1) (Vayikra 11:24) "And by (touching) these you will become unclean; all who touch their carcass will be unclean until evening." (Vayikra 11:26) By (touching) every beast whose hoof (parsah) is parted (mafreseth), and cloven (shesa) is not cloven (shosa'ath) or the cud (gera) does not chew …" I might think that in respect to all that is mentioned in the (preceding) section, viz.: Beasts, animals, birds, fish, and grasshoppers, (I would think that) ever min hechai (flesh torn from a living animal) [to which these verses also refer, viz., below; 2) and Vayikra 11:5)]) renders one unclean in all of them; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26) "beast." I would exclude fish, which are found in the sea, which do not contract tumah, but I would not exclude grasshoppers; it is, therefore, written "mafreseth." I would exclude grasshoppers, in whose species we do not find tumah, but I would not exclude birds, in whose species we do find tumah; it is, therefore, written "parsah." I would exclude unclean birds, but I would not exclude clean birds. And it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If a beast, which does not render one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, ever min hechai of it does confer tumah, then a bird, that renders one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, how much more so should ever min hechai confer tumah. It is, therefore, written "shesa." This tells me (that ever min hechai tumah is conferred) only on a clean beast. Whence do I derive the same for an unclean beast? From "every beast." Whence do I derive (the same for) a clean animal? From "mafreseth." Whence do I derive (the same for) an unclean animal? From "parsah." Whence do we derive (the same for) the cloven-footed? From "and shesa." Whence do we derive the (same for) the non cloven-footed? From "is not shosa'ath." Whence do we derive (the same for) one that chews the cud? From "that chews gera." Whence do we derive (the same for) one that does not chew the cud? From "that does not chew." 2) Of what is this (Vayikra 11:24) speaking? If (of beasts) in their death (i.e., neveilah), this has already been stated (viz. Vayikra 11:39). If of flesh torn from a dead animal, this has already been stated below (see Chapter 6:6). What, then, must it be speaking of? Ever min hechai. 3) (But why is a verse needed for this?) Can it not be derived through reason, viz.: There is tumah in a man and tumah in a beast. Just as with a man, ever min hechai from him confers tumah, so with a beast, ever min hechai from it confers tumah. (Why, then, do I need 11:24 to tell me this?) 4) (I do need it,) for if Scripture has been stringent (for seven days) with the graver tumah of a man, should we be stringent (until the evening of the same day) with the lesser tumah of a beast? I can derive it, then, from the lesser tumah of sheratzim (creeping things), viz.: There is tumah in a beast and tumah in a sheretz. Just as with a sheretz, ever min hechai from it confers tumah, so, with a beast, ever min hechai from it confers tumah. 5) — Now if Scripture is stringent with a sheretz, whose blood is like its flesh, shall we then be stringent with a beast, whose blood is not like its flesh? — I will derive it, then, from ever min hameth (a limb from a dead animal), viz.: If ever min hameth, whose prohibition does not obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites, (the former being permitted to eat of a dead animal that has not been slaughtered by shechitah), yet (it) confers tumah, then ever min hechai, whose prohibition does obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites, should it not confer tumah? — No, this may be so with ever min hameth, where the flesh that falls off from it is tamei, but would you say (the same for) ever min hechai, where the flesh that falls off from it (as opposed to being torn off from it) is clean? Since the flesh that falls off from it is tahor, it (the flesh torn off from it) should not confer tumah! (It is, therefore, necessary) to write "all who touch their carcass" (Vayikra 11:24), and "all who carry of their carcass" (Vayikra 11:25) (are tamei), to include ever min hechai. 6) I might think that flesh which falls off from a living animal should also confer tumah; it is, therefore, written "neveilah" (carcass) — Just as neveilah, which has no regrowth (confers tumah), so, ever min hechai, which has no regrowth, (confers tumah, as opposed to flesh that falls off from a living animal, which does have regrowth). These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: Just as neveilah has sinews and bones, so ever min hechai (to confer tumah) must have sinews and bones. Rebbi says: Just as neveilah (to confer tumah must be) as in its creation — flesh, sinews, and bones, so, ever min hechai. 7) (Vayikra 11:24) "All who touch their carcass will be unclean until evening": The toucher becomes unclean until evening, but the toucher does not confer tumah upon clothing. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If carrying (where the instances of tumah) are few (relative to touching), confers tumah upon clothing, then touching (where the instances of tumah) are many (relative to carrying), how much more so should it confer tumah upon clothing! It must, therefore, be written that the toucher becomes unclean until evening (but he does not confer tumah upon clothing). 8) (Vayikra 11:25) "And everyone that carries of their carcass shall wash his clothing and he shall be unclean until evening": We are hereby taught that the carrier confers tumah upon clothing. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If touching (where the instances of tumah) are many (relative to carrying), does not confer tumah upon clothing, then carrying (where the instances of tumah) are few (relative to touching), how much more so should it not confer tumah (upon clothing)! It must, therefore, be written that the carrier must wash his clothing, whereby we are taught that the carrier does confer tumah upon clothing. 9) I might think (that such tumah obtains) even with raw wool; it is, therefore, written "beged" (clothing). If "beged" (alone were written), I might think (that tumah obtained) only with a large, white beged which confers tumah (in the instances of zav and plague-spots). Whence would I derive (the same for) a large, colored beged, a small, white beged, a small, colored beged, until there would be included (even) a net-band or a small wrap? From "beged"-"begadav" (i.e., from the use of the longer form, "begadav," rather than the base form, "beged") for (purposes of) inclusion. Whence is it derived that other implements are equated with begadim (in this connection)? From (the superfluous) "vetamei" ("and he shall be clean.") (Vayikra 11:25). I might think that he also confers tumah upon men and upon earthenware (which, for tumah purposes is likened to man); it is, therefore, written "beged" — he confers tumah upon clothing, and not upon men or earthenware.
Sifra Shemini Section 4
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.