Sifra 11.0.8

Emor, Chapter 4

1) (Vayikra 22:4) ("A man, a man, of the seed of Aaron the Cohein, if he is a leper or a zav (see section 15), of the holy things he shall not eat until he is clean. And one who touches anyone who is unclean through the dead; or a man from whom semen issues,") "the seed of Aaron": This tells me only of the seed of Aaron. Whence is Aaron himself derived (as subsumed in the prohibition)? From "if he is a leper or a zav." "of the holy things (terumah) he shall not eat until he is clean": (i.e., when the sun goes down,) but Israelites may eat ma'aser t'vulei yom (having immersed themselves in the daytime). Whence is it derived that Aaron and his sons (may eat ma'aser, t'vulei yom)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If Israelites, who may not eat of terumah (even) when the sun goes down, may eat of ma'aser t'vulei yom, then Aaron and his sons, who may eat of terumah when the sun goes down — how much more so may they eat of ma'aser t'vulei yom! Israelites, then, are derived (by implication) from the verse, and Aaron and his sons, a fortiori (as being permitted to eat ma'aser t'vulei yom.

2) "until he is clean": I might think, until he immerses; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:7) "And when the sun sets, he shall be clean." Just as his being clean below is with the setting of the sun, so, his being clean here.

3) "And one who touches anyone who is unclean through the dead": One who is unclean through the dead confers tumah only through touch (i.e., if a man or vessels touch him). "or a man from whom semen issues": This is a ba'al keri (one who had a nocturnal pollution. Whence is the toucher of semen to be included? From "or a man."

4) (Vayikra 22:5) ("Or a man who touches any creeping thing by which he becomes unclean, or a (dead) man by which he becomes unclean, to all his uncleanliness") "who touches (any) creeping thing": This tells me only of a creeping thing (sheretz). Whence is animal carcass (neveilah) to be derived (for inclusion)? From "any sheretz." "by which he becomes unclean": to include (becoming unclean not only by touching the whole object, but even particles of) the size required for uncleanliness. "man": This is a dead body. "has uncleanliness": to include zavim, zavoth, niddah, and yoledeth (a woman after childbirth). This tells me only of their stringent days (i.e., the days of their seeing the discharge). Whence do I derive (the same for) their lenient days? (i.e., the days of their counting)? From "to all of his uncleanliness." "by which he becomes unclean": to include one who cohabits with a niddah. "by which he becomes clean (lit.,) "to it"): to include one who swallows the carcass of a clean bird.

5) (Vayikra 22:6) ("The soul that touches it shall be unclean until the evening; and he shall not eat of the holy things until he bathes his flesh in water.") "The soul that touches it": and not one (that becomes unclean) by moving it. "The soul that touches it shall be unclean until the evening; and he shall not eat of the holy things.": There are holy things of which he may not eat, to include intermixtures of less than a hundred.

6) This tells me only of an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of terumah, (i.e., that a Cohein may not eat a sa'ah of unclean terumah that became intermixed with less than a hundred sa'ah of clean terumah.) Whence do I derive the same for an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of chullin (non-terumah), foods of chullin with foods of terumah, foods of terumah with sanctified foods, sanctified foods with foods of terumah, terumah drink with chullin drink, chullin drink with terumah drink, terumah drink with sanctified drink, sanctified drink with terumah drink, sanctified drink with (another kind of) sanctified drink? To this end it is written "of the holy things," to include (all of the above).

7) "until he bathes his flesh": I might think that he could bathe each limb individually; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22 verse 7) "And when the sun sets he shall be clean" — Just as the sun sets as a whole, so the bathing in water must be as a whole (and not limb by limb).

8) (Vayikra 22:7) ("And when the sun sets he shall be clean, and then he may eat of the holy things, for it is his bread.") "And when the sun sets he shall be clean": The setting of the sun is a prerequisite for his eating terumah, but his atonement (i.e., the bringing of his offering) is not a prerequisite for his eating terumah.

9) "and then he may eat of the holy things": There are holy things of which he may eat, to include intermixtures of more than a hundred.

10) This tells me only of an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of terumah (i.e., that a Cohein may eat a sa'ah of unclean terumah that became intermixed with more than a hundred sa'ah of clean terumah.) Whence do I derive the same for an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of chullin, foods of chullin with foods of terumah, foods of terumah with sanctified foods, sanctified foods with foods of terumah, terumah drink with chullin drink, chullin drink with terumah drink, terumah drink with sanctified drink? To this end it is written "of the holy things," (to include all of the above).

11) ("It should have been written )"for (holy) bread." (Why) "his bread"? (To teach that) he sifts the flour as he wishes and perforates the greens as much as he wishes. I might think that the remnants of the perforated greens are rendered profane (not holy); it is, therefore, written "it is his bread" — it remains in its holiness.

12) (Vayikra 22:8) ("A neveilah [the carcass of an animal that died by itself] and a treifah [a torn animal] he shall not eat to become unclean thereby; I am the L–rd.") I might think that the neveilah of an unclean beast made one's clothing unclean upon entering the esophagus; it is, therefore, written "A neveilah and a treifah he shall not eat to become unclean" — what confers tumah only by being eaten, to exclude the neveilah of a beast, which confers tumah before being eaten (by being touched or carried).

13) I might think that the neveilah of a bird confers tumah via the verse and the neveilah of a beast, a fortiori, [viz.: If the neveilah of a bird, which does not confer tumah by being touched or carried, does confer tumah in the esophagus, then the neveilah of a beast, which does confer tumah by being touched or carried, how much more so should it confer tumah in the esophagus!) It is, therefore, written "to become unclean thereby. Tumah is conferred thereby (i.e., a by a bird) in the esophagus, and not by the neveilah of a beast.

14) (Vayikra 22:9) ("And they shall keep My charge, that they not bear sin because of it. And they will die for it if they profane it; I am the L–rd who makes them holy.") "And they shall keep My charge": They shall keep a charge for Me (i.e., they shall make "fences" for My charge.)" And they shall keep My charge": Beth-din is hereby being charged (to exhort the Cohanim to guard His terumah against tumah.) "that they not bear sin": I might think that Scripture speaks here of neveilah; it is, therefore, written "because of it" ("terumah" in context). Scripture here speaks of the holy thing and not of neveilah.

15) "And they will die for it," and not for (eating) ma'aser sheni (in a state of uncleanliness) "if they profane it": to exclude one who is clean, who ate something (already) unclean.

16) If the lesser (transgression), (touching a sheretz and then eating ma'aser sheni) is mentioned, why mention the graver (touching a dead body) (i.e., why not derive one from the other?) For if the lesser were mentioned and not the graver, I would say that for the lesser he is liable (only) for (transgression of) a negative commandment, and for the graver, for death. Therefore, the graver must be mentioned (as not being liable to death, but only for transgression of a negative commandment). And if the graver were mentioned and not the lesser, I would say that for the graver he was liable (for transgression of a negative commandment), but for the lesser he was not liable at all. Therefore, both the graver and the lesser must be mentioned. (Vayikra 22:10) ("And every zar [a non-priest] shall not eat the holy thing [terumah]; the tenant of a Cohein and his hired man shall not eat the holy thing.") "zar": I might think that "zar" refers to a "mamzer" (a bastard). Whence do I derive that it denominates even a Levite, even an Israelite? From "every zar." "shall not eat": "eating" is not less than the size of an olive. "the holy thing": Just as "the holy thing" stated elsewhere (Devarim 26:13) refers to "the holy things of the boundary" (i.e., terumah and ma'aser, which may be eaten within the entire boundary of Eretz Yisrael [as opposed to "the holy things of the altar," which may be eaten only in Jerusalem]), so "the holy thing" stated here refers to "the holy things of the boundary."

17) "the tenant of a Cohein or his hired man" ("toshav Cohein vesachir"): "toshav" is one that is acquired forever (i.e., a servant whose ear is bored and who serves until the Jubilee year). "Sachir is one that is acquired for years (i.e., a servant who leaves after six years). Let it be written (only) "toshav." Why is "sachir"? If one that is acquired forever does not eat, should one who is acquired (only for several) years eat? If so, I would say that "toshav" denotes one that is acquired for (several) years. Now that "sachir" is written, it reveals "toshav" to mean one that is acquired forever.

18) R. Yishmael says: "Toshav vesachir" are written here and in respect to the Paschal lamb (Shemoth 12:48). Just as with "toshav vesachir" stated in respect to the Paschal lamb, an aral (one who is uncircumcised) may not eat of it," so with "toshav vesachir" stated here (in respect to terumah), an aral may not eat of it. R. Akiva said: This (identity) is not needed. It is written (Shemoth 12 verse 4) "A man, a man," to include the aral.