Vayikra 11:1-28 ויקרא י״א:א׳-כ״ח

אל משה ואל אהרן. לְמֹשֶׁה אָמַר שֶׁיֹּאמַר לְאַהֲרֹן:

‎‎משה ואל אהרן‏ ‎‎‏ אל[AND THE LORD SPOKE] TO MOSES AND TO AARON — He spoke to Moses that he should in turn tell Aaron (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1:1 s. v.אליו.)

לאמר אלהם. אָמַר שֶׁיֹּאמַר לְאֶלְעָזָר וּלְאִיתָמָר; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לֵאמֹר לְיִשְֹרָאֵל? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר דַּבְּרוּ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל הֲרֵי דִּבּוּר אָמוּר לְיִשְֹרָאֵל, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּם לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם? לַבָּנִים — לְאֶלְעָזָר וּלְאִיתָמָר (ספרא):

לאמר אליהם SAYING UNTO THEM (more lit. “to say unto them”) — He said to Aaron that he should tell it to Eleazar and Ithamar. But perhaps this is not the meaning, but it means that he should tell Israel? When, however, it states (v. 2) “Speak unto the children of Israel”, we have the command of speaking to Israel mentioned there; how then can I explain the words “to say to them?” — to say it to his sons, to Eleazar and Ithamar (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 1).

דברו אל בני ישראל. אֶת כֻּלָּם הִשְׁוָה לִהְיוֹת שְׁלוּחִים בְּדִבּוּר זֶה, לְפִי שֶׁהֻשְׁווּ בַּדְּמִימָה וְקִבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם גְּזֵרַת הַמָּקוֹם מֵאַהֲבָה:

דברו אל בני ישראל SPEAK TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (The word “speak” is in the plural) — He made all of them (Moses, Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar) alike His messengers in communicating this utterance, because they were all alike in remaining silent and lovingly accepted the decree of the Omnipresent God in respect to the death of Nadab and Abihu.

זאת החיה. לְשׁוֹן חַיִּים, לְפִי שֶׁיִּשְֹרָאֵל דְּבוּקִים בַּמָּקוֹם וּרְאוּיִין לִהְיוֹת חַיִּים, לְפִיכָךְ הִבְדִּילָם מִן הַטֻּמְאָה וְגָזַר עֲלֵיהֶם מִצְוֹת, וְלָאֻמּוֹת לֹא אָסַר כְּלוּם, מָשָׁל לְרוֹפֵא שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה כּוּ' כִּדְאִיתָא בְּמִדְרַשׁ רַבִּי תַנְחוּמָא:

זאת החיה THESE ARE THE ANIMALS — the word חיה is an expression denoting life and is purposely used here in preference to בהמה to express the following idea: because Israel cleave to the Omnipresent and therefore deserve to remain in life, [זאת החיה is thus taken to mean: This, O living nation (or, nation that lives), is what ye may eat!]. He therefore separated them from what is unclean, and imposed commandments upon them, whilst to the other nations who do not cleave to him He prohibited nought. A parable! It may be compared to the case of a physician who goes to visit a sick person: one who is incurable he permits to eat whatever he chooses, while to the patient who may recover he gives directions as to what he may eat and may not eat — as may be found in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma 3:3:6.

זאת החיה. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה מֹשֶׁה אוֹחֵז בַּחַיָּה וּמַרְאֶה אוֹתָהּ לְיִשְֹרָאֵל זֹאת תֹּאכְלוּ וְזֹאת לֹא תֹאכְלוּ (חולין מ"ב), אֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ וְגוֹ' (פסוק ט'), אַף בְּשִׁרְצֵי הַמַּיִם אָחַז מִכָּל מִין וָמִין וְהֶרְאָה לָהֶם, וְכֵן בָּעוֹף וְאֶת אֵלֶּה תְּשַׁקְּצוּ מִן הָעוֹף (פסוק י"ג), וְכֵן בַּשְּׁרָצִים וְזֶה לָכֶם הַטָּמֵא (פסוק כ"ט):

זאת החיה THIS IS THE ANIMAL — This! the expression זאת teaches us that Moses held each animal and showed it to Israel, saying, “This ye may eat, and this ye may not eat” (Chullin 42a). Similarly Scripture states of fish (v. 9) 'את זה תאכלו וגו‎‎ THIS YE MAY EAT etc. — also of the swarming creatures of the waters he held some of every species and showed them to them (to the Israelites). So, too, in the case of birds: (v. 13) “And these are they which ye shall have in abomination amongst the fowls”, and similarly as regards the swarming reptiles (v. 29): “And these are unclean to you” (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 2; cf. Menachot 29a).

זאת החיה … מכל הבהמה. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה בִּכְלַל חַיָּה (ספרא; חולין ע'):

מכל הבהמה ....... ‎זאת החיה ‎THESE ARE THE ANIMALS (החיה) [WHICH YE MAY EAT]; AMONG ALL THE CATTLE (הבהמה) [YE MAY EAT] etc. — This teaches us that בהמה is included in the term חיה (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 8; Chullin 71a).

מפרסת. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ סְדִיקָא:

מפרסת — Explain this as the Targum does: that is split.

פרסה. פלנט"א בְּלַעַז:

פרסה — plante in O. F.; English= hoof.

ושסעת שסע. שֶׁמֻּבְדֶּלֶת מִלְּמַעְלָה וּמִלְּמַטָּה בִּשְׁתֵּי צִפָּרְנִַין, כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ וּמַטִּלְּפָן טִלְפִין, שֶׁיֵּשׁ שֶׁפַּרְסוֹתָיו סְדוּקוֹת מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֵין שְׁסוּעוֹת וּמֻבְדָּלוֹת לְגַמְרֵי, שֶׁמִּלְּמַטָּה מְחֻבָּרוֹת:

ושסעת שסע AND HATH CLOVEN FEET — which are divided above and below into two nails (The hoof must be cloven over the entire height, so that from top to bottom they are split, and the hoofs are covered therefore not by one nail but by two); as the Targum has it: which has nails (plural). For there are animals whose hoofs are cleft on top but are not cleft and separated entirely, because they are joined below (cf. Rashi on v. 26).

מעלת גרה. מַעֲלָה וּמְקִיאָה הָאֹכֶל מִמֵּעֶיהָ וּמַחֲזֶרֶת אוֹתוֹ לְתוֹךְ פִּיהָ לְכָתְשׁוֹ וּלְטָחֳנוֹ הָדֵק:

מעלת גרה WHICH CHEWETH THE CUD — which brings up and spues up the food from its entrails and returns it into its mouth to pound it small and to grind it thin.

גרה. כָּךְ שְׁמוֹ; וְיִתָּכֵן לִהְיוֹת מִגִּזְרַת מַיִם הַנִּגָּרִים (שמואל ב י"ד), שֶׁהוּא נִגְרָר אַחַר הַפֶּה; וְתַרְגּוּמוֹ פִשְׁרָא, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַגֵּרָה הָאֹכֶל נִפְשָׁר וְנִמּוֹחַ:

גרה THE CUD — This is its name (that of the food thus returned to the mouth); and it seems likely that it is of the same derivation as the word we find in (II Samuel 14:14) “water which is drawn towards (הנגרים) the earth”, and it (the cud) is so called because it is drawn towards the mouth. The translation of the Targum,however, is פשרא which denotes something dissolved, for through the rumination the food is dissolved and becomes pulpy (cf. Bava Kamma 28b).

בבהמה. תֵּיבָה יְתֵרָה הִיא לִדְרָשָׁה — לְהַתִּיר אֶת הַשְּׁלִיל הַנִּמְצָא בִמְעֵי אִמּוֹ (ספרא; חולין ס"ט):

בבהמה AMONGST (lit., in) THE BEAST — This is a redundant word and therefore may be used for an Halachic derivation — to permit the embryo found within the dam (בבהמה — within the beast) to be used as food without itself being slaughtered (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 1; Chullin 69a).

אתה תאכלו. וְלֹא בְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וַהֲלֹא בְאַזְהָרָה הִיא? אֶלָּא לַעֲבֹר עָלֶיהָ בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה (ספרא; זבחים ל"ד):

אתה תאכלו THAT YE MAY EAT, and not an unclean animal. But is not this implied in the prohibition in the following verse? But what is here expressed in a positive form is there stated as a negative command, so that now, one who eats such food transgresses thereby a positive and a negative command (because a prohibition that is not plainly expressed, but can only be drawn by inference from a positive command, is itself regarded only as a positive command — לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 2).

מבשרם לא תאכלו. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ, שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שׁוּם סִימָן טָהֳרָה מִנַּיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחֹמֶר, וּמָה אֵלּוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן קְצָת סִימָנֵי טָהֳרָה אֲסוּרוֹת וְכוּ' (ספרא):

מבשרם לא תאכלו OF THEIR FLESH SHALL YE NOT EAT — I have here only a law about these animals mentioned here! Whence can I derive that the same applies to other unclean animals which have no sign of cleanness at all? You must admit that it is a conclusion a fortiori: How is it with these that have some signs of cleanness? They are forbidden! how much the more must this be so in the case of cattle which do not possess even one sign of cleanness! (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 2).

מבשרם. עַל בְּשָׂרָם בְּאַזְהָרָה וְלֹא עַל עֲצָמוֹת וְגִידִין וְקַרְנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם (שם):

מבשרם OF THEIR FLESH [SHALL YE NOT EAT] — with respect to their flesh one is placed under a prohibition to eat, but not in respect to the bones, sinews, horns and claws (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4 8).

ובנבלתם לא תגעו. יָכוֹל יְהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻזְהָרִים עַל מַגַּע נְבֵלָה, תַּ"ל אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹ' — כֹּהֲנִים מֻזְהָרִין וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻזְהָרִין — קַל וָחֹמֶר מֵעַתָּה: וּמַה טֻּמְאַת מֵת חֲמוּרָה לֹא הִזְהִיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא כֹּהֲנִים, טֻמְאַת נְבֵלָה קַלָּה לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן, וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תִגָּעוּ? בָּרֶגֶל (שם; ראש השנה ט"ז):

ובנבלתם לא תגעו AND THEIR CARRION SHALL YE NOT TOUCH — One might think that Israelites (i. e. non-priests) are prohibited from touching a carcass at any time! It, however, states, (Leviticus 21:1) in reference to uncleanness in touching a corpse: “Speak unto the priests etc.” — priests are prohibited (from touching it) and Israelites in general are not prohibited. Well, you can draw a conclusion a fortiori from now (i. e. consequent upon what you have now stated): How is it in the case of uncleanness caused by a corpse, which is a stringent kind of uncleanness? The Torah prohibits it only to priests, but ordinary Israelites may touch a corpse. Surely in the case of uncleanness caused by a carcass which is less stringent this is all the more so! Then why does it state here: “[and their carrion] shall ye not touch”? — It means on a festival when every male Israelite was obliged to appear in the Sanctuary and should therefore be in a state of cleanness (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4 8-9; Rosh Hashanah 16b).

סנפיר. אֵלּוּ שֶׁשָּׁט בָּהֶם (חולין נ"ט):

סנפיר — These are what it (the fish) swims with — FINS.

קשקשת. אֵלּוּ קְלִפִּין הַקְּבוּעִים בּוֹ (כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל א י"ז), וְשִׁרְיוֹן קַשְׂקַשִּׂים הוּא לָבוּשׁ):

קשקשת — These are the scales attached to it (see Chullin 59a) as it is said (I Samuel 17:5) "in a scaly coat of mail (שריון קשקשים) was he clothed".

שרץ. בְּכָל מָקוֹם מַשְׁמָעוֹ דָּבָר נָמוּךְ שֶׁרוֹחֵשׁ וְנָד עַל הָאָרֶץ:

שרץ THE PROLIFIC CREATURES — Everywhere this word denotes a low (small) being that creeps and moves along upon the ground (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:20).

ושקץ יהיו. לֶאֱסֹר אֶת עֵרוּבֵיהֶן אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם (ספרא):

ושקץ יהיו AND THEY SHALL BE AN ABOMINABLE THING — This statement is here repeated to prohibit all things with which it (the שרץ) is mixed if they contain so much of the שרץ as to impart its taste to them (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 9).

מבשרם. אֵינוֹ מוּזְהָר עַל הַסְּנַפִּירִים וְעַל הָעֲצָמוֹת (שם):

מבשרם OF THEIR FLESH — One is,however, not prohibited in respect to the fins and the bones (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 10).

ואת נבלתם תשקצו. לְרַבּוֹת יַבְחוּשִׁין שֶׁסִּנְּנָן; יַבְחוּשִׁין מושיירונ"ש בלע"ז (חולין ס"ז):

ואת נבלתם תשקצו BUT YE SHALL HAVE THEIR CARRION IN ABOMINATION — This serves to include in the category of abominable things יבחושין found in liquids which one has filtered. יבחושין are moucherons in O. F., (English = gnats).

כל אשר אין לו וגו'. מַה תַּ"ל? שֶׁיָּכוֹל אֵין לִי שֶׁיְּהֵא מֻתָּר אֶלָּא הַמַּעֲלֶה סִימָנִין שֶׁלּוֹ לַיַּבָּשָׁה, הִשִּׁירָן בַּמַּיִם מִנַּיִן? תַּ"ל כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמַּיִם, הָא אִם הָיוּ לוֹ בַּמַּיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִשִּׁירָן בַּעֲלִיָּתוֹ מֻתָּר (ספרא):

'כל אשר אין לו וגו‎ WHATEVER HATH NO [FINS] etc. — For what purpose is this repeated? Because I might think that in verse 9 I have only the law that permits the eating of a fish which brings up its signs of cleanness (i. e. fins and scales) to dry land. Whence, however, could I learn that if it sheds them whilst it is in the waters such is also permitted as food? Therefore it states here: whatever hath no fins and scales in the water [that shall be an abomination to you]”. Thus, if it did have them whilst it was in the water, even though it shed them when it came up on dry land, it is permissible as food! (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 11).

לא יאכלו. לְחַיֵּב אֶת הַמַּאֲכִילָן לִקְטַנִּים, שֶׁכָּךְ מַשְׁמָעוֹ לֹא יְהוּ נֶאֱכָלִין עַל יָדְךָ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאָסְרָן בַּהֲנָאָה? תַּ"ל לֹא תֹאכְלוּם — בַּאֲכִילָה אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה מֻתָּרִין; כָּל עוֹף שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ לְמִינָהּ, לְמִינוֹ, לְמִינֵהוּ, יֵשׁ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין שֶאֵין דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה לֹא בְמַרְאֵיהֶם וְלֹא בִשְׁמוֹתָם וְכֻלָּן מִין אֶחָד:

לא יאכלו THEY (the fowls to be mentioned) SHALL NOT BE EATEN — The prohibition is put in this form and not in the words “Ye shall not eat them” (v. 42) to declare liable to punishment those who give them as food to minors, the latter themselves not being liable, for the following is what it implies: They shall not be eaten through any act of yours. But perhaps this is not the meaning, but the words are intended to prohibit any beneficial use to be made of them? It says, however, in reference to a similar case (v. 42) “Ye shall not eat them” — for eating they are forbidden, for any other use they are permitted! And the same is the case here (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 5 1; Zevachim 114a). — In reference to every fowl of which it is stated למינהו ,למינו ,למינה, “after its kind”, there are in that species some that are not alike one to the other either in their color or in the names they bear, and yet they are all one species.

הנץ. אשפר"ויר:

הנץ — Espervier in O. F., (English = sparrow-hawk)

שלך. פֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זֶה הַשּׁוֹלֶה דָגִים מִן הַיָּם, וְזֶה שֶׁתִּרְגֵּם אֻנְקְלוֹס וְשָׁלֵי נוּנָא (חולין ס"ג):

שלך — Our Rabbis explained that this is a bird that draws up (שלה = שלך) fish out of the sea (Chullin 63a) and that is why Onkelos translates it by ושלי נונא “and that which draws up fishes” (a common heron; according to others a kind of pelican).

כוס וינשוף. הֵם צואי"טש הַצּוֹעֲקִים בַּלַּיְלָה, וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם לְסָתוֹת כְּאָדָם, וְעוֹד אַחֵר דּוֹמֶה לוֹ שֶׁקּוֹרִין יי"בו:

כוס וינשוף — These are chouettes in O. F. that shriek at night (kinds of owl), and have their cheek-bones formed like those of a human being; and there is another bird similar to it which is called hibou in O. F.

תנשמת. הִיא קלב"א ש"וריץ, וְדוֹמָה לְעַכְבָּר הַפּוֹרַחַת בַּלַּיְלָה, וְתִנְשֶׁמֶת הָאֲמוּרָה בַּשְּׁרָצִים הִיא דוֹמָה לָהּ וְאֵין לָהּ עֵינַיִם, וְקוֹרִין לָהּ טלפ"א:

תנשמת — This is the chauvesouris in O. F.: it is similar to a mouse which flies about at night (a “bat”). The תנשמת mentioned among the creeping things (v. 30) is somewhat like it but it has no eyes, and it is called “talpa”, (English = mole) (cf. Chullin 63a).

החסידה. זוֹ דַיָּה לְבָנָה, ציגוני"א, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ חֲסִידָה? שֶׁעוֹשָֹׁה חֲסִידוּת עִם חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ בִּמְזוֹנוֹת (שם):

החסידה — This is the white stork, cigogne in old French And why is it called חסידה? Because it deals kindly (חסד) with its fellows in respect to food (Chullin 63a).

האנפה. הִיא דַיָּה רַגְזָנִית, וְנִרְאֶה לִי שֶׁקּוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ הי"רון:

האנפה — This is the hot-tempered דיה, and it seems to me that it is what is called heron.

הדוכיפת. תַּרְנְגוֹל הַבָּר, וְכַרְבָּלְתּוֹ כְפוּלָה, וּבְלַעַז הרופ"א, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ דּוּכִיפַת? שֶׁ"הוֹדוֹ כָפוּת" וְזוֹ הִיא כַּרְבָּלְתוֹ, וְנַגַּר טוּרָא נִקְרָא עַל שֵׁם מַעֲשָׂיו, כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּמַסֶּכֶת גִּטִּין בְּפֶרֶק מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ (גיטין דף ס"ח):

הדוכיפת — the wild cock which has a double comb (כרבלת). In O. F., herupé; (English = hoopoe). And why is its name called דוכיפת? Because its ornament (הודו) is tied tegether (כפות): this refers to its comb (which being doubled, appears to be tied up). It is also called נגר טורא, mountain-splitter, because of its doings, just as our Rabbis explained in Tractate Gittin 68b in the chapter commencing שאחזו ‎‎מי.

שרץ העוף. הֵם הַדַּקִּים הַנְּמוּכִים הָרוֹחֲשִׁין עַל הָאָרֶץ, כְּגוֹן זְבוּבִים וּצְרָעִין וְיַתּוּשִׁין וַחֲגָבִים:

העוף ‎שרץ PROLIFIC CREATURES AMONGST FOWL — These are the thin, lowly creatures which move upon the ground, such as flies and hornets and gnats and grasshoppers (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:20).

על ארבע. עַל אַרְבַּע רַגְלָיִם:

על ארבע means UPON FOUR legs.

ממעל לרגליו. סָמוּךְ לְצַוָּארוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ כְּמִין שְׁתֵּי רַגְלַיִם לְבַד אַרְבַּע רַגְלָיו, וּכְשֶׁרוֹצֶה לָעוּף וְלִקְפֹּץ מִן הָאָרֶץ מִתְחַזֵּק בְּאוֹתָן שְׁנֵי כְרָעַיִם וּפוֹרֵחַ, וְיֵשׁ הַרְבֵּה — כְּאוֹתָן שֶׁקּוֹרִין לנגו"שטא — אֲבָל אֵין אָנוּ בְקִיאִין בָּהֶן, שֶׁאַרְבָּעָה סִימָנֵי טָהֳרָה נֶאֶמְרוּ בָהֶם אַרְבַּע רַגְלַיִם וְאַרְבַּע כְּנָפַיִם וְקַרְסוּלִין — אֵלּוּ כְרָעַיִם הַכְּתוּבִים כָּאן — וּכְנָפָיו חוֹפִין אֶת רֻבּוֹ, וְכָל סִימָנִין הַלָּלוּ מְצוּיִים בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁבֵּינוֹתֵינוּ, אֲבָל יֵשׁ שֶׁרֹאשָׁן אָרֹךְ וְיֵשׁ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם זָנָב, וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמוֹ חָגָב, וּבָזֶה אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּינֵיהֶן:

ממעל לרגליו ABOVE ITS FEET — Quite close to its neck it has something like two feet, in addition to its real feet; when it wants to fly and to spring off the ground it presses itself strongly on the ground with those two knees and so it flies. There are many of these, such, as those which we call longouste (sea-locusts), but we are not expert in regard to them, — as to which we are not permitted as food, — because four characteristic marks of cleanness are mentioned by our Rabbis in respect to them, viz., four feet, four wings, and קרסולים, i. e. the כרעים mentioned here, and that their wings cover the greater part of them. All these characteristics are present in these which are found amongst us, but there are some of them which have a long head and there are some which have no tail, matters which do not affect the question of cleanness (Chullin 59a). It is, however, necessary in order that they shall belong to the clean species that they should bear the name חגב (Chullin 55b), and in this respect we do not know how to distinguish one from another [i. e. we have no tradition as regards to these locusts whether they belong to the species which was in olden (Talmudic) times called חגב or not, and consequently in spite of the other four marks of cleanness we cannot distinguish them from unclean locusts which also show the same marks but are unclean because they do not bear the name חגב].

וכל שרץ העוף וגו'. בָּא וְלִמֵּד שֶׁאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ חָמֵשׁ טָהוֹר (ספרא):

'וכל שרץ העוף וגו‎ BUT ALL PROLIFIC CREATURES AMONG FOWL etc. — This repetition of the statement already made in verse 20 is intended to teach that if it has five feet it is clean (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 5 10).

ולאלה. הָעֲתִידִין לֵאָמֵר בָּעִנְיָן לְמַטָּה.

ולאלה AND TO THESE which are to be mentioned further on in the section,

תטמאו. כְּלוֹמַר בִּנְגִיעָתָם יֵשׁ טֻמְאָה:

תטמאו YE CAN BECOME UNCLEAN — that is, by touching them there is uncleanness.

וכל הנשא מנבלתם. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה טֻמְאַת מַשָּׂא, חֲמוּרָה מִטֻּמְאַת מַגָּע, שֶׁהִיא טְעוּנָה כִבּוּס בְּגָדִים (ספרא):

וכל הנשא מנבלתם AND WHOSOEVER BEARETH OUGHT OF THE CARRION OF THEM [SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN] — In every passage where there is mentioned uncleanness consequent upon the bearing of anything unclean it is more stringent than uncleanness which is the result of contact, inasmuch as the former requires also the washing of the clothing one happens to wear whilst carrying the unclean thing (Sifra, Shemini, Section 4 8).

מפרסת פרסה ושסע איננה שסעת. כְּגוֹן גָּמָל, שֶׁפַּרְסָתוֹ סְדוּקָה לְמַעְלָה אֲבָל לְמַטָּה הִיא מְחֻבֶּרֶת, כָּאן לִמֶּדְךָ שֶׁנִּבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מְטַמְּאָה, וּבָעִנְיָן שֶׁבְּסוֹף הַפָּרָשָׁה פֵּרֵשׁ עַל בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה:

מפרסת פרסה ושסע איננה שסעת WHICH DIVIDETH THE HOOF AND IS NOT CLOVEN FOOTED, such as the camel, the hoof of which is split on top but is attached below (see Rashi on v. 3); here it tells you that the carcass of an unclean animal causes uncleanness and in the paragraph which is at the end of this section (vv. 39–40) it sets forth the law concerning the carcass of a clean animal.

על כפיו. כְּגוֹן כֶּלֶב וְדֹב וְחָתוּל:

על כפיו UPON ITS PAWS — such as a dog, bear and cat (which have no hoofs).

טמאים הם לכם. לְמַגָּע:

טמאים הם לכם ARE UNCLEAN UNTO YOU, in respect to any contact with them.