Sifra 9.0.19

Acharei Mot, Chapter 12

1) (Vayikra 17:12) ("And every soul that shall eat neveilah (an animal that dies of itself) and treifah (one that is organically unfit), whether citizen or stranger, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean.")

2) "And every soul": I might think even a gentile; it is, therefore, written "stranger." If "stranger," I might think even a sojourning stranger; it is, therefore, written "citizen." Just as "citizen" is a son of the Covenant, so, "stranger" is a son of the Covenant (i.e., a convert to Judaism). "that shall eat": "eating" is not less than an olive-size. Variantly: "that shall eat neveilah" — to exclude beak, nails, wings, feathers, and eggs.

3) I might think that it confers tumah upon clothing (that he put on even after he ate it), while it is in the midst of his stomach; it is, therefore, written "he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean," which indicates (that neveilah in the stomach) does not confer tumah upon clothing. I might think that it does not confer tumah upon clothing while it is in the midst of his stomach, but it does confer tumah upon clothing while it is in his mouth (even before he swallows it); it is, therefore, written ("and every) soul" — It confers tumah "in the house of the soul" (i.e., when it is swallowed and gives the soul pleasure), and not in the midst of the stomach and not in the midst of the mouth.

4) I might think that if he regurgitates it, it would confer tumah upon his clothing on leaving (his esophagus); it is, therefore, written "that shall eat": It confers tumah by way of eating and not by way of regurgitation.

5) I might think that the neveilah of a beast confers tumah upon clothing (when it is) in the esophagus; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) "A neveilah and a treifah he shall not eat to become unclean." (The allusion is to the neveilah of an animal [i.e., a bird],) which confers tumah only by being eaten — to exclude the neveilah of a beast, which confers tumah (even) before it is eaten.

6) I might then think that the neveilah of a bird confers tumah (in the esophagus) by Scriptural edict, and that of a beast, a fortiori (viz.: If the neveilah of a bird, which does not confer tumah by touch, does so by being eaten, how much more so, the neveilah of a beast, which does confer tumah by touch!) It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) ("to become unclean through it" [the neveilah of a bird]) — Only through it is tumah conferred upon clothing by being swallowed, and not through the neveilah of a beast.

7) I might think that the neveilah of an unclean bird conferred tumah upon clothing, in the esophagus; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 17:15) "that shall eat neveilah and treifah." (The allusion is to that) which is forbidden by reason of eating neveilah — to exclude an unclean bird, which is not forbidden by reason of eating neveilah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages derive it from "neveilah and treifah," connoting the neveilah (of a bird) which is subject to treifah — to exclude an unclean bird, which is not subject to treifah.

8) "that shall eat neveilah": (According to R. Yehudah,) why mention "treifah"? R. Yehudah said: If Scripture (is speaking of) a living treifah (i.e., that he ate an olive-size of it while it was yet alive and it confers tumah upon his clothing when in the esophagus) — is it not written "neveilah," (which confers tumah only after death)? And if (Scripture is speaking of) a dead treifah, this is already included in "neveilah"! If so, why mention neveilah? To include a treifah that was slaughtered, (to tell us that it confers tumah as a neveilah, its shechitah not cleansing it thereof).

9) R. Meir said; Now if the neveilah of a beast, which confers tumah by touching and lifting, its shechitah cleanses its treifah of its tumah — then the neveilah of a bird, which does not confer tumah by touching and carrying, how much more so should its shechitah cleanse its treifah of its tumah! And just as we find with its shechitah, which renders it kasher for eating, that it cleanses its treifah of its tumah, so its melikah (pinching), which renders it kasher for eating (to Cohanim), should cleanse its treifah of its tumah. R. Yossi says: It is sufficient that it be in the status of the neveilah of a beast (from which you want to derive the halachah a fortiori), viz.: Its shechitah cleanses it and not its melikah.

10) I might think that melikah ("pinching" of birds, which is performed) within (the azarah) renders clothing tamei in the esophagus; it is, therefore, written "neveilah and treifah." Just as neveilah does not render permissible anything that was previously forbidden, so, treifah — to include (in esophagus neveilah) melikah (of a consecrated bird) outside (the azarah) and chullin (a non-consecrated bird) both within and outside, which do not render permissible (to eat) what was previously forbidden (as opposed to melikah within, which renders the eating of the bird permissible to the Cohanim).

11) Others say (i.e., they derive the above ruling from) "whether citizen or stranger," (which connotes) equality of the prohibition (of neveilah) for both citizen and stranger — to exclude melikah within, where this equality does not exist, (it being permitted for citizen Cohanim to eat the neveilah of a bird that was pinched.)

12) I might think that one who slaughters (by shechitah) chullin within, and consecrated animals both within and outside, would confer tumah upon his clothing in the esophagus (i.e., when he swallowed the flesh [for I would say that since their shechitah does not permit them to be eaten, they are considered neveilah]); it is, therefore, written "whether neveilah or treifah." Just as (the prohibition of) neveilah obtains within as it does outside, so, treifah obtains within as it does outside — to exclude (from the stricture of esophagus neveilah) shechitah of chullin within, and of consecrated (birds), both within and outside, for they are not similar on the inside and on the outside. "and he shall wash his clothes": (See Shemini, Section 4:9)

13) We find, then, that if one were eating the neveilah of a clean bird, one of his hands on an (earthen) stove, and the other on his neighbor, both are tahor. (Vayikra 17:16) "And if he does not wash … then he shall bear his sin": I might think that for failure to wash his clothes he incurs the punishment of kareth; it is, therefore, written "not bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his sin — For failure to bathe his body the punishment is kareth, but for failure to wash his clothes, it is forty lashes.

14) Whence do we derive that Scripture is speaking here of his rendering the sanctuary and its consecrated objects tamei? Scripture exhorted against tumah and adduced a punishment for it, and it made one liable for an offering for conferring tumah (unwittingly). Just as in the latter instance it is indicated that the offering is for tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects, so in the former, the tumah in question is that of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects.

15) Others say: (It is written here) "then he shall bear his sin," and, elsewhere, (Vayikra 19:8) "Its eater shall bear his sin" for a gezeirah shavah (identity). Just as (the punishment) there is (indicated to be) kareth, here, too, it is kareth.