Sifra 4.0.22

Shemini, Section 10

1) (Vayikra 11:39) ("And if there die of the beast which it is yours to eat, he who touches its carcass shall be tamei until the evening.") "And if there die of the beast": "die," literally, (and not ever min hechai). "of the beast": There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude a treifah (an organically defective animal) which was slaughtered, (the shechitah "cleansing" it). But does this not follow (even without a verse)? viz.: If we find with an unclean beast that it is not the designation ("tamei") that forbids it to be eaten which brings it to a state of tumah, but its death — treifah, too; it is not the designation ("treifah") that forbids it to be eaten which brings it to a state of tumah, but its death, (but if there was shechitah before death, it remains clean of tumah). Or go in this direction: An unclean beast was forbidden (for eating) before its death, and a treifah is forbidden before its death. Just as an unclean beast is not cleansed (from carcass tumah) by shechitah, so, a treifah is not cleansed by shechitah. It must, therefore, be written "of the beast." There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude a treifah (that was slaughtered) by shechitah.

2) A different argument: An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a treifah may not be eaten. Just as shechitah does not cleanse an unclean animal (from carcass tumah), so, shechitah should not cleanse a treifah (from carcass tumah).

3) No, this may be true of an unclean animal, which never was fit (for eating). Would you say the same for a treifah, which was (before it became a treifah) fit for eating? (Why, then, do we need a verse to tell us that a treifah that was slaughtered by shechitah does not contract carcass tumah)? — Take what you have brought (i.e., Granted.) But how would we know the same for a beast which was treifah from the womb, (which never was fit for eating? And it is for this animal that we need the verse). — No, this may be true of an unclean beast, in whose kind ("unclean animal") shechitah does not obtain. Would you say the same for a treifah, in whose kind ("clean animal") shechitah does obtain? Why, then, do we need a verse even for a beast which was treifah from the womb?) — Your argument is refuted by a beast born in the eighth month, in whose kind shechitah does obtain (an eight-month fetus is permitted for eating by the shechitah of its mother), and yet shechitah does not cleanse it (itself for eating), so do not wonder about a treifah, which, even if shechitah obtained in its kind ("clean animal"), its shechitah would not cleanse it (from carrion tumah.) It must, therefore, be written "of the beast." There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude (from carrion tumah) a treifah (that was slaughtered) by shechitah. "which it (the beast)": "It" confers (carrion) tumah by being carried, but a sheretz does not confer tumah by being carried. For (without a verse) we would say: Does it not follow a fortiori (that a sheretz does confer tumah by being carried), viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh, (the tumah amount for its flesh being an olive-size, and for its blood, being a revi'ith) (If a beast) confers tumah by being carried, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, (the amount for both being a lentil), how much more so should it confer tumah by being carried! It must, therefore, be written "it." It (a beast) confers tumah by being carried, but a sheretz does not confer tumah by being carried.

4) (Vayikra 11:39) ("And if there die of the beast which is yours to eat, he that touches its carcass shall be tamei until the evening.") "yours": to include an unclean beast as conferring (carrion) tumah by being carried. (Now why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a clean beast, whose shechitah cleanses it, confers (carrion) tumah by being carried, how much more so should an unclean beast, whose shechitah does not cleanse it, confer (carrion) tumah by being carried! — This is refuted by sheretz, whose shechitah does not cleanse it and yet it does not confer (carrion) tumah by being carried. You, likewise, should not wonder if an unclean beast, even though its shechitah does not cleanse it, did not confer tumah upon being carried. It must, therefore, be written "yours," to include an unclean beast as conferring tumah by being carried.

5) "to eat": to include (in carrion uncleanliness) an eighth-month birth, that its shechitah not cleanse it (from carrion uncleanliness, it being regarded as a dead animal that has been slaughtered.) R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah and R. Elazar b. R. Shimon say: An eighth-month birth — its shechitah cleanses it (from carrion uncleanliness, it being regarded as a treifah that has been slaughtered by shechitah). "its carcass": not its bones or its sinews or its horns or its hooves. I might think (that these do not contract carrion tumah) even when they are connected (to the flesh). It is, therefore, written "shall be tamei" (to include the above in carrion tumah). "its carcass": and not an intact marrow-bone. I might think (that it does not contract carrion tumah) even if it were pierced; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "shall be tamei."

6) "its carcass": and not the (flesh) scatterings (of the knife). I might think even if they were gathered together. It is, therefore, written "shall be tamei." These are the words of R. Yehudah. "its carcass": and not its hide (i.e., If one touches the flayed hide, he does not become tamei). If one flays (a hide) to make a spread (of it), (the amount of hide flayed for it to be considered a yad ("a handle" to the carcass and to convey tumah is) until it serves for grasping purposes (but not beyond that). And, (if he flays it) to make a flask, (the amount is) until he flays the entire breast. I might think that I exclude less than that amount (from the designation of "yad"); it is, therefore, written "shall be tamei." "its carcass": and not its hide which lacks an olive-size of flesh. I might think that I exclude (from tumah) one who touches hide behind which is an olive-size of flesh. It is, therefore, written "shall be tamei. "its carcass": not (even if he touches) two half-olive sizes on the hide, (this not being considered touching the carcass). I might think that (in this instance) he would not become tamei by carrying it; it is, therefore, written: "And the carrier (shall become tamei"). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says "he that touches … and he that carries" — What is subject to touching (tumah) is subject to carrying (tumah), and what is not subject to touching is not subject to carrying. And R. Akiva concedes that if he carries two half-olive sizes (of flesh) stuck on a stick he is tamei. Why does R. Akiva rule it clean (in the case of hide)? Because the hide nullifies (the connection of the separate flesh pieces).

7) I might think that the carrion of a beast would confer tumah upon one's clothes (if stuffed) into his esophagus (without his having touches or carried it, it being written (Vayikra 11:40) "And he who eats it shall wash his clothes"); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) "Carcass or treifah he shall not eat to become tamei through it" — (We are speaking of that [a bird]) which confers tumah only through eating (and not through touching or carrying), excluding a beast, which confers tumah before it is eaten (by touching or carrying). I might think that bird carcass confers tumah according to Scripture, and beast carcass, a fortiori; it is, therefore, written "through it" — Through "it" (bird carcass) confers tumah in the esophagus, and not beast carcass. If so, why is it written (in reference to beast carcass, Vayikra 11:40) "And he who eats? To assign a (minimum) amount for (tumah of) touching and carrying — Just as for "eating," an olive-size, so, for "touching," an olive-size.

8) See Section 4:9