Sifra 4.0.20

Shemini, Section 9

1) (Vayikra 11:36) ("But a spring or a pit where waters are gathered shall be clean; and he who touches their carcass [the carcass of the animals mentioned above] shall be tamei.") If it were written (only) "a gathering of waters shall be clean," I would think that even if he filled up (containers of water and carried them) on his shoulder and made a mikvah ab initio that it would be valid; it is, therefore, written "a spring" — Just as a spring is made by Heaven, so a mikveh must be made by Heaven. — But if so, I would say: Just as there is no involvement of man in a spring, so there must be no involvement of man in a mikveh — to exclude one's placing his vessels on the roof to dry, their filling up with (rain) water, (their breaking, and filling up a pit, in which instance I would think that the water is considered "drawn" and that the pit is pasul as a mikvah) — it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "a pit." If so, I would think that a pit in a boat (i.e., a cavity into which sea water is admitted) would be valid; it is, therefore, written "a spring." Just as a spring is ground-based, a pit, too, must be ground-based. If so, I might think that just as a spring cleanses with any amount (that covers the object), so a mikvah cleanses with any amount. It is, therefore, written "But a spring" — a spring cleanses with any amount, but a mikvah requires forty sa'ah.

2) If so, I might think that just as a spring cleanses through running waters, so a mikvah cleanses through running waters; it is, therefore, written "But a spring" — a spring cleanses through running waters, but a mikvah, through standing ones.

3) Whence is it derived that if it were tamei (i.e., lacking forty sa'ah), it may be cleansed (i.e., brought up to par)? From "it shall be clean." He responded: But whence do I derive (the same for funneling water from) spring to mikvah, one mikvah to another, a mikvah to a pit, a pit to a pit, a pit to a mikvah? From (reading it as) "spring … shall be clean," "pit … shall be clean," "and a mikvah of water shall be clean."

4) "a mikvah of water": and not a mikvah of other liquids. ("a mikvah of water":) to exclude (from kashruth), there having fallen into it pickling brine or dye-water and having changed its appearance, (in which instance it invalidates the mikvah even if it lacks three logs). These are the words of R. Meir. For R. Meir was wont to say: Pickling brine and dye water, and all that invalidates with three logs, invalidates also with changing the appearance (of the mikvah water). R. Yossi says: All that invalidates it with three logs (by reason of "drawn water") does not invalidate it (with less than three logs) by reason of changing its appearance.

5) "and he who touches their carcass shall be tamei": Hillel says: Even if they are in the midst of the water. For I would say: Since (being connected to) the earth rescues (what is connected to it) from becoming tamei (viz. Vayikra 11:27) and the mikvah rescues what is tamei from their tumah, then just as the earth rescues the clean from becoming tamei, so the mikvah rescues the clean from becoming tamei. It is, therefore, written "and he who touches their carcass shall be unclean," even if they are in the midst of the water.

6) R. Yossi Haglili says: "And he who touches their carcass shall be tamei": They confer tumah through touching, and not through being carried. (The verse is needed to tell us this,) for should it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh, confers tumah through being carried, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, how much more so should it confer tumah through being carried! It must, therefore, be written "And he who touches their carcass shall be tamei" — They confer tumah through touching, and not through being carried.

7) R. Akiva says: "And what touches their carcass shall be tamei": ("what") to include a vessel of bone. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If wood, whose "father" (the tree) is clean, the vessels made of it acquire tumah, then bone, whose "father" (flesh) is tamei, how much more so should the vessels made of it acquire tumah! — No, this may be true of wood, which is instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house. Would you say the same for bone, which is not instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house? Since it is not instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house, then the vessels made of it should not acquire tumah. It is, therefore, written "And what touches their carcass shall be tamei," to include vessels made of bone. R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Broka says: (This verse is not needed for this inclusion.) It is already written (Bamidbar 31:20) "and all work of goats," to include (as acquiring tumah) everything that is made from goats, even from their horns (i.e., bones!) and from their hooves. Whence do I derive the same for other beasts and animals? From "and all work." If so, why is "goats," (specifically,) written? To exclude (vessels made from the bones of) birds.