Sifra Shemini Chapter 8

¹1) (Vayikra 11:32): "sack": This tells me only of sack. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) kalkali and chebek (types of saddle bands)? From "or sack." I might think that (also included) as requiring tumah are ropes and cords. It is, therefore, written "sack." Just as sack is reticulated, so all must be reticulated (to acquire tumah). ²2) And thus is it written in respect to dead-body (tumah, Bamidbar 31:20): "and every work of goats." I might think (to include) ropes and cords (as acquiring tumah). (But) it follows (by reason that they should not be included), viz.: A dead body confers tumah and a sheretz confers tumah. Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated. ³3) But if Scripture was lenient with a sheretz, a lesser (form of tumah, should we, therefore, be lenient with dead-body (tumah), an acute (form)? But (by reason alone a dead body) should confer tumah on ropes and cords. It must, therefore, be written "a garment … skin" (Vayikra 11:33, in respect to sheretz) — "a garment … skin" (Bamidbar 31:20, in respect to dead-body tumah), as an identity (gezeirah shavah) — Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated; and just as a dead body confers tumah on "every work of goats," so a sheretz confers tumah on every work of goats. ⁴4) This ("sack" [Vayikra 11:32]) tells me only of a sack made of goats. Whence do I derive (as also acquiring tumah) a sack made of pig or of a cow's tail? From "or sack." This tells me only of sheretz. Whence do I derive the same for dead-body tumah. It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) sheretz, a lesser form (of tumah), the work of pig is equated with the work of goats, then (in the instance of) dead-body (tumah), the more acute form, should the work of pig not be equated with the work of goats! ⁵5) Now if Scripture included (for tumah in the instance of that which comes from the tail of a cow and from a pig,) tumah until evening, which obtains with many (types of tumah by touching), should I, then, include (for dead-body tumah what comes from the tail of a cow and from a pig), tumah for seven days, which obtains with only a limited (type of tumah, that of touching a dead body)? It must, therefore, be written "garment … skin" - "garment … skin," for a gezeirah-shavah — Just as with sheretz, the work of a pig is equated with that of goats, so, with dead-body tumah, the work of a pig is equated with that of goats. ⁶6) (Vayikra 11:32): "every vessel": to include the sling, the amulet, and the phylactery. I might think that also included are the yoke-eye (tied to the hopper) and the yoke-pole; it is, therefore, written "with which (vessels) work is done," and not where the work is done with others (i.e., the horses, to which the yoke is attached). ⁷7) Or I might think to include the coverings of vessels; it is, therefore, written "with them," excluding the coverings of vessels. ⁸8) "it shall be put into water": I might think even part of it (i.e., piece after piece). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:7): "And when the sun sets, he shall be clean." Just as there, the coming (i.e., setting) of the sun is all at once; here, too, the coming of the vessel (into the water must be) all at once. ⁹9) "And it shall be tamei until the evening": I might think for all things (i.e., even for use of the vessel for second-tithe). It is, therefore, written "and it shall be clean." How so? (How can it be clean and unclean at the same time?) Clean for second-tithe, (even) in the daytime, and for terumah (only) when it gets dark.