וידבר ה' אל משה ואהרן, “Hashem spoke to Moses and Aaron,” even though the section commencing now applies equally to Israelites and priests, in some respects the priests are affected by it more than the ordinary Israelites, as some of the forbidden foods are apt to confer ritual impurity on the priests upon physical contact, and the priests are under constant constraints not to allow themselves to become ritually impure. Whenever the priests are in a state of impurity they cannot eat any sacrificial meat, nor may they enter the holy precincts, etc. Furthermore, if, inadvertently, the Israelites would commit a trespass against the legislation in this chapter, they would require the services of a priest to offer a sin offering on their behalf so as to re-establish themselves in good standing with Hashem. In addition to that, the chapter concludes (verse 47) with the need to distinguish between what is ritually pure and what is not, and it is the task of the priests to educate the Israelites at large in the laws of ritual purity. This is the reason why this legislation is included in the Book of Leviticus, a Book that deals largely with the duties and privileges of the priests.

מכל הבהמה אשר על הארץ, “from among all the animals that are on the earth.” According to the plain meaning of the text our verse refers to animals everywhere. According to the Midrash the words אשר על הארץ, are intended to exclude animals whose habitat is in the waters, in the sea, as these are not subject to the identifying marks of the mammals described here.

מבשרם לא תאכלו, “you must not eat of their flesh. According to Rashi this line refers to animals not listed here by name that have no distinguishing marks making them fit for consumption by Jews. We arrive at this by simple logic, seeing that the Torah forbids the eating of animals that possess only one of the two distinguishing marks. Nachmanides writes that if that were so we could not administer the penalty of 39 lashes to anyone eating animals that lacked both distinguishing marks, as such a penalty cannot be administered to prohibitions not specifically spelled out in the text. He claims that the ability to administer the penalty of 39 lashes to people eating animals which have neither of the two distinguishing marks is derived from the שפן, hyrax, concerning which the Torah emphasizes that though it chews the cud, it does not have split hooves, and on the other hand, the Torah spells out that the pig is forbidden though it does have split hooves because it does not chew the cud. From these two verses it is clear that any animal not possessing split hooves or/and is chewing the cud is forbidden for Israelites on pain of the penalty of 39 lashes. There is no need to apply logic, as mentioned by Rashi.

ובנבלתם לא תגעו, “and you must not touch their carcasses.” This is not phrased as an outright prohibition, but it means that touching such a carcass confers ritual impurity on the person doing this, with all the consequences that follow, such as the inability to consume any parts of sacrificial offerings, inability to approach the consecrated ground of the Temple Mount. Our sages (Rosh Hashanah 16) understand the verse as a warning that one must purify oneself before the festivals requiring one’s presence in Jerusalem for offering the requisite sacrifices. At any rate, they view this as a אסמכתא, a Biblical support for a Rabbinic injunction.

וכל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת, “and any fish that has neither a fin or scales, etc.” Nachmanides, in speculating on the significance of these features, claims that any creatures inhabiting the waters that possess fins and scales, are always found in the upper regions of the water. They therefore use the air above the surface of the water to promote their growth. They also benefit from a degree of warmth provided by the sun. The effect on their general well being is similar to the effect of the wool on the well being of sheep, or as human hair and nails act as protection against excess moisture. He reasons that the creatures which are not equipped with such protective, life extending, armour-like scales, are too cold and are too wet to enjoy an existence of any duration, are constantly on the threshold of death. Nachmanides speaks primarily of creatures found in lakes and ponds, no one in his time having much knowledge about creatures at or near the bottom of the ocean. He describes the death of these creatures in the lakes as largely due to some kind of pestilence, the waters at that level being polluted and the fish not having anything to fight off the disease with. The reason why the Torah does not list any fish as having names may be that Adam had never given them any names either. [perhaps this very fact accounts for fish being considered as inferior forms of life. Ed.]

מכל שרץ המים ומכל נפש החיה, “from all that teems in the water, and from all living creatures in the water, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to Ibn Ezra שרץ המים refers to the tiny living parasites that are spawned by the waters, whereas the expression נפש החיה refers to creatures which mate with one another, there being males and females of these species. Nachmanides’ own view is that the expression שרץ המים includes the fish that swim on the surface of the water, seeing that whenever we encounter the term שרץ it refers to mobile creatures. On the other hand, the expression נפש החיה in his view, refers to the creatures which make the water their habitat, but are equipped with feet that they move on, not fins. Regardless of all this, they are all subject to the same rule, unless they have both fins and scales they are not “kosher.”

ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף, “and these are the species of birds which you are to abominate;” Nachmanides writes that only the species named hereafter are forbidden, as well as their sub species where the Torah adds the word למינו or למינהו, to indicate that there are such sub species. Our sages have provided us with physical peculiarities of the forbidden categories of birds, seeing that not all of us are familiar with all these birds by name, and some may be known by different names in different parts of the globe. The most easily recognizable physical abnormality of these forbidden birds, something they all have in common, is that they are predators. In fact, if we encounter a bird that attacks other birds or even larger animals, it is certain that it belongs to a forbidden species regardless of any other marks of identification to that effect. These birds are hot blooded especially when they are on the attack, and consuming such victims. While engaged in attack, their blood turns black from the cruelty with which they kill their prey. This cruel streak leaves it mark on its heart, i.e. its personality. However, the only such birds in the whole globe are the ones mentioned by name in our chapter here. When we encounter a species of bird with which we are not familiar, but we are sure that it is not a bird of prey, we can be certain that it belongs to the large majority of “pure” birds, and that after the proper procedures we may eat it. There are only two species of the forbidden birds listed here that are not birds of prey, and they are not found in parts of the globe inhabited by man. They are the פרס and the עזניה. Possibly, the nature of their habitat, a primitive, creature-hostile environment, left its marks on the blood of these two creatures so that the Torah forbade them in spite of the fact that neither category of bird fits the description דורס, bird of prey. The underlying reason for the 24 species of birds which the Torah singled out as forbidden for the Israelites is the fact that we observe that they transmit their cruel streak also to their offspring. The reason why the Torah chose seven categories of mammals that chew the cud and have spilt hooves as acceptable for consumption by Israelites, is the fact that none of them feed on live creatures. All the others look for living creatures to become their source of sustenance. Our sages, (Avodah Zarah 35), as well as Maimonides maachalot assurrot basing themselves on empirical; knowledge, state that milk from animals not permitted to us is easily distinguishable by the fact that the milk of all the forbidden animal does not curdle, and even when mixed with milk of “kosher” animals does not lose its characteristics. He speculates that milk of the ritually forbidden animals may have a negative influence on the semen of the person consuming it, thus making him less likely to produce sperm that develops normally. When the infant would drink the milk of a mother who had born a child by a father who had eaten ritually unclean mammals, her milk would be affected. This would be in addition to the health and growth promoting nutrients provided by the milk and meat of the ritually clean mammals. I have personally read in a number of medical; textbooks (Nachmanides writing) that children raised on pig’s milk are liable to be afflicted with tzoraat, a terribly serious skin disease.

וכל שרץ העוף, “every flying teeming creature etc.,” Rashi explains the term שרץ העוף as applying to all small insect like creatures that move slowly on the ground, such as the common fly, etc. Nachmanides disagrees, as he cannot agree that any species of bird can be described as שרץ just because it is small in size. Neither is a bird called עוף just because it has a certain size. The עטלף is small and is listed as by the Torah as an עוף, whereas many species of locusts have legs which are larger than their bodies. If we accept Rashi’s definition of שרץ העוף, why is the עטלף not included as one of the שרץ העוף? Size of the body clearly is not the decisive factor in determining the difference between these two groups of flying creatures. The fact is that the Torah itself explains the nature of שרץ העוף in our verse, when it is described as walking on four legs, and as having jumping legs above its wings, these legs being employed as a launching pad to enable it to fly or jump. This is also why these creatures are not called עוף כנף, “winged bird,” or plain עוף, “bird.” Another feature of these שרץ העוף is that their neck and head instead of being above their bodies, are generally lower than the highest parts of the rest of their bodies.

ולאלה תטמאו, “through the following you will become ritually unclean.” The reason the Torah prefaces this verse with the restrictive ובאלה, “through these,” an expression not found in connection with either the fish, the fowl, or the teeming creatures including the locusts, is to teach that the ritual defilement resulting from contact with the dead bodies of these creatures applies only to the ones mentioned in the verse preceding, i.e. 4 legged שרץ העוף, or the ones mentioned forthwith. Note that the carcass of an animal permitted for consumption by Israelites after the appropriate preparations, does not confer ritual contamination on contact if it died by ritual slaughter. This is why the Torah does not refer to מיתה, death, but to נבלתם, their carcass, i.e. their having died by natural causes. Anyone touching such cadavers becomes ritually defiled. The Torah also speaks of such animals “dying,” as כי ימות, (11,39) meaning that if the animal had not “died”’ but had been slaughtered, its cadaver does not confer ritual impurity.

כל הנוגע בנבלתם יטמא עד הערב, “anyone touching its cadaver will remain ritually impure until nightfall.” The evening” by itself does not remove the ritual contamination. If the affected person has immersed himself in a ritual bath prior to sunset on the day he came into contact with the cadaver, then, and only then, does the expiry of that day remove such impurity from him. The Torah did not bother to elaborate on that point as it had already explained that a garment which had become ritually contaminated needs to be “washed,” i.e. immersed in a ritual bath, in order to rid itself of such contamination. (Compare verse 28) If even a garment cannot regain ritual purity without a ritual bath, how much more is this required for the body that had been in contact with the cadaver. In the case of contact with the teeming creatures whose cadaver confers ritual impurity, the Torah not only mentions the need to immerse oneself in a ritual bath, but it adds the punishment awaiting those who ignore the legislation and come into contact with sacred objects, or who enter sacred grounds in such a state. This punishment, i.e. death at the hand of heaven, usually premature death, is the standard punishment for all who ignore the need to purify themselves before entering sacred ground or coming into contact with holy objects, or sacrificial meat, etc.

וכל הנושא מנבלתם יכבס בגדיו, “and anyone carrying part of such a carcass, etc.” The Torah applied more stringent laws for carrying such a cadaver than for merely coming into contact with it without moving it. The latter is required to also immerse his garments before he and they can become purified. The reason may be that ”touching” is presumed to be a light touch, something merely incidental, whereas “carrying” implies major preoccupation with the cadaver in question. The garments of a carrier had an active part in the cadaver being transported.

וכל הולך על כפיו, “and all creatures that ”walk,” i.e. move on their paws, etc.” Whereas in connection with the mammals that are forbidden to eat, the Torah had lumped them together under the heading of בהמה, here the Torah uses the heading חיה as neither having split hooves nor chewing the cud. Why did not the Torah mention the disqualification from being as a “Kosher” being one that walks on paws already at the beginning of our chapter? Nachmanides speculates that possibly the reason is that even gentiles as a rule do not eat animals that walk on their paws. [this sounds strange to this editor, as surely in Nachmanides’ time eating of hares and rabbits which walk on their paws was already commonplace? Ed.] At any rate the term חיה is a sub category of the comprehensive term בהמה, so that there was no need to refer to that feature earlier.

The author quotes Rabbi Avraham Bing, of Wuerzburg, Germany who calculated that the numerical value of the word השורץ is equivalent to the numerical values of the word כשעורה, a measure that our sages established as the minimum quantity of bone of such a cadavar which has the ability to confer ritual impurity on those contacting it. [These numbers do not match, i.e word כשעורה having a numerical value of 601, whereas the word השורץ as spelled here without the letter ו amounting only to 595. Ed.] Later authorities question the relevance of this as the minimum size of such a piece of bone is not the size of a kernel of barley, i.e. כשעורה, but the much greater size of כעדשה, corresponding to the size of a lentil. I have heard an answer concerning this apparent inconsistency, by a statement that the author of the book שמרה רוחי in which this gimmatria appeared meant כשערה, “as the size of the width of a hair”. His words would then be in line with those expressed in a baraitha in Chulin folio 126 according to which the size of hole in an eggshell of the egg of such a teeming creature (the inside of which already contained the beginnings of an embryo) so that he who touches it on the outside is perceived as having touched that embryo, would need to be of that thickness. Our verse would hint at this, seeing that the word השורץ is spelled with the letter ו missing, i.e. as השרץ. Once we accept this the supposed numerical value of the word השרץ spelled effectively would match that of the word כשעורה, =595. Personally, I find all this difficult.

וכל אשר יפול עליו מהם במותם, “and anything which falls upon them when they are dead, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to our sages this verse applies only to the eight species of “teeming creatures” mentioned in verse 29. They derived from this verse that the minimum size of such a teeming creature’s ability to confer ritual impurity is the size of a lentil. (Compare Chagigah 11) According to the plain meaning of the text it would appear that the words מהם במותם, “of them when they are dead,” refer to what the Torah had written earlier in the context of בהמה טמאה, חיה, שרץ, mammals and all land based animals which are ritually unclean and cannot serve as food for Israelites, for why would the Torah mention ritual impurity affecting clothing as a separate subject, seeing that the same rules of impurity also apply to cadavers. Similarly, they all require the same qualifying symptoms in order to potentially be fit for consumption by Israelites. The Torah therefore is presumed to speak of all of these categories here.

וטמא עד הערב וטהור, “he will remain in a state of ritual impurity until nightfall, and then he will become ritually clean.” This verse speaks of terumah, the heave (gift) from the grain given to the priest, which after immersion in a ritual bath remains in a state of impurity until evening. Nachmanides writes that the reason why this formula of עד הערב, until nightfall,” is repeated on so many occasions, is that in each of these examples we speak of terumah or something like it, i.e. something which possesses a degree of holiness by definition. Food that is of a secular type, may be consumed by the ordinary Israelites, even when they are in a state of ritual impurity without their having been immersed in a ritual bath. Therefore, if such food has been immersed in a ritual bath there is certainly no need to await sundown before it may be eaten.

תנור וכירים יותץ, “an oven or stove must be smashed;” the news in this verse is that although these ovens or stoves are fastened to the ground they stand on, something which normally would make them immune to becoming affected with ritual impurity, in the situation described they are subject to the same rules as are earthenware vessels which are not fastened to the ground anymore. In order for such vessels to lose their contamination they must be broken up into pieces small enough to make them practically useless in terms of what they were made for. The reason why the Torah employed the expression יותץ instead of the more common ישבר, for describing something broken, is because the term יותץ which describes the destruction of a building, contains within it the hint that even stoves and ovens which are like buildings must also be destroyed in order to shed their ritual impurity. We find this expression in connection with houses afflicted with tzoraat, as in Leviticus

על כל זרע זרוע, “upon any edible seed that has been planted;” we learn from here that what has been planted as potential food will never be able to be ritually contaminated unless, after having been separated from the earth, it also has undergone a process of making it potentially fit to be ritually contaminated. In most cases, such as here, it means that it had become wet with the active or passive consent of the owner. Although we have already derived this rule from the verse (34) commencing with the words מכל האוכל, I would have had reason to think that such food is immune from contamination in the airspace of an earthenware vessel only. Alternately, previously the Torah only spoke about the kind of foodstuffs that are ready to be eaten in their present state, whereas in our verse here the Torah includes the seed, i.e potential food. As for the reason why these foodstuffs require a preparatory step approved by their owner before they are liable to become ritually contaminated, according to Nachmanides, the reason is that the dirt from these teeming creatures have a tendency to adhere to wet foodstuffs, (fruit) but not to dry ones. The Torah therefore decreed that wet foodstuffs are liable to be contaminated ritually. To the question why they should still be capable of becoming contaminated even if the owner had thoroughly dried these foodstuffs after they had become wet, the answer is that the sages never make their rules apply only partially, i.e. to some scenarios and not to others.

והאוכל מנבלתה יכבס בגדיו, “and he who eats from that cadaver must wash his clothes (immerse them in a ritual bath)”. Our sages explained this verse as an attempt by the Torah to apply the same yardstick regarding purification of someone who had consumed ritually contaminated food, as to someone whose clothing had become contaminated by it. In both instances contamination, i.e. eating the size of an olive results in the person becoming contaminated, just as contact through carrying of an amount of an olive’s size, results in the carrier becoming ritually unclean. According to the plain meaning of the text, the Torah describes a normal person’s eating habits. He both touches and lifts up the food that he is eating. You might have thought that a worse degree of contamination occurs when the party concerned has not only touched the contaminated food but has also eaten it. The Torah teaches that this is not so. This point is made by the Torah in conjunction with the discussion of “kosher” animals because it is easy to err and to assume that because the animal in question had been prepared for consumption by being ritually slaughtered, that it could not become ritually contaminated. To disabuse us of such thinking the Torah used as its model for this legislation specifically a “kosher” animal. The error the Torah tries to head off, is not likely to occur in conjunction with ritually unclean animals, and it is the habit of the Torah to address the most common scenarios.

וכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ, “and every teeming creature whose habitat is the earth (land, as opposed to the water and oceans).” Seeing that there are only 8 of these species whose cadavers confer ritual contamination, one might have thought that all the other species are also fit to be eaten. The Torah therefore spells out that none of these species may be eaten.

ובין החיה הנאכלת, “and between the animal that may be eaten;” Rashi (quoting Torat Kohanim) writes that actually we would have expected the Torah to write:בין צבי לערוד, i.e. between a gazelle (a permitted species of free roaming mammal, and the wild ass, (a “non kosher” free roaming mammal). Seeing that these two species could not possibly be mistaken for another, seeing they do not look alike at all, the meaning of the verse must be “to distinguish between permitted species which display symptoms that would make it “treifah” (injuries) and others displaying similar symptoms which however do not result in that animal being pronounced treifah.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that if these symptoms are below the knee joint, the symptom is ignored and the animal remains “kosher” and can be slaughtered and eaten. If, however, the symptom is above the knee joint, the animal can no longer be eaten even if slaughtered forthwith. People nowadays are very particular in their attitude to all these definitions of symptoms of a terminal disease. The very fact that the halachah recognizes a term such as טרפה כשרה, “treifah which is kosher, creates some confusion. An example of such a “kosher” symptom of ”treifah” symptoms would be an animal whose windpipe and gullet have been cut but not cut through, or instances when a small hole pierces the lung of the animal, such a hole not being necessarily fatal within 12 months. The question arises there that seeing the lung is directly dependent on the windpipe, damage to both would appear to be especially serious. The subject is discussed in Chulin 32, and basically, if the slaughtering proceeded to the point where it is deemed completed, [most of the windpipe and most of the gullet. Ed.] this animal will not be considered as treifah unless another major problem such as a pierced lung is present. Similarly, these sages discuss that if an animal has 5 legs instead of 4 and the fifth has an injury that, if it occurred on any of the other 4 legs would have made it treifah, whether this is a case of “treifah” that is treated as kosher. It would appear that such interpretation of the written text here is excessive.