Shmini שמיני

ויהי ביום השמיני. לַמִּלּוּאִים; הוּא רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ נִיסָן שֶׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן בּוֹ בַיּוֹם וְנָטַל עֶשֶׂר עֲטָרוֹת הַשְּׁנוּיוֹת בְּסֵדֶר עוֹלָם:

ויהי ביום השמיני AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE EIGHTH DAY of the installation of the priests into their sacred office (cf. Sifra); this was the New Moon of Nisan on which the Tabernacle was finally erected (cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:29) and it (that day) received ten crowns (it was distinguished in ten different ways) which are enumerated in Seder Olam 7 (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 1; Shabbat 87b).

ולזקני ישראל. לְהַשְׁמִיעָם שֶׁעַל פִּי הַדִּבּוּר אַהֲרֹן נִכְנָס וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּכְהֻנָּה גְדוֹלָה וְלֹא יֹאמְרוּ מֵאֵלָיו נִכְנָס (תנחומא):

ולזקני ישראל AND TO THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, to inform them that it was by the express command of God that Aaron was entering the Sanctuary and ministering in the high-priesthood, so that they might not say: “He is entering on his own authority, unbidden.”

קח לך עגל. לְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁכִּפֵּר לוֹ הַקָּבָּ"ה עַל יְדֵי עֵגֶל זֶה עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל שֶׁעָשָֹה (שם):

קח לך עגל TAKE THEE A CALF — This animal was selected as a sin offering to announce to him that the Holy One, blessed be He, granted him atonement by means of this calf for the incident of the golden calf which he had made (Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 4)

כי היום ה' נראה אליכם. לְהַשְׁרוֹת שְׁכִינָתוֹ בְמַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵיכֶם, לְכָךְ קָרְבָּנוֹת הַלָּלוּ בָּאִין חוֹבָה לְיוֹם זֶה:

כי היום ה' נראה אליכם FOR TODAY THE LORD WILL APPEAR UNTO YOU to make His Shechinah rest upon your handiwork; on this account these sacrifices come (are to be brought) as an obligation for this day (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 4).

קרב אל המזבח. שֶׁהָיָה אַהֲרֹן בּוֹשׁ וְיָרֵא לָגֶשֶׁת, אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה, לָמָּה אַתָּה בוֹשׁ? לְכָךְ נִבְחַרְתָּ (ספרא):

קרב אל המזבח [AND MOSES SAID TO AARON] GO TO THE ALTAR, for Aaron was diffident and feared to go there. Moses therefore said to him “Wherefore art thou diffident? For this purpose hast thou been selected!” (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 8).

את חטאתך. עֵגֶל בֶּן בָּקָר:

את חטאתך THY SIN OFFERING — the young calf (v. 2).

ואת עלתך. הָאָיִל:

ואת עלתך AND THY BURNT OFFERING — the ram (v. 2).

קרבן העם. שְׂעִיר עִזִּים וְעֵגֶל וְכֶבֶשׂ; כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "עֵגֶל" בֶּן שָׁנָה הוּא וּמִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד (שם):

קרבן העם THE OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE — the kid of the goats and the calf and the lamb (v. 3). Wherever the term עגל, “calf” is mentioned without further definition it denotes one in its first year, and it is from this passage that you may derive this rule (cf. Sifra on 4:2; Rosh Hashanah 10a).

ואת הבשר ואת העור וגו'. לֹא מָצִינוּ חַטָּאת חִיצוֹנָה נִשְֹרֶפֶת אֶלָּא זוֹ וְשֶׁל מִלּוּאִים, וְכֻלָּן עַל פִּי הַדִּבּוּר:

'ואת הבשר ואת העור וגו‏‎‎ AND THE FLESH AND THE HIDE [HE BURNT .. OUTSIDE THE CAMP] — We do not find that any “external” sin-offering (one the blood of which was sprinkled on the outer altar) was burnt except this and that of the installation ceremony — and all these, only at the express command of God (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:14).

וימצאו. לְשׁוֹן הוֹשָׁטָה וְהַזְמָנָה:

וימציאו — This signifies handing over and presenting.

ויחטאהו. עָשָׂהוּ כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטָּאת:

ויחטאהו means: he treated it according to the regulation regarding the חטאת, “sin-offering”.

כראשון. כָּעֵגֶל שֶׁלּוֹ:

כראשון AS THE FIRST — as his own calf (as is described in v. 8).

ויעשה כמשפט. הַמְפֹרָשׁ בְּעוֹלַת נְדָבָה בְּוַיִּקְרָא:

ויעשה כמשפט AND HE DID IT ACCORDING TO THE MANNER that is set forth in the section ויקרא (ch. 1) in respect to the burnt offering brought as a free-will gift (Beitzah 20a).

וימלא כפו. הִיא קְמִיצָה (שם):

וימלא כפו AND HE FILLED HIS HAND [THEREWITH] — this is what is elsewhere termed קמיצה (i. e. this is elsewhere expressed by the phrase … וקמץ מלא קמצו “he shall take a fistful”) (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 10; cf. Menachot 9b).

מלבד עלת הבקר. כָּל אֵלֶּה עָשָֹה אַחַר עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד:

מלבד עלת הבקר BESIDE THE BURNT OFFERING OF THE MORNING — all these rites he carried out after the continual burnt offering.

והמכסה. חֵלֶב הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת הַקֶּרֶב:

והמכסה AND THAT WHICH COVERETH — This is elsewhere (e.g., Leviticus 3:3) termed “the fat which covereth the inward parts”.

וישימו את החלבים על החזות. לְאַחַר הַתְּנוּפָה נְתָנָן כֹּהֵן הַמֵּנִיף לְכֹהֵן אַחֵר לְהַקְטִירָם, נִמְצְאוּ הָעֶלְיוֹנִים לְמַטָּה (מנחות ס"ב):

וישימו את החלבים על החזות AND THEY PUT THE FAT UPON THE BREAST — After the waving the priest who waved them gave them to another priest to burn them; consequently what was previously above was now beneath (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 7:30; Menachot 62a).

ויברכם. בִּרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים — יְבָרֶכְךָ, יָאֵר, יִשָּׂא (סוטה ל"ח):

ויברכם AND HE BLESSED THEM with the priestly benediction (Numbers 6:24—26): “May the Lord bless thee … May the Lord cause his face to shine … May the Lord lift up …” (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 17; Sotah 38a)

וירד. מֵעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

‎‏וירד AND HE CAME DOWN from off the altar.

ויבא משה ואהרן וגו'. לָמָּה נִכְנְסוּ? מָצָאתִי בְּפָרָשַׁת מִלּוּאִים, בְּבָרַיְתָא הַנּוֹסֶפֶת עַל תּוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ, לָמָּה נִכְנַס מֹשֶׁה עִם אַהֲרֹן? לְלַמְּדוֹ עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת, אוֹ לֹא נִכְנַס אֶלָּא לְדָבָר אַחֵר? הֲרֵינִי דָן, יְרִידָה וּבִיאָה טְעוּנָה בְרָכָה, מַה יְּרִידָה מֵעֵין עֲבוֹדָה אַף בִּיאָה מֵעֵין עֲבוֹדָה, הָא לָמַדְתָּ לָמָּה נִכְנַס מֹשֶׁה עִם אַהֲרֹן לְלַמְּדוֹ עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת; דָּ"אַ כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה אַהֲרֹן שֶׁקָּרְבוּ כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת וְנַעֲשׂוּ כָל הַמַּעֲשִׂים וְלֹא יָרְדָה שְׁכִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, הָיָה מִצְטַעֵר וְאוֹמֵר, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁכָּעַס הַקָּבָּ"ה עָלַי וּבִשְׁבִילִי לֹא יָרְדָה שְׁכִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אָמַר לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה, מֹשֶׁה אָחִי, כָּךְ עָשִֹיתָ לִי שֶׁנִּכְנַסְתִּי וְנִתְבַּיַּשְׁתִּי? מִיַּד נִכְנַס מֹשֶׁה עִמּוֹ וּבִקְּשׁוּ רַחֲמִים וְיָרְדָה שְׁכִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל (ספרא):

ויבא משה ואהרן AND MOSES AND AARON CAME, etc. — Wherefore did they now enter the Tabernacle? I have found the following in the “Mechilta d’Miluim,” in the Boraitha that is appended to our Torath Cohanim (Sifra): Wherefore did Moses enter with Aaron? To instruct him regarding the incense ceremony. Or it may be that he entered for some other reason?! See, I draw a conclusion: the descent from the altar and the entry into the tent of meeting both required to be accompanied by a benediction, as stated in vv. 22 and 23 (and consequently both were, in a measure, of similar character). Now what was the descent from the altar? It was of the nature (it look place in connection with) a sacrificial act! So, also, the entry into the tent took place in connection with a sacrificial act! Thus you may learn: Why did Moses enter with Aaron? To instruct him regarding the incense ceremony which was the only rite performed on that day within the tent! (Cf. Talmud Yerushalmi Taanit 4). Another explanation is: When Aaron perceived that all the sacrifices had been offered and all the rites performed, and yet the Shechinah had not descended for Israel, since the heavenly fire had not fallen to consume the sacrifice, he was uneasy in mind and said: I feel certain that the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry with me and that it is on my account that the Shechinah has not descended for Israel. He therefore said to Moses: “My brother Moses! Do you act thus with me: you know that I have entered into this matter at your bidding and yet I have been put to shame! Moses at once entered the tent with him and they offered prayer and the Shechinah descended for Israel (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 18).

ויצאו ויברכו את העם. אָמְרוּ וִיהִי נֹעַם ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ עָלֵינוּ, יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁתִּשְׁרֶה שְׁכִינָה בְמַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵיכֶם; לְפִי שֶׁכָּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוֹ מֹשֶׁה לַמִּשְׁכָּן וְשִׁמֵּשׁ בּוֹ וּפֵרְקוֹ בְכָל יוֹם לֹא שָׁרְתָה בוֹ שְׁכִינָה, וְהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נִכְלָמִים וְאוֹמְרִים לְמֹשֶׁה, מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ, כָּל הַטֹּרַח שֶׁטָּרַחְנוּ שֶׁתִּשְׁרֶה שְׁכִינָה בֵינֵינוּ וְנֵדַע שֶׁנִּתְכַּפֵּר לָנוּ עֲוֹן הָעֵגֶל, לְכָךְ אָמַר לָהֶם זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' תַּעֲשׂוּ וְיֵרָא אֲלֵיכֶם כְּבוֹד ה' — אַהֲרֹן אָחִי כְּדַאי וְחָשׁוּב מִמֶּנִּי, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ תִשְׁרֶה שְׁכִינָה בָכֶם וְתֵדְעוּ שֶׁהַמָּקוֹם בָּחַר בּוֹ:

ויצאו ויברכו את העם AND THEY CAME OUT AND BLESSED THE PEOPLE — They said the words that conclude “The Prayer of Moses” (Psalms 90:17): “May the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us” — i. e. May it be God’s will that the Shechinah may rest upon the work of your hands (see Rashi on Exodus 39:43). They invoked just this blessing and not another formula because during the whole seven days of the installation when Moses was setting up the Tabernacle and officiating therein and dismantling it daily the Shechinah had not rested upon it and the Israelites felt ashamed, saying to Moses: “O, our Teacher Moses! All the trouble which we have taken was only that the Shechinah may dwell amongst us, so that we may know that the sin of the golden calf has been atoned for on our behalf!” He therefore had said to them (v. 6): “This is the thing which the Lord commanded that ye should do so that the glory of the Lord may appear unto you” (i. e. only after these offerings will have been brought by Aaron (cf. v. 7) will God’s glory appear unto you). My brother Aaron is more worthy and excellent than I am, so that through his sacrifices and ministration the Shechinah will rest upon you, and ye will thereby know that the Omnipresent God has chosen him to bring His Shechinah upon you.

וירנו. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ:

וירנו Understand this as the Targum does: and they praised God.

ותצא אש. רַ' אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר לֹא מֵתוּ בְנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהוֹרוּ הֲלָכָה בִּפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה רַבָּן, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן נִכְנְסוּ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, תֵּדַע, שֶׁאַחַר מִיתָתָן הִזְהִיר הַנּוֹתָרִים שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנְסוּ שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֶן בַּיִת וְכוּ', כִּדְאִיתָא בְּוַיִּקְרָא רַבָּה:

ותצא אש AND THERE WENT OUT FIRE — Rabbi Eleizer said: the sons of Aaron died only because they gave decisions on religious matters in the presence of their teacher, Moses (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 32; Eruvin 63a). Rabbi Ishmael said: they died because they entered the Sanctuary intoxicated by wine. You may know that this is so, because after their death he admonished those who survived that they should not enter when intoxicated by wine (vv. 8—9). A parable! It may be compared to a king who had a bosom friend, etc., as is to be found in Leviticus Rabbah 12:1, 4 (cf. Biur).

הוא אשר דבר וגו'. הֵיכָן דִּבֵּר? וְנֹעַדְתִּי שָׁמָּה לִבְנֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל וְנִקְדַּשׁ בִּכְבֹדִי (שמות כ"ט), אַל תִּקְרֵי בִּכְבֹדִי אֶלָּא בִּמְכֻבָּדַי; אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה לְאַהֲרֹן, אַהֲרֹן אָחִי, יוֹדֵעַ הָיִיתִי שֶׁיִּתְקַדֵּשׁ הַבַּיִת בִּמְיֻדָּעָיו שֶׁל מָקוֹם, וְהָיִיתִי סָבוּר אוֹ בִי אוֹ בְךָ, עַכְשָׁיו רוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהֵם גְּדוֹלִים מִמֶּנִּי וּמִמְּךָ (ספרא):

‎‎ '‏וגו‎‎‎ 'הוא אשר דבר ה‎ THIS IS WHAT THE LORD SPOKE, etc. — Where had He spoken this? In the statement (Exodus 29:43), “And there I will be met by the children of Israel and it (the Tabernacle) shall be sanctified by My glory (בכבודי).” Read not here בִכְבוֹדִי, “by My Glory” but בִּמְכֻבָּדַי, “through My honoured ones” (Zevachim 115b). Moses here said to Aaron: “My brother, Aaron! I knew that this House was to be sanctified by those who are beloved of the Omnipresent God and I thought it would be either through me or through thee; now I see that these (thy sons who have died) are greater than me and than thee!” (Leviticus Rabbah 12 2).

וידם אהרן. קִבֵּל שָׂכָר עַל שְׁתִיקָתוֹ, וּמַה שָּׂכָר קִבֵּל? שֶׁנִּתְיַחֵד עִמּוֹ הַדִּבּוּר — שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ פָּרָשַׁת שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן (ויקרא רבה י"ב):

‎וידם אהרן AND AARON WAS SILENT — He received a reward for his silence. And what was the reward he received? That the subsequent Divine address was made to him alone and not to Moses also — for to him alone was spoken the section (vv. 9—11) dealing with those who are intoxicated by wine (see v. 8) (Zevachim 115b; Leviticus Rabbah 12 2).

בקרבי. בִּבְחִירַי:

בקרבי IN THEM THAT COME NEAR UNTO ME — i. e. in My chosen ones.

ועל פני כל העם אכבד. כְּשֶׁהַקָּבָּ"ה עוֹשֶׂה דִין בַּצַּדִּיקִים מִתְיָרֵא וּמִתְעַלֶּה וּמִתְקַלֵּס, אִם כֵּן בְּאֵלּוּ, כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בָּרְשָׁעִים; וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר נוֹרָא אֱלֹהִים מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁיךָ (תהלים ס"ח), אַל תִּקְרֵי מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁיךָ אֶלָּא מִמְּקֻדָּשֶׁיךָ:

ועל פני כל העם אכבד AND BEFORE ALL THE PEOPLE I WILL BE HONOURED — When the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgment upon the righteous He becomes feared, and exalted and praised. If this be so in the case of these (when He judges the righteous) how much more is it so in the case of the wicked (i. e. when He punishes the wicked)! And in a similar sense it says (Psalms 68:36) “Thou art feared, O god, ממקדשיך”. Read not here מִמִּקְדָשֶׁיךָ, “from out of Thy sanctuaries”, but ‎ ‏ מִמִּקֻדָּשֶׁיךָ“because of Thy sanctified ones” (Zevachim 115b).

דד אהרן. עֻזִּיאֵל אֲחִי עַמְרָם הָיָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּבְנֵי קְהָת וְגוֹ' (שמות ו'):

דד אהרן THE UNCLE OF AARON — Uzziel was Amram’s brother, as it is said (Exodus 6:18) “And the sons of Kehath were [Amram …. and Uzziel]”.

שאו את אחיכם וגו'. כְּאָדָם הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ, הַעֲבֵר אֶת הַמֵּת מִלִּפְנֵי הַכַּלָּה שֶׁלֹּא לְעַרְבֵּב אֶת הַשִּׂמְחָה:

שאו את אחיכם וגו׳ CARRY YOUR BRETHREN etc. — as a man who says to his fellow: Remove the corpse from before the bride in order not to disturb the joy.

בכתנתם. שֶׁל מֵתִים; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׂרְפוּ בִגְדֵיהֶם אֶלָּא נִשְׁמָתָם, כְּמִין שְׁנֵי חוּטִין שֶׁל אֵשׁ נִכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ חָטְמֵיהֶם (ספרא):

בכתנתם IN THEIR GARMENTS — in those of the dead (not in their own garments). This tells us that their garments had not been destroyed by fire, but their souls alone (neither their clothing nor bodies showed signs of burning; they had been struck by fire inwardly): there entered into their nostrils something like two threads of fire which burnt them to death (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 34; Sanhedrin 52a).

אל תפרעו. אַל תְּגַדְּלוּ שֵׂעָר, מִכָּאן שֶׁאָבֵל אָסוּר בְּתִסְפֹּרֶת, אֲבָל אַתֶּם אַל תְּעַרְבְּבוּ שִׂמְחָתוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם (מועד קטן י"ד):

ראשיכם] אל תפרעו] means, let not your hair grow long (cf. Numbers 6:5) (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 40). From this (from the fact that Scripture forbade these particular mourners to let their hair grow long) it follows that an אבל (one mourning the death of a near relative) is forbidden to cut his hair. Moses's words therefore signified: Ordinarily an אבל may not cut his hair but ye, disturb ye not the joy of the Omnipresent God by displaying signs of mourning (Moed Katan 14b).

ולא תמתו. הָא אִם תַּעֲשׂוּ תָּמוּתוּ (ספרא):

ולא תמתו LEST YE DIE — Consequently if ye do this ye shall die (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 41).

ואחיכם כל בית ישראל. מִכָּאן שֶׁצָּרָתָן שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים מֻטֶּלֶת עַל הַכֹּל לְהִתְאַבֵּל בָּהּ (מועד קטן כ"ח):

ואחיכם כי בית ישראל BUT (LET] YOUR BRETHREN, THE WHOLE OF ISRAEL [WEEP] — From this it follows that for the miseries of the learned the duty devolves upon everyone (the entire community) to mourn (cf. Moed Katan 28b.)

יין ושכר. יַיִן דֶּרֶךְ שִׁכְרוּתוֹ (ספרא):

ושכר ‎יין [DO NOT DRINK] WINE NOR STRONG DRINK — do not drink wine in a manner that brings out its intoxicating force (i. e. do not drink a “log” of wine) (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 1; Keritot 13b).

בבאכם אל אהל מועד. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּבֹאֲכֶם לַהֵיכָל, בְּגִשְׁתָּם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִנַּיִן? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בִּיאַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְנֶאֱמַר בְּקִדּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם בִּיאַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, מַה לְּהַלָּן עָשָׂה גִישַׁת מִזְבֵּחַ כְּבִיאַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, אַף כָּאן עָשָׂה גִישַׁת מִזְבֵּחַ כְּבִיאַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד (שם):

‎‏ בבאכם אל אהל מועד WHEN YE GO INTO THE APPOINTED TENT — I have in these words only a law that forbids this when ye go into the Sanctuary; whence can it be derived that it applies also whenever they approached the outer altar? But there is mention here of entering into the appointed tent and there is mention, in connection with the sanctification (the washing) of the hands and feet, of entering into the appointed tent (Exodus 30:20). What is the law there? It (the Torah) made the law regarding approaching to the altar exactly similar to that regarding entering the appointed tent (“when they go into the appointed tent they shall wash with water … or when they come near to the altar”)! Here, also, it makes approaching the altar exactly similar to entering the appointed tent (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 5).

ולהבדיל. כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּבְדִּילוּ בֵּין עֲבוֹדָה קְדוֹשָׁה לִמְחֻלֶּלֶת, הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאִם עָבַד עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְסוּלָה (שם):

ולהבדיל AND TO DISTINGUISH [BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE UNHOLY] — i. e., Observe this law in order that ye may be able to distinguish between a holy (valid) sacrificial act and one which has become profane (invalid). Thus you may learn that if one performed a sacrificial rite in a state of intoxication his ministry was invalid (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 8; Zevachim 17b).

ולהורת. לִמֵּד שֶׁאָסוּר שִׁכּוֹר בְּהוֹרָאָה, יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּב מִיתָה, תַּ"ל אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ, וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ, כֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲבוֹדָתָם בְּמִיתָה, וְאֵין חֲכָמִים בְּהוֹרָאָתָן בְּמִיתָה (שם):

ולהורת AND TO TEACH [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — This informs us that an intoxicated person is forbidden to pronounce religious decisions. One might think that if he does so he is liable to the death penalty! It, however, says: “[Do not drink wine] thou (Aaron), nor thy sons with thee … lest ye die” — priests when they minister in a state of intoxication are punishable by death, but the Sages when they thus render decisions are not punishable by death (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 6).

הנותרים. מִן הַמִּיתָה, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאַף עֲלֵיהֶן נִקְנְסָה מִיתָה עַל עֲוֹן הָעֵגֶל, הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ט'), וּבְאַהֲרֹן הִתְאַנַּף ה' מְאֹד לְהַשְׁמִידוֹ, וְאֵין הַשְׁמָדָה אֶלָּא כִלּוּי בָּנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עמוס ב'), וָאַשְׁמִיד פִּרְיוֹ מִמַּעַל, וּתְפִלָּתוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה בִּטְּלָה מֶחֱצָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ט'), וָאֶתְפַּלֵּל גַּם בְּעַד אַהֲרֹן בָּעֵת הַהִיא:

הנותרים WHO WERE LEFT from death. This teaches us that upon them, also, death had been pronounced in punishment for the sin of the golden calf. This is what is meant by the words (Deuteronomy 9:20) “And with Aaron the Lord was very angry to destroy him”, for the expression “destruction” means the extirpation of offspring, as it is said (Amos 2:9) “And I destroyed its fruit above”. Moses’ prayer, however, made half the sentence of none effect, (so that only two of Aaron’s four sons died) as it is said (Deuteronomy 9:20) “And I prayed also on behalf of Aaron at that time” (cf. Rashi on that passage).

קחו את המנחה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹנְנִין וְקָדָשִׁים אֲסוּרִים לְאוֹנֵן:

קחו את המנחה TAKE THE MEAL OFFERING, although ye are אוננים and the holy things are forbidden to an אונן (Zevachim 101a).

את המנחה. זוֹ מִנְחַת שְׁמִינִי וּמִנְחַת נַחְשׁוֹן (ספרא):

את המנחה THE MEAL-OFFERING — This was the meal-offering prescribed for the eighth day of the installation ceremony and the meal-offering of Nachshon (Numbers 7:13; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 3).

ואכלוה מצות. מַה תַּ"ל? לְפִי שֶׁהִיא מִנְחַת צִבּוּר וּמִנְחַת שָׁעָה וְאֵין כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהּ לְדּוֹרוֹת, הֻצְרַךְ לְפָרֵשׁ בָּהּ דִּין שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת (שם):

ואכלהו מצות AND EAT IT AS UNLEAVENED CAKES — Why is this stated at all, since this regulation regarding the meal-offering has been previously laid down (cf. Leviticus 6:9)? Since, however, this (the meal-offering prescribed for the installation ceremony) was a communal meal-offering (cf. Leviticus 9:3—4) and an occasional meal-offering and nothing similar to it had been commanded for future generations and it was therefore possible that the regulations relating to meal-offerings in general did not apply, it was necessary expressly to set forth in respect of it the law already laid down for other meal-offerings (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 4).

וחק בניך. אֵין לַבָּנוֹת חֹק בַּקֳּדָשִׁים (שם):

וחק בניך AND THY SONS’ PORTION — Daughters are not mentioned as is the case in v. 14 because daughters have no portion in these holy things (meal-offerings; cf. Leviticus 6:10— 11) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 7).

כי כן צויתי. בַּאֲנִינוּת יֹאכְלוּהָ (שם; זבחים ק"א):

כי כן צויתי FOR SO AM I COMMANDED — that they must eat it even when they have the status of אוננים (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 8; Zevachim 101a).

ואת חזה התנופה. שֶׁל שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר.

ואת חזה התנופה AND THE WAVE BREAST of the communal) peace-offerings,

תאכלו במקום טהור. וְכִי אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אָכְלוּ בְּמָקוֹם טָמֵא? אֶלָּא הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁהֵם קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים הֻזְקְקָה אֲכִילָתָם בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, אֲבָל אֵלּוּ אֵין צְרִיכִים תּוֹךְ הַקְּלָעִים אֲבָל צְרִיכִים הֵם לֵאָכֵל תּוֹךְ מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר מִלִּכָּנֵס שָׁם מְצֹרָעִים; מִכָּאן שֶׁקָּדָשִׁים קַלִּים נֶאֱכָלִין בְּכָל הָעִיר (שם נ"ה):

תאכלו במקום טהור YE SHALL EAT IN A CLEAN PLACE —But had they eaten those that preceded this (the sin-offering and the meal-offering) in an unclean place? But he said this because the preceding ones being holy in the highest degree the eating of them had necessarily to take place in a holy spot (in the court of the Tabernacle), but these,however, were not required to be eaten “within the hangings” (i. e. in the court which was enclosed by hangings), but they were, however, required to be eaten in the camp of Israel (and not beyond the confines of that camp), that being a clean place in so far as lepers were precluded from entering it. From this we infer that sacrifices holy in a lower degree, being similar to the peace-offerings mentioned here, may be eaten anywhere within the city of Jerusalem, this area corresponding to “the camp of Israel” in the wilderness (see Rashi on 4:12; Zevachim 55a).

אתה ובניך ובנתיך. אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ בְּחֵלֶק אֲבָל בְּנוֹתֶיךָ לֹא בְחֵלֶק, אֶלָּא אִם תִּתְּנוּ לָהֶם מַתָּנוֹת רַשָּׁאוֹת הֵן לֶאֱכֹל בְּחָזֶה וְשׁוֹק, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אַף הַבָּנוֹת בְּחֵלֶק? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי חָקְךָ וְחָק בָּנֶיךָ נִתְּנוּ — חֹק לַבָּנִים וְאֵין חֹק לַבָּנוֹת (ספרא):

אתה ובניך ובנתיך THOU AND THY SONS AND THY DAUGHTERS — You and your sons have a claim to a portion, but your daughters have no claim to a portion; if, however, you give them part of these sacrifices as a gift they are permitted to eat of the breast and the shoulder. Or perhaps this is not the meaning, but if means that the daughters have also a claim to a portion? It, however, states immediately afterwards: “for as thy due and thy sons’ due are they given” there is a due to sons but there is no due to daughters (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 10).

על אשי החלבים. מִכָּאן שֶׁהַחֲלָבִים לְמַטָּה בִּשְׁעַת תְּנוּפָה, וְיִשּׁוּב הַמִּקְרָאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יַכְחִישׁוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה כְּבָר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי אֶת שְׁלָשְׁתָּן בְּצַו אֶת אַהֲרֹן:

על אשי החלבים WITH THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE FAT — From this we may learn that the fat-portions were beneath the others at the time of waving (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 11). And as for the exposition of the texts in such a manner that they shall not contradict each other I have already explained the three of them in the section צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:30; see Rashi thereon).

שעיר החטאת. שְׂעִיר מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ; וּשְׁלֹשָׁה שְׂעִירֵי חַטָּאוֹת קָרְבוּ בוֹ בַיּוֹם, שְׂעִיר עִזִּים וּשְׂעִיר נַחְשׁוֹן וּשְׂעִיר רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּמִכֻּלָּן לֹא נִשְׂרַף אֶלָּא זֶה; וְנֶחְלְקוּ בַדָּבָר חַכְמֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל, יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים מִפְּנֵי הַטֻּמְאָה שֶׁנָּגְעָה בוֹ נִשְׂרַף, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּת נִשְׂרַף, לְפִי שֶׁהוּא קָדְשֵׁי דוֹרוֹת, אֲבָל בְּקָדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה סָמְכוּ עַל מֹשֶׁה שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם בַּמִּנְחָה וְאִכְלוּהָ מַצּוֹת (ספרא; זבחים ק"א):

שעיר החטאת THE GOAT OF THE SIN OFFERING — This was the goat of the additonal offerings of the New Moon. Three goats for sin-offerings had been sacrificed that day: a goat of the kids prescribed for the installation ceremony (see Leviticus 9:3), and the goat brought by Nachshon as a free-will offering, and the goat for the New Moon. Of all these, this last alone had been burnt, and the Sages of Israel differ in their opinions regarding the matter. Some say that it was on account of some uncleanness (unclean thing) which had touched it that it was burnt, whilst others say that it had been burnt on account of the state of mourning in which Aaron’s sons were, for it was a holy sacrifice ordained for all generations and was not of an exceptional character whilst in the case of the occasional holy sacrifices (the two other goats) they relied on Moses’ statement when he said in respect to the occasional meal-offering (v. 12), “and eat it as unleavened cakes”, although you are Onanim, and they took this to apply also to those goats which were also of an occasional character (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 8-10; Zevachim 101a).

דרש דרש. שְׁתֵּי דְרִישׁוֹת: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִשְׂרַף זֶה? וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֶכְלוּ אֵלּוּ? כָּךְ הִיא בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים:

דרש דרש [MOSES] DILIGENTLY ENQUIRED ABOUT — The repetition of the word implies that he made two enquiries: why has this (the goat for the New Moon) been burnt and why have these other goats been eaten? — Thus it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 2).

על אלעזר ועל איתמר. בִּשְׁבִיל כְּבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן הָפַךְ פָּנָיו כְּנֶגֶד הַבָּנִים וְכָעַס (ספרא):

על אלעזר ועל איתמר [HE WAS ANGRY] WITH ELEAZAR AND ITHAMAR — Out of the respect due to Aaron he turned towards his sons and showed himself angry with them instead of with Aaron (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 3).

לאמר. אָמַר לָהֶם הֲשִׁיבוּנִי עַל דְּבָרַי (שם):

לאמר SAYING (i. e. that they should say or speak) — He said to them, “Give me replies to my questions” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2).

מדוע לא אכלתם את החטאת במקום הקדש. וְכִי חוּץ לַקֹּדֶשׁ אֲכָלוּהָ, וַהֲלֹא שְׂרָפוּהָ, וּמַה הוּא אוֹמֵר בִּמְקוֹם הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֶלָּא אָמַר לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים יָצְאָה וְנִפְסְלָה:

מדוע לא אכלתם את החטאת במקום הקדש WHEREFORE HAVE YE NOT EATEN THE SIN OFFERING IN THE HOLY PLACE? — But had they eaten it outside the holy place? Had they not burnt it? What then did he mean when he said “in the holy place”? But he said to them in effect: Had it perhaps gone forth (been taken forth) outside the hangings of the court and so become invalid?

כי קדש קדשים הוא. וְנִפְסֶלֶת בְּיוֹצֵא, וְהֵם אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָאו. אָמַר לָהֶם הוֹאִיל וּבִמְקוֹם הַקֹּדֶשׁ הָיְתָה, מַדּוּעַ לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם אוֹתָהּ:

כי קדש קדשים הוא FOR IT IS HOLY IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE, and such sacrifices become invalid through being taken outside the hangings? If this was so you have done right in burning it! But they replied to him, “No, it has not been taken forth!” He thereupon said to them, “Since it remained in the holy place (במקום הקדש), wherefore have ye not eaten it (מדוע לא אכלתם)?!” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 4; cf. Zevachim 101a.)

ואתה נתן לכם לשאת וגו'. שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹכְלִים וּבְעָלִים מִתְכַּפְּרִים:

'ואתה נתן לכם לשאת וגו‎ AND HE HATH GIVEN IT TO YOU TO BEAR [THE INIQUITY] etc., — for only if the priests eat it are the owners of the sin-offering (the entire Congregation in the case of the goat for the New Moon) atoned for (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 4).

לשאת את עון העדה. מִכָּאן לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁשְּׂעִיר רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ הָיָה, שֶׁהוּא מְכַפֵּר עַל עֲוֹן טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, שֶׁחַטַּאת שְׁמִינִי וְחַטַּאת נַחְשׁוֹן לֹא לְכַפָּרָה בָּאוּ:

לשאת את עון העדה TO BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE CONGREGATION — From this we learn that it must have been the goat for the New Moon about which he made the enquiries, for it was this that made atonement for iniquity involved in causing uncleanness to the Sanctuary and holy food (cf. Shevuot 2a), whilst the sin-offering for the eighth day of the installation ceremony and the sin-offering of Nachshan did not come (were not intended) for the purpose of atonement (Zevachim 101b).

הן לא הובא וגו'. שֶׁאִלּוּ הוּבָא, הָיָה לָכֶם לְשָֹרְפָהּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ו'), וְכָל חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ וְגוֹ' (פסחים פ"ב):

'הן לא הובא וגו‎ BEHOLD [THE BLOOD OF IT] WAS NOT BROUGHT [IN WITHIN THE HOLY PLACE] — for if it had been brought,then indeed was it your duty to burn it, as it is said (Leviticus 6:23) “Any sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought [into the appointed tent, … shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt in the fire]” (Zevachim 101a; Pesachim 82a);

אכל תאכלו אתה. הָיָה לָכֶם לְאָכְלָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹנְנִים:

אכל תאכלו אתה YE SHOULD INDEED HAVE EATEN IT although you were Onanim,

כאשר צויתי. לָכֶם בַּמִּנְחָה:

כאשר צויתי AS I COMMANDED you in the case of the meal-offering (vv. 12, 13).

וידבר אהרן. אֵין לְשׁוֹן דִּבּוּר אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן עַז, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיְדַבֵּר הָעָם וְגוֹ' (במדבר כ"א), אֶפְשָׁר מֹשֶׁה קָצַף עַל אֶלְעָזָר וְעַל אִיתָמָר וְאַהֲרֹן מְדַבֵּר? הָא יָדַעְתָּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה אֶלָּא מִדֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד; אָמְרוּ: אֵינוֹ בַדִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא אָבִינוּ יוֹשֵׁב וְאָנוּ מְדַבְּרִים לְפָנָיו, וְאֵינוֹ בַדִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא תַלְמִיד מֵשִׁיב אֶת רַבּוֹ; יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְאֶלְעָזָר לְהָשִׁיב? תַּ"ל וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא וְגוֹמֵר (שם ל"א), הֲרֵי כְּשֶׁרָצָה, דִּבֵּר לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה וְלִפְנֵי הַנְּשִֹיאִים, זוֹ מָצָאתִי בְּסִפְרֵי שֶׁל פָּנִים שֵׁנִי:

וידבר אהרן AND AARON SAID — The term “saying” used here denotes a harsh utterance, as it is said (Numbers 21:5) “And the people spake (וידבר) against Moses, etc.” — Is it likely that when Moses expressed his indignation with Eleazar and with Ithamar, Aaron should reply to him in such harsh language? You must consequently know (conclude) that it was only by way of respect that these remained silent. They thought, “It would not be right that our father (Aaron) should be sitting here (be present) and that we should speak in his presence, nor would it be right that a disciple should retort on his teacher (Moses)”. You might think, however, that Eleazar did not possess the ability to reply, and that on this account he was silent. This was not so for it is stated (Numbers 31:21) “And Eleazar the priest spake to the men of the army, etc.” — and so you see that when he wished to do so he did speak in the presence of Moses and in the presence of the princes (cf. Numbers v. 13). This I found in the ספרי של פנים שני (known under the name of מדרש פנים or ספרי זוטא) (see Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 785:40).

הן היום הקריבו. מַהוּ אוֹמֵר? אֶלָּא אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה: שֶׁמָּא זְרַקְתֶּם דָּמָהּ אוֹנְנִין, שֶׁאוֹנֵן שֶׁעָבַד חִלֵּל? אָמַר לוֹ אַהֲרֹן וְכִי הֵם הִקְרִיבוּ שֶׁהֵם הֶדְיוֹטוֹת? אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּי שֶׁאֲנִי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן (זבחים ק"א):

הן היום הקריבו BEHOLD, THIS DAY THEY HAVE OFFERED — What did he mean by this? It does not appear to be a reply to Moses rebuke! But Moses had said to them: “Perhaps you have sprinkled its blood whilst you were Onanim and have on that account burnt it, since it thereby became defiled!? — for the rule is that if an Onan does any sacrifical rite he thereby defiles the sacrifice. Aaron therefore said to him: “Did they then offer the sacrifice — they wo are ordinary priests? It was “I” that offered — I who am the High Priest and who may therefore offer when an Onan (Zevachim 101a).

ותקראנה אתי כאלה. אֲפִלוּ לֹא הָיוּ הַמֵּתִים בָּנַי, אֶלָּא שְׁאָר קְרוֹבִים שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לִהְיוֹת אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם כְּאֵלּוּ, כְּגוֹן כָּל הָאֲמוּרִים בְּפָרָשַׁת כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁהַכֹּהֵן מִטַּמֵּא לָהֶם (ספרא).

ותקראנה אתי כאלה AND IF THINGS LIKE THESE HAD BEFALLEN ME — even if those who died were not my sons but other blood relatives for whom I am bound to mourn as an Onan, even as I am bound to mourn for these — for instance all those mentioned in the section regarding the priests (ch. 21) for whom the priest may of set purpose render himself unclean (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 9).

ואכלתי חטאת. וְאִם אָכַלְתִּי הייטב וגו':

ואכלתי חטאת then IF I HAD EATEN THE SIN-OFFERING, 'הייטב וגו‎, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN PLEASING etc.

היום. אֲבָל אֲנִינוּת לַיְלָה מֻתָּר, שֶׁאֵין אוֹנֵן אֶלָּא יוֹם קְבוּרָה (ספרא; זבחים ק'):

היום THIS DAY (i. e. by day) — but in the case of the mourning of an Onan on the night following the death, the eating of an offering is permitted, for the laws regarding an Onan really (i. e. מן התורה) apply only to the day of burial which is also the day of death (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 11; Zevachim 100b).

הייטב בעיני ה'. אִם שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקָדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה אֵין לְךָ לְהָקֵל בְּקָדְשֵׁי דוֹרוֹת:

'הייטב בעיני ה WOULD IT HAVE BEEN PLEASING IN THE EYES OF THE LORD? — If you have heard (been commanded; cf. v. 13) in the case of occasional holy offerings to which category the meal offering offered on the day of installation and that of Nachshon belonged that these may be eaten by Onanim (cf. vv. 12 and 13) you have no right to take a lenient view and to permit this also in the case of sacrifices that are obligatory on all generations, as this goat of the New Moon is! (Zevachim 101a).

וייטב בעיניו. הוֹדָה וְלֹא בוֹשׁ לוֹמַר לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי (זבחים ק"א):

וייטב בעיניו AND IT WAS PLEASING IN HIS EYES — He admitted his error and was not ashamed to do so, by saying (instead of admitting it) “I have not heard a statement (from God regarding this)", but rather he said, “I have heard, but I forgot it” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 12; Zevachim 101b).

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.

וזה לכם הטמא. כָּל טֻמְאוֹת הַלָּלוּ אֵינָן לְאִסּוּר אֲכִילָה אֶלָּא לְטֻמְאָה מַמָּשׁ — לִהְיוֹת טָמֵא בְּמַגָּעָן, וְנֶאֱסַר לֶאֱכֹל תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים וְלִכָּנֵס בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ:

וזה לכם הטמא THESE ALSO SHALL BE UNCLEAN TO YOU — All these statements regarding uncleanness that follow are not intended as a prohibition against eating them (not as טמאה ,טמא in vv. 4—7 in the beginning of this section which is the result of eating the animals mentioned) but refers to actual uncleanness, — that one becomes unclean by contact with them and is thereby forbidden to eat the heave-offering and the holy sacrifices, and to enter the Sanctuary.

החלד. מוש"טילא:

החלד — moustille in O. F.; (English = weasel).

והצב. פויי"ט שֶׁדּוֹמֶה לִצְפַרְדֵּעַ:

והצב — bot in old French; (English = toad), which is like a frog.

אנקה. הרי"ון:

אנקה hérisson in O. F.; English hedgehog.

הלטאה. לישרד"ה:

הלטאה — lizard in old French; English lizard.

חמט. לימצ"א:

חמט — limace in old French: English snail.

תנשמת. טל"פא:

תנשמת — talpa in O. F.; English mole.

במים יובא. וְאַף לְאַחַר טְבִילָתוֹ טָמֵא הוּא לִתְרוּמָה:

במים יובא IT MUST BE PUT INTO WATER — but even after it has been immersed, טמא IT IS UNCLEAN in respect to using it to hold the heave - offering,

עד הערב. וְאַחַ"כַּ וטהר בְּהַעֲרֵב הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ:

עד הערב UNTIL THE EVENING, AND — afterwards — וטהר IT BECOMETH CLEAN at the setting of the sun (Yevamot 75a).

אל תוכו. אֵין כְּלִי חֶרֶס מִטַּמֵּא אֶלָּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ (חולין כ"ד):

אל תוכו [AND EVERY EARTHEN VESSEL] WHEREINTO [ANY OF THEM FALLETH SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — An earthen vessel does not become unclean except through the medium of its interior (i. e. only if something unclean is inside it) but not by something unclean touching its exterior) (cf. Chullin 24b).

כל אשר בתוכו יטמא. הַכְּלִי חוֹזֵר וּמְטַמֵּא מַה שֶּׁבַּאֲוִירוֹ:

כל אשר בתוכו יטמא WHATSOEVER IS INSIDE IT SHALL BE UNCLEAN — the vessel, in turn, renders anything inside it unclean.

ואתו תשברו. לִמֵּד שֶׁאֵין לוֹ טָהֳרָה בַּמִּקְוֶה:

ואתו תשברו AND IT SHALL YE BREAK — This teaches that there is no purification for it by immersion in a ritual bath, (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 7 13).

מכל האכל אשר יאכל. מוּסָב עַל מִקְרָא הָעֶלְיוֹן: "כל אשר בתוכו יטמא מִכָּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל" אֲשֶׁר בָּאוּ עָלָיו מַיִם וְהוּא בְּתוֹךְ כְּלִי חֶרֶס הַטָּמֵא יִטְמָא (וְכֵן כָּל מַשְׁקֶה אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁתֶה בְּכָל כְּלִי וְהוּא בְּתוֹךְ כְּלִי חֶרֶס הַטָּמֵא יִטְמָא). לָמַדְנוּ מִכָּאן דְּבָרִים הַרְבֵּה, לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאֵין אֹכֶל מֻכְשָׁר וּמְתֻקָּן לְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה עַד שֶׁיָּבֹאוּ עָלָיו מַיִם פַּעַם אַחַת, וּמִשֶּׁבָּאוּ עָלָיו מַיִם פַּעַם אַחַת מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה לְעוֹלָם וַאֲפִלוּ נָגוּב, וְהַיַּיִן וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְכָל הַנִּקְרָא מַשְׁקֶה מַכְשִׁיר זְרָעִים לְטֻמְאָה כַּמַּיִם, שֶׁכָּךְ יֵשׁ לִדְרֹשׁ הַמִּקְרָא: אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא עָלָיו מַיִם אוֹ כָל מַשְׁקֶה אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁתֶה בְּכָל כְּלִי, יִטְמָא הָאֹכֶל, וְעוֹד לָמְדוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין וְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה מְטַמֵּא כֵלִים שֶׁכָּךְ שָׁנִינוּ (פסחים פ'), יָכוֹל יְהוּ כָל הַכֵּלִים מִטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִיר כְּלִי חֶרֶס תַּ"ל כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכוֹ יִטְמָא מִכָּל הָאֹכֶל — אֹכֶל (וּמַשְׁקֶה) מִטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִיר כְּלִי חֶרֶס וְאֵין כָּל הַכֵּלִים מִטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲוִיר כְּלִי חֶרֶס — לְפִי שֶׁהַשֶּׁרֶץ אַב הַטֻּמְאָה וְהַכְּלִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא מִמֶּנּוּ וְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמְטַמֵּא כֵלִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ, וְלָמַדְנוּ עוֹד שֶׁהַשֶּׁרֶץ שֶׁנָּפַל לַאֲוִיר הַתַּנּוּר וְהַפַּת בְּתוֹכוֹ וְלֹא נָגַע הַשֶּׁרֶץ בַּפַּת, הַתַּנּוּר רִאשׁוֹן וְהַפַּת שְׁנִיָּה, וְלֹא נֹאמַר רוֹאִין אֶת הַתַּנּוּר כְּאִלּוּ מָלֵא טֻמְאָה וּתְהֵא הַפַּת תְּחִלָּה, שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן, לֹא נִתְמַעֲטוּ כָל הַכֵּלִים מִלִּטַּמֵּא מֵאֲוִיר כְּלִי חֶרֶס, שֶׁהֲרֵי טֻמְאָה עַצְמָהּ נָגְעָה בָּהֶן מִגַּבָּן, וְלָמַדְנוּ עוֹד עַל בִּיאַת מַיִם שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַכְשֶׁרֶת זְרָעִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָפְלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן מִשֶּׁנִּתְלְשׁוּ, שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מְקַבְּלִין הֶכְשֵׁר בִּמְחֻבָּר, אֵין לְךָ שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ עָלָיו מַיִם, וּמַהוּ אוֹמֵר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא עָלָיו מַיִם? וְלָמַדְנוּ עוֹד שֶׁאֵין אֹכֶל מְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ בּוֹ כַּבֵּיצָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֲשֶׁר "יֵאָכֵל" — אֹכֶל הַנֶּאֱכָל בְּבַת אֶחָת, וְשִׁעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה מַחֲזִיק יוֹתֵר מִבֵּיצַת תַּרְנְגֹלֶת (ספרא; יומא פ'):

מכל האכל אשר יאכל OF ALL THE FOOD WHICH MAY BE EATEN — This is to be connected with the preceding verse (consequently the words ואתו תשברו v. 33 are a parenthesis): “whatsoever is in it shall be unclean”; viz., anything of all food which may be eaten upon which water has once come, if it is in an earthen vessel which is unclean, itself becomes unclean. [And similarly all drink that may be drunk in any vessel, if it is in an earthen vessel that is unclean, itself becomes unclean]. From this we learn several things: we learn that food is not fitted and liable to become unclean until water has once come upon it, and after water has once come on it it can any time after become unclean, and even after it has become dry; that wine and oil and anything which is termed משקה, liquid, (besides the three mentioned, also blood, milk, dew and honey of bees; cf. Mishnah Makhshirin 6:4) makes vegetation fitted to become unclean even as water does, for thus must the verse be expounded: any food upon which there cometh water or any liquid which may be drunk out of any vessel, that food shall become unclean. Further our Rabbis derive from here the law that a “secondary uncleanness” (ולד הטומאה) cannot render “vessels” (a term used to denote anything except food and animate beings) unclean. For thus we read in a Boraitha (Pesachim 20a): One might think, since Scripture states v. 33: anything that is inside it shall be unclean, that all “vessels” that are placed inside an earthen vessel become unclean through the medium of the interior of an earthen vessel (i. e. because they are in contact with the earthen vessel which has itself become unclean through something unclean having been inside it)! It, however, says: all that is within it shall become unclean … of any food etc., — i.e., food [and liquids] may become unclean through the medium of the interior of an unclean earthen vessel, but no “vessels” can become unclean through the medium of the interior of an unclean earthen vessel. Now since a dead שרץ, “reptile” (which causes the uncleanness to the earthen vessel) is a primary source of uncleanness (אב הטומאה) and the object which has been rendered unclean by it (in this case the כלי חרס) is a secondary uncleanness (ולד הטומאה), consequently we have the rule that the latter a secondary uncleanness — cannot in turn render unclean “vessels” which are in it. And we further learn from this (Pesachim 20a) that if a dead reptile (שרץ) falls into the interior of an earthen oven in which there is bread, but the reptile does not come in contact with the bread, the oven becomes a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree (ראשון לטומאה) and the bread one of the second degree (because the bread only becomes unclean through having come in contact with the oven which is only a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree, and not a primary source): and we do not say that we regard the oven which contains the primary source as though it were full of uncleanness, and is itself a primary source, so that the bread should be a secondary uncleanness of the first degree (תחלה), as though it had itself touched the primary source; for if you argue so, then any article which is in an earthen vessel is not excluded from becoming unclean through the medium of its interior (whilst we have just stated that “vessels” are excluded — that in such a case they do not become unclean), because you see, if we assume that the whole interior is full of a primary source of uncleanness, it would be as though this uncleanness itself has touched them (the objects) on their outside and then the objects would indeed have become unclean: we, however, have stated that in such a case they do not become unclean; therefore we do not assume that the primary source of uncleanness fills the whole interior: the bread therefore receives the uncleanness not from the carcass but from the oven and is thus a secondary uncleanness of the second degree which does not further transfer its uncleanness to things which have no sacred character. — And we further learn (Chullin 118b; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 8 2) in regard to the “coming of water”, that this does not render vegetation fitted to become unclean unless it falls upon them after they have been plucked; because if you say that they (the vegetation) can acquire this fitness whilst still attached to the soil, then the law has no significance at all, for you have no growing vegetation upon which water does not fall at some time or other, and what, then, is the sense of Scripture saying, “upon which water cometh”? — And we further learn (Yoma 80a) that articles of food which are unclean do not render other food unclean unless the former contains at least a volume equal to that of an egg, for it says: “[food] which may be eaten”, i.e. food which may be eaten at one time, and our Rabbis calculated that the gullet does not hold more than a hen’s egg (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 9 1; cf. also Yoma 80a).

תנור וכירים. כֵּלִים הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין הֵם, וְהֵן שֶׁל חֶרֶס וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן תָּוֶךְ, וְשׁוֹפֵת עַל נֶקֶב הֶחָלָל אֶת הַקְּדֵרָה, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם פִּיהֶם לְמַעְלָה:

תנור וכרים OVEN OR RANGES FOR POTS — These are movable objects, and they are of earthenware, they have an interior and one places the pot over the opening of the hollow space (the cavity); both have their openings on top.

יתץ. שֶׁאֵין לִכְלֵי חֶרֶס טָהֳרָה בִּטְבִילָה:

יתץ SHALL BE BROKEN DOWN — because for an earthenware article there can be no purification by immersion in water.

וטמאים יהיו לכם. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר מְצֻוֶּה אֲנִי לְנָתְצָם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּטְמֵאִים יִהְיוּ לָכֶם — אִם רָצָה לְקַיְּמָן בְּטֻמְאָתָן רַשַּׁאי:

וטמאים יהיו לכם AND THEY SHALL BE UNCLEAN TO YOU — In order that you should not say, “I am under a command to break it down”, it therefore states וטמאים יהיו לכם — i. e. if one wishes to let them remain in their state of uncleanness (when they may still be used for חולין) one has the right to do so (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 10 10). [יתץ therefore means: “should be broken down”, and the following words signify: “but though they are unclean (וטמאים) they may remain with you ‎(יהיו לכם‎)”].

אך מעין ובור מקוה מים. הַמְחֻבָּרִים לַקַּרְקַע אֵין מְקַבְּלִין טֻמְאָה, וְעוֹד יֵשׁ לְךָ לִלְמֹד, יהיה טהור — הַטּוֹבֵל בָּהֶם מִטֻּמְאָתוֹ:

עין ובור מקוה מים‎אך מ NEVERTHELESS A FOUNTAIN OR A PIT WHERE THERE IS A GATHERING OF WATERS which are attached to the ground are not receptive of uncleanness (not being included in וכל משקה וגו׳ בכל כלי mentioned in v. 34, since it states here יהיה טהור, it shall remain clean). But you may also give it the meaning: יהיה טהור, he shall be clean i.e. he who immerses himself in them to free himself from his uncleanness.

ונגע בנבלתם יטמא. אֲפִלּוּ הוּא בְּתוֹךְ מַעְיָן וּבוֹר וְנוֹגֵעַ בְּטֻמְאָתָם יִטְמָא; שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר קַל וָחֹמֶר: אִם מְטַהֵר אֶת הַטְּמֵאִים מִטֻּמְאָתָם קַל וָחֹמֶר שֶׁיַּצִּיל אֶת הַטָּהוֹר מִלִּטַּמֵּא לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר וְנֹגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא (נדרים ע"ה):

ונגע בנבלתם יטמא BUT THAT WHICH TOUCHES THEIR CARRION SHALL BE UNCLEAN — even if one is in the fountain or pit and comes in contact with their uncleanness (their carcasses) he shall be unclean. This is specifically stated in order that you should not argue à fortiori as follows: since it cleanses the unclean from their uncleanness, it follows à fortiori that it will save the clean from becoming unclean, — it stales therefore, “but whoever touches their carrion shall be unclean” (Sifra, Shemini, Section 9 5; Nedarim 75b).

זרע זרוע. זְרִיעָה שֶׁל מִינֵי זֵרְעוֹנִין; זֵרוּעַ שֵׁם דָּבָר הוּא, כְּמוֹ וְיִתְּנוּ לָנוּ מִן הַזֵּרֹעִים (דניאל א'):

זרע זרוע means seed of any kind of seed-plant. The word זרוע is a noun (not a passive participle, when it would be punctuated ‎זָרוע), like (Daniel 1:12) "and let them give us of pulse — זֵרוֹעִים".

טהור הוא. לִמֶּדְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁלֹּא הֻכְשַׁר וְנִתְקַן לִקָּרוֹת אֹכֶל לְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה עַד שֶׁיָּבֹאוּ עָלָיו מָיִם:

טהור הוא HE SHALL BE CLEAN — Scripture by means of this and the following verse teaches you that it does not become fitted and proper to be termed food and therefore to be receptive of uncleanness, until water comes upon it.

וכי יתן מים על זרע. לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְלַשׁ, שֶׁאִם תֹּאמַר יֵשׁ הֶכְשֵׁר בִּמְחֻבָּר, אֵין לְךָ זֶרַע שֶׁלֹּא הֻכְשָׁר (חולין קי"ח):

‎זרע‎‎ ‎על‎‎ מים‎ וכי יתן BUT IF ANY WATER BE PUT ON THE SEED, after it has been plucked, … it shall be unclean; for if you assert that there can be fitness to receive uncleanness whilst it is still attached to the soil, you will never have any seed which has not become thus fitted (Chullin 118b; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 8 2 and Rashi on v. 34).

מים על זרע. בֵּין מַיִם בֵּין שְׁאָר מַשְׁקִין, בֵּין הֵם עַל הַזֶּרַע בֵּין זֶרַע נוֹפֵל לְתוֹכָן, הַכֹּל נִדְרָשׁ בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים:

מים על זרע WATER ON SEED — whether it be water or any other liquids, whether these are on the seed or the seed falls into them — all this is derived in Torath Cohanim (from the wording) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 11 7-10).

ונפל מנבלתם עליו. אַף מִשֶּׁנֻּגַּב מִן הַמַּיִם, שֶׁלֹּא הִקְפִּידָה תוֹרָה אֶלָּא לִהְיוֹת עָלָיו שֵׁם אֹכֶל, וּמִשֶּׁיָּרַד לוֹ הֶכְשֵׁר קַבָּלַת טֻמְאָה פַּעַם אַחַת, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ נֶעֱקָר הֵימֶנּוּ:

ונפל מנבלתם עליו AND ANY PART O. THEIR CARRION FALL THEREON, even after it has become dry from the water, because the Torah is particular only that the name “food” should be applicable to it. Consequently as soon as the fitness to receive uncleanness has once fallen upon it, it can never again be removed from it even if it becomes dry again (cf. Bava Metzia 22a).

בנבלתה. וְלֹא בָעֲצָמוֹת וְגִידִין וְלֹא בַקַּרְנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם וְלֹא בָעוֹר (ספרא):

בנבלתה [HE THAT TOUCHETH] THE CARRION THEREOF [SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — but not if he touches the bones and sinews, nor the horns and claws, and not the hide after these have been removed from the body (Sifra, Shemini, Section 10 5; Chullin 117b).

והנשא את נבלתה. חֲמוּרָה טֻמְאַת מַשָּׂא מִטֻּמְאַת מַגָּע, שֶׁהַנּוֹשֵׂא מְטַמֵּא בְגָדִים, וְהַנּוֹגֵעַ אֵין בְּגָדָיו טְמֵאִין, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו:

והנשא את נבלתה HE ALSO THAT BEARETH THE CARRION OF IT [SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — The uncleanness resulting from bearing the carrion is more stringent than the uncleanness resulting from contact with it; for he who bears it thereby renders his garments unclean, whilst as for him who touches it his garments do not thereby become unclean, since it does not state regarding him in the preceding verse: “he shall wash his garments” (cf. Rashi on v. 25).

והאכל מנבלתה. יָכוֹל תְּטַמְּאֶנּוּ אֲכִילָתוֹ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר בְּנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר (ויקרא כ"ב) "נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל לְטָמְאָה בָהּ", בָהּ — אוֹתָהּ מְטַמָּא בְגָדִים בַּאֲכִילָתָהּ וְאֵין נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה מְטַמָּא בְגָדִים בַּאֲכִילָתָהּ בְּלֹא מַשָּׂא, כְּגוֹן אִם תְּחָבָהּ לוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, אִם כֵּן מַה תַּ"ל הָאֹכֵל? לִתֵּן שִׁעוּר לַנּוֹשֵׂא וְלַנּוֹגֵעַ כְּדֵי אֲכִילָה, וְהוּא כַּזַּיִת (ספרא; נדה מ"ב):

והאכל מנבלתה AND HE THAT EATETH OF ITS CARRION [… SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — One might think from this statement that the act of eating therefrom makes him unclean! But this is not so because when it states of the carcass of a clean fowl (Leviticus 22:8) “that which dies of itself (נבלה) or that which is torn he shall not eat to defile himself therewith”, we may learn from it: בה “therewith” — only that (the carcass of a clean fowl) makes a person’s clothes unclean by the very act of eating therefrom, but the carcass of cattle does not make a person’s clothes unclean by the very act of eating therefrom if there is no carrying involved, e. g., if another person inserts it into his gullet (for one it not regarded as carrying something which is inside his body). But if this be so, why is it here stated “he that eateth”? In order to prescribe as a minimum for making unclean him who bears or touches such carrion a quantity as much as can be called “eating” viz., a piece as large as an olive (Sifra, Shemini, Section 10 7; Niddah 42b).

וטמא עד הערב. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטָּבַל צָרִיךְ הַעֲרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ:

עד הערב ‎‎וטמא AND HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTO THE EVEN — although he may have immersed himself in water he must await sunset before he becomes clean.

השרץ על הארץ. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַיַּתּוּשִׁין שֶׁבַּכְּלִיסִין וְשֶׁבַּפּוֹלִין, וְאֶת הַזִּיזִין שֶׁבָּעֲדָשִׁים, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא שָׁרְצוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֶלָּא בְּתוֹךְ הָאֹכֶל, אֲבָל מִשֶּׁיָּצְאוּ לָאֲוִיר וְשָׁרְצוּ הֲרֵי נֶאֱסְרוּ (ספרא; חולין ס"ז):

‎‎‎‏על הארץ ‎ושרץ THAT CREEPETH ON THE EARTH — the law is worded thus in order to exclude the insects in peas and in beans and the mites in lentils, for, you see, these do not move about on the ground but inside the food, but so soon as they have emerged into the air and have moved about they become prohibited to be eaten (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 1; Chullin 67b).

לא יאכל. לְחַיֵּב עַל הַמַּאֲכִיל כָּאוֹכֵל; וְאֵין קָרוּי שֶׁרֶץ אֶלָּא דָּבָר נָמוּךְ, קְצַר רַגְלַיִם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה אֶלָּא כְּרוֹחֵשׁ וְנָד:

לא יאכל IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN — This passive form; it shall not become the object of eating, is used to make the liability to punishment fall upon the one who gives these abominable things to others (to‎ minors) to eat just the same as upon him who himself eats them (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 1; cf. Rashi on v. 13). — Only that is called שרץ which is low and has short feet and which seems only to progress by a creeping movement.

הולך על גחון. זֶה נָחָשׁ, וּלְשׁוֹן גָּחוֹן שְׁחִיָּה, שֶׁהוֹלֵךְ שָׁח וְנוֹפֵל עַל מֵעָיו:

‎גחון‎ הולך על THAT GOETH ON THE BELLY — This is the serpent (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2; Chullin 67b), and the expression גחון denotes bending low, so that the phrase means: that which walks bent down and fallen upon its belly.

כל הולך. לְהָבִיא הַשִּׁלְשׁוּלִין וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לַדּוֹמֶה:

כל הולך EVERYTHING THAT GOETH — The word “everything” is employed to include worms and whatever is similar to anything similar to it (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2).

הולך על ארבע. זֶה עַקְרָב:

הולך על ארבע THAT GOETH UPON ALL FOUR — This is the scorpion (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2).

כל. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַחִפּוּשִׁית, אשקר"בוט בְּלַעַז, וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לַדּוֹמֶה:

כל EVERYTHING [THAT GOETH UPON ALL FOUR] — The word “everything” is intended to include the beetle, — escarbot in O. F. — and whatever is similar to anything similar to it (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2).

מרבה רגלים. זֶה נַדָּל, שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רַגְלַיִם מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְעַד זְנָבוֹ לְכָאן וּלְכָאן, וְקוֹרִין צינטפי"דש (ספרא):

מרבה רגלים [AND] WHAT HATH MANY FEET — This is the centipede (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2) — an insect which has feet from its head to its tail on both sides of its body, and it is called centpies in old French

אל תשקצו. בַּאֲכִילָתָן, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּתִיב נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם וְאֵין שִׁקּוּץ נֶפֶשׁ בְּמַגָּע, וְכֵן וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ בַּאֲכִילָתָם:

אל תשקצו YE SHALL NOT MAKE [YOUR SOULS] ABOMINABLE, by eating these (Meilah 16b): this must be the meaning, because you see it is written “[ye shall not make] your souls [abominable]” and no soiling of the soul arises from touching these creatures. And similarly the words (v. 44) “neither shall ye defile [your souls]” mean: by eating them.

ונטמתם בם. אִם אַתֶּם מִטַּמְּאִין בָּהֶם בָּאָרֶץ, אַף אֲנִי מְטַמֵּא אֶתְכֶם בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא וּבִישִׁיבַת מַעְלָה (יומא ל"ט):

ונטמתם בם THAT YE SHOULD BE DEFILED THEREBY — If you become defiled thereby on earth I will treat you as defiled in the world-to-come and in the heavenly academy (cf. Yoma 39a).

כי אני ה' אלהיכם. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲנִי קָדוֹשׁ שֶׁאֲנִי ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, כָּךְ וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם — קַדְּשׁוּ עַצְמְכֶם לְמַטָּה:

כי אני ה׳ אלהיכם FOR I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Just as I am holy, I, Who am the Lord your God, similarly והתקדשתם MAKE YOURSELVES HOLY below on earth ( (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 3),

והייתם קדשים. לְפִי שֶׁאֲנִי אֲקַדֵּשׁ אֶתְכֶם לְמַעְלָה וּבָעוֹלָם הַבָּא:

והייתם קדשים AND YE WILL BE HOLY, because I will then treat you as holy, above and in the world-to-come (Yoma 39a).

ולא תטמאו וגו'. לַעֲבֹר עֲלֵיהֶם בְּלָאוִין הַרְבֵּה, וְכָל לָאו מַלְקוּת, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּתַּלְמוּד (מכות ט"ז:), אָכַל פּוּטִיתָא לוֹקֶה אַרְבַּע, נְמָלָה לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ, צִרְעָה לוֹקֶה שֵׁשׁ:

ולא תטמאו NEITHER SHALL YE DEFILE [YOUR SOULS] etc. — This is repeated in order to bring it about that a person transgresses many negative commands when he eats such abominable things: and every single negative commandment involves for its transgression the punishment of lashes. This is the meaning of what they said in the Talmud (Makkot 16b): if one has eaten a Putisa (a shell fish or water reptile), he receives floggings (39 lashes) four times, (because four of the different prohibitions referring to שרצים apply to such a water reptile); if he has eaten an ant, he receives five such floggings; a hornet, six such floggings.

כי אני ה' המעלה אתכם. עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּקַבְּלוּ מִצְוֹתַי הֶעֱלֵיתִי אֶתְכֶם; דָּבָר אַחֵר, כִּי אֲנִי ה' הַמַּעֲלֶה אֶתְכֶם: בְּכֻלָּן כְּתִיב "הוֹצֵאתִי" וְכָאן כְּתִיב "הַמַּעֲלֶה", תָּנָא דְבֵי רַ' יִשְׁמָעֵאל אִלְּמָלֵי לֹא הֶעֱלֵיתִי אֶת יִשְֹרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֵין מִטַּמְּאִין בִּשְׁרָצִים כִּשְׁאָר אֻמּוֹת דַּיָּם, וּמַעַלְיוּתָא הִיא גַּבַּיְהוּ, זֶהוּ לְשׁוֹן מַעֲלָה:

כי אני ה׳ המעלה אתכם FOR I AM THE LORD THAT BRINGETH YOU UP [OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT] — On condition that you should accept My commandments did I bring you up (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 4). Another explanation of: FOR I AM THE LORD THAT BRINGETH YOU UP — In all other places it is written, “I brought (you) forth”, and here it is written “that bringeth (you) up” — in reference to this it was taught in the school of R. Ishmael: If I had brought up Israel from Egypt only to effect this one thing — that they do not defile themselves by reptiles as do the other peoples, that should be sufficient for them (Bava Metzia 61b), and it should be regarded by them as an elevation for themselves — this is what is implied in the expression used here: מעלה (I raised you above the people of the land of Egypt).

להבדיל. לֹא בִּלְבַד הַשּׁוֹנֶה, אֶלָּא שֶׁתְּהֵא יוֹדֵעַ וּמַכִּיר וּבָקִי בָּהֶן (ספרא):

להבדיל TO MAKE A DISTINCTION — Not that one should only learn the laws, but it is a command that you should know and recognize the differences and be expert in them (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 6).

בין הטמא ובין הטהר. צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בֵּין חֲמוֹר לְפָרָה, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר מְפֹרָשִׁים הֵם? אֶלָּא בֵּין טְמֵאָה לְךָ לִטְהוֹרָה לְךָ — בֵּין נִשְׁחַט חֶצְיוֹ שֶׁל קָנֶה לְנִשְׁחַט רֻבּוֹ:

‎הטהור‎‎ בין הטמא ‎ובין‎ BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN — Is it necessary to say. that one should understand to distinguish between the ass and the cow? Have they not already been closely defined as to their distinguishing characteristics? But the meaning is: that you should thoroughly understand to distinguish between what is unclean for you and what is clean for you (i. e. between what is forbidden and what is permitted to you) — between the case of an animal only half of whose wind-pipe has been cut through by the knife, and the case when the greater part has been cut through (in the former case the animal is forbidden, in the latter it is permitted as food) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 7).

ובין החיה הנאכלת. צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בֵּין צְבִי לְעָרוֹד וַהֲלֹא כְבָר מְפֹרָשִׁים הֵם? אֶלָּא בֵּין שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בָהּ סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה כְּשֵׁרָה לְנוֹלְדוּ בָהּ סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה פְּסוּלָה (ספרא):

ובין החיה הנאכלת AND BETWEEN AN ANIMAL THAT MAY BE EATEN — Is it necessary to say that one should learn to distinguish between a stag and a wild ass? Have not these already been closely defined as to their distinguishing characteristics? But the meaning is: that you should thoroughly understand to distinguish between the case when there have arisen in it (in the animal) signs by which one might regard it as forbidden (טרפה) and yet it is permitted as food (כשרה), and the case when there have arisen in it signs by which one might regard it as forbidden and because of which it is actually unfitted to be eaten (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 8).