Sifra 4.0.7

Shemini, Chapter 4

1) Whence is it derived that five (animals in the class of) sin-offerings must (be allowed to) die (and not be eaten)? From (the redundant) "of those that chew the cud … it is unclean to you." (i.e., even though they have both cleanliness signs they are unclean) (the five sin-offerings: the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitute for a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner had died, a sin-offering which had been lost and which was found after atonement had been made with another animal, and a sin-offering whose year (of acceptability) had expired) Whence is derived for inclusion (as being allowed to die), (a substitute for) invalidated sanctified animals (i.e., sanctified animals which had sustained a blemish and been redeemed)? From "and of those whose hooves are parted … it is unclean to you." Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of the five sin-offerings which must die? From "of those that chew the cud … it is unclean." Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of invalidated sanctified animals? From (Devarim 14:7): "of those whose hooves are parted, the shesua … they are unclean to you." Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of an unclean animal? It follows, viz.: An unclean animal is forbidden, and grapes are forbidden to a Nazirite — Just as with grapes to a Nazirite, what is extracted from them is (forbidden) like them; so, with a beast, what is extracted from it (milk) is (forbidden) like it.

2) But, if wine is (forbidden) like grapes, it is because it is found in their body, (the body collapsing when the wine is removed from it). Shall the milk of a beast, then, be (forbidden) like the beast, when it is not in its body (but something extraneous to it)! R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: If wine is (forbidden) like grapes, it is because their residue (their kernels and their husk) is forbidden. Shall the milk of a beast, then, be (forbidden) like the beast, when its residue (its feces and its urine) is not forbidden! — This (argument) is refuted by (the instance of grapes of) terumah, where, (even though) their residue (i.e., kernels and husks) is not forbidden, yet what is extracted from them (wine) is forbidden!

3) — But, if this stringency obtains in (the instance of the eating of) terumah (by a non-priest), a grave transgression, (punishable by death), shall this stringency obtain in the instance of an (unclean) beast, (the eating of which is) a lesser transgression! It is, therefore, written (to indicate that it does obtain, the redundant "camel" (Vayikra 11:4) - "camel" (Devarim 14:7), two times. If it (the redundancy) is not needed for (forbidding) its flesh, learn it as (forbidding) its milk.

4) I might think that one would be in transgression of the negative commandment against eating the flesh of bipeds (men) and the milk of bipeds (women); and it would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if (in the instance of) an (unclean) beast, where you have been lenient vis-à-vis its touch (i.e., it is permitted to touch an unclean beast), you have been stringent vis-à-vis its flesh (it is forbidden to eat it), then bipeds, where you have been stringent vis-à-vis touching them (i.e., niddah), how much more so should you be stringent vis-à-vis (drinking) their milk! It is, therefore, written, (in negation): "This" — "This … (is unclean"), but the milk of bipeds is not unclean. — But then I would exclude (from the negative commandment) (only) milk, which does not obtain with all (bipeds), but I would not exclude flesh, which does obtain with all bipeds! It is, therefore, written (two terms of exclusion): "This … unclean is it" — This (the flesh of an unclean beast) is subject to the negative commandment (against eating), but the flesh of bipeds and the milk of bipeds is not subject to the negative commandment against eating.

5) (Vayikra 11:4): "the camel, because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:5) and the coney because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:6) and the hare because it chews the cud, etc." What is the intent of this? It is already written (Devarim 14:7): "the camel, and the hare, and the coney, for they chew the cud, etc."! Why are they mentioned? To include the aforementioned inclusions.

6) (Vayikra 11:4): "the camel, because it chews the cud": What is the intent of this? I might think that one sign (chewing the cud) would permit it. Would I think so? If the swine, which has split hooves, is unclean, does it not follow that the camel, which does not have split hooves is unclean! (Why, then, need it be written that the camel is unclean?) — If so, I would say: Who forbade the swine? (The fact that it does not chew) the cud. Let that permit the camel. It must, therefore, be written "the camel because it chews the cud." — Let it, then, be stated for the camel, and, a fortiori for the swine! viz.: If the camel which chews the cud is unclean, how much more so, the swine, which does not chew the cud! (Why, then, need it be written that the swine is unclean?

7) If so, I would say: Who forbids the camel? (The fact that it does not have) cloven hooves. Let that permit the swine. It must, therefore, be written (Devarim 14:8) "And the swine, because its hooves are parted, but it does not chew the cud, it is unclean."

8) (Vayikra 11:8) "Of their flesh you may not eat" — but not of their bones, or sinews, or hooves (i.e., you may eat those). "and their carcass do not touch": I might think that Israelites (as opposed to Cohanim) are exhorted against touching a carcass; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 21:1): "Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: For a dead body he (a Cohein) shall not become tamei among his people." Cohanim are not to become tamei to the dead; Israelites are to become tamei to the dead.

9) Now if they are to become tamei to the dead, a severe form of tumah, should they not become tamei to carcass, a lesser form? How, then, am I to understand "and their carcass do not touch"? On a festival (when they are commanded to appear in the azarah).

10) Others say: "and their carcass do not touch": I might think that if one touched a carcass he receives forty stripes; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:24): "and to these you shall become tamei." I might (then) think that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become tamei to it; it is, therefore, written "and their carcass do not touch." How are these verses to be reconciled? (As expressing) an option (i.e., if you wish to be clean, be careful not to touch their carcass, because if you do, you will become tamei).

11) (Vayikra 11:8): "They are unclean to you": We are hereby taught that they (unforbidden quantities of different unclean animals) combine with each other (to form forbidden quantities) — flesh with flesh, milk with milk, flesh with milk, both alive (vis-à-vis ever min hechai [flesh torn from a living animals]) or dead (vis-à-vis carcass uncleanliness).

12) (Devarim 14:7): "They are unclean to you": including their brine, their marrow, and their jelly. "They": ("they," as they are) — to exclude (their becoming intermixed with something to which) they do not impart their flavor. "to you": They are permitted to you for benefit (not for eating [if you happen to acquire them]).