Sifra
Shemini, Chapter 3
Shemini, Chapter 3
1) "All … in the beast (may you eat"): to include (as permitted) the fetus (found "in the beast" after its mother had been slaughtered). I might think (that this were so) even if part of it had emerged. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "Only (this may you not eat.") "it (one with the signs of cleanliness) may you eat." It may be eaten (and not an unclean beast.)
2) This tells me only of a positive commandment. Whence do I derive (that he also transgresses) a negative commandment (if he eats an unclean beast)? From "the camel, the hare, the coney … and the swine … you shall not eat." This tells me only of these alone. Whence do I derive (the same for) the other unclean beasts? It follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if a negative commandment against eating attaches to these, which have certain cleanliness signs, how much more so does it attach to those which do not have any cleanliness signs! It is found, then, that the camel, the hare, the coney and the swine (are prohibited) by Scripture, and the other unclean beasts, by a fortiori reasoning. Their positive commandment is written; their negative commandment is (derived) a fortiori.
3) "Only this may you not eat of those which chew the cud and of those which have cloven hooves": There are among those that chew the cud, which you do not eat. Which is that: A clean animal born of an unclean one.
4) I might think that the same is true of an unclean animal born of a clean one; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:4): "the camel … it is unclean." This (a camel born of a camel) is unclean (and not the other). R. Shimon says: Why is the camel mentioned twice? (Vayikra 11:4 and Devarim 14:7). One for a camel born of a camel; the other for a camel born of a cow.
5) "Only this you shall not eat of those that chew the cud and of those whose hooves are parted": There are those among the cloven footed, which you do not eat. These are the treifoth (animals with organic defects leading to death):
6) (an animal in which:) the gullet is perforated; most of the windpipe is detached (in its breadth); the spine is broken and the spinal cord is cut; the heart is perforated up to its chamber; the liver is diminished and nothing remains of it; the lung is perforated or diminished (R. Shimon says: until the perforation reaches the bronchiae); the stomach is perforated; the intestines are perforated (R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: Even if the gall bladder is perforated, it is unfit);
7) the inner stomach (the maw) is perforated or most of the outer stomach is torn (R. Yehudah says: In a large (ox) a handbreadth, and in a small one, the majority [even if it is not a handbreadth]);
8) the omasom and the reticulum is perforated (until its perforation is seen) on the outside; it fell from a roof (even if breaks are not visible from the outside); most of its ribs were broken; it was trodden by a wolf (R. Yehudah says: Being trodden by a wolf, for a small animal, and being trodden by a lion, for a large one); it was trodden by a hawk, for a small bird; it was trodden by a large bird, for a large bird. I might think that if the skull were diminished, but the brain membrane not perforated; if the heart were perforated, but not up to its chamber; if the spine were broken, but the cord not severed; if the liver were diminished, but an olive-size remained of it; if the omasom and the reticulum were perforated into each other;
9) if the kidneys were removed; if the spleen were removed; if the lower jaw were removed; if the womb were removed; if the (lungs) were shrunk by some natural shock, (such as thunder) (I might think that these are considered treifah); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8): "neveilah (carrion) or treifah (he shall not eat") — Just as neveilah is not alive, so treifah is not viable, to exclude the above, which are viable.
10) If its skin were stripped, R. Meir permits it and the sages forbid it (as treifah). And they concede that if there remains upon its skin the size of a sela (i.e., enough to cover the spinal column), it is kasher.