Sifra 4.0.15

Shemini, Chapter 8

1) (Vayikra 11:32): "sack": This tells me only of sack. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) kalkali and chebek (types of saddle bands)? From "or sack." I might think that (also included) as requiring tumah are ropes and cords. It is, therefore, written "sack." Just as sack is reticulated, so all must be reticulated (to acquire tumah).

2) And thus is it written in respect to dead-body (tumah, Bamidbar 31:20): "and every work of goats." I might think (to include) ropes and cords (as acquiring tumah). (But) it follows (by reason that they should not be included), viz.: A dead body confers tumah and a sheretz confers tumah. Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated.

3) But if Scripture was lenient with a sheretz, a lesser (form of tumah, should we, therefore, be lenient with dead-body (tumah), an acute (form)? But (by reason alone a dead body) should confer tumah on ropes and cords. It must, therefore, be written "a garment … skin" (Vayikra 11:33, in respect to sheretz) — "a garment … skin" (Bamidbar 31:20, in respect to dead-body tumah), as an identity (gezeirah shavah) — Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated; and just as a dead body confers tumah on "every work of goats," so a sheretz confers tumah on every work of goats.

4) This ("sack" [Vayikra 11:32]) tells me only of a sack made of goats. Whence do I derive (as also acquiring tumah) a sack made of pig or of a cow's tail? From "or sack." This tells me only of sheretz. Whence do I derive the same for dead-body tumah. It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) sheretz, a lesser form (of tumah), the work of pig is equated with the work of goats, then (in the instance of) dead-body (tumah), the more acute form, should the work of pig not be equated with the work of goats!

5) Now if Scripture included (for tumah in the instance of that which comes from the tail of a cow and from a pig,) tumah until evening, which obtains with many (types of tumah by touching), should I, then, include (for dead-body tumah what comes from the tail of a cow and from a pig), tumah for seven days, which obtains with only a limited (type of tumah, that of touching a dead body)? It must, therefore, be written "garment … skin" - "garment … skin," for a gezeirah-shavah — Just as with sheretz, the work of a pig is equated with that of goats, so, with dead-body tumah, the work of a pig is equated with that of goats.

6) (Vayikra 11:32): "every vessel": to include the sling, the amulet, and the phylactery. I might think that also included are the yoke-eye (tied to the hopper) and the yoke-pole; it is, therefore, written "with which (vessels) work is done," and not where the work is done with others (i.e., the horses, to which the yoke is attached).

7) Or I might think to include the coverings of vessels; it is, therefore, written "with them," excluding the coverings of vessels.

8) "it shall be put into water": I might think even part of it (i.e., piece after piece). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:7): "And when the sun sets, he shall be clean." Just as there, the coming (i.e., setting) of the sun is all at once; here, too, the coming of the vessel (into the water must be) all at once.

9) "And it shall be tamei until the evening": I might think for all things (i.e., even for use of the vessel for second-tithe). It is, therefore, written "and it shall be clean." How so? (How can it be clean and unclean at the same time?) Clean for second-tithe, (even) in the daytime, and for terumah (only) when it gets dark.