1) (Vayikra 11:1) "And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron to say to them": (to say) to the sons, to Elazar and Ithamar, or to say to Israel? "Speak to the children of Israel" (Vayikra 11:2) is the speaking to Israel. How, then, are we to understand "to say to them"? To say to the sons, to Elazar and to Ithamar. 2) (Vayikra 11:2) "This is the animal that you may eat": We are hereby taught that Moses took hold of each animal and showed it to Israel and said to them: This you may eat and this you may not eat. (Vayikra 11:9): "This you may eat of all that is in the waters" — This you may eat and this you may not eat. (Vayikra 11:9): "These shall you hold in detestation of the fowl" — These shall you hold in detestation and these shall you not hold in detestation. (Vayikra 11:29): "This to you is what is tamei among the creeping things" — This is tamei and this is not tamei. 3) (Vayikra 11:2): "This is the animal that you may eat, of every beast that is upon the earth": One declaration replaces another. From (Bereshith 9:3): "As the green herb, I have given you (the sons of Noach) everything," I might assume that everything was permitted; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 14:4): "This is the beast that you may eat: the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats, (Devarim 14:5) the hart, the gazelle, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the dyshon, and the wild ox, and the chamois." 4) I might think that the entire beast is permitted; it is, therefore, written (Bereshith 9:4): "Only the flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat" — ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living animal) is forbidden. (Bereshith 32:33): "Therefore, the children of Israel may not eat the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh)" — the gid hanasheh is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:3): "All fats (cheilev) of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat" — cheilev is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:26): "And all blood you shall not eat" — blood is forbidden. I might think that they are permitted whether slaughtered (by shechitah) or not slaughtered, (but killed in some other way); it is, therefore, written (Devarim 27:7): "And you shall slaughter (by shechitah) … and you shall eat." 5) I might think that only "the lamb of sheep" (i.e., of two sheep) "and the kid of goats" (i.e., of two goats), (were permitted). Whence would I derive (as also permitted) kilaim (an admixture, e.g., the offspring of a lamb and a goat)? From the fact that it is written (Vayikra 11:2) "animal" and "beast" (unqualified, to indicate that anything called "animal" or "beast," with the required cleanliness signs, may be eaten.) This tells me only of kilaim of (one kind of) animal (begotten) from (a different kind of) animal, or of beast from beast. Whence do I derive (the same for) beast from animal or animal from beast? From (Vayikra 11:2): "the animal … of every beast" — "animal," in any event; "beast," in any event. 6) I might think that the same applies to an animal and a sea-beast (i.e., that a sea-beast or a sea-animal begotten by a (land) animal could be eaten); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:2) "that is on the land" — to exclude a sea creature. 7) Bur perhaps "that is on the land" signifies that (if the offering is on the land, it is permitted with the signs (of clean land animals, and if on the sea, (it is permitted) with or without those signs. It is, therefore, written "This … that is on the land" — only what is on the land is permitted. 8) This is the animal that you may eat of every beast that is on the land.": We are hereby taught that "beast" is in the category of animal. Whence is it derived that "animal," too, is in the category of "beast"? From (Devarim 14:4): "This is the beast that you may eat: the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats, (Devarim 14:5) the hart, the gazelle, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the dyshon, and the wild ox, and the chamois." (The latter mentioned are animals.) 9) (Devarim 14:6): "And every beast that has split hooves, entirely cloven in two, and which chews the cud in the beast — it may you eat" — to include the embryo (as permitted with the slaughtering of the mother). If the fetus stuck out its hand and returned it, it (the fetus, excluding the hand) may be eaten (with the slaughtering of its mother.) I might think that even if it stuck out its head and returned it, it is permitted with the slaughtering of its mother; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Devarim 14:7): "Only (this may you not eat") Why do you see fit to say that if the fetus stuck out its hand and returned it, it (the fetus) may be eaten (with the slaughtering of its mother)? Because it is not considered to have been born (and to require its own slaughtering). And why do you see fit to say that if the fetus stuck out its head, it (the fetus) may not be eaten (with the slaughtering if its mother)? Because it is considered to have been born (and to require its own slaughtering). 10) You say that this is the intent of Scripture (in "Only, etc.") — to distinguish between limbs and limbs, (i.e., between head and hand). But perhaps the intent of Scripture is to distinguish between fetuses and fetuses. That is: Which fetus should be permitted (with the slaughtering of its mother)? One, that had it been born, would be permitted. And which is that? A living, nine-month old fetus. In chullin (a mundane, non-sanctified animal), whence do we derive (permission to eat) a dead nine-month old fetus or a living or dead eight-month old fetus (found in its mother after shechitah)? In sanctified animals, a dead nine-month old fetus or a living or dead eight-month old fetus? In a tithed animal, a dead nine-month old fetus or a living or dead eight-month old fetus? From (Vayikra 11:3) "Whatever (including the above) has split hooves and whose hooves are wholly cloven, and which chews the cud in the beast — it may you eat."
Sifra Shemini Section 2
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.