egg’s-volume. I.e., people that eat less than this amount are not impure. However, this does not mean that food does not cause other items to become impure when it does not have this amount, because even if it has the minimum amount through which it becomes impure it does not cause other things to become impure. This is because foodstuffs do not cause other foodstuffs to become impure by Torah law (so I found). The fact that it does not cause impurity to other things is derived from [the fact] that Scripture does not write טמא but rather, יטמא, which is as if it says: It is impure but it will not cause other things to become impure.

Which may be moved. [Rashi knows this] because if they were vessels that are not movable, but rather attached to the ground, they would not become impure, for every item attached to the ground is like the ground [which does not become impure]. And from the fact it is written, “it shall be shattered,” which implies it cannot be purified in a mikveh, Rashi infers that the verse refers to earthenware vessels. And since they are earthenware vessels, we must say they have an interior, for earthenware vessels become impure only from their interior. However, this does not mean specifically earthenware, for an oven is not fired in a kiln. Rather, since ovens are made from clay and dried in the sun they are called earthenware, and they have the same law as earthenware vessels (Re’m). This raises a difficulty: Scripture already wrote the law of earthenware vessels, as it is written (v. 33): “Every earthen vessel”! Re’m wrote that an earthenware vessel is fired [in a kiln] and is made from clay, but the oven and hearth are only made from clay and dried in the sun. However, I do not know what difference this makes. Thus, it appears to me that above it lets us know that an earthenware vessel that became impure can be rectified through purification by breakage, as it says in Toras Kohanim: “And you shall break it” — it has rectification through breaking it. [If it was used for food] he breaks it partially until it has a hole that makes it unable to be used for foodstuff. If Scripture had only written the verse above, I would think (v. 33) “and you shall break it” means entirely, and it cannot be purified by partially breaking it. Thus, the verse (35): “it shall be shattered” lets us know, [because] it means that it cannot be purified through immersing [in a mikveh] and remain as it is. Boring a hole, however, helps. This is because we cannot say “it shall be shattered” means literally [to completely shatter it], for it says afterwards “and they shall be unclean to you,” upon which Rashi explains he is not obligated to shatter it, but may keep it for the days when he is impure. However, [if it only said this verse, “and he shall shatter it,” I might think it has no purification in a mikveh and he must keep it for the days of his impurity, but] to purify it through breakage does not help, thus, it lets us know with the verse above that it can be purified through boring a hole (Divrei Dovid).

Attached. You might ask: Above, Rashi derives that (v. 34): “Every beverage that is drunk, in any vessel, shall be impure” refers to the preparation [of foodstuffs] for impurity, and not impurity [of liquids themselves]. This is because Rashi holds like the view that there is no impurity of liquids by Torah law, and this is according to Rabbi Eliezer’s view (Pesachim 16a). Here, though, Rashi explains that specifically the water attached to the ground do not acquire impurity. Hear from this that there is impurity of liquids by Torah law, which follows the view of Rabbi Yuda (ibid.)! The answer is: This is why Rashi adds: “Moreover, you have still to learn...” which is according to Rabbi Eliezer. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not say, “And there are those that explain”? The answer is: Rabbi Yuda would also agree with this, for he holds that both can be derived, since they are equal, and therefore both may be learned (Re’m). It appears that there is proof for both these teachings, for the first explanation alone presents a difficulty: Why does it say: יהי' טהור? Why doe we need the word יהי'? Rather, it refers to someone who is now impure that he can be pure through immersion in these waters. And the second explanation alone poses a difficulty [as well:] What is the relevancy of this to here, which deals with the way in which a vessel acquires impurity? Perforce, here also it lets us know that water cannot become impure in any way (Divrei Dovid).

**Well-spring or pit.**I.e., if he touches a carcass and he is inside a well-spring or pit, he becomes impure. This exegesis is based on the extra verse, which is expounded as follows: “However, a well-spring and a pit, a gathering of water” — an impure person that immerses in them — “shall be pure.” But — a pure person that stands in them and touches a creeping creature that falls into it — “shall be unclean.”

For you should not propose a ק"ו. Re’m writes: However, [the Rabbis] taught in Toras Kohanim: The earth uplifts impure items from their impurity, for if impure seeds were planted, which then took root in the earth, they become pure, and a mikveh also purifies the impure, thus, just as the earth saves the pure, i.e., the seeds that take root in the earth [are saved] from becoming impure, so too, water [accomplishes] the same. Therefore, it says: “That which touches their carcasses shall be unclean” — water does not save from becoming impure.

**To be called “food.”**Meaning: From that which it is written in the next verse: “If water was once placed on seeds and part of their carcasses fall upon them, they are unclean,” it implies that previously where it is written, “it remains [ritually] clean,” is dealing in a case where a part of their carcasses fell upon them before water came upon them. See Re’m where he cites the difficulties raised by Toras Kohanim and the Talmud: Why do we need a verse when it can be derived from that above (v. 34)? He brings the answers the Sages answered there. This raises a difficulty: This can be derived from (v. 38): “If water was once placed,” which implies that without water it cannot become impure! It appears to me that upon analysis of Scripture that first it says: “on any sowing seed that will be planted,” and then afterwards it says, “If water was once placed on seeds” where it mentions only “seeds.” Consequently, one could err and make a distinction between seeds that grow on their own without planting and those that are planted. I might think that when we say seeds are prepared to acquire impurity specifically through water being placed on them — that refers only to seeds that grew on their own without any action, but seeds that were planted and designated as food do not need require that they be prepared with water [in order to become impure]. Therefore, Scripture lets me know [that this is not true] (Divrei Dovid).

Or other liquids. For we derive a gezeirah shavah from מים מים, from the word מים above (v. 34) regarding earthenware vessels, where other liquids are regarded the same as water.

Whether the seed falls into them. As it is written: “If water was once placed on seeds,” and it is written nearby: “ונפל וגו' (and falls...).” [Thus,] the word ונפל should also be read with what precedes it: And seed falls into water. [And the word זרע is interpreted both with the previous phrase and the next phrase: “Water upon seed,” and “seeds falls...”] (Re’m).

Not bones. Meaning: This is when they are separated from where they are attached. But when they are attached to the flesh, one who touches them is like he is touching the flesh — either because they serve as a ‘handle’ or as a ‘protective agent.’

**The uncleanness of carrying is more severe.**I explained this above (v. 25). [You might ask:] Why does Rashi explain this here when he already explained it above? The answer is: Since it is written here: “Whoever eats of its carcass” — To provide a [minimum] measure for one who carries or touches [it] — I might think that since Scripture equates them for the minimum measure of impurity, the same also applies for the washing of clothing. For this reason, Rashi needed to once again explain here. We should not ask: How does Rashi know this? Re’m already answered: Since Scripture would not have neglected to mention in some place regarding impurity [caused by] touch that one must wash his clothing.

**Perhaps.**Rashi explains this out of order, after the phrase “Whoever carries its carcass,” so that he could connect the one who carries with the one who touches — to inform us about the difference between them, that is, that the impurity of carrying is more severe than the impurity of touch, as explained above, for otherwise, what is it coming to let us know?

**As much as for eating — and that is an olive’s-bulk.**That is, a half of an egg. [You might ask:] Rashi explains above (v. 34): “food which is eaten in one [gulp], and the Sages estimated that the gullet cannot hold more than a hen’s egg [at once],” i.e., an entire egg! [The answer is:] That is referring to a forced situation and here it is referring to an unforced situation. This raises a strong difficulty: In the end, it is not possible that Scripture should write a falsehood! The one who eats it does not need to wash his clothing, only the one who carries it! It appears to me: Certainly, the verse goes according to its plain meaning, that is, whoever eats of its carcass, in that he stuck it into his gullet by himself, is not impure due to the eating but he is impure due to carrying the [minimal] amount of eating (Gur Aryeh).

The setting of the sun. I already explained this above regarding (v. 32): “shall be brought [put] into water, and remains unclean until the evening,” and here its explanation is the same. Re’m explains this in another way: Although he immerses [in a mikveh] he needs the setting of the sun, for if not, it should say: “After he washes with water he shall be pure.” “הערב שמש” means the setting of the sun, which is the coming out of the stars, for the expression וטהר (22:7) means the cleansing of the day. Otherwise, it should say ויטהר (Berachos 2b). Rashi explains this here and not in another place [where it says “he is unclean until the evening”] because this verse does not come to teach that he should be impure until the evening [and not seven days] as the others. Rather, it teaches the minimal amount for the one who carries or touches. Meaning, although it says in Parshas Emor (22:7): “ובא השמש וטהר (When the sun sets he is pure),” that is said in regard to the other types of impurity, but this one is for the carcass of an animal. The Torah writes it for both. Up to this point are the words of Re’m, but I wrote what appears [to be correct] in my eyes (Minchas Yehudah).

Short feet. You might ask: How does this relate to what Rashi explained beforehand? He should have brought this explanation on the verse! The answer is: This is so that you will not contend: Perhaps “לא יאכל (it may not be eaten)” comes to prohibit one from deriving any benefit from שרצים (creeping creatures), and the phrase (v. 42): “לא תאכלם (you may not eat them)” of שרצים comes to prohibit eating a creature which is low with short feet although it is not considered [in the category of] שרצים. For this reason Rashi explains: “[The word] שרץ denotes only a [creature which is low, with short feet].” If so, something low is the שרצים spoken of in the Torah. Therefore, “לא תאכלם” (v. 42) comes only with regard to שרצים. Consequently, perforce, “לא יאכל” (v. 41) does not come to teach a prohibition of deriving benefit, for later it is written, “לא תאכלם” (see Pesachim 21b). Similarly, that which Rashi explains above (v. 13): “Any fowl of which it is said: ‘to its kind’...” needs to be explained in this way (so I found).

Worms. These are the long worms that come out of the ground that have no legs, found in garbage, and especially in the summer days after the rain stops.

And whatever is similar to anything similar to it. I.e., they have slight signs of legs but they crawl on their belly like a snake.

As I am holy. Meaning, because every use of the word כי is to provide a reason for what precedes it. Therefore Rashi explains: “Just as I...”

**Sanctify yourselves.**This is an extra phrase, for it would be sufficient to say: “You shall sanctify yourselves for I am Holy,” [and omit the phrase: “and you shall become holy”]. Rather, it is extra in order to expound in this manner.

**Many negative commandments.**Otherwise, it is already written above (v. 43): “and do not make yourselves unclean...”

You must know. Meaning: That which it cautions: “To distinguish...” is not only that he should learn and know their laws, but he also needs to put in an effort so that he is able to recognize which is impure and which is pure as well.

**A donkey and a cow.**Meaning: Their signs were already explained as to which are impure and which are pure. If so, why does it say: “To distinguish”?

That which is clean to you. Meaning: What is unclean for you by your own doing or clean for you by your own doing.

And when the greater part of has been cut through. I.e., if you slaughter the animal’s entire gullet but only half of the wind-pipe, you have made it unclean for eating although it is a clean species. However, when [the entire gullet and] the greater part of the wind-pipe is cut, you have made it clean for eating. Although it was forbidden to be eaten until now due to the prohibition of a limb from a living animal (Nachalas Yaakov).

**Characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden [but] it is kosher.**For instance, the windpipe had a hole, or the skull was opened but the brain’s membrane was not pierced, and the like, which are kosher.

Characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden. And these are all the eighteen treifos enumerated by the Sages. See all this in the Chazkuni commentary. Chazkuni writes: “Between [those] in which there have arisen characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden [but] it is kosher” — for instance, he cut the wind-pipe and then the lung developed a hole before he cut the gullet, which is a characteristic of treifah but it is kosher, because the lung’s vitality depends on the wind-pipe [and the lung is as if it is “placed in a basket” after the wind-pipe is severed, thus, it has no influence on the kashrus of the animal]. “And [those] in which there have arisen characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden and it is [indeed] not kosher” — for instance, the lung developed a hole before the cutting of the wind-pipe. This is found in Maseches Chulin (32b). However, I say this is not the way, since Rashi did not say these words on his own, but rather, it is a Baraisa in Toras Kohanim, and the majority agree that the halachah is not like Reish Lakish [who says if he cut the wind-pipe and then the lung developed a hole before cutting the gullet it is kosher] (Tzeidah L’Derech).