And Hashem spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them:
verse value 1264 — יְהֹוָ֛ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 29 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֛ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֛ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·to·Aaron" (וְאֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן, 7 letters). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "saying" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus); "and·spoke" (root דבר, 76x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וַיְדַבֵּ֧ר [and·spoke] (222) + יְהֹוָ֛ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה [to·Moses] (376) + וְאֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן [and·to·Aaron] (293) + לֵאמֹ֥ר [saying] (271) + אֲלֵהֶֽם [to·them] (76) = 1264.
Onkelos
And Hashem spoke with Moses and with Aaron, saying to them:
Rashi
משה ואל אהרן אל[AND THE LORD SPOKE] TO MOSES AND TO AARON — He spoke to Moses that he should in turn tell Aaron (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1:1 s. v.אליו.) לאמר אליהם SAYING UNTO THEM (more lit. “to say unto them”) — He said to Aaron that he should tell it to Eleazar and Ithamar. But perhaps this is not the meaning, but it means that he should tell Israel? When, however, it states (v. 2) “Speak unto the children of Israel”, we have the command of speaking to Israel mentioned there; how then can I explain the words “to say to them?” — to say it to his sons, to Eleazar and Ithamar (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 1).
Ramban
AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND TO AARON, SAYING UNTO THEM: 2. SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The commandments [mentioned] in these sections apply to both Israelites and the priests, but their subject-matter affects mostly the priests, for they must always guard themselves from touching impure objects, since they have to come into the Sanctuary and eat the hallowed food [which they may not do when they are impure]. Moreover, when an Israelite errs in these matters, he has to bring an offering [to effect atonement for his transgression], which the priests offer up. Furthermore, He commanded them, And that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean; thus they must instruct Israel concerning the impure and the pure so that they can be careful of them. It was for this reason that the communication about these laws came to both Moses and Aaron, or to Moses to say to Aaron, commanding both of them, speak unto the children of Israel, and this is the reason why these laws were said in the Book of the Laws of the Priests [i.e., this Book of Leviticus]. In this section He also warns against eating impure foods, so as not to defile the Tabernacle and its hallowed things.
Ibn Ezra
"And Hashem spoke to Moses and to Aaron" — because he [Aaron] is the priest who teaches and who distinguishes between the impure and the pure.
Or HaChaim
אל משה ואל אהרון, to Moses and to Aaron, etc. Perhaps the extra word ואל in ואל אהרון is intended to put Aaron on the same footing as Moses in their duty to communicate the laws of forbidden foods to the Israelites. G'd also addressed them as equals when He said: דברו (pl) אל בני ישראל. We find something similar in Exodus 12,1 where G'd used the same wording to introduce the legislation of the Passover. This interpretation is possible seeing that from an exegetical point of view we have other verses which teach us that Moses was to teach Aaron the law before the latter was able to communicate it to the Israelites. לאמור אליהם, to say to them. Torat Kohanim on our verse explains the word אליהם, "to them," as a reference to Eleazar and Ittamar. The idea is that these two sons of Aaron were to be acquainted with this legislation before it was to be taught to the entire people. This is based on Eyruvin 54. Perhaps the Torah had in mind to emphasize a point made by the prophet in Maleachi 2,6 that the lips of the priests are to preserve knowledge and that people seek to obtain knowledge of Torah from the priests. The words לאמור אליהם may also reflect what I have explained in connection with Exodus 20,1 that the reason for the word לאמור is that the word emanates from the Supreme G'd and that G'd made an angel out of it and that it was that angel who spoke to Moses. [The concept is that the "word" is something in between a totally abstract concept and something which has at least a semblance of something physical about it. The absolute abstract, i.e. the Essence of G'd, cannot communicate with a human being who is part body by means of something entirely abstract. G'd therefore created an intermediary called an "angel" to accomplish communication by word of "mouth." Ed.] The word לאמור refers to that angel who would communicate with Moses and Aaron. This explanation is not at variance with what our sages said in Torat Kohanim at the beginning of the Book of Leviticus that G'd communicated verbally from the inside of the Tabernacle only with Moses, not with Aaron. What it means is simply that the angel who addressed Moses used the plural form דברו! when addressing him instead of saying to him דבר! (singular). Moses relayed the words to Aaron before he spoke to anyone else.
Kli Yakar
And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them. The word to them requires explanation, because what Rashi interpreted — that it refers to Eleazar and Ithamar, that they too should be emissaries for this commandment since they were all equal in their silence — is not clear, because Eleazar and Ithamar were not mentioned before this, and the verse says Aaron was silent but not Eleazar and Ithamar. What seems closer to me is to say that the word to them hints at something very precious and comes to exclude all the nations. This is along the lines of what many commentators have written about the prohibitions of foods, as some thought that they were for physical health and healing, because those foods produce bad humors. The Ramban leaned toward this view, but this is not correct, because all the nations eat the meat of abominations and mice and all the unclean things, and they are all strong and healthy with no one faltering among them, and those who eat them neither become sick nor feel any ill effects. But certainly all these [dietary laws] are only intended for the healing of the soul. For they defile the pure soul and drive away the spirit of purity and holiness from man, and produce dullness of intellect and the trait of cruelty. So wrote [the author of] Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel. And the proof of this is that a cow born from a donkey is forbidden, because what comes from the unclean is unclean. This implies that the parent transfers its bad characteristics to its offspring. And in this vein it is said, But these you shall not eat from among those that bring up cud and from among those that have split hooves. The letter mem in umimafrisei [and from those that have] is superfluous, for it should have said “from those that bring up cud and those that have split hooves.” Rather, it is teaching separate points, meaning: But these you shall not eat even if they have all signs of purity, namely if it is born and comes from merely a cud-chewer like a cow from a camel, or merely from a split-hoofed animal, meaning a cow from a pig. This is how the ancients explained it. They also provided reasons for all the signs of impurity, as they all indicate toughness of flesh and bad temperament that produce negative qualities in the body of the one who eats them, and there is no need to elaborate on this. And on this it is said Who can bring forth something pure from something impure? (Job 14:4). Is it possible that from an impure thing would emerge something pure, and are not the one who begets and the one who is born as one, as the offspring is like the thigh [an extension] of its father? And this is what is deduced in Leviticus Rabbah (13:2): A parable of a doctor who came to visit two sick people, etc. Thus the gentiles who are not destined for the World to Come, like the herb of the field, [God] permitted them everything. But to Israel, who are destined for the World to Come, He commanded This is the living creature that you may eat. And perhaps for this reason it says This is the living creature even though it concludes with beast; nevertheless, it begins with living creature to tell you that all these restrictions are for the benefit of the soul, which is called living [chayah]. Indeed, this midrash agrees with our words in every respect, for otherwise, what reason did it see to give an explanation for this commandment — why it was not given to gentiles — more than for any other commandment in the Torah? Rather, certainly it came to resolve the extra wording of to them, which comes to exclude gentiles, and to tell you that presumably no gentile wants to fulfill any commandment unless he knows there is a benefit also in this world, since in any case he has no portion in the World to Come, as it is written And repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them (Deuteronomy 7:10). And so that the gentiles would not err and think that the reason for forbidden foods is for bodily health and they too would want to conduct themselves according to medicine, therefore it says the language to them, to tell you specifically to Israel, who are destined for the life of the World to Come, there is benefit in this commandment, but for gentiles there is no benefit in observing this commandment because in any case they are not destined for the life of the World to Come.
Tur HaArokh
וידבר ה' אל משה ואהרן, “Hashem spoke to Moses and Aaron,” even though the section commencing now applies equally to Israelites and priests, in some respects the priests are affected by it more than the ordinary Israelites, as some of the forbidden foods are apt to confer ritual impurity on the priests upon physical contact, and the priests are under constant constraints not to allow themselves to become ritually impure. Whenever the priests are in a state of impurity they cannot eat any sacrificial meat, nor may they enter the holy precincts, etc. Furthermore, if, inadvertently, the Israelites would commit a trespass against the legislation in this chapter, they would require the services of a priest to offer a sin offering on their behalf so as to re-establish themselves in good standing with Hashem. In addition to that, the chapter concludes (verse 47) with the need to distinguish between what is ritually pure and what is not, and it is the task of the priests to educate the Israelites at large in the laws of ritual purity. This is the reason why this legislation is included in the Book of Leviticus, a Book that deals largely with the duties and privileges of the priests.
Rashbam
לאמור אליהם, to Moses and Aaron. What proof is there that that every time the Torah writes וידבר ה' אל משה לאמור that the meaning is: “to say to Moses?” Seeing that previously G’d had addressed only Aaron (10,12) the Torah here writes אליהם, “to them,” to tell us that G’d addressed both of them.
Speak to the children of Israel, saying: These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
verse value 3555
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 50 letters. The shortest word is "this" (זֹ֤את, 3 letters) and the longest is "from·all·the·cattle" (מִכׇּל־הַבְּהֵמָ֖ה, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 501: that, that. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "from·all·the·cattle" (מִכׇּל־הַבְּהֵמָ֖ה). The root אשר appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "to·sons·of" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus); "you·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'saying', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 7 words. Full calculation: דַּבְּר֛וּ [speak] (212) + אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י [to·sons·of] (93) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל [Israel] (541) + לֵאמֹ֑ר [saying] (271) + זֹ֤את [this] (408) + הַֽחַיָּה֙ [the·creature] (28) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [that] (501) + תֹּאכְל֔וּ [you·shall·eat] (457) + מִכׇּל־הַבְּהֵמָ֖ה [from·all·the·cattle] (147) + אֲשֶׁ֥ר [that] (501) + עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ [upon·the·land] (396) = 3555.
Onkelos
Speak with the children of Israel, saying: This is the beast that you may eat from among all the animals that are upon the earth.
Rashi
דברו אל בני ישראל SPEAK TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (The word “speak” is in the plural) — He made all of them (Moses, Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar) alike His messengers in communicating this utterance, because they were all alike in remaining silent and lovingly accepted the decree of the Omnipresent God in respect to the death of Nadab and Abihu. זאת החיה THESE ARE THE ANIMALS — the word חיה is an expression denoting life and is purposely used here in preference to בהמה to express the following idea: because Israel cleave to the Omnipresent and therefore deserve to remain in life, [זאת החיה is thus taken to mean: This, O living nation (or, nation that lives), is what ye may eat!]. He therefore separated them from what is unclean, and imposed commandments upon them, whilst to the other nations who do not cleave to him He prohibited nought. A parable! It may be compared to the case of a physician who goes to visit a sick person: one who is incurable he permits to eat whatever he chooses, while to the patient who may recover he gives directions as to what he may eat and may not eat — as may be found in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma 3:3:6. זאת החיה THIS IS THE ANIMAL — This! the expression זאת teaches us that Moses held each animal and showed it to Israel, saying, “This ye may eat, and this ye may not eat” (Chullin 42a). Similarly Scripture states of fish (v. 9) 'את זה תאכלו וגו THIS YE MAY EAT etc. — also of the swarming creatures of the waters he held some of every species and showed them to them (to the Israelites). So, too, in the case of birds: (v. 13) “And these are they which ye shall have in abomination amongst the fowls”, and similarly as regards the swarming reptiles (v. 29): “And these are unclean to you” (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 2; cf. Menachot 29a). מכל הבהמה ....... זאת החיה THESE ARE THE ANIMALS (החיה) [WHICH YE MAY EAT]; AMONG ALL THE CATTLE (הבהמה) [YE MAY EAT] etc. — This teaches us that בהמה is included in the term חיה (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 8; Chullin 71a).
Ramban
AMONG ALL THE BEASTS THAT ARE ON THE EARTH. The plain meaning thereof is “among all the beasts that are on ‘the face of the earth,” the expression being similar to “all the beasts that are in the world.” But the interpretation of the Rabbis is as follows: Since there are creatures in the sea whose law does not depend on these signs, but is like that of the fish, therefore He said, that are on the earth, excluding what is in the sea.
Sforno
זאת החיה אשר תאכלו, after the Israelites had divested themselves of their spiritual jewelry which they had acquired at Mount Sinai when receiving the Torah, something which if they had been able to retain it, would have given them direct access to the Shechinah without the need for an intermediary, as stated by G’d in the wordsבכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבא אליך וברכתיך, “in any place where I hear My name mentioned I will come to you and bless you, (Exodus 20,24) a change had now occurred due to the people’s sin at the golden calf. G’d stated that the purpose of the Tabernacle was for Him to take up residence therein so that His essence should not feel disgust at the Jewish people. (Leviticus 26,11). Unfortunately, the golden calf episode had brought about a cardinal change in G’d’s relationship with the people so that He would not allow His Presence to dwell among them even briefly, refused to accompany them on their journey (Exodus 33,3) By means of his lengthy prayers Moses accomplished some improvement in this relationship of G’d to the Israelites by means of the Tabernacle and its furnishings, the priests performing service there, etc. Finally, the people attained the state of grace described as וירא כבוד ה' אל כל העם, “the glory of the Lord appeared to the whole people.” (Leviticus 9,23.) This manifestation of the “glory of the Lord” was the descent of fire from heaven to devour the offerings of the people in the Tabernacle. A way had now been found to refine the character of the people in attitudes and by application of their intelligence so that they would qualify for eternal life (life after death of the body). The method chosen for this was the refinement of the foods eaten by the people. G’d forbade consumption of the kinds of foodstuffs which exert –over a period of time- a negative influence on the people’s character and their intelligence. This is spelled out by the Torah in verse 43 of our chapter where the rationale of the legislation is אל תשקצו בנפשותיכם, another way of saying “do not contaminate your souls.” This is only the effect of observing the negative commandment not to eat forbidden things. There is a positive aspect to this legislation also called והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים “if you will sanctify yourselves you will remain holy.” (Leviticus 15,31). When G’d added כי קדוש אני, this was an incentive to attain the dimension of eternal life similar to G’d. In addition to legislation involving our physical foodstuffs, the Torah introduced legislation designed to refine our body’s other appetites, that of the libido. Legislation governing a husband’s marital relation with a woman who is a menstruant, or who suffers diseases of her sexual organs, or experiencing childbirth (נדה, זבה, יולדת) are intended to sanctify human sperm and to cleanse if from all spiritual contamination, טומאת הגוף. Compare Leviticus 15,31 והזהרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם, “caution the Children of Israel to abstain from their pollutants.” If they would fail ...
Or HaChaim
אל בני ישראל לאמור. to the children of Israel saying. The word לאמור here indicates that the legislation following conferred a distinction upon the Israelites who were to keep their distance from matters considered impure. Vayikra Rabbah 13,2 quotes Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai commenting on Chabakuk 3,6: "When He stands He measures the earth;" Rabbi Shimon interprets that G'd measured all the nations and found not one of them deserving to receive the Torah except the generation travelling through the desert. G'd measured all the mountains and the only one fit to hand down the Torah from was Mount Sinai. The word לאמור in this context must be understood along the lines of Isaiah 3,10: אמרו צדיק כי טוב כי פרי מעלליהם יאכלו. "Hail the just man, for he shall fare well; he shall eat the fruit of his works." The sequence of לאמור זאת means that Moses and Aaron are to take every kind of creature into their hands and display them saying: "this you may eat and this you may not eat." It was not enough to instruct the Israelites only orally. זאת החיה אשר תאכלו; "these are the living things which you may eat;" I have already explained elsewhere why the term חיה is applied here to domesticated animals בהמה. The term חיה implies that nothing evil adheres to these creatures. This term is used in contradistinction to other domesticated beasts which are not associated with the concept of sanctity at all.
Rabbeinu Bahya
זאת החיה אשר תאכלו מכל הבהמה אשר על הארץ, “these are the creatures which you may eat from among all the animals on earth:” If you will take a good look at this paragraph and at the paragraphs following them, you will realize that there is an overall pattern to the sequence in which they have been written. They correspond to the four basic elements of the universe which we explained in connection with Genesis 1,2. Here the Torah proceeds in an ascending manner. You are aware that in Genesis they appeared in a descending manner. The four basic materials of terrestrial earth are: fire, wind (atmosphere), water, earth. This is also the order in which Solomon arranged these four basic components of our terrestrial universe in Proverbs 30,4. He writes: “Who has ascended heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollows of his hand? Who has wrapped the waters in his garment? Who has established all the extremities of the earth?” In the paragraphs before us the order of these phenomena and allusions to them has been reversed, so that their identifying symbol instead of being ארמ'ע has been reversed to become עמר'א. Here the Torah commenced with the element earth, dust, when it wrote: “these are the creatures on earth that you may eat.” In the second paragraph the Torah speaks of the element water, telling us what creatures in the water we are allowed to eat. In the third paragraph the Torah speaks about the atmosphere, telling us which birds (categories) must not be eaten. The Torah tells us which birds or winged creatures we must abhor (11,13). In the fourth paragraph the Torah alludes to the element fire which is the fourth element, the least substantive of all. The paragraph (11,29) begins with the words: “these are the contaminated ones, (ritually impure) among the teeming animals that teem upon the earth.” Among the categories listed is the צב which consists of two groups including the salamander. it is alluded to in the word למינהו, “according to their kinds,” an expression not found with the other seven of these contaminated creatures. According to an ancient tradition this salamander has its origin in fire; it is the product of a furnace which has been heated for seven years consecutively both by day and by night. This enabled the salamander (dragon?) to mature during all this time. If it were to separate from the fire even for a moment it would die, just as fish die when they are removed from their element, i.e. water. [Our author bases himself on the Sifra of Talmudic times. Tosafot Chagigah 27, speak of such creatures which we think of as strictly belonging to mythology, Ed.] When Rabbi Akiva came to the verse והצב למינהו (verse 29), he exclaimed: “how great and marvelous are Your works o Lord, You have created them all with wisdom; You created huge monsters in the sea, huge animals on land, If the ones in the sea would be placed on land they would die at once, whereas if the huge land animals like elephants were to be placed in the sea they would drown at once. You created great creatures with fire and large creatures in the atmosphere. If the ones which thrive on fire would be placed in the atmosphere they would die immediately, whereas if the ones whose habitat is the atmosphere were to be put to the fire they would burn to death immediately. This then was what David had in mind in Psalms 104,24 when he wrote the words quoted above” (compare Sifra Shemini 8,7). I believe that there is a common denominator between the creatures of the atmosphere and those of the element fire, seeing that in introducing them the Torah used the expression אלה, “these,” and ואלה, “and these,” respectively (compare 11,13 and 11,31). The very word אלה has a spiritual connotation as it is the singular of the word אלה-ים. The last two letters in the word אלהים are simply plural ending. What the Torah alludes to by using the word אלה in connection with the creatures whose habitat is the atmosphere or fire is that both these two elements are devoid of substance, not really tangible. This is the reason that they appear so often in connection with the word אלהים. The idea is that the less tangible something is the closer it is to celestial domains rather than terrestrial domains. The word אלה occurred when the people who asked the Israelites to worship the golden calf said: אלה אלוהיך ישראל,”these” are your gods o Israel, a call to idolatry. You are no doubt familiar with certain nations who worship fire and wind respectively. They do so because they realise the lack of physical substance of both of these elements. By serving them they hope to benefit by increased success and good fortune. A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Shemini 6 or Vayikra Rabbah 13,2). The words זאת החיה אשר תאכלו, “this is the category of creature that you may eat,” reflect Chabakuk 3,6: ”when He stands He makes the earth shake, when He glances, He makes nations tremble.” At the time when G’d was about to give the Torah to the Jewish people, He stood and contended with the earth and gave the Torah to Israel in public, in full view of everyone. At that time He lifted the restrictions against spilling the blood of the seven Canaanite nations inhabiting the land of Israel. We have several verses to that effect, one in Isaiah 60,12 “for the nation that does not serve you shall perish;” a reference to the lives of those seven nations. We have another verse in Deuteronomy 20,16: “you shall not let live anyone;” the repetition of such permission in Isaiah means that also the money, physical possessions of those nations, was permitted to be kept as loot. This is supported also by the words “you shall consume all the (7) (seven) nations” (Deut. 7,16). Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says that the meaning of the verse in Chabakuk 3,6 is that G’d spied out amongst all those nations, searching for a country which would be suitable as a homeland for the Jewish people, a mountain suitable to give them the Torah, etc., and that He found none other than the land of these seven nations. Rabbi Hunna from Tzippori understood the word וימודד in that verse to mean that G’d (allegorically speaking) loosened their girdles, i.e. much as in Job 12,8 which is the reverse of חגור מתניכם, “tighten your belt ready for war or marching.” Rabbi Tanchum, son Chanilai said that the meaning of those words is that He let loose against them all the forbidden creepers. According to Vayikra Rabbah 13,2 this is a simile comparing the situation to a farmer who came to a threshing ground with a donkey on one side and a dog on the other. He loaded the donkey with five measures of grain and the dog with two. The donkey trotted along contentedly whereas the dog was clearly resentful. So the farmer took one of the measures of grain from the dog and added it to the load the donkey was carrying. Whereas the donkey did not protest the dog was still resentful. The farmer told the dog that it was not much good to him seeing it was unwilling to accept any responsibility (the seven Noachide laws) at all. Similarly the Gentile nations and the Jewish people. Seeing that the former do not even observe the basic seven Noachide laws G’d does not have much use for them and has permitted the Israelites to dispossess them completely. [In the version in the Midrash the restrictive word “seven” is absent. It appears that our author was careful not to offend the Christians in his host country. Ed.] Another parable illustrating the relationship between G’d and the Jewish people. A physician went to see two of his patients. To the family of the one who was in a life-and death-situation he did not prescribe a specific diet for the patient, permitting him to eat whatever he wanted. To the second patient he gave very precise instructions what not to eat as this was apt to save his life. After a while the patient to whom the doctor had not prescribed a specific diet died whereas the other patient recovered. The families of both patients became aware that the doctor had prescribed only for the one patient and they wanted to know why. The doctor explained that the patient who died had been doomed already. There was therefore no point in denying him what he could enjoy on a short-term basis. The same applies to the Israelites and the seven Gentile nations who are doomed. Seeing that the latter are headed for death anyway, there is not much point in prescribing a restrictive diet. The Israelites, however, may be saved from their sickness if they keep a strict diet. Hence the Torah issued the instructions in this chapter, while allowing the Gentiles to eat whatever they want. This is the mystical dimension of introducing this chapter with the words זאת החיה, this is the life-giving legislation regarding food which may be consumed, etc.” Seeing that the Israelites are attached to eternal life, it is important hat they not consume food which could endanger their hereafter.
Tur HaArokh
מכל הבהמה אשר על הארץ, “from among all the animals that are on the earth.” According to the plain meaning of the text our verse refers to animals everywhere. According to the Midrash the words אשר על הארץ, are intended to exclude animals whose habitat is in the waters, in the sea, as these are not subject to the identifying marks of the mammals described here.
Whatever parts the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eat.
verse value 4846
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 43 letters. The shortest word is "all" (כֹּ֣ל, 2 letters) and the longest is "dividing" (מַפְרֶ֣סֶת, 5 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·cleaving" (וְשֹׁסַ֤עַת), "hooves" (פְּרָסֹ֔ת), "bringing·up" (מַעֲלַ֥ת). The root פרסה appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "you·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus); "bringing·up" (root עלה, 74x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root פרס ("dividing") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root פרסה ("hoof") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·cattle', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 2 words. Full calculation: כֹּ֣ל [all] (50) + מַפְרֶ֣סֶת [dividing] (780) + פַּרְסָ֗ה [hoof] (345) + וְשֹׁסַ֤עַת [and·cleaving] (836) + שֶׁ֙סַע֙ [cleft·of] (430) + פְּרָסֹ֔ת [hooves] (740) + מַעֲלַ֥ת [bringing·up] (540) + גֵּרָ֖ה [cud] (208) + בַּבְּהֵמָ֑ה [in·the·cattle] (54) + אֹתָ֖הּ [it] (406) + תֹּאכֵֽלוּ [you·shall·eat] (457) = 4846.
Onkelos
Whatever has split hooves and is fully cloven of hoof, and brings up its cud among the beasts — that you may eat.
Rashi
מפרסת — Explain this as the Targum does: that is split. פרסה — plante in O. F.; English= hoof. ושסעת שסע AND HATH CLOVEN FEET — which are divided above and below into two nails (The hoof must be cloven over the entire height, so that from top to bottom they are split, and the hoofs are covered therefore not by one nail but by two); as the Targum has it: which has nails (plural). For there are animals whose hoofs are cleft on top but are not cleft and separated entirely, because they are joined below (cf. Rashi on v. 26). מעלת גרה WHICH CHEWETH THE CUD — which brings up and spues up the food from its entrails and returns it into its mouth to pound it small and to grind it thin. גרה THE CUD — This is its name (that of the food thus returned to the mouth); and it seems likely that it is of the same derivation as the word we find in (II Samuel 14:14) “water which is drawn towards (הנגרים) the earth”, and it (the cud) is so called because it is drawn towards the mouth. The translation of the Targum,however, is פשרא which denotes something dissolved, for through the rumination the food is dissolved and becomes pulpy (cf. Bava Kamma 28b). בבהמה AMONGST (lit., in) THE BEAST — This is a redundant word and therefore may be used for an Halachic derivation — to permit the embryo found within the dam (בבהמה — within the beast) to be used as food without itself being slaughtered (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 1; Chullin 69a). אתה תאכלו THAT YE MAY EAT, and not an unclean animal. But is not this implied in the prohibition in the following verse? But what is here expressed in a positive form is there stated as a negative command, so that now, one who eats such food transgresses thereby a positive and a negative command (because a prohibition that is not plainly expressed, but can only be drawn by inference from a positive command, is itself regarded only as a positive command — לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 2).
Ramban
WHATSOEVER PARTETH THE HOOF, AND IS WHOLLY CLOVEN-FOOTED, AND CHEWETH THE CUD, AMONG THE BEASTS; THAT MAY YE EAT. The meaning of this verse is that every animal which has these two signs, you may eat, but you may not eat it if it has only one sign. Now it would have been proper if He would merely state the law in this general way. However, He singled out the camel, the rock-badger, and the hare as having only the one sign of chewing the cud, and the swine as having the one sign of a parted hoof, because there are no other animals in the world that have only one sign. He then repeated [as a general rule applying to those with no sign at all, and those with only one sign], Of their flesh ye shall not eat, which denotes a negative commandment. Now Rashi wrote: “From this verse I know only about these [four animals mentioned]. Whence do I know that other unclean animals that have no signs of purity, may not be eaten? You derive it by the rule of kal vachomer. How is it with these four animals mentioned, that have some of the signs of purity? They are forbidden! [It follows all the more so that those which have none of the signs, are surely forbidden to be eaten!]” In the words of the Sifra: “What is the law concerning those animals that have some of the signs of purity? They are forbidden to be eaten by a negative commandment. Is it not logical that other unclean animals which have none of the characteristics of purity, should be forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment! Thus we find that the camel, the rock-badger, the hare and the swine are explicitly forbidden by Scripture, whilst the other impure animals are forbidden on the strnegth of a kal vachomer. It is also established that the positive commandment [regarding unclean animals] is Scriptural, while the negative commandment regarding them is derived from a kal vachomer.” Thus far is the text of the Beraitha. But in my opinion this is not in accordance with the conclusion of the discussions in the Talmud. For if so, one would not be liable to whipping for eating of all the other unclean animals [which have none of the characteristics of purity], and which are forbidden only on the strength of a kal vachomer, for a law derived from logical argument is not one for which punishment can be administered. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim with respect to [having intercourse with] one’s sister, which Scripture prohibited if she is the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, that it was necessary to find a Scriptural reference prohibiting one’s sister if she be the daughter of both one’s father and mother, even though that prohibition might have been derived from a kal vachomer[for if the Torah prohibited a sister who is the daughter of either one’s father or one’s mother, surely she is prohibited] if she be the daughter of both one’s father and mother! [But the special Scriptural reference was necessary to teach us the principle] that a law derived from ...
Ibn Ezra
"Splitting" [mafresset] — an adjective, as is "splitting" [mafris] in "horned and splitting" — meaning: any [animal] described as having a hoof. "And cleft in the cleft" [shosa'at sasa'] — an adjective, meaning that its hooves are cleft. "Bringing up cud" [ma'alat gerah] — derived from the root garon [throat], and ma'alat is an active participle. He mentions the camel, the rock-badger, the hare, and the swine because each of these has only one of the [two required] signs. It is the way of the Holy Tongue to mention the masculine form of every species, since the female is subsumed within the masculine. He mentions "hare" [arnevet] in the feminine: some say because no males of this species are found; others say that the male reverts to female and vice versa. The first view seems closer to me.
Or HaChaim
כל מפרסת פרסה, Whatsoever parts the hoof; Chulin 59 explains that any beast which has cleft hooves also ruminates except for the pig. If the Torah nonetheless says "every animal with cleft hooves…is chewing the cud," and subsequently mentions the pig as being the exception to this rule, there is a deeper reason. Rabbeynu Bachyah, quoting a Midrash Tanchuma, states that even the pig will conform to the pattern of chewing the cud in the idyllic future foreshadowed by our prophets. The very word חזיר from the root חזר, to return, i.e. to reverse oneself, alludes to that future in an ideal world when even the pig will revert to being a pure animal fit for consumption by Jews. When viewed in this light, the fact that the Torah commences with the words כל מפרסת פרסה is quite appropriate as it does not exclude anything in the long run.
Chizkuni
מעלת גרה, “chewing the cud;” the word גרה is derived from גרון, “throat,” as is also גרגרותיך in Proverbs 3,3, which means: “(around) your throat.” The meaning of the term is that after having already eaten the food, these animals regurgitate it once more up to their throats. An alternate explanation (Karney Or); the word is similar to the word מוגרים in Michah 1,4: מים מוגרים, “cascading waters,” i.e. that it describes the mixing of what the animal ate and drank, before the mixture descends to its intestines.
Rashbam
מפרסת פרסה, a nail similar to a shoe; the word, though it sounds like it does not mean “two or more separate nails,” such as are found on the toes of rabbits, etc. ושסעת שסע, the hoof being completely split into two parts, unlike the hoof of a horse or donkey which is all in one piece. According to the plain meaning of the text and the opinion of the heretics all the domesticated beasts, free roaming beasts, birds and fish and certain types of locusts and other creeping creatures that G’d has outlawed for consumption by Jews is due to the fact that they cause excessive heat in our bodies when eaten, affecting our health detrimentally, and therefore they are called טמאים, impure. There is support for this theory also among physicians. Even in the Talmud (Shabbat 86) the opinion is offered that gentiles who do consume these creeping creatures damage their bodies thereby. מעלה גרה; regurgitating the food into the foodpipe before finally digesting it.
Nevertheless these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only part the hoof: the camel, because he chews the cud but parts not the hoof, he is unclean to you.
verse value 3995
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 76 letters. The shortest word is "only" (אַ֤ךְ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·from·those·dividing" (וּמִמַּפְרִסֵ֖י, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 12: it, it. 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "from·those·that·bring·up" (מִֽמַּעֲלֵי֙), "the·cud" (הַגֵּרָ֔ה), "and·from·those·dividing" (וּמִמַּפְרִסֵ֖י). The root גרה appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root אך ("only") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root מעלה ("though·it·brings·up") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·hoof', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 10 words.
Onkelos
However, these you shall not eat from those that bring up the cud or from those that have split hooves: the camel, for it brings up the cud but its hoof is not split — it is unclean to you.
Or HaChaim
ממעלי הגרה זממפריסי הפרסה, of those which chew the cud or only part the hoof, etc. According to Bechorot 6 the apparent duplication in these words is to teach that if an unborn animal which has parted hooves and chews the cud is found inside a mother-animal which belongs to a forbidden category, such an unborn animal may not be eaten. However, the plain meaning of the verse is as follows: the words "of the ones which chew the cud" i.e. the camel, or of "the ones which part the hoof," i.e the pig. The letter ו is not a conjunctive letter but has the same meaning as או, "or."
Chizkuni
אך את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה .“however only the following you must not eat even though they either have cleft hooves or are chewing the cud;” the reason that the animals mentioned now are forbidden is that they possess only one of the two distinguishing marks mentioned in the previous verse. For instance: the pig, the camel and the hare and rabbit. The Torah did not have to spell out that animals which do not possess even one of the above distinguishing features are also forbidden. Most of them are not even considered as worthwhile eating by the gentile nations (because they are predators and their meat is not tasty). (B’chor shor)
Rabbeinu Bahya
את הגמל...ואת השפן...ואת הארנבת...ואת החזיר. “the camel...and the hare...and the swine..etc.” Unless the mammals in question possess two distinct features, i.e. split hooves and chewing the cud they are not permitted to be eaten by the Israelites The fact that the list of forbidden mammals does not include the horse and the donkey is simply due to the fact that they do not even have a single one of these two distinguishing marks. The Torah singles out only such animals by name which possess at least one of the two mentioned. When the Torah mentions the pig, the dog is automatically included, seeing that dog has a cleft paw (if not hoof). We also find that Isaiah 66,3 lumps the pig and the dog together as being of a similar category when he says of the people who offer both as sacrifices to the Lord that what they do is abominable. The Torah lists three animals in the masculine for it is clear that the corresponding females are also forbidden, seeing that the female of the species is considered a sub-category of the male. The same rule applies to the ארנבת “the female hare;” the reason that in this instance the Torah chooses to list the species in its female form is to indicate that the species is bisexual, hermaphrodite by nature, having both male and female genitals. Midrash Tanchuma Shemini 8 points out that four animals are mentioned here in four separate verses to allude to four different empires which will play host to the Jewish people in exile. Verse four speaks of גמל, the camel, a reference to the Babylonian exile; we have a hint of this in Psalms 137,8 בת בבל השדודה אשרי שישלם לך את גמולך שגמלת לנו, “fair Babylon you predator, a blessing on him who repays you in kind what you have inflicted on us.” [The letters of the word גמל, “camel, appear twice in that verse. Ed.] In verse five, the Torah speaks of the שפן, hyrax.” (it has short ears and hoofed feet). This is a reference to the exile under the Greeks which forbade the study and practice of Torah as we know from Amos 8,11: “a time is coming, declares my Lord G’d, when I will send a famine upon the land; not a hunger for bread or thirst for water, but for hearing the words of the Lord.” It is also written in verse 12 of that chapter: “men shall wander from sea to sea and from north to east to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it.” [The connection of the above verse to שפן is not clear, there is also a variant in the Tanchuma relating the above verse to the hare, ארנבת, Ed.] Concerning the hare, ארנבת, mentioned in verse six, this is a reference to the exile under the Medes, (Ahasverus) which treated the Jewish people as a פאה, the corner of a field the farmer must leave unharvested allowing all comers to help themselves. This is what almost happened under Haman, the regent of that empire. The name of the wife of King Talmay was ארנבת, hare. [Ptolemaus of Egypt, one of the heirs of Alexander’s empire who staked a claim to the land of Israel as part of his share, and was defeated by Antiochus. He commissioned translation of the Bible from Hebrew to Greek. That day was considered a black day in Jewish history by the scholars of the Talmud, Ed.] The pig,חזיר, mentioned in verse 7 is a reference to the Roman empire, the fourth exile, the one which we still endure. David says in Psalms 80,14: “wild boars gnaw at it and creatures of the forest feed on it.” The word חזיר in that verse is a reminder of the Romans and their Satanic origin, the forest being considered where Satan has its lair. The words וגרה לא יגר, “it does not chew the cud,” is taken as a hint that this is the last exile, i.e. it will not repeat itself. Whereas these animals appear in separate verses in our chapter, in Deut. 14 where the gist of this legislation is repeated, the first three animals mentioned here appear in a single verse except for the pig. The message is that although the first three exiles occurred at different times they have something in common, i.e. the period that they lasted was relatively short. The present exile is in a totally different category equivalent to all the previous exiles combined. David arranged four separate Thanksgivings in Psalms to acknowledge our salvation from each of these exiles in chapter 136 known as הלל הגדול, “the great Hallel.” He commences with the words “Praise the Lord for He is good, His steadfast loves is eternal.” This line referred to our being redeemed from the Babylonian exile. The second verse “Praise the G’d of G’ds, His steadfast love is eternal,” is an expression of gratitude for our having been redeemed from the exile of the Greeks; the third verse, i.e. “Praise the Lord of lords, His steadfast love is eternal,” refers to our redemption from the exile of the Medes. David uses the expression הודו, ”praise!” in three successive verses to allude to the three animals Moses mentioned in verses 4-5-6 in our chapter. In the last verse of this “Hallel hagadol” where he concludes with the words הודו ל-אל השמים, this is a reference to the redemption from the yoke of the Romans. Seeing that he had foreseen all these exiles and their redemptions by means of his Holy Spirit, he mentions the word השמים, seeing that of that final redemption it is stated in Psalms 96,11 ישמחו השמים ותגל הארץ, “both the heavens and the earth will rejoice then.” [That psalm which commences with the words שירו לה' שיר חדש, clearly speaks of the final redemption as it will be different from the weaker שירה חדשה which earmarked the thanksgiving for the Exodus from Egypt. Ed.] There is a version in the Tanchuma according to which the reason that the exile of the Roman empire is compared to the pig is because in the future G’d will repay these people יחזיר, with the attribute of Justice. There is even a version according to which the very Romans who destroyed the Temple will be the ones who have to rebuild it, thus making history come full circle and as implied by the meaning of the word חזיר, i.e. something subject to reversal. [This is compatible with Maimonides’ view that the Messiah will build the third Temple, (using the labour of the people who are the political heirs of the Romans, so that they repay their debt to the Jewish people). I have paraphrased some of this paragraph. Ed.]
Kli Yakar
The camel, because it chews the cud. [The Torah] should have said “because it does not have a split hoof,” which is the main reason for the impurity. And so with the hyrax and the hare, this is difficult. And with the pig, it says because it has a split hoof — it should have said “because it does not chew the cud.” Why does it begin in all cases with their sign of purity?The explanation of this matter is that the sign of purity in all of them adds impurity to their impurity, just as they said regarding Esau (Genesis Rabbah 65:1) who is compared to a pig that extends its hooves to show as if it is kosher, while inside it is full of deceit and trickery. This indicates anyone whose inside is not like their outside, like the trait of hypocrites who present themselves as righteous. And they are without doubt worse than the completely wicked person whose inside and outside are equally bad, as Rashi explained on the verse and they could not speak peacefully to him (Genesis 37:4). Therefore, the split hoof in the pig is a sign of impurity because with this hoof it can deceive people and appear as if it is kosher. And likewise the opposite is true with the camel, hyrax, and hare. And although all these traits do not apply to animals, nevertheless they produce this bad characteristic in the body of those who eat them, for all who eat them will be held guilty (based on Jeremiah 2:3), becoming part of the group of hypocrites who present themselves as righteous, like Esau and his companions. This resolves what they interpreted (Vayikra Rabbah 13:5) “the camel [gamal] — this is Babylon,” as it says (Psalms 137:8) Daughter of Babylon, the despoiled one, who repays you the recompense that you dealt [gamalta] to us. “And the hyrax — this is Media,” because it chews its cud — it raises righteous people, as it says (Esther 2:21) And Mordechai sat at the king’s gate. “The hare — this is Greece,” because it chews its cud. Alexander, when he saw Shimon HaTzaddik, stood on his feet and blessed him, etc. (see Yoma 69a). “The pig — this is Edom,” which has a split hoof — shows itself as kosher, but does not chew its cud — it does not raise righteous people but rather kills them, etc. One must wonder about this midrash — what reason did it have to remove all these verses from their literal meaning? Rather, certainly its intention was to explain the four instances of the word because [ki] that the Torah mentions, where it makes the sign of purity into a reason for impurity. Undoubtedly, the verse’s intention is to allude to the nature of hypocrites, whose sign of purity adds to their impurity. This interpretation cannot be applied to animals at all, but only to humans. Therefore, the meaning is that whoever eats from these animals absorbs their nature, as the consumed food transforms into the nature of the consumer. It brings evidence from the well-known fact that all four of these kingdoms, which eat from these four species, all absorbed their natures — they present themselves as kosher, as if their intention is to benefit Israel, but their inner nature is evil and bitter, as all their thoughts are only evil all day long. And Israel was not cautious around them, seeing that they raised some righteous people, but in truth they did so only for their own benefit, while inwardly they were enemies of Israel. And what it said, “the camel” refers to Babylon, his intention is not to interpret the verse and remove it from its simple meaning but to tell you that the characteristic of the camel is found in the kingdom of Babylon. For just as the camel [gamal] chews its cud and from this perspective appears kosher, so too the kingdom of Babylon showed themselves as bestowing [gomlei] kindness upon Israel, and the Scripture says Happy shall he be, that repays you your deed which you bestowed [gemulkha shegamalta] to us (Psalms 137:8), indicating that this deed was counterfeit. Similarly, Media and Greece drew close the righteous ones like Mordecai and Simon the Righteous, all in a false manner. And likewise Edom acts like the pig, which shows its split hooves as if kosher, suggesting they do not extend their hands in robbery to take Israel’s money by force, yet they kill them. There is no need to elaborate further on this. And poetically, he made a connection from the camel to Babylon, the hyrax to Media, etc., but nevertheless, his intention is never to interpret the verses outside of their simple meaning.
And the hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof — it is unclean to you.
verse value 2131
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 40 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·the·hyrax" (וְאֶת־הַשָּׁפָ֗ן, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 12: it, it. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·the·hyrax" (וְאֶת־הַשָּׁפָ֗ן), "divide" (יַפְרִ֑יס). The root הוא appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'divide', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְאֶת־הַשָּׁפָ֗ן [and·the·hyrax] (842) + כִּֽי־מַעֲלֵ֤ה [though·it·brings·up] (175) + גֵרָה֙ [cud] (208) + ה֔וּא [it] (12) + וּפַרְסָ֖ה [and·hoof] (351) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + יַפְרִ֑יס [divide] (360) + טָמֵ֥א [impure] (50) + ה֖וּא [it] (12) + לָכֶֽם [to·you] (90) = 2131.
Onkelos
And the hyrax, for it brings up the cud but its hoof is not split — it is unclean to you.
And the hare, because she chews the cud but parts not the hoof, she is unclean to you.
verse value 2754
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 44 letters. Verse gematria: 2754 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·the·hare" (וְאֶת־הָאַרְנֶ֗בֶת, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 12: it, it. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·the·hare" (וְאֶת־הָאַרְנֶ֗בֶת), "though·it·brings·up" (כִּֽי־מַעֲלַ֤ת), "divided" (הִפְרִ֑יסָה). The root היא appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "though·it·brings·up" (root עלה, 74x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'divided', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְאֶת־הָאַרְנֶ֗בֶת [and·the·hare] (1065) + כִּֽי־מַעֲלַ֤ת [though·it·brings·up] (570) + גֵּרָה֙ [cud] (208) + הִ֔וא [it] (12) + וּפַרְסָ֖ה [and·hoof] (351) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + הִפְרִ֑יסָה [divided] (360) + טְמֵאָ֥ה [impure] (55) + הִ֖וא [it] (12) + לָכֶֽם [to·you] (90) = 2754.
Onkelos
And the hare, for it brings up the cud but its hoof is not split — it is unclean to you.
Ramban
V’ETH HA’ARNEVETH’ (AND THE HARE). This is a species of which both the male and female are so called in the Sacred Language, [although the word itself is feminine]. A similar case is haya’anah (the ostrich) [although the actual word is feminine in form, both male and female are indicated]. In fowls [a word of the same structure is] yonah (a pigeon), the name for the male not being different from that of the female. [On the other hand], there are many [animal species] the names of which are masculine in form, while their females have no specific name, such as gamal (camel), shafan (rock-badger), chazir (swine), ‘dov oreiv’ (a bear lying in wait), ‘parah v’dov tir’enah’ (the cow and the bear shall feed) A similar case amongst fowls is the word tor (turtle-dove) [which, though masculine in form, denotes also the female]. It is for this reason that Scripture states, ‘shtei’ (two) turtle-doves, or ‘shnei’ (two) young pigeons, thus mentioning [the feminine form] shtei with reference to torim (turtle-doves) which is masculine in form, and [the masculine shnei] with reference to yonah (the young pigeon) [which is feminine in form], in order to inform us that there it does not matter which of them [one brings as an offering, whether male or female]. Do not refute me from the expressions of our Rabbis who say: “cow and chazirah (sow);” “a camel born of a gamlah (a she-camel),” for these are terms they improvised from similar forms in the language in order to make their intent clear. Now the reason why these four animals [the camel, rock-badger, hare, and swine] are forbidden [to be eaten] is that they do not have the two characteristics of purity.
Or HaChaim
ואת הארנבת, and the rock-badger. The reason the Torah chooses to describe the whole species by its female gender is because when one deals with concepts of impurity one finds on occasion that the female is on top of the male making the male subordinate to the female. Mention of the female of the species first then is for the very same reason that the male is mentioned first most of the time, i.e. to describe the dominant part of the species. There is an interesting comment in the Zohar on פרשת פנחס page 231 according to which the mystical aspect of the יותרת הכבד (Leviticus 3,4 et al) is that the female input results in the male achieving whatever excess it possesses. [Seeing the word כבד, liver, is masculine, one would have expected the Torah to describe the lobe, יותרת as something masculine rather than something feminine. Ed.] We have already pointed out that all the forbidden species originate or have become part of the קליפה, the domain described in Kabbalah as part of the negative side of the emanations, that which is not destined for eternal life.
Chizkuni
ואת הארנבת, “and the arnevet”; some commentators say that this animal is one that are not found as male, [as all the other animals that are mentioned are always mentioned as feminine; Ed.] the same would be true of the bird called בת היענה. The objection raised by some scholars that this cannot be so as we know of masculine יעינים found in deserts (Lamentations 4,3) Those are also feminine, in spite of the masculine endings in their names, as are ,דובים עזים, רחלים גמלים, דובים, shegoats, shecamels, etc.; they all have masculine sounding endings, even though the respective animal in question may be a female specimen.
And the swine, because he parts the hoof, and is cloven-footed, but chews not the cud, he is unclean to you.
verse value 3247 — וְה֖וּא = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 54 letters. Notable word values: "and·it" (וְה֖וּא) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "it" (ה֗וּא, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·the·swine" (וְאֶת־הַ֠חֲזִ֠יר, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 345: hoof, hoof. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·the·swine" (וְאֶת־הַ֠חֲזִ֠יר), "though·dividing" (כִּֽי־מַפְרִ֨יס), "it·does·not·chew" (לֹֽא־יִגָּ֑ר). The root הוא appears 3 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "it·does·not·chew" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it·does·not·chew', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְאֶת־הַ֠חֲזִ֠יר [and·the·swine] (637) + כִּֽי־מַפְרִ֨יס [though·dividing] (420) + פַּרְסָ֜ה [hoof] (345) + ה֗וּא [it] (12) + וְשֹׁסַ֥ע [and·cleaving] (436) + שֶׁ֙סַע֙ [cleft·of] (430) + פַּרְסָ֔ה [hoof] (345) + וְה֖וּא [and·it] (18) + גֵּרָ֣ה [cud] (208) + לֹֽא־יִגָּ֑ר [it·does·not·chew] (244) + טָמֵ֥א [impure] (50) + ה֖וּא [it] (12) + לָכֶֽם [to·you] (90) = 3247.
Onkelos
And the swine, for it has a split hoof and its hooves are cloven, yet it does not bring up the cud — it is unclean to you.
Or HaChaim
והוא גדה לא יגר, but it does not chew the cud, etc. The Torah uses these words as a condition, i.e. as long as the pig has not reverted to chewing the cud it may not be eaten. In the future, when it undergoes evolutionary changes so that it will become a ruminant, it will again be fit to be eaten by Jews. It is not the Torah which will adapt to "realities," but "reality" which will adapt to Torah; the laws of the Torah are immutable, the nature of the pig is not.
Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.
verse value 2345
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 35 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·in·their·carcass" (וּבְנִבְלָתָ֖ם, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 31: not, not. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·in·their·carcass" (וּבְנִבְלָתָ֖ם), "touch" (תִגָּ֑עוּ). The root לא appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "you·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'touch', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: מִבְּשָׂרָם֙ [from·their·flesh] (582) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + תֹאכֵ֔לוּ [you·shall·eat] (457) + וּבְנִבְלָתָ֖ם [and·in·their·carcass] (530) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + תִגָּ֑עוּ [touch] (479) + טְמֵאִ֥ים [impure] (100) + הֵ֖ם [they] (45) + לָכֶֽם [to·you] (90) = 2345.
Onkelos
From their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch — they are unclean to you.
Rashi
מבשרם לא תאכלו OF THEIR FLESH SHALL YE NOT EAT — I have here only a law about these animals mentioned here! Whence can I derive that the same applies to other unclean animals which have no sign of cleanness at all? You must admit that it is a conclusion a fortiori: How is it with these that have some signs of cleanness? They are forbidden! how much the more must this be so in the case of cattle which do not possess even one sign of cleanness! (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 2). מבשרם OF THEIR FLESH [SHALL YE NOT EAT] — with respect to their flesh one is placed under a prohibition to eat, but not in respect to the bones, sinews, horns and claws (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4 8). ובנבלתם לא תגעו AND THEIR CARRION SHALL YE NOT TOUCH — One might think that Israelites (i. e. non-priests) are prohibited from touching a carcass at any time! It, however, states, (Leviticus 21:1) in reference to uncleanness in touching a corpse: “Speak unto the priests etc.” — priests are prohibited (from touching it) and Israelites in general are not prohibited. Well, you can draw a conclusion a fortiori from now (i. e. consequent upon what you have now stated): How is it in the case of uncleanness caused by a corpse, which is a stringent kind of uncleanness? The Torah prohibits it only to priests, but ordinary Israelites may touch a corpse. Surely in the case of uncleanness caused by a carcass which is less stringent this is all the more so! Then why does it state here: “[and their carrion] shall ye not touch”? — It means on a festival when every male Israelite was obliged to appear in the Sanctuary and should therefore be in a state of cleanness (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4 8-9; Rosh Hashanah 16b).
Ramban
AND THEIR CARCASSES YE SHALL NOT TOUCH. This is not a prohibition [saying that] we are not to touch these carcasses [of the animals that we are forbidden to eat]. Rather, Scripture states, and their carcasses ye shall not touch, for they are unclean to you, meaning to say, “you cannot touch them without becoming unclean.” The meaning thereof is to state that all those who touch them should be aware that they have become unclean and should therefore be careful not to enter the Sanctuary nor [to eat] of the hallowed offerings. Perhaps the meaning of the interpretation which our Rabbis have said: “And their carcasses ye shall not touch — on a festival” is to say that “you should not touch them at a time when you want to be clean, for they are unclean [and by touching them you will also become unclean] and you will not be able to go up to the Sanctuary on the festival.” But the [mere] act of touching them is not forbidden by means of a negative commandment, for he who touches carrion [even] on a festival does not incur whipping [by law of the Torah]. Thus that which the Rabbis have said: “One is dutybound to purify oneself on a festival,” is a commandment of Rabbinic authority, there being according to Scriptural law neither a positive nor a negative commandment, concerning the touching of carrion, except that of going up to the Sanctuary. Or it may be that the interpretation, “And their carcasses ye shall not touch — on a festival,” is a Scriptural text used as a support for the Rabbinical enactment, like many other laws of the Sages taught there in the Torath Kohanim, which use Biblical texts as a “support.” It is also taught there: “Other Rabbis say: One might think that if a person touches a carcass [he violates a negative commandment and] is liable to whipping? Scripture therefore says, By these ye shall become unclean. From this one might think that if a person sees a carcass he must go and render himself unclean by [touching] it? Scripture therefore says, and their carcasses ye shall not touch. How are we to reconcile these two verses? We must conclude that [touching a carcass] is optional” [i.e., neither obligatory, nor forbidden]. This is the main principle of the Scriptural law.
Ibn Ezra
"And their carcasses you shall not touch" — Scripture does not state that one who touches them becomes impure until evening; rather, we know this from tradition [divrei kabbalah]. And one who touches deliberately incurs lashes, since he has transgressed a negative commandment.
Chizkuni
, מבשרם לא תאכלו, “you must not eat any of their meat.” This prohibition is applicable regardless of whether the animal in question has died of natural causes or has been slaughtered ritually, something that saves an animal from being labelled as neveilah, cadaver. (compare Ibn Ezra) ובנבלתם לא תגעו, “and you are not to touch their cadavers.”
Tur HaArokh
מבשרם לא תאכלו, “you must not eat of their flesh. According to Rashi this line refers to animals not listed here by name that have no distinguishing marks making them fit for consumption by Jews. We arrive at this by simple logic, seeing that the Torah forbids the eating of animals that possess only one of the two distinguishing marks. Nachmanides writes that if that were so we could not administer the penalty of 39 lashes to anyone eating animals that lacked both distinguishing marks, as such a penalty cannot be administered to prohibitions not specifically spelled out in the text. He claims that the ability to administer the penalty of 39 lashes to people eating animals which have neither of the two distinguishing marks is derived from the שפן, hyrax, concerning which the Torah emphasizes that though it chews the cud, it does not have split hooves, and on the other hand, the Torah spells out that the pig is forbidden though it does have split hooves because it does not chew the cud. From these two verses it is clear that any animal not possessing split hooves or/and is chewing the cud is forbidden for Israelites on pain of the penalty of 39 lashes. There is no need to apply logic, as mentioned by Rashi. ובנבלתם לא תגעו, “and you must not touch their carcasses.” This is not phrased as an outright prohibition, but it means that touching such a carcass confers ritual impurity on the person doing this, with all the consequences that follow, such as the inability to consume any parts of sacrificial offerings, inability to approach the consecrated ground of the Temple Mount. Our sages (Rosh Hashanah 16) understand the verse as a warning that one must purify oneself before the festivals requiring one’s presence in Jerusalem for offering the requisite sacrifices. At any rate, they view this as a אסמכתא, a Biblical support for a Rabbinic injunction.
Rashbam
ובנבלתם לא תגעו. At a time when you need to touch sacred matters or when you are about to eat sacrificial meat, for instance, you are not to touch the dead bodies of such creatures, as we know from כל הנוגע בהם יקדש, (Exodus 30,29) “anyone touching it (the altar) will become (must become) holy.” (consecrated) [In other words, before coming into contact with something sacred one must first become ritually pure, as otherwise one cannot share the sanctity with the object one wishes to consume. Ed.] The legislation mentioned here applies also to touching holy vessels, or the altar, or anything concerning which the Torah has written the words כל הנוגע בהם יקדש.
These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them you may eat.
verse value 4984
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 61 letters. The shortest word is "all" (כֹּ֣ל, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·in·the·wadis" (וּבַנְּחָלִ֖ים, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 457: you·shall·eat, you·shall·eat. The root אכל appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "you·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "from·all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root נחל ("and·in·the·wadis") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·waters', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 9 words. Full calculation: אֶת־זֶה֙ [this] (413) + תֹּֽאכְל֔וּ [you·shall·eat] (457) + מִכֹּ֖ל [from·all] (90) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [that] (501) + בַּמָּ֑יִם [in·the·waters] (92) + כֹּ֣ל [all] (50) + אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ֩ [that·has] (537) + סְנַפִּ֨יר [fin] (400) + וְקַשְׂקֶ֜שֶׂת [and·scale] (1206) + בַּמַּ֗יִם [in·the·waters] (92) + בַּיַּמִּ֛ים [in·the·seas] (102) + וּבַנְּחָלִ֖ים [and·in·the·wadis] (146) + אֹתָ֥ם [them] (441) + תֹּאכֵֽלוּ [you·shall·eat] (457) = 4984.
Onkelos
This you may eat from all that is in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas and in the rivers — those you may eat.
Rashi
סנפיר — These are what it (the fish) swims with — FINS. קשקשת — These are the scales attached to it (see Chullin 59a) as it is said (I Samuel 17:5) "in a scaly coat of mail (שריון קשקשים) was he clothed".
Ramban
SNAPIR V’KASKESES’ (FINS AND SCALES). “Snapirim — these are what [the fish] swim with. Kaskeses — these are the scales attached to [the body of the fish].” This is Rashi’s language, and so also it is found in the Gemara of Tractate Chullin. But you should not [be led to] understand from their language that these scales are really [inflexibly] fixed to their bodies and attached to the skin of the fish [so that they do not come off at all]. Rather, they are called “fixed” because they do not move to and fro from the fish, nor do they quiver as do the fins. They are the round coverings, the plates of which are like finger-nails, and they can be removed from the skin of the fish by hand or knife. But those [scales] which are fixed and attached to the skin of the fish and cannot be removed from the skin at all, are not kaskeses (scales), and the fish [which has them] is prohibited food. It is for this reason that the Sages in the Gemara said that “Kaskeses is the cover of the fish.” In the words of the Tosephta: “The kaskasim are those [objects] which cover the fish, and the snapirim are those with which the fish moves.” This is also the translation of Onkelos, who rendered the word kaskeses as klippin, [which means literally “shells”], for they are the “shells” of the fish which can be taken off and peeled away like the bark of trees and the peel of fruits. Such is also the meaning of the verse stating, and he [Goliath] was clad with a coat of ‘kaskasim’, for all their [war-] coats were made of rings, and some people made “scales” in them in order to close up the openings of the rings, so that thin arrows should not be able to penetrate them, and it was those “scales” that were called kaskasim. The Sages also mentioned them in the Gemara [Tractate Sanhedrin] in the Chapter Cheilek: “Dressed in coats of mail made with scales.” Now Jonathan the son of Uziel translated [in the above-mentioned verse concerning Goliath that he was clad with] “a coat of galbin,” this being of the expression, the razor of ‘hagalabim,’ which are “leather workers.” [By so translating, Jonathan thus] intended to say that the covering at the openings of the rings in this coat of mail was like that of the scales on a skin of a fish, as they used to boil hard skin and cover the coats of armor with them, a practice they do to this day. Understand this. The reason why fins and scales [are signs of permissibility as food] is that those fish which have them always dwell in the upper clear waters, and they are sustained through the air that enters there. Therefore their bodies contain a certain amount of heat which counteracts the abundance of moistness [of the waters], just as wool, hair and nails function in man and beast. Those fish which have no fins and scales always dwell in the lower turbid waters, and due to the great abundance of moistness and gatherings of water there, they cannot repel anything. Hence they are creatures of cold fluid, which cleaves to them and is therefo...
Ibn Ezra
If we follow Scripture alone, without the [Aramaic] translation, then fish found in swamps would not be permitted, since Scripture specified [only] "seas and rivers." "Fin and scale" — as the Aramaic translator renders them.
Rabbeinu Bahya
כל אשר לו סנפיר וקשקשת אותם תאכלו, “all that has fins and scales, it you may eat.” The reason why these distinguishing features make fish “pure” is that fish which possess these features always make their habitat in the upper parts of the sea or rivers. The waters there are clear and absorb a certain amount of daylight and sunshine. This influences their growth and development. The scales are for fish what hair and wool are for mammals, helping them retain warmth. Fish which lack these features make their habitat in lower layers of the water being exposed to the darkness prevailing there and the murkiness of the waters. They have no protection against these negative influences prevailing in their habitat. (based on the writings of Nachmanides). [The reader is aware of the speculative nature of these comments, especially at a time when the authors did not know of such phenomena as the gulf-stream and other “streams” some warm some cold, which are present in different parts of the oceans. Ed.]
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that swarm in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are a detestable thing to you,
verse value 5055
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 70 letters. The shortest word is "they" (הֵ֖ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·in·the·wadis" (וּבַנְּחָלִ֔ים, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 501: that, that. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·from·all" (וּמִכֹּ֛ל). The root כל appears 3 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus); "to·you" (root לכם, 62x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·waters', dividing the verse into phrases of 15 and 3 words.
Onkelos
And whatever does not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, from all creeping things of the water and from every living creature that is in the water — they are an abomination to you.
Rashi
שרץ THE PROLIFIC CREATURES — Everywhere this word denotes a low (small) being that creeps and moves along upon the ground (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:20).
Ramban
OF ALL THAT SWARM (‘SHERETZ’) IN THE WATERS, AND OF ALL THE LIVING CREATURES THAT ARE IN THE WATERS. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that sheretz (“swarming” things) are the small species that are born [and bred] in the waters, while “the living creatures” are the species of male and female. But in my opinion the term ‘sheretz’ that swarm in the waters denotes the fish which swim in the waters, for every expression of sheretz means movement, and the term all the living creatures that are in the waters, refers to the sea-animals, some of which have legs which they walk upon like creatures of the field. Thus there is one law alike for all of them [namely that those which do not have fins and scales are forbidden to be eaten]. The interpretation of the Torath Kohanim is: “Living, this denotes the sea-animal. Creature, this includes the siren. I might think that its carcass conveys impurity in a tent [like that of a human body], as Ben Chachinai indeed says? Scripture therefore says [in the verse before us], they are detestable” [as food, but they do not convey impurity to a person who comes into the tent where their carcass lies].
Ibn Ezra
"Swarming things of the waters" — these are the small creatures that were created from water and in water, a living soul, male and female. After saying "they are a detestable thing [shekets] for you," it adds "and they shall be a detestable thing for you," to explain what constitutes that detestable thing — namely, "of their flesh you shall not eat." Fish is indeed called basar [flesh], but what the Sages said in [tractate] Nedarim follows the idiom of those generations. The verse adds "all that has no fin and scale" to constitute a general rule encompassing all waters, since at first only seas and rivers were mentioned.
Or HaChaim
שקץ הם לכם, they are a detestable thing unto you. The letter in ו verse 11, beginning with the words ושקץ יהיו לכם, is to be understood as the rationale; "because the Torah has determined in verse 10 that certain kinds of fish and other animals which populate the sea and the rivers are detestable, they must be regarded as detestable by Jews." We are taught in Chulin 5 that G'd protects the animals of the righteous so that they will not consume the kind of food forbidden to their owners. If G'd is so concerned about the food eaten by the property of the righteous, how mcuh more concerned must He be that the righteous themselves do not consume such food? Tossaphot comment there that we observe that a famous scholar committed judicial murder by executing a certain witness believing him to be an עד זומם, the type of false witness for whom the Torah legislated this penalty. How do we square this with the statement just quoted? Tossaphot answer that the rule applies only to food-intake, not to the commission of other sins. It would be demeaning for the צדיק to eat something the Torah characterised as שקץ even if he did so inadvertently. It is this idea the Torah refers to by writing ושקץ יהיו לכם, i.e. to include even people who eat these creatures inadvertently. The negative effect on the Jewish soul is not determined by whether such foods have been eaten deliberately or unintentionally. The words יהיו לכם tell us of the permanent effect consumption of such fish or crustaceans has on our personality, נפש.
Tur HaArokh
וכל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת, “and any fish that has neither a fin or scales, etc.” Nachmanides, in speculating on the significance of these features, claims that any creatures inhabiting the waters that possess fins and scales, are always found in the upper regions of the water. They therefore use the air above the surface of the water to promote their growth. They also benefit from a degree of warmth provided by the sun. The effect on their general well being is similar to the effect of the wool on the well being of sheep, or as human hair and nails act as protection against excess moisture. He reasons that the creatures which are not equipped with such protective, life extending, armour-like scales, are too cold and are too wet to enjoy an existence of any duration, are constantly on the threshold of death. Nachmanides speaks primarily of creatures found in lakes and ponds, no one in his time having much knowledge about creatures at or near the bottom of the ocean. He describes the death of these creatures in the lakes as largely due to some kind of pestilence, the waters at that level being polluted and the fish not having anything to fight off the disease with. The reason why the Torah does not list any fish as having names may be that Adam had never given them any names either. [perhaps this very fact accounts for fish being considered as inferior forms of life. Ed.] מכל שרץ המים ומכל נפש החיה, “from all that teems in the water, and from all living creatures in the water, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to Ibn Ezra שרץ המים refers to the tiny living parasites that are spawned by the waters, whereas the expression נפש החיה refers to creatures which mate with one another, there being males and females of these species. Nachmanides’ own view is that the expression שרץ המים includes the fish that swim on the surface of the water, seeing that whenever we encounter the term שרץ it refers to mobile creatures. On the other hand, the expression נפש החיה in his view, refers to the creatures which make the water their habitat, but are equipped with feet that they move on, not fins. Regardless of all this, they are all subject to the same rule, unless they have both fins and scales they are not “kosher.”
and they shall be a detestable thing to you; you shall not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall have in detestation.
verse value 3512
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 36 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·their·carcass" (וְאֶת־נִבְלָתָ֖ם, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 31: they·shall·be, not. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·something·detestable" (וְשֶׁ֖קֶץ), "and·their·carcass" (וְאֶת־נִבְלָתָ֖ם). The root שקץ appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "they·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "you·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·you', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְשֶׁ֖קֶץ [and·something·detestable] (496) + יִהְי֣וּ [they·shall·be] (31) + לָכֶ֑ם [to·you] (90) + מִבְּשָׂרָם֙ [from·their·flesh] (582) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + תֹאכֵ֔לוּ [you·shall·eat] (457) + וְאֶת־נִבְלָתָ֖ם [and·their·carcass] (929) + תְּשַׁקֵּֽצוּ [you·shall·detest] (896) = 3512.
Onkelos
They shall be an abomination to you; from their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall hold in abomination.
Rashi
ושקץ יהיו AND THEY SHALL BE AN ABOMINABLE THING — This statement is here repeated to prohibit all things with which it (the שרץ) is mixed if they contain so much of the שרץ as to impart its taste to them (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 9). מבשרם OF THEIR FLESH — One is,however, not prohibited in respect to the fins and the bones (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 10). ואת נבלתם תשקצו BUT YE SHALL HAVE THEIR CARRION IN ABOMINATION — This serves to include in the category of abominable things יבחושין found in liquids which one has filtered. יבחושין are moucherons in O. F., (English = gnats).
Ramban
AND THEIR CARCASSES YE SHALL HAVE IN DETESTATION. “This includes [in the category of forbidden food] yavchushin which have been filtered [through water]. Yavchushin are insects called mousclions in [old] French.” This is Rashi’s language. But I wonder about it! For this species [of mousclions] always comes out of wine, and flies about in the air and rests on the earth, and even while still in the air [before creeping upon the earth] it is already forbidden [as food], as we say [in Tractate Chullin] in the Chapter Eilu Treifoth: “Rav Yoseif raised the question: [if an insect which grew in a fruit] flew off into the air [and before it rested on the earth, was swallowed knowingly by a person] what is the law regarding it?” How much more so that it is forbidden when it rests continually all day upon vessels and upon the earth far away from the wine cellar, for it is already called a swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth. Rather, that species [mentioned by Rashi as mousclions] is called yitush (mosquito) — and breeds in wine, as the Rabbis have said in the tradition concerning the wicked Titus, [and is not the yavchushin of our verse]. But the yavchushim which are mentioned here [by Rashi, on the basis of the Torath Kohanim] is a species which is concealed in water, and one searches for it with a ladle and removes it, [the term yavchushim being] of the expression: “Ein bochashin (one may not stir) a drink prepared of flour mixed with honey on the Sabbath.” And in the Gemara of Tractate Zebachim, in the second chapter, [Resh Lakesh] said: “All things which serve to fill up the required measure of an immersion-pool, may also serve to fill up the water in the laver [from which the priests washed their hands and feet before ministering in the Sanctuary]; but they do not serve to fill up the required measure of one fourth of a log of water [for the washing of hands].” On this [saying of Resh Lakesh] the Rabbis asked: “[What did Resh Lakesh mean to exclude by saying that ‘they’ do not fill up the required measure of water for the washing of hands]? Shall we say that he meant to exclude red yavchushim? In that case even if the immersion-pool is full of them, it is also valid! For we are taught [in a Beraitha]: Rabban Shimon the son of Gamaliel says: Whatever originates from water, one may immerse oneself therein [to be rendered ritually pure],” and red yavchushim is a species which originates from water [therefore Resh Lakesh could not have intended them, when he gave his rule excluding certain objects from being valid for completing the required measure of one fourth of a log for the washing of hands]. Similarly there are always found in the sediment of wine very white worms which are formed from the thickness of the wine, and which people filter, [and these are akin to the mousclions mentioned by Rashi].Now I have seen in Rashi’s commentaries there [in Tractate Zebachim] that he wrote: “Red yavchushim, these are a sort of wingless yitushim (mosqui...
Rabbeinu Bahya
מבשרם לא תאכלו ואת נבלתם תשקצו, “you are not to eat of their meat, and you must abhor their carcass.” After the Torah forbade consumption of fish or creatures dwelling in the waters which do not have fins and scales, the Torah also forbids trading in them. This is the meaning of the words ואת נבלתם תשקצו, a Biblical prohibition according to Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon, not merely a rabbinic decree based on an allusion in the verse. There are altogether eight objects which one may not trade in; four are forbidden to trade in because they are of such elevated status; the other four are forbidden because they are considered of such inferior status. The four whose elevated status makes them unfit as a subject for trade or barter are: 1) anything which has been sanctified for the Lord; seeing the object is G’d’s it is unseemly to barter it; also, G’d does not need to make a profit (compare Ketuvot 106). Seeing that everything in this universe is G’d’s anyway (compare Chagai 2,8 “Mine is the silver, and Mine is the gold, says the Lord G’d of Hosts”), the treasurer of the Temple is not allowed to even engage in negotiations to increase the Temple treasury by selling sacred object at a profit. It would be demeaning for G’d. It is his task to keep all these objects safe, no more, no less. What we have said so far concerns items which have been declared as sacred, i.e. property of the Temple treasury without the donor having given specific instructions concerning them However, if someone donates money to the Temple treasury with a condition attached, such as that the Temple Treasurer use this money to lend it at interest (to Gentiles) this is perfectly in order. This is why many Jewish communities are in the money-lending business. 2) anything which has been designated for tzedakah, charitable purposes (Ketuvot 96). One of the reasons that the treasurer of such a charitable fund is not allowed to convert the funds into something other than cash is that if suddenly he were called upon to pay out money to free certain captives, or to provide food for certain desperately needy families, he would be unable to do so unless all the money on deposit with him for charitable purposes were at hand for immediate use. In such an event, the “profit” which would accrue to such a fund when the loan is repaid with interest would actually turn out to have been a loss as the inability to meet demands made upon the fund immediately might result in the death of a person entitled to support from it. 3) It is also forbidden to trade in the proceeds of the firstborn which is blemished and therefore unfit to be offered on the Altar, or to trade in tithes (tenth animal). Both of these categories of animal, seeing they cannot be offered on the Altar, may be eaten by their respective owners, but the owner must not use them as an object of barter. This is the meaning of Deut. 15,22: “you may eat them within your gates,” i.e. you may consume them but not trade with them. 4) the produce of the Shemittah year is also forbidden to trade in though the person who gathered it may freely eat from it. This is what our sages derived from the words לאכלה, “for eating,” but not for “trading in them,” (Leviticus 25,6 and the Talmud Bechorot 12). The four items which are of too inferior a status for the Torah to allow us to trade in them are: the meat of animals which died of natural causes, the meat of animals which died through disease or injury; the animals described in the Torah as שקצים ורמשים “loathsome, and creepers.” If one happens to own such animals already, not having acquired them, it is permitted to sell them just as he may trade in or sell pure animals which are in his possession. [The above definition of “in his possession” includes animals which were trapped but are of the forbidden category, whereas the hunter had meant to trap only permitted animals, an impure animal became trapped.] In the case of forbidden fish and other creatures of the sea such as lobsters, crabs, oysters, etc., they are forbidden to be traded in both when dead and when alive. This is why the Torah added: “and their carcass you should treat as something loathsome.”
Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that is a detestable thing to you.
verse value 2938
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 34 letters. Verse gematria: 2938 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "all" (כֹּ֣ל, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·scale" (וְקַשְׂקֶ֖שֶׂת, 6 letters). 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·waters', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: כֹּ֣ל [all] (50) + אֲשֶׁ֥ר [that] (501) + אֵֽין־ל֛וֹ [has·no] (97) + סְנַפִּ֥יר [fin] (400) + וְקַשְׂקֶ֖שֶׂת [and·scale] (1206) + בַּמָּ֑יִם [in·the·waters] (92) + שֶׁ֥קֶץ [something·detestable] (490) + ה֖וּא [it] (12) + לָכֶֽם [to·you] (90) = 2938.
Onkelos
Whatever does not have fins and scales in the water — it is an abomination to you.
Rashi
'כל אשר אין לו וגו WHATEVER HATH NO [FINS] etc. — For what purpose is this repeated? Because I might think that in verse 9 I have only the law that permits the eating of a fish which brings up its signs of cleanness (i. e. fins and scales) to dry land. Whence, however, could I learn that if it sheds them whilst it is in the waters such is also permitted as food? Therefore it states here: whatever hath no fins and scales in the water [that shall be an abomination to you]”. Thus, if it did have them whilst it was in the water, even though it shed them when it came up on dry land, it is permissible as food! (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 11).
Chizkuni
שקץ הוא לכם, “it is detestable for you.” When this expression is used it means we must not even trade in such animals, much less not eat them. (Sifra) כל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת, any (marine) creature without fins or scales, etc.;” the reason why the Torah does not mention any of these species by name is that the vast majority of them is hidden from our view by being under water.
And these you shall have in detestation among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are a detestable thing: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the ospray;
verse value 4485
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 51 letters. Verse gematria: 4485 is divisible by 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·the·ospray" (וְאֵ֖ת הָעׇזְנִיָּֽה, 9 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·these" (וְאֶת־אֵ֙לֶּה֙), "the·great·vulture" (אֶת־הַנֶּ֙שֶׁר֙), "and·the·vulture" (וְאֶת־הַפֶּ֔רֶס). The root שקץ appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "they·shall·be·eaten" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "they" (root הם, 38x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'they', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְאֶת־אֵ֙לֶּה֙ [and·these] (443) + תְּשַׁקְּצ֣וּ [you·shall·detest] (896) + מִן־הָע֔וֹף [from·the·birds] (251) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + יֵאָכְל֖וּ [they·shall·be·eaten] (67) + שֶׁ֣קֶץ [something·detestable] (490) + הֵ֑ם [they] (45) + אֶת־הַנֶּ֙שֶׁר֙ [the·great·vulture] (956) + וְאֶת־הַפֶּ֔רֶס [and·the·vulture] (752) + וְאֵ֖ת הָעׇזְנִיָּֽה [and·the·ospray] (554) = 4485.
Onkelos
And these you shall hold in abomination among the birds — they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, and the osprey;
Rashi
לא יאכלו THEY (the fowls to be mentioned) SHALL NOT BE EATEN — The prohibition is put in this form and not in the words “Ye shall not eat them” (v. 42) to declare liable to punishment those who give them as food to minors, the latter themselves not being liable, for the following is what it implies: They shall not be eaten through any act of yours. But perhaps this is not the meaning, but the words are intended to prohibit any beneficial use to be made of them? It says, however, in reference to a similar case (v. 42) “Ye shall not eat them” — for eating they are forbidden, for any other use they are permitted! And the same is the case here (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 5 1; Zevachim 114a). — In reference to every fowl of which it is stated למינהו ,למינו ,למינה, “after its kind”, there are in that species some that are not alike one to the other either in their color or in the names they bear, and yet they are all one species.
Ramban
AND THESE YE SHALL HAVE IN DETESTATION AMONG THE FOWLS. Of all fowls [existent], only those mentioned expressly in this section and their species — such as those concerning which it says, after his kind, or after her kind — are prohibited, since Scripture did not mention any signs of unclean birds [by which we may know that they are] forbidden, or of clean birds [by which we may know that they are] permitted. Instead, it said, And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls — [so that only those specifically mentioned are prohibited], and no others apart from these. Similarly, in connection with the swarming things which convey impurity, which Scripture mentioned in detail, only those mentioned by name in the section are included in that law. Our Rabbis, however, have specified certain signs [of impurity as food] in birds, so that one may recognize through them that the fowls which lack those signs are not amongst those which are prohibited [here].Now the most important sign [of unfitness as food] in fowls is preying, for every bird of prey is invariably unfit [as food]. The Torah removed it [from us] as food, because its blood becomes heated up due to its cruelty, and is dark and thick, which gives rise to that bitter [fluid in the body] which is mostly black and tends to make the heart cruel. There is not another fowl in the whole world that is a bird of prey apart from those mentioned in this section, and therefore one may know that any fowl which is a bird of prey, is one of those mentioned here. Thus if it is known for sure that it does not prey, it may definitely be eaten, for amongst all the forbidden fowls, there is only one which does not prey, namely the bearded vulture or the osprey, and the Sages were not concerned about it [being eaten because of reliance on the fact that it does not prey], since it is not found in habitated places, but dwells always in wilderness. Perhaps it is because it dwells in wastelands and its blood is affected for the worse by the burning heat, like that of the birds of prey, that the Torah prohibited it as food together with them. The Sages furthermore counted amongst the signs [of fitness as food] that if a fowl be found which has an “extra” toe, and its crop and gizzard can be peeled, it is definitely fit [to be eaten], for the Sages knew that such a bird does not prey. But if it has only two of the three signs mentioned, we may not eat it; for the raven [which is a bird unfit as food, as stated in Verse 15], has an extra toe and a gizzard that can be peeled, and [therefore any bird that has only two signs of fitness] we suspect of being a raven or of its species, since they all have two tokens. It does not need to be said that if it has only one of the three signs mentioned we treat it as forbidden, for all the other forbidden fowls have one sign, except for the great vulture which has none of these three signs. Now the meaning of the term “preying” is that in hunting for food it chases after b...
Ibn Ezra
"The eagle" [nesher] — well known; this too is a bird called by this name in Arabic [leshon Yishmael], and there is some evidence that it is so, given that the two languages are closely related. "The ozniyyah" — even though there are individual opinions that it is not found in settled areas, the Gaon [Saadia] erred in translating it as al-'anqa', for that name in Arabic refers to something that does not exist in the world and never existed or was created — it is purely legendary, as the scholars of that language themselves concede. It is therefore impossible that God would prohibit something that never existed.
Chizkuni
הנשר, “the eagle;” its is called such as it can see even small objects from a long distance and identify them. The word is reminiscent of Bileam’s describing his visions of future events with his eyes as: אשורנו. (Numbers, 23,9)[Translation of these birds presents the editor with a problem as there is disagreement among the scholars. Basically, seeing that the Torah did not give clear guidelines how to recognise the few species (20) we are not allowed to eat, I will not attempt to bring the author’s translations in verses 14 through 20, but limit myself to the statement by our sages that they are all birds of prey and that the arrangement of their toe nails is a clue as to their nature. The Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 63 deals with this. Principally, if the bird has two toes at the back of its leg and two in front, it is a sign that it is a bird of prey, as that enables it to better grab and hold on to its prey. In ritually pure birds the three toes are at the front and only one at the back. In addition to this if it has a zaphak a crop, and/or a korkovov, gizzard, maw beneath its chin that can be peeled off without difficulty this is a sign that it is a forbidden species.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף, “and the following you are to treat as loathsome categories of birds, etc.” the word מן means “from among,” i.e. “from among the birds the majority of which are pure and wholesome.” Chulin 63 confirms that there are more birds which are pure, i.e. which theoretically may be eaten (if one can capture them intact). This is why the Torah lists only the impure ones by name, seeing that they are in the minority and make a shorter list. In fact, our sages used this list as an example for saying that when teaching one should be careful to teach matters to one’s student in a compact form. When a person asks someone to choose one object amongst many he does not ask him to eliminate the many but to single out the one he wants as this takes less time and effort. The Torah follows this principle when writing (Leviticus 20,25) “You shall distinguish between the clean (pure) animal and the unclean (impure), and between the unclean bird and the clean;” when mentioning the four-legged animals the Torah first mentioned the pure categories as they are fewer than he impure beasts; in the case of the birds the Torah referred first to the unclean birds as they are fewer than the clean birds. Nachmanides writes that the distinguishing mark between birds which qualify for consumption by Jews and those we may not eat is דריסה, the manner in which the bird walks, i.e. how its toes are arranged. Any bird which attacks with its claws is automatically known as an “unclean” bird. Our sages (Chulin 62) mention that the reason the Torah forbade consumption of such birds is that it is more hot-blooded, the blood turning black, the character of the bird revealing a cruel streak. Eating such a bird would leave a residue of the character of the animal in the person who consumed it. The objectionable part of such a bird of prey is that it hunts live prey, does not kill it first before feasting on it. Apparently hawks operate in this manner. As to four-legged beasts, perhaps the fact that among those that chew the cud and have split hooves we do not find a single beast which is a beast of prey, may account for the fact that the Torah permitted these categories as food fit for Jews. All other types of four-legged mammals are forbidden by the Torah. We find another peculiarity distinguishing between the forbidden and the permitted species of animals. The milk of all the forbidden animals does not lend itself to making cheese, i.e. it does not keep, does not congeal, whereas the milk of the animals we are permitted to eat can be converted into cheese. The author speculates further on the deficiencies resulting from such strange behaviour of the milk of the forbidden animals, adding that he read in a medical textbook that if one suckled from the pig’s milk a child might contract leprosy as a result. This would be just an example that everyone of these forbidden animals contains within it negative influences for those who eat or drink of it. Thus far Nachmanides. An additional reason why the impure birds are forbidden may be simply that G’d loves humility and similar good traits and hates arrogance and similar repugnant traits. The animals which have been approved by G’d as fit to serve as sacrifices for Him, are also suitable to be eaten by us. Seeing that G’d rejected all birds described as impure as possible sacrifices, He also excluded them as potential food for the Israelites. All this is to teach us and impress upon us how much G’d hates the negative virtues displayed by birds of prey. This is why very often the prophets compared evil and cruel people to certain categories of birds of prey such as Jeremiah 49,22 who wrote: “see like the eagle he flies up, he soars and spreads his wings against Bozra.” Or, Deut. 28,49 where Moses says: “the Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, which will swoop down like the eagle;” evil people have been compared to the predatory animals such as the lion in Jeremiah 5,6: “Therefore, the lion of the forest strikes them down, the wolf of the desert devours them; a leopard lies in wait by their towns” (the prophet speaks of the hypocrisy practiced by the inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem). David mentions wild beasts in such a context in Psalms 58,7 when he writes: “O G’d smash their teeth in their mouth; shatter the fangs of lions, O Lord.” Or, Psalms 57,5: “as for me, I lie down among man-eating lions whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongue is a sharp sword.” By contrast, the righteous are usually compared to the kind of animals that are harmless, models of creatures with whom one can live in peace. Examples are Isaiah 5,17: “the lambs shall graze as in their meadows,” or Maleachi 3,20: “you shall go forth and stamp like stall-fed calves;” or Hoseah 11,11: “they shall flutter from Egypt like sparrows, from the land of Assyria like doves.” Another reason why all these birds are considered impure may be the curious fact that the מנחשים, soothsayers and fortune-tellers, always use the bones of the birds which the Torah classifies as impure to practice their art. The Torah hates sooth-saying, has categorically forbidden it and decreed the death penalty for Jews practicing this art. We may therefore surmise that in addition to forbidding such birds because they are cruel birds of prey they are also symbolic of a form of rebellion against G’d when they are being used to reveal the future which G’d in His wisdom has seen fit to conceal from us. [The author quotes from theories of soothsayers regarding the efficacy of using different birds of prey in their craft. I do not consider this worth repeating. Ed.]
Kli Yakar
And these you shall detest from the birds. The word from [min] implies a portion of it, meaning the minority, because our Sages taught (Chullin 63b) that among birds, the clean ones outnumber the unclean ones; therefore, Scripture enumerated the unclean ones. Whereas among animals, the unclean ones outnumber the clean ones; therefore, Scripture enumerated the clean ones in Parashat Re’eh (Deuteronomy 14:4-5). The reason for this is that the element of earth is thicker and coarser, and produces more cloudiness of intellect than the element of air. Animals have a greater portion of the element of earth than the element of air, and for this reason they cannot fly in the air. Therefore, the unclean ones are more numerous due to the abundance of earthiness in them, and only as an exception are there a few clean ones among them. Conversely, birds have a greater portion of the element of air, which is pure and thin, than the element of earth. Therefore, most of them are clean, and only as an exception are there some unclean ones among them, and these are few. For the earth grows physicality, while the air grows purity and spirituality. That is why it says And you shall distinguish between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean one (Leviticus 20:25). It places the clean first for animals and the unclean first for birds, because when one selects something from among its fellows, one selects the minority from the majority, as if saying that one should separate the clean animals from among the unclean ones, and conversely for birds.
Tur HaArokh
ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף, “and these are the species of birds which you are to abominate;” Nachmanides writes that only the species named hereafter are forbidden, as well as their sub species where the Torah adds the word למינו or למינהו, to indicate that there are such sub species. Our sages have provided us with physical peculiarities of the forbidden categories of birds, seeing that not all of us are familiar with all these birds by name, and some may be known by different names in different parts of the globe. The most easily recognizable physical abnormality of these forbidden birds, something they all have in common, is that they are predators. In fact, if we encounter a bird that attacks other birds or even larger animals, it is certain that it belongs to a forbidden species regardless of any other marks of identification to that effect. These birds are hot blooded especially when they are on the attack, and consuming such victims. While engaged in attack, their blood turns black from the cruelty with which they kill their prey. This cruel streak leaves it mark on its heart, i.e. its personality. However, the only such birds in the whole globe are the ones mentioned by name in our chapter here. When we encounter a species of bird with which we are not familiar, but we are sure that it is not a bird of prey, we can be certain that it belongs to the large majority of “pure” birds, and that after the proper procedures we may eat it. There are only two species of the forbidden birds listed here that are not birds of prey, and they are not found in parts of the globe inhabited by man. They are the פרס and the עזניה. Possibly, the nature of their habitat, a primitive, creature-hostile environment, left its marks on the blood of these two creatures so that the Torah forbade them in spite of the fact that neither category of bird fits the description דורס, bird of prey. The underlying reason for the 24 species of birds which the Torah singled out as forbidden for the Israelites is the fact that we observe that they transmit their cruel streak also to their offspring. The reason why the Torah chose seven categories of mammals that chew the cud and have spilt hooves as acceptable for consumption by Israelites, is the fact that none of them feed on live creatures. All the others look for living creatures to become their source of sustenance. Our sages, (Avodah Zarah 35), as well as Maimonides maachalot assurrot basing themselves on empirical; knowledge, state that milk from animals not permitted to us is easily distinguishable by the fact that the milk of all the forbidden animal does not curdle, and even when mixed with milk of “kosher” animals does not lose its characteristics. He speculates that milk of the ritually forbidden animals may have a negative influence on the semen of the person consuming it, thus making him less likely to produce sperm that develops normally. When the infant would drink the milk of a mother who had born a child by a father who had eaten ritually unclean mammals, her milk would be affected. This would be in addition to the health and growth promoting nutrients provided by the milk and meat of the ritually clean mammals. I have personally read in a number of medical; textbooks (Nachmanides writing) that children raised on pig’s milk are liable to be afflicted with tzoraat, a terribly serious skin disease.
Verse structure: 3 words, 19 letters. The shortest word is "to·its·kind" (לְמִינָֽהּ, 5 letters) and the longest is "and·the·kite" (וְאֶ֨ת־הַדָּאָ֔ה, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·the·kite" (וְאֶ֨ת־הַדָּאָ֔ה), "and·the·falcon" (וְאֶת־הָאַיָּ֖ה). 3 unique roots are used. First appearance of the root מין ("to·its·kind") in Leviticus. Full calculation: וְאֶ֨ת־הַדָּאָ֔ה [and·the·kite] (422) + וְאֶת־הָאַיָּ֖ה [and·the·falcon] (428) + לְמִינָֽהּ [to·its·kind] (135) = 985.
Onkelos
and the kite and the falcon after its kind;
Ibn Ezra
"The kite" [da'ah] — a collective name for two species: da'ah and dayyah, just as "the bird" [ha-tzippor] [in Gen. 15:10] is not divided but appears alongside turtle-dove and young pigeon. The translators were therefore correct in saying that ra'ah is da'ah. This removes the objection of Rabbi Yonah, who asked: how can one say, "Beware of the lion and the layish [another lion-term]"? Some say: nesher [eagle] is from asurenu ["I see him," Num. 24:17]; peres from halo tifros la-ra'ev ["is it not to break bread for the hungry," Isa. 58:7]; and ozniyyah from oz [strength], with the nun being an added letter — it is what is called the 'aqba. Da'ah from ka'asher yid'eh ha-nesher ["as the eagle swoops," Deut. 28:49]; and ayyah [falcon], whose habit is to dwell in known islands.
Or HaChaim
ואת האיה למינה, and the falcon after its kind. The falcon mentioned here includes many different kinds of birds all of which are sub-categories of the falcon family. Our sages in Chulin 63 state that at the time they were familiar with 120 different species of birds all of which belonged to that family. There may be even more than that number. The same applies to the many varieties of ravens, though the Torah mentions only the word "the raven" as if there were only one such bird.
Cross-references: Deuteronomy 14:13; Deuteronomy 14:14; II Samuel 21:8
Verse structure: 2 words, 12 letters. The shortest word is "to·its·kind" (לְמִינֽוֹ, 5 letters) and the longest is "all·raven" (אֵ֥ת כׇּל־עֹרֵ֖ב, 7 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "all·raven" (אֵ֥ת כׇּל־עֹרֵ֖ב). 2 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "all·raven" (root ערב, 44x in Leviticus). Full calculation: אֵ֥ת כׇּל־עֹרֵ֖ב [all·raven] (723) + לְמִינֽוֹ [to·its·kind] (136) = 859.
Onkelos
every raven after its kind;
Ibn Ezra
"The raven" ['orev] — from the root erev [evening], on account of its blackness.
and the ostrich, and the night-hawk, and the sea-mew, and the hawk after its kinds;
verse value 3362
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 37 letters. The shortest word is "and·daughter·of" (וְאֵת֙ בַּ֣ת, 5 letters) and the longest is "and·the·nighthawk" (וְאֶת־הַתַּחְמָ֖ס, 8 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·daughter·of" (וְאֵת֙ בַּ֣ת), "the·ostrich" (הַֽיַּעֲנָ֔ה), "and·the·nighthawk" (וְאֶת־הַתַּחְמָ֖ס). 6 unique roots are used. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·the·sea·gull', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְאֵת֙ בַּ֣ת [and·daughter·of] (809) + הַֽיַּעֲנָ֔ה [the·ostrich] (140) + וְאֶת־הַתַּחְמָ֖ס [and·the·nighthawk] (920) + וְאֶת־הַשָּׁ֑חַף [and·the·sea·gull] (800) + וְאֶת־הַנֵּ֖ץ [and·the·hawk] (552) + לְמִינֵֽהוּ [to·its·kind] (141) = 3362.
Onkelos
and the ostrich, and the swift, and the sea gull, and the hawk after its kinds;
Rashi
הנץ — Espervier in O. F., (English = sparrow-hawk)
Ibn Ezra
"Bat ha-ya'anah" [the ostrich] — some say it is a species of which no males are found, like the hare. The word ki-ya'anim ["like ostriches," Lam. 4:3] is not a counter-argument, for those are not males but females — just as ya'alim [ibexes] and rechelim [ewes] are [feminine forms that refer to the species]. "And the tachmas" — from the root chamas [violence/aggression]. "And the shaḥaf" — it causes the disease shaḥefet [wasting]. "And the netz" [hawk] — it has abundant plumage; the most likely identification is the well-known bird that perpetually spreads its wings toward the south, seeking a warm place.
and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl;
verse value 2118
Insights
Verse structure: 3 words, 23 letters. The shortest word is "and·the·little·owl" (וְאֶת־הַכּ֥וֹס, 7 letters) and the longest is "and·the·great·owl" (וְאֶת־הַיַּנְשֽׁוּף, 9 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·the·little·owl" (וְאֶת־הַכּ֥וֹס), "and·the·cormorant" (וְאֶת־הַשָּׁלָ֖ךְ), "and·the·great·owl" (וְאֶת־הַיַּנְשֽׁוּף). 3 unique roots are used. Full calculation: וְאֶת־הַכּ֥וֹס [and·the·little·owl] (498) + וְאֶת־הַשָּׁלָ֖ךְ [and·the·cormorant] (762) + וְאֶת־הַיַּנְשֽׁוּף [and·the·great·owl] (858) = 2118.
Onkelos
and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl;
Rashi
שלך — Our Rabbis explained that this is a bird that draws up (שלה = שלך) fish out of the sea (Chullin 63a) and that is why Onkelos translates it by ושלי נונא “and that which draws up fishes” (a common heron; according to others a kind of pelican). כוס וינשוף — These are chouettes in O. F. that shriek at night (kinds of owl), and have their cheek-bones formed like those of a human being; and there is another bird similar to it which is called hibou in O. F.
Ibn Ezra
"The kos" [little owl] — as in "kos of desolations" [Ps. 102:7]; some say it hides from human sight, which is why it dwells in uninhabited places. "The shalakh" — some say it is a bird whose natural habit is to cast [lehashlik] away its young. "The yanshuf" — a bird that flies at twilight [neshef], since it cannot be seen by day because of the intensity of the sun's light.
and the horned owl, and the pelican, and the carrion-vulture;
verse value 3175
Insights
Verse structure: 3 words, 23 letters. The shortest word is "and·the·pelican" (וְאֶת־הַקָּאָ֖ת, 7 letters) and the longest is "and·the·white·owl" (וְאֶת־הַתִּנְשֶׁ֥מֶת, 9 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·the·white·owl" (וְאֶת־הַתִּנְשֶׁ֥מֶת), "and·the·pelican" (וְאֶת־הַקָּאָ֖ת), "and·the·carrion·vulture" (וְאֶת־הָרָחָֽם). 3 unique roots are used. Full calculation: וְאֶת־הַתִּנְשֶׁ֥מֶת [and·the·white·owl] (1602) + וְאֶת־הַקָּאָ֖ת [and·the·pelican] (913) + וְאֶת־הָרָחָֽם [and·the·carrion·vulture] (660) = 3175.
Onkelos
and the white owl, and the pelican, and the carrion vulture;
Rashi
תנשמת — This is the chauvesouris in O. F.: it is similar to a mouse which flies about at night (a “bat”). The תנשמת mentioned among the creeping things (v. 30) is somewhat like it but it has no eyes, and it is called “talpa”, (English = mole) (cf. Chullin 63a).
Ibn Ezra
"The tinshemet" — all who see it are appalled [yashum]; this name also appears among the creeping things. "The ka'at" [pelican] — some say there is a bird whose natural habit is to vomit [lehaki] its food. "The raḥam" — the Gaon [Saadia] said it is the Arabic term [leshon Kedar] for a bird, with ḥet exchanged for kaf, since in their script these two letters are similar; others say it is a bird that shows mercy [meraḥem] upon its young.
and the stork, and the heron after its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.
verse value 2308
Insights
Verse structure: 5 words, 37 letters. The shortest word is "the·heron" (הָאֲנָפָ֖ה, 5 letters) and the longest is "and·the·hoopoe" (וְאֶת־הַדּוּכִיפַ֖ת, 10 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·the·stork" (וְאֵת֙ הַחֲסִידָ֔ה), "the·heron" (הָאֲנָפָ֖ה), "and·the·hoopoe" (וְאֶת־הַדּוּכִיפַ֖ת). 4 unique roots are used. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·its·kind', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְאֵת֙ הַחֲסִידָ֔ה [and·the·stork] (499) + הָאֲנָפָ֖ה [the·heron] (141) + לְמִינָ֑הּ [to·its·kind] (135) + וְאֶת־הַדּוּכִיפַ֖ת [and·the·hoopoe] (932) + וְאֶת־הָעֲטַלֵּֽף [and·the·bat] (601) = 2308.
Onkelos
and the stork, and the heron after its kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat.
Rashi
החסידה — This is the white stork, cigogne in old French And why is it called חסידה? Because it deals kindly (חסד) with its fellows in respect to food (Chullin 63a). האנפה — This is the hot-tempered דיה, and it seems to me that it is what is called heron. הדוכיפת — the wild cock which has a double comb (כרבלת). In O. F., herupé; (English = hoopoe). And why is its name called דוכיפת? Because its ornament (הודו) is tied tegether (כפות): this refers to its comb (which being doubled, appears to be tied up). It is also called נגר טורא, mountain-splitter, because of its doings, just as our Rabbis explained in Tractate Gittin 68b in the chapter commencing שאחזו מי.
Ibn Ezra
"The ḥasidah" [stork] — it is the one that appears at known seasons of the year; some say it distributes kindness [ḥesed] along distant roads. "The anafah" — it is quickly adulterous/licentious [mitna'ef]. "The dukhifat" — the Sadducees said it is the domestic rooster, but these are the fools of the world, for who told them this? "The bat" ['atalef] — a small creature that flies at night; it is a quadriliteral word [having four root letters]. Know also that the word teshaktzu ["you shall not make detestable"] in connection with birds: in its precise grammatical meaning it is somewhat removed from al teshaktzu et nafshotekhem ["do not make your souls detestable"], since there the souls are the object [of the action], whereas with birds the meaning is: know that they are a detestable thing and consider them as such for yourselves. And every small swarming creature that at times flies and at times goes on four [legs] is a detestable thing.
Rabbeinu Bahya
הדוכיפת, “the duchifass.” This is a wild rooster whose comb is doubled over and according to Rashi the bird known as hoopoe. It brought the shamir worm to the Temple (not deliberately) to enable Solomon to split stones without having to use metal tools (Chulin 63.). There is a comment in Gittin 68 that relates that the prince of the demons Ashmadai told Solomon that he had no idea where to get the shamir and that perhaps the duchifass could get it for him. The Talmud relates how the duchifass was tricked into releasing that worm, explaining the strange-sounding translation by Onkelos who renders the word as נגר טורא. “carpenter of the mountains.”
All winged swarming things that go upon all fours are a detestable thing to you.
verse value 1826
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 28 letters. The shortest word is "all" (כֹּ֚ל, 2 letters) and the longest is "upon·four" (עַל־אַרְבַּ֑ע, 6 letters). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus); "to·you" (root לכם, 62x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root הלך ("that·walks") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root ארבע ("upon·four") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·four', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 3 words. Full calculation: כֹּ֚ל [all] (50) + שֶׁ֣רֶץ [swarming·thing·of] (590) + הָע֔וֹף [the·birds] (161) + הַהֹלֵ֖ךְ [that·walks] (60) + עַל־אַרְבַּ֑ע [upon·four] (373) + שֶׁ֥קֶץ [something·detestable] (490) + ה֖וּא [it] (12) + לָכֶֽם [to·you] (90) = 1826.
Onkelos
Every swarming winged creature that walks on four legs — it is an abomination to you.
Rashi
העוף שרץ PROLIFIC CREATURES AMONGST FOWL — These are the thin, lowly creatures which move upon the ground, such as flies and hornets and gnats and grasshoppers (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:20).
Ramban
SHERETZ HA’OPH’ (WINGED SWARMING THINGS). “These are the thin, lowly creatures which crawl upon the ground, such as flies and hornets, mosquitoes and grasshoppers.” This is Rashi’s language. But I do not consider it to be correct, for a bird is not called sheretz (a swarming thing) on account of its smallness, nor is the unqualified term oph (bird) used because of the largeness of its body. The bat has very small legs, and many kinds of grasshoppers have larger ones than it, so why is the bat not called sheretz ha’oph (a winged swarming thing) like the grasshoppers? Rather, the meaning of sheretz ha’oph is written [in Scripture immediately] after it: that go upon all fours. For all fowls that walk upon two legs, have erect necks, and their heads face upwards, and they always depend on their wings and flap them; therefore they are called oph kanaph (winged fowl), or just oph. But those that have [four] legs walk lowly, with their neck and head bent downwards like creeping things, and therefore they are called sheretz ha’oph (a winged creeping thing), as I have explained in Seder Bereshith. Similarly He referred back here and explained, And all ‘sheretz ha’oph’ (winged creeping things) which have four feet, are a detestable thing unto you, the meaning thereof being as if He had said: “all winged creeping things which have only four feet and do not have jointed legs [above their feet] as mentioned [in Verse 21 amongst the signs of purity], are a detestable thing unto you.” The interpretation thereof in Torath Kohanim is: “Rabbi says: And all ‘sheretz ha’oph’ (winged creeping things) which have four feet, are a detestable thing. But if it has five feet, it is a clean species.”Now in this section regarding winged creeping things there is only a positive commandment, but in the Book of Deuteronomy there is a prohibition mentioned in connection with it, [namely], And all ‘sheretz ha’oph’ (winged creeping things) are unclean unto you; they shall not be eaten. It is on the basis of that verse there that whipping is incurred for violation thereof.
Yet these you may eat of all winged swarming things that go upon all fours, which have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap upon the earth;
verse value 4634
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 64 letters. The shortest word is "only" (אַ֤ךְ, 2 letters) and the longest is "upon·four" (עַל־אַרְבַּ֑ע, 6 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "jointed·legs" (כְרָעַ֙יִם֙), "above" (מִמַּ֣עַל), "to·its·feet" (לְרַגְלָ֔יו). 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which·have" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "you·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "from·all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·four', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 7 words.
Onkelos
However, these you may eat from every swarming winged creature that walks on four legs: those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap upon the ground.
Rashi
על ארבע means UPON FOUR legs. ממעל לרגליו ABOVE ITS FEET — Quite close to its neck it has something like two feet, in addition to its real feet; when it wants to fly and to spring off the ground it presses itself strongly on the ground with those two knees and so it flies. There are many of these, such, as those which we call longouste (sea-locusts), but we are not expert in regard to them, — as to which we are not permitted as food, — because four characteristic marks of cleanness are mentioned by our Rabbis in respect to them, viz., four feet, four wings, and קרסולים, i. e. the כרעים mentioned here, and that their wings cover the greater part of them. All these characteristics are present in these which are found amongst us, but there are some of them which have a long head and there are some which have no tail, matters which do not affect the question of cleanness (Chullin 59a). It is, however, necessary in order that they shall belong to the clean species that they should bear the name חגב (Chullin 55b), and in this respect we do not know how to distinguish one from another [i. e. we have no tradition as regards to these locusts whether they belong to the species which was in olden (Talmudic) times called חגב or not, and consequently in spite of the other four marks of cleanness we cannot distinguish them from unclean locusts which also show the same marks but are unclean because they do not bear the name חגב].
Ibn Ezra
"That has no legs" [asher lo kera'ayim] — the correct reading is that it should have a vav [i.e., asher lo kera'ayim = "which has legs," not "has no legs"]. "To leap" [lenater] — this word has no parallel; the Targum renders it le-kafza bohon, meaning "leaping," like mekafetz ["skipping," Song 2:8], with the sense of bounding — and that is an accurate translation.
Or HaChaim
אשר לו כרעים. which have jointed legs above their feet, etc. In my treatise on Tur Yore Deyah 85 I have explained in detail that Rashi is correct that these winged creatures have to have legs which are attached close to their throats. People who permit these creatures to be eaten because there are no species which conform to this description are in error. The fact is that of the four, respectively eight categories of winged creatures listed in verses 22 as permitted to eat, only one category is found in our parts of the world. The eight kinds of forbidden swarming things listed in verses 29 and 30 also do not have their habitat in parts of the globe inhabited by Jews. Most of the winged things that do abound in our part of the globe do not have the kind of jointed legs that would make them edible according to the Torah's criteria. Most of these details are discussed in Chulin 63-65. The important thing is that the fact that we do not find the species mentioned in the Torah in our parts of the globe is no proof that they do not exist and that our sages have misinterpreted the Torah. Any G'd-fearing Jew will abstain therefore from eating any of these things and will protest when he sees other Jews eating them. For the last 12 years after I have published these words and people stopped eating these kinds of "grasshoppers," our land has not been afflicted by the plague of locusts. This is proof that observance of Torah and the commission of good deeds protects us against natural disasters.
Chizkuni
אשר לו כרעים, “which have jointed legs,” The word לו is spelled לא in the text, to hint at the dual nature of these (additional) legs. It is read as if it had been spelled as shown.
Rashbam
לנתר, to jump, to shake, as per Onkelos. The root occurs in this sense in Chabakuk 3,6 ויתר גוים, “He makes the earth shake.” This transitive mode of the root נתר, natar, also occurs in Genesis 2,21 from the root נפל, nafal.
even these of them you may eat: the locust after its kinds, and the bald locust after its kinds, and the cricket after its kinds, and the grasshopper after its kinds.
verse value 3842
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 66 letters. The shortest word is "from·them" (מֵהֶם֙, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·the·bald·locust" (וְאֶת־הַסׇּלְעָ֖ם, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 141: to·its·kind, to·its·kind, to·its·kind. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·locust" (אֶת־הָֽאַרְבֶּ֣ה), "and·the·bald·locust" (וְאֶת־הַסׇּלְעָ֖ם), "and·the·cricket" (וְאֶת־הַחַרְגֹּ֣ל). The root מין appears 4 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "you·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "from·them" (root מן, 41x in Leviticus); "these" (root אלה, 27x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·its·kind', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 4 words. Full calculation: אֶת־אֵ֤לֶּה [these] (437) + מֵהֶם֙ [from·them] (85) + תֹּאכֵ֔לוּ [you·shall·eat] (457) + אֶת־הָֽאַרְבֶּ֣ה [the·locust] (614) + לְמִינ֔וֹ [to·its·kind] (136) + וְאֶת־הַסׇּלְעָ֖ם [and·the·bald·locust] (612) + לְמִינֵ֑הוּ [to·its·kind] (141) + וְאֶת־הַחַרְגֹּ֣ל [and·the·cricket] (653) + לְמִינֵ֔הוּ [to·its·kind] (141) + וְאֶת־הֶחָגָ֖ב [and·the·grasshopper] (425) + לְמִינֵֽהוּ [to·its·kind] (141) = 3842.
Onkelos
These of them you may eat: the locust after its kind, and the bald locust after its kind, and the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.
Ibn Ezra
"Called arbeh" — from the root ribui [abundance/multiplication]. "The sal'am" — a species that climbs on rocks [sala'im]. "The ḥargol" — if this is a single quadriliteral word it has no parallel; if it is two words like le-falmoni ha-medaber ["to a certain one who was speaking," Dan. 8:13], its nature would be the opposite of the sal'am. "The ḥagav" — well known from Arabic.
Chizkuni
, הארבה, “the species known as locusts. The word is related to הרבה, “many,” there being so many different subcategories. הסלעם, “the cricket,” a species dwelling in rocks, i.e. .סלע החרגל, “the grasshopper;” [details of this kind of locust are sketchy. Ed.]
Targum Yonatan
Of these kinds of them you may eat: the wingless locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, the serpent-killer after his kind, and the karzeba, which is the palmerworm, after his kind.
But all winged swarming things, which have four feet, are a detestable thing to you.
verse value 2492
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 33 letters. The shortest word is "and·all" (וְכֹל֙, 3 letters) and the longest is "that·has" (אֲשֶׁר־ל֖וֹ, 5 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "four" (אַרְבַּ֣ע). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that·has" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "and·all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'feet', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְכֹל֙ [and·all] (56) + שֶׁ֣רֶץ [swarming·thing·of] (590) + הָע֔וֹף [the·birds] (161) + אֲשֶׁר־ל֖וֹ [that·has] (537) + אַרְבַּ֣ע [four] (273) + רַגְלָ֑יִם [feet] (283) + שֶׁ֥קֶץ [something·detestable] (490) + ה֖וּא [it] (12) + לָכֶֽם [to·you] (90) = 2492.
Onkelos
But every swarming winged creature that has four legs — it is an abomination to you.
Rashi
'וכל שרץ העוף וגו BUT ALL PROLIFIC CREATURES AMONG FOWL etc. — This repetition of the statement already made in verse 20 is intended to teach that if it has five feet it is clean (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 5 10).
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "that has four legs" — even though it was already stated above "that walks on four," it is possible that there is a swarming creature that has four legs but does not walk on them, only flies.
Or HaChaim
אשד לו ארבע דגלים, which have four legs. Torat Kohanim explains that the reason the Torah appears to repeat something here that has been written in verse 20 is to tell us that if such a creature has five legs it is permitted to be eaten. It would appear that the same holds true if such creatures have six or more legs. We need to examine why the Torah saw fit to write this legislation in an indirect way requiring us to arrive at the ruling that 5-legged winged swarming things are permitted by exegesis instead of writing outright that if such creatures have five legs we may eat them. Alternatively, the Torah could have written that any such creatures moving on more than 4 legs are permissible. Perhaps the Torah also had to inform us about the permissibility of brine in which forbidden locusts had been stored. Torat Kohanim had interpreted the repetition of the word שקץ הוא to be an exclusion, i.e. only the actual body of the winged swarming thing is prohibited. The Torah therefore had to write this verse in order to get this point across.
Chizkuni
וכל שרץ העוף, “and all winged swarming things;” in respect of fish and birds that are forbidden to eat, the Torah did not use the term טומאת מגע, ritual contamination through touching, it only wrote that we should detest them. The reason is that seeing that seeing that they have mostly been created in water, they are treated as if part of that domain. In accordance with this approach, we find that our sages in tractate keylim 17,13, state that any creatures that live in water are not subject to ritual contamination.
Tur HaArokh
וכל שרץ העוף, “every flying teeming creature etc.,” Rashi explains the term שרץ העוף as applying to all small insect like creatures that move slowly on the ground, such as the common fly, etc. Nachmanides disagrees, as he cannot agree that any species of bird can be described as שרץ just because it is small in size. Neither is a bird called עוף just because it has a certain size. The עטלף is small and is listed as by the Torah as an עוף, whereas many species of locusts have legs which are larger than their bodies. If we accept Rashi’s definition of שרץ העוף, why is the עטלף not included as one of the שרץ העוף? Size of the body clearly is not the decisive factor in determining the difference between these two groups of flying creatures. The fact is that the Torah itself explains the nature of שרץ העוף in our verse, when it is described as walking on four legs, and as having jumping legs above its wings, these legs being employed as a launching pad to enable it to fly or jump. This is also why these creatures are not called עוף כנף, “winged bird,” or plain עוף, “bird.” Another feature of these שרץ העוף is that their neck and head instead of being above their bodies, are generally lower than the highest parts of the rest of their bodies.
And by these you shall become unclean; whoever touches the carcass of them shall be unclean until evening.
verse value 1641
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 32 letters. The shortest word is "he·shall·be·impure" (יִטְמָ֥א, 4 letters) and the longest is "all·who·touches" (כׇּל־הַנֹּגֵ֥עַ, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·to·these" (וּלְאֵ֖לֶּה). The root טמא appears 2 times in this verse. 5 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "you·shall·defile·yourselves" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "all·who·touches" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus); "until·the·evening" (root ערב, 44x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'you·shall·defile·yourselves', dividing the verse into phrases of 2 and 4 words. Full calculation: וּלְאֵ֖לֶּה [and·to·these] (72) + תִּטַּמָּ֑אוּ [you·shall·defile·yourselves] (456) + כׇּל־הַנֹּגֵ֥עַ [all·who·touches] (178) + בְּנִבְלָתָ֖ם [in·their·carcass] (524) + יִטְמָ֥א [he·shall·be·impure] (60) + עַד־הָעָֽרֶב [until·the·evening] (351) = 1641.
Onkelos
And by these you shall become unclean; whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening.
Rashi
ולאלה AND TO THESE which are to be mentioned further on in the section, תטמאו YE CAN BECOME UNCLEAN — that is, by touching them there is uncleanness.
Ramban
AND BY THESE YE SHALL BECOME UNCLEAN. “By these which are to be mentioned further on in the section, ye shall become unclean. Here Scripture teaches you that the carcass of an animal unfit for food conveys impurity, and in the subject at the end of the section it explains [the law] concerning the carcass of an animal fit for food.” This is Rashi’s language. But if so, [the question arises], why did Scripture divide them and why did it treat them singly, when it should rather have said [in one general statement], “whosoever touches the carcass of any animal shall be unclean until the evening, and whosoever carries any of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening?”The correct interpretation is that here Scripture mentioned the carcass of them without qualification and did not mention “death” in connection with them, thus teaching that [the law of] ritual slaughtering [required to render animals fit for food] does not apply to them [the unclean animals mentioned here], and whoever touches them when they are no longer alive [whether they died by themselves or even if they were ritually slaughtered], becomes impure. But further on it states, And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die, thus teaching that if it [an animal fit for food] was ritually slaughtered, it does not convey impurity [to a person who touches it]. Now the meaning of the section in mentioning [here]: And by these ye shall become unclean, is to state that all things referred to above — namely, fishes, fowls, and grasshoppers — do not have this [law of] impurity, but only those which He is about to mention further on, these being Every beast … which is not cloven-footed, nor cheweth the cud. It is with reference to these that He states, they are unclean to you; every one that toucheth them shall be unclean with the uncleanness mentioned [in the preceding Verses 24-25: whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until the even. And whosoever beareth aught of the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even]. Then He continues by stating that any beast which walks upon its paws shall also convey impurity until the evening to a person who touches its carcass, and that a person who carries it shall, in addition, wash his clothes. Similarly, And these are they which are unclean unto you among the swarming things means among those which are to be mentioned further on. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra erred here. Now above, in stating the prohibition of eating [an animal prohibited as food], Scripture mentioned those animals which are not cloven-footed and do not chew the cud, but it did not mention [the law] of beasts that walk upon their paws. Perhaps it is because it is not customary to eat them [on account of the danger involved in catching them] that He did not single them out, but left them [to be] included in the general principle which He had stated, that we should eat only the animal that parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and ...
Ibn Ezra
"And by these you shall become impure" [ve-le'elleh titame'u] — by every flying swarming creature with four legs; "and these shall you regard as detestable from among the birds." Others explain that the word elleh refers to all the [non-kosher] animals and everything that walks on its paws. In my view, the word elleh refers to all those mentioned above. "Titame'u" — in the hitpa'el construction; the dagesh in the tet absorbs the tav [of the hitpa'el prefix], as in va-yishma et ha-kol medabber elav [Num. 7:89], and kibbes ha-mitaher [Lev. 14:8]. "He shall be impure until evening" — Scripture here uses an abbreviated style, since rinsing in water is also required.
Or HaChaim
ולאלה תטמאו. And by these you will become unclean; According to Torat Kohanim the word ולאלה refers to the future, i.e. the animals mentioned in the paragraph commencing now. If this were so, I do not understand the letter ו in the word ואלה. There was no need for that letter if all the Torah wanted to introduce here was the list of animals which confer impurity if one touches their carcass. Perhaps Torat Kohanim meant that the animals listed in the paragraph commencing here have the same הלכה concerning impurity as the ones already mentioned in the previous paragraph. In other words, every species of domestic animal and free-roaming animals whether of the pure or the impure categories which do not chew the cud or have parted hooves and are not listed by name are all included in the expression כל הבהמה. This would justify the extra letter ו before the word ולאלה. The letter ו then includes all the unnamed animals. This same rule applies also to all the animals listed in the paragraph detailing which identifying features make an animal suitable for consumption by Jews. Hence the Torah wrote the letter ו. In order that we should not make a mistake and include everything which had been mentioned earlier in this regulation, the Torah had to spell out that this legislation applies only to בהמה וחיה, to mammals. Another possibility is that the Torah was very interested in writing the regulations about impurity immediately adjoining the regulations about what may and what may not be eaten. The lesson is then that just as culpability for eating something forbidden commences when one has consumed a minimum amount of meat the size of an olive, so one does not become defiled unless one had contact with some dead animal or part of an animal not smaller than the size of an olive. Torat Kohanim posits that the verse deals with אבר מן החי, the law that one may not eat living tissue, i.e. tissue of an animal still alive regardless of whether the animal is of the permitted or the forbidden category. The author of Torat Kohanim derives the rule about the minimum size of an animal which confers impurity through contact with its carcass from verse 40 where the Torah writes that האוכל מנבלתם טמא עד הערב, that someone eating of the carcass of such dead animals remains impure until the evening of that day (after immersion). The exact wording in Torat Kohanim is that "the words ולאלה תטמאו were only written in order to provide us with the minimum quantity that someone in contact with dead animals has to either consume or carry in order to become impure by such contact or eating." Perhaps one may say that an additional allusion found in these words is that if the animal gave birth to a category of animal such as the ones listed it is subject to the same ruling. I have seen that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote that he believed that the word אלה referred back to all the animals mentioned earlier including the winged swarming creatures. I think he would have done well not t...
Tur HaArokh
ולאלה תטמאו, “through the following you will become ritually unclean.” The reason the Torah prefaces this verse with the restrictive ובאלה, “through these,” an expression not found in connection with either the fish, the fowl, or the teeming creatures including the locusts, is to teach that the ritual defilement resulting from contact with the dead bodies of these creatures applies only to the ones mentioned in the verse preceding, i.e. 4 legged שרץ העוף, or the ones mentioned forthwith. Note that the carcass of an animal permitted for consumption by Israelites after the appropriate preparations, does not confer ritual contamination on contact if it died by ritual slaughter. This is why the Torah does not refer to מיתה, death, but to נבלתם, their carcass, i.e. their having died by natural causes. Anyone touching such cadavers becomes ritually defiled. The Torah also speaks of such animals “dying,” as כי ימות, (11,39) meaning that if the animal had not “died”’ but had been slaughtered, its cadaver does not confer ritual impurity. כל הנוגע בנבלתם יטמא עד הערב, “anyone touching its cadaver will remain ritually impure until nightfall.” The evening” by itself does not remove the ritual contamination. If the affected person has immersed himself in a ritual bath prior to sunset on the day he came into contact with the cadaver, then, and only then, does the expiry of that day remove such impurity from him. The Torah did not bother to elaborate on that point as it had already explained that a garment which had become ritually contaminated needs to be “washed,” i.e. immersed in a ritual bath, in order to rid itself of such contamination. (Compare verse 28) If even a garment cannot regain ritual purity without a ritual bath, how much more is this required for the body that had been in contact with the cadaver. In the case of contact with the teeming creatures whose cadaver confers ritual impurity, the Torah not only mentions the need to immerse oneself in a ritual bath, but it adds the punishment awaiting those who ignore the legislation and come into contact with sacred objects, or who enter sacred grounds in such a state. This punishment, i.e. death at the hand of heaven, usually premature death, is the standard punishment for all who ignore the need to purify themselves before entering sacred ground or coming into contact with holy objects, or sacrificial meat, etc.
Rashbam
ולאלה תטמאו, “if you touch any of the following (dead carcasses) you will become ritually impure.” The list of such animals follows.
And whoever bears anything of the carcass of them shall immerse his garments, and be unclean until the evening.
verse value 1498
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 32 letters. The shortest word is "he·shall·wash" (יְכַבֵּ֥ס, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·all·who·lifts" (וְכׇל־הַנֹּשֵׂ֖א, 7 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·all·who·lifts" (וְכׇל־הַנֹּשֵׂ֖א). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·he·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "his·clothes" (root בגד, 52x in Leviticus); "until·the·evening" (root ערב, 44x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'from·their·carcass', dividing the verse into phrases of 2 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְכׇל־הַנֹּשֵׂ֖א [and·all·who·lifts] (412) + מִנִּבְלָתָ֑ם [from·their·carcass] (562) + יְכַבֵּ֥ס [he·shall·wash] (92) + בְּגָדָ֖יו [his·clothes] (25) + וְטָמֵ֥א [and·he·shall·be·impure] (56) + עַד־הָעָֽרֶב [until·the·evening] (351) = 1498.
Onkelos
And whoever carries any of their carcasses shall immerse his garments and be unclean until the evening.
Rashi
וכל הנשא מנבלתם AND WHOSOEVER BEARETH OUGHT OF THE CARRION OF THEM [SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN] — In every passage where there is mentioned uncleanness consequent upon the bearing of anything unclean it is more stringent than uncleanness which is the result of contact, inasmuch as the former requires also the washing of the clothing one happens to wear whilst carrying the unclean thing (Sifra, Shemini, Section 4 8).
Ibn Ezra
"And one who carries" — is subject to greater stringency than one who merely touches, and must therefore launder his garments, all the more so his body. This is likewise the rule for every [non-kosher] animal. Here too Scripture uses an abbreviated style. Likewise: an animal that has a cloven hoof but does not chew its cud, or that chews its cud but does not have a cloven hoof — and it already stated, "and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are impure for you."
Tur HaArokh
וכל הנושא מנבלתם יכבס בגדיו, “and anyone carrying part of such a carcass, etc.” The Torah applied more stringent laws for carrying such a cadaver than for merely coming into contact with it without moving it. The latter is required to also immerse his garments before he and they can become purified. The reason may be that ”touching” is presumed to be a light touch, something merely incidental, whereas “carrying” implies major preoccupation with the cadaver in question. The garments of a carrier had an active part in the cadaver being transported.
Every beast which parts the hoof, but is not cloven footed, nor chews the cud, is unclean to you; everyone who touches them shall be unclean.
verse value 4152
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 72 letters. The shortest word is "they" (הֵ֖ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·all·the·cattle" (לְֽכׇל־הַבְּהֵמָ֡ה, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 116: it·is·not, it·is·not. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "to·all·the·cattle" (לְֽכׇל־הַבְּהֵמָ֡ה), "cleaving" (שֹׁסַ֗עַת), "and·cud" (וְגֵרָה֙). The root שסע appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "all·who·touches" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·you', dividing the verse into phrases of 14 and 3 words.
Onkelos
As for every beast that has a split hoof but is not cloven-footed, and does not bring up the cud — they are unclean to you; whoever touches them shall be unclean.
Rashi
מפרסת פרסה ושסע איננה שסעת WHICH DIVIDETH THE HOOF AND IS NOT CLOVEN FOOTED, such as the camel, the hoof of which is split on top but is attached below (see Rashi on v. 3); here it tells you that the carcass of an unclean animal causes uncleanness and in the paragraph which is at the end of this section (vv. 39–40) it sets forth the law concerning the carcass of a clean animal.
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "all who touch them" — namely, their carcasses mentioned above — they become impure in the manner stated, that is, until evening. There is a sect among the Sadducees who said that one who touches them while they are still alive becomes impure, but there is no need to respond to words of madness, for Scripture only prohibited their flesh and said, "and their carcasses you shall not touch."
Chizkuni
לכל הבהמה אשר היא, “all of the above mentioned four legged domestic beasts (when dead) that do not possess the features mentioned confer ritual impurity upon people touching them or carrying them even if death had been caused by ritual slaughter. (Compare verse 8) כל הנוגע בהם יטמא, “everyone who touches them will be considered ritually unclean.” This is the verse that makes clear that there is no way such animals can escape conferring ritual contamination by any manner of death.
Rashbam
הבהמה, even though such a mammal does have hooves instead of toes, but it does not have them split all the way making two hooves out of it. וגרה איננה מעלה, or it does not regurgitate its food; כל הנוגע בהם, anyone touching their carcasses regardless if they died of natural causes or were ritually slaughtered. The Torah did not spell out on this occasion במותם, while they are dead, but when speaking of the ritually pure beasts it did add this rider. (compare verse 39) This had to be added so that we would know that only if such an animal died of natural causes or non ritual slaughter would the carcass confer ritual impurity, if, however, it had been slaughtered while still alive although mortally wounded, טרפה.
And whatever goes upon its paws, among all beasts that go on all fours, they are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening.
verse value 2594
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 63 letters. The shortest word is "they" (הֵ֖ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "in·all·the·wild·animal" (בְּכׇל־הַֽחַיָּה֙, 7 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "on·its·paws" (עַל־כַּפָּ֗יו), "in·all·the·wild·animal" (בְּכׇל־הַֽחַיָּה֙), "that·walks" (הַהֹלֶ֣כֶת). The root כל appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "and·all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus); "all·who·touches" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·you', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְכֹ֣ל [and·all] (56) + הוֹלֵ֣ךְ [walking] (61) + עַל־כַּפָּ֗יו [on·its·paws] (216) + בְּכׇל־הַֽחַיָּה֙ [in·all·the·wild·animal] (80) + הַהֹלֶ֣כֶת [that·walks] (460) + עַל־אַרְבַּ֔ע [upon·four] (373) + טְמֵאִ֥ים [impure] (100) + הֵ֖ם [they] (45) + לָכֶ֑ם [to·you] (90) + כׇּל־הַנֹּגֵ֥עַ [all·who·touches] (178) + בְּנִבְלָתָ֖ם [in·their·carcass] (524) + יִטְמָ֥א [he·shall·be·impure] (60) + עַד־הָעָֽרֶב [until·the·evening] (351) = 2594.
Onkelos
And whatever walks upon its paws among all the animals that walk on four legs — they are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening.
Rashi
על כפיו UPON ITS PAWS — such as a dog, bear and cat (which have no hoofs). טמאים הם לכם ARE UNCLEAN UNTO YOU, in respect to any contact with them.
Ibn Ezra
"And all that walks on its paws" — at the outset the rule is the same; so too one who carries their carcass. This verse confirms my explanation of the phrase ve-le'elleh titame'u, for there it is written "and all who carry from their carcasses" — and both passages are in the same section. The meaning of "they are impure for you" — to include all Israel, men, women, and children, under one and the same rule.
Tur HaArokh
וכל הולך על כפיו, “and all creatures that ”walk,” i.e. move on their paws, etc.” Whereas in connection with the mammals that are forbidden to eat, the Torah had lumped them together under the heading of בהמה, here the Torah uses the heading חיה as neither having split hooves nor chewing the cud. Why did not the Torah mention the disqualification from being as a “Kosher” being one that walks on paws already at the beginning of our chapter? Nachmanides speculates that possibly the reason is that even gentiles as a rule do not eat animals that walk on their paws. [this sounds strange to this editor, as surely in Nachmanides’ time eating of hares and rabbits which walk on their paws was already commonplace? Ed.] At any rate the term חיה is a sub category of the comprehensive term בהמה, so that there was no need to refer to that feature earlier.
And he who bears the carcass of them shall immerse his garments, and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to you.
verse value 2049
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 42 letters. The shortest word is "they" (הֵ֖מָּה, 3 letters) and the longest is "their·carcass" (אֶת־נִבְלָתָ֔ם, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "their·carcass" (אֶת־נִבְלָתָ֔ם), "they" (הֵ֖מָּה). The root טמא appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·he·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "to·you" (root לכם, 62x in Leviticus); "his·clothes" (root בגד, 52x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'until·the·evening', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְהַנֹּשֵׂא֙ [and·who·lifts] (362) + אֶת־נִבְלָתָ֔ם [their·carcass] (923) + יְכַבֵּ֥ס [he·shall·wash] (92) + בְּגָדָ֖יו [his·clothes] (25) + וְטָמֵ֣א [and·he·shall·be·impure] (56) + עַד־הָעָ֑רֶב [until·the·evening] (351) + טְמֵאִ֥ים [impure] (100) + הֵ֖מָּה [they] (50) + לָכֶֽם [to·you] (90) = 2049.
Onkelos
And one who carries their carcass shall immerse his garments and be unclean until the evening — they are unclean to you.
Chizkuni
והנושא את נבלתם, “and anyone carrying their cadavers, etc.” By repeating this the Torah teaches that merely moving such a carcass, even without directly touching it confers ritual impurity on the person doing so. The Jerusalem Targum uses the word מסיט to describe such indirect “carrying.”
Rashbam
והנושא, not necessarily carrying it, but even moving it, indirectly. However, if he carried a carcass on his shoulder without touching it and without moving from his spot he does not become ritually impure as a result. This is what we learned in Zavim 5,3: “even if the dead body is lying on the bed and there is some piece of paper underneath the body separating from other objects such a body does not confer ritual impurity unless any of these objects had been moved. A dead body only confers impurity by even minimal motion.” In the Targum Yerushalmi the word נושא is translated as “moved.”
Targum Yonatan
Whoever toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until evening. Whoever beareth their carcase shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; unclean are they to you.
And these are they which are unclean to you among the swarming things that swarm upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds,
verse value 2340 — וְזֶ֤ה = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 44 letters. Notable word values: "and·this" (וְזֶ֤ה) = 18, chai, 'life'. Verse gematria: 2340 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "and·this" (וְזֶ֤ה, 3 letters) and the longest is "upon·the·earth" (עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ, 6 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·this" (וְזֶ֤ה), "in·the·swarming·thing" (בַּשֶּׁ֖רֶץ), "the·weasel" (הַחֹ֥לֶד). The root שרץ appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "upon·the·earth" (root ארץ, 77x in Leviticus); "to·you" (root לכם, 62x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·the·earth', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְזֶ֤ה [and·this] (18) + לָכֶם֙ [to·you] (90) + הַטָּמֵ֔א [the·impure] (55) + בַּשֶּׁ֖רֶץ [in·the·swarming·thing] (592) + הַשֹּׁרֵ֣ץ [that·swarms] (595) + עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ [upon·the·earth] (396) + הַחֹ֥לֶד [the·weasel] (47) + וְהָעַכְבָּ֖ר [and·the·mouse] (303) + וְהַצָּ֥ב [and·the·great·lizard] (103) + לְמִינֵֽהוּ [to·its·kind] (141) = 2340.
Onkelos
And these are the unclean ones among the creeping things that creep upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after its kind;
Rashi
וזה לכם הטמא THESE ALSO SHALL BE UNCLEAN TO YOU — All these statements regarding uncleanness that follow are not intended as a prohibition against eating them (not as טמאה ,טמא in vv. 4—7 in the beginning of this section which is the result of eating the animals mentioned) but refers to actual uncleanness, — that one becomes unclean by contact with them and is thereby forbidden to eat the heave-offering and the holy sacrifices, and to enter the Sanctuary. החלד — moustille in O. F.; (English = weasel). והצב — bot in old French; (English = toad), which is like a frog.
Ibn Ezra
"And this is the impure for you" — through contact. These eight [swarming creatures] we cannot identify with certainty — nor can we identify the birds — except through tradition.
Or HaChaim
וזה לכם הטמא. This is what is impure for you among the swarming things which swarm on the earth; considering that Torat Kohanim on the previous paragraph explained the word ואלה as teaching that eating living tissue of an animal causes impurity, the word וזה may be interpreted as comparing present legislation to previously announced legislation. Accordingly, this word teaches that our paragraph also speaks about אבר מן החי, teaching us that it is the limb size and not the size of the meat on it which determines when one becomes culpable regardless of whether we speak of mammals or swarming creatures. Furthermore, the letter ו before the word זה does not have to mean that we are to make the legislation in this paragraph interchangeable with that in the previous paragraph (as is the usual function of this letter ו at the beginning of a new pragaraph), but to give us warning that an additional type of impurity is conferred upon the person contacting the dead שרץ, namely having contacted merely its blood. Touching or otherwise being in contact with the blood of a dead mammal does not confer ritual impurity on a person (compare Torat Kohanim on our verse). The word לכם, "unto you," is explained by Torat Kohanim as excluding blood from such creatures making plants susceptible to impurity as opposed to water and certain other liquids. The word also means that impurity is conferred by such creatures only on Jews, not on Gentiles. We need to examine why the Torah did not include the snake, the original cause of all ritual impurity, in the list of creatures whose carcass causes impurity on contact? Perhaps the reason is that the impurity caused by the serpent was of a spiritual rather than a physical nature. When the serpent dies, its body remains devoid of any vestige of spirituality so that impurity has nothing to attach itself to. We find a similar reasoning in Baba Metzia 114 where we are told that the reason the corpse of a pagan does not confer ritual impurity when one finds oneself under the same canopy with such a body is for this very reason. [The Talmud reports the prophet Elijah explaining that the term אדם is not applicable to pagans; hence their dead bodies cannot confer impurity by one being under the same canopy with such bodies. Ed.] Whereas the bodies of Israelites confer impurity when one is under the same canopy with them, this is because there is a residue of spirituality adhering to such bodies. [in kabbalistic terms there has not yet been a clean break between the fusion of soul (source of spirituality) and body which existed when the person was alive. Ed.] שרצים confer impurity by their bodies rather than by their spirits and this is why they confer such impurity only after they are dead. The impurity of the serpent by contrast is far more intense than that of the שרצים. למינהו, according to its kind. The meaning of the word is that there are numerous categories of turtles and lizards. Even if there were only one category of lizar...
Chizkuni
על הארץ, “on the earth;” as opposed to the ones “in the water.”
Tur HaArokh
The author quotes Rabbi Avraham Bing, of Wuerzburg, Germany who calculated that the numerical value of the word השורץ is equivalent to the numerical values of the word כשעורה, a measure that our sages established as the minimum quantity of bone of such a cadavar which has the ability to confer ritual impurity on those contacting it. [These numbers do not match, i.e word כשעורה having a numerical value of 601, whereas the word השורץ as spelled here without the letter ו amounting only to 595. Ed.] Later authorities question the relevance of this as the minimum size of such a piece of bone is not the size of a kernel of barley, i.e. כשעורה, but the much greater size of כעדשה, corresponding to the size of a lentil. I have heard an answer concerning this apparent inconsistency, by a statement that the author of the book שמרה רוחי in which this gimmatria appeared meant כשערה, “as the size of the width of a hair”. His words would then be in line with those expressed in a baraitha in Chulin folio 126 according to which the size of hole in an eggshell of the egg of such a teeming creature (the inside of which already contained the beginnings of an embryo) so that he who touches it on the outside is perceived as having touched that embryo, would need to be of that thickness. Our verse would hint at this, seeing that the word השורץ is spelled with the letter ו missing, i.e. as השרץ. Once we accept this the supposed numerical value of the word השרץ spelled effectively would match that of the word כשעורה, =595. Personally, I find all this difficult.
and the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand-lizard, and the chameleon.
verse value 1531
Insights
Verse structure: 5 words, 28 letters. The shortest word is "and·the·land·crocodile" (וְהַכֹּ֖חַ, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·the·chameleon" (וְהַתִּנְשָֽׁמֶת, 7 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·the·gecko" (וְהָאֲנָקָ֥ה), "and·the·land·crocodile" (וְהַכֹּ֖חַ), "and·the·lizard" (וְהַלְּטָאָ֑ה). 4 unique roots are used. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·the·lizard', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 2 words. 5 of the verse's 5 words begin with the letter ו. Full calculation: וְהָאֲנָקָ֥ה [and·the·gecko] (167) + וְהַכֹּ֖חַ [and·the·land·crocodile] (39) + וְהַלְּטָאָ֑ה [and·the·lizard] (56) + וְהַחֹ֖מֶט [and·the·sand·lizard] (68) + וְהַתִּנְשָֽׁמֶת [and·the·chameleon] (1201) = 1531.
Onkelos
and the gecko, and the land crocodile, and the lizard, and the snail, and the chameleon.
Rashi
אנקה hérisson in O. F.; English hedgehog. הלטאה — lizard in old French; English lizard. חמט — limace in old French: English snail. תנשמת — talpa in O. F.; English mole.
Rabbeinu Bahya
והחומט והתנשומת, “the snail and the mole.” The Torah lists eight creeping creatures saying: “these are contaminated as far as you are concerned,” without including the snake. Surely this is puzzling as we would have expected the snake to be the prime example of a contaminated creeping creature, seeing it had introduced impurity into the world! We must answer that it is the way of the Torah whose paths are those of striving for peace, not to make touching the snake an offense resulting in ritual impurity; if the Torah had done so it might cause people not to kill snakes in order not to run afoul of that prohibition seeing killing involved touching. This is why the Torah refers to the snake indirectly when referring to “all that crawls on its belly, etc.” (verse 42) which clearly includes the snake. The words “it walks on four (legs)” is a reference to the hornet (according to Sifra Shemini 12,2 ) on the same verse. The creepers described in verse 42 as “walking on many legs,” are the centipedes. These creatures (verse 33) pose grave threats to human beings seeing they infect them with poison. They also cause fatal diseases. This is why the Torah adds the words כי שקץ הם, they are “loathsome,” in addition to the prohibition to eat these creatures. Touching those creatures is perfectly permissible. The eight previously mentioned creatures do not possess poisonous teeth or glands.
These are they which are unclean to you among all that swarm; whoever touches them, when they are dead, shall be unclean until the evening.
verse value 1996 — אֵ֛לֶּה = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 42 letters. Notable word values: "these" (אֵ֛לֶּה) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "these" (אֵ֛לֶּה, 3 letters) and the longest is "in·all·the·swarming·thing" (בְּכׇל־הַשָּׁ֑רֶץ, 7 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·impure" (הַטְּמֵאִ֥ים). The root טמא appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "all·who·touches" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus); "to·you" (root לכם, 62x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·all·the·swarming·thing', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 5 words. Full calculation: אֵ֛לֶּה [these] (36) + הַטְּמֵאִ֥ים [the·impure] (105) + לָכֶ֖ם [to·you] (90) + בְּכׇל־הַשָּׁ֑רֶץ [in·all·the·swarming·thing] (647) + כׇּל־הַנֹּגֵ֧עַ [all·who·touches] (178) + בָּהֶ֛ם [in·them] (47) + בְּמֹתָ֖ם [in·their·death] (482) + יִטְמָ֥א [he·shall·be·impure] (60) + עַד־הָעָֽרֶב [until·the·evening] (351) = 1996.
Onkelos
These are the ones that are unclean to you among all the swarming things; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening.
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "these are the impure ones for you among all the swarming things" — only these are the ones that impart impurity through their death. The meaning of "he shall be impure until evening" — after he washes.
Or HaChaim
הטמאים. the impure ones. How does the Rabbi who did not derive the impurity for the skins of these animals from the word הטמאים explain this word? According to Torat Kohanim on this verse that Rabbi derives from this word that the eggs of such שרצים are impure if they have developed to a stage where they clearly contained an embryo. Me-ilah 17 also teaches that the blood of one category of שרץ and another category of שרץ combine to form the minimal quantity which confers impurity on those contacting same. We have to know what the word אלה is to exclude according to the exegetical approach adopted by that Rabbi. Perhaps we must understand that Rabbi in terms of what Maimonides wrote in the fourth chapter of his treatise Avot Hatumah, namely that the blood of a שרץ conforms to the same rules as the שרץ itself as long as it is part of the animal. The word אלה teaches that when the blood of such a שרץ is no longer part of it, it does not combine with the animal it was taken from to form the minimal quantity which would confer impurity on someone who comes in contact with it.
Chizkuni
כל הנוגע בהם, anyone touching any of the aforementioned creatures (from verse 29 on) when dead, will confer ritual impurity if the size of the creature or its part touched, is at least the size of a lentil. (Sifra)
And upon whatever any of them, when they are dead, falls, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or clothing, or skin, or sack, whatever vessel it be, with which any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; then it shall be clean.
verse value 4313
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 88 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "upon·which·shall·fall" (אֲשֶׁר־יִפֹּל־עָלָיו֩, 10 letters). Words sharing gematria 56: and·all, and·it·shall·be·impure. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "upon·which·shall·fall" (אֲשֶׁר־יִפֹּל־עָלָיו֩), "from·all·article·of·wood" (מִכׇּל־כְּלִי־עֵץ֙), "or·skin" (אוֹ־עוֹר֙). The root טמא appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "it·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "which·shall·be·made" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root טהר ("and·it·shall·be·pure") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·them', dividing the verse into phrases of 15 and 5 words.
Onkelos
And anything upon which any of them falls when they are dead shall be unclean — whether any wooden vessel, or garment, or hide, or sack, any vessel in which work is done; it shall be immersed in water and be unclean until the evening, and then it shall be clean.
Rashi
במים יובא IT MUST BE PUT INTO WATER — but even after it has been immersed, טמא IT IS UNCLEAN in respect to using it to hold the heave - offering, עד הערב UNTIL THE EVENING, AND — afterwards — וטהר IT BECOMETH CLEAN at the setting of the sun (Yevamot 75a).
Ramban
AND EVERY THING UPON WHICH ANY PART OF THEM, WHEN THEY ARE DEAD, DOTH FALL, SHALL BE UNCLEAN: WHETHER IT SHALL BE ANY VESSEL OF WOOD etc. It appears to me in the interpretation of this verse that most likely the expression any of them, when they are dead, alludes to all those mentioned above — impure animals, creeping things, and beasts. For why should He mention the law of impurity of vessels and garments only with reference to creeping things, when it applies also to carcasses? Similarly, all the rules that He mentions with reference to making food susceptible to impurity [conveyed by creeping things], apply equally to all [forms of] impurity, and Scripture speaks of the general concept of them. Do not find it difficult to accept that the expression touch them when they are dead in the first verse applies to the creeping things, while the same expression any of them when they are dead [in Verse 32 before us] applies to all things that convey impurity, for such is the case in many places in Scripture [where similar words apply to different things].It is possible to say that Scripture waited until it had mentioned all impure things amongst cattle, beasts, and creeping things, and then at the end mentioned impurity of vessels with reference to one of them [namely, the creeping things], with which it had concluded this theme, in order that the law of all the others be derived from it, for the opinion of our Rabbis is that the expression any of them when they are dead [in Verse 32 before us] refers [only] to creeping things, and from that they learn that a creeping thing in [a minimal] size of a lentil conveys impurity. Scripture dealt likewise with the subject of immersion, in mentioning at the end of all [the laws of] impurity, the impurity [conveyed by creeping things] to vessels and their purification by immersion, and from it we learn the law of man and vessels with reference to all the impurities mentioned above. IT MUST BE PUT INTO WATER, AND IT SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN; AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. “Even after it has been immersed, it is still impure with regard to the heave-offering, until the setting of the sun, and afterwards at the setting of the sun it becomes pure.” This is Rashi’s language. And the interpretation in the Torath Kohanim is: “And it shall be unclean until the even. I might think that [it shall be impure] for all [purposes]; Scripture therefore says, and it shall be clean. But if so, I might think that it is pure for all purposes; Scripture therefore says, and it shall be unclean until the even. How then can this be explained? It is pure with respect to ordinary food when it is still daytime [immediately after it was immersed to be purified], but regarding the heave-offering it is not held to be pure until it becomes dark.” The interpretation of the verse according to the explanation of the Torath Kohanim is thus: “it must be put into the water [before sundown] and it shall remain unclean till the evening.” But by way...
Ibn Ezra
"Shall be brought into water" — [that is,] the garment, sack, or vessel that is capable of receiving impurity; and we are dependent on the [rabbinic] tradition for the details.
Chizkuni
מכל כלי עץ, “be it any vessel made of wood;” the letter מ at the beginning of the word מכל, teaches that if a piece of wood, or a tree, is too large to be carried by one person falls on to such a dead creature, the wooden object would not become ritually unclean. (Sifra) [The same limitation applies to the other raw materials mentioned in this verse. Ed.] או שק, or sack, ”woven or embroidered materials,” but not vessels constructed of ropes and cords (Rash’bam). אשר יעשה מלאכה בהם, “wherewith any work is being done;” this excludes fabrics used only as covers, or whose insides by definition remain empty. במים יובא, “it shall be put into water (ritual bath); the whole vessel must be immersed in water at one and the same time.” Just as the process of becoming ritually clean again at sunset occurs at one moment, so the removal of contamination must also occur at one and the same time, not piecemeal.
Tur HaArokh
וכל אשר יפול עליו מהם במותם, “and anything which falls upon them when they are dead, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to our sages this verse applies only to the eight species of “teeming creatures” mentioned in verse 29. They derived from this verse that the minimum size of such a teeming creature’s ability to confer ritual impurity is the size of a lentil. (Compare Chagigah 11) According to the plain meaning of the text it would appear that the words מהם במותם, “of them when they are dead,” refer to what the Torah had written earlier in the context of בהמה טמאה, חיה, שרץ, mammals and all land based animals which are ritually unclean and cannot serve as food for Israelites, for why would the Torah mention ritual impurity affecting clothing as a separate subject, seeing that the same rules of impurity also apply to cadavers. Similarly, they all require the same qualifying symptoms in order to potentially be fit for consumption by Israelites. The Torah therefore is presumed to speak of all of these categories here. וטמא עד הערב וטהור, “he will remain in a state of ritual impurity until nightfall, and then he will become ritually clean.” This verse speaks of terumah, the heave (gift) from the grain given to the priest, which after immersion in a ritual bath remains in a state of impurity until evening. Nachmanides writes that the reason why this formula of עד הערב, until nightfall,” is repeated on so many occasions, is that in each of these examples we speak of terumah or something like it, i.e. something which possesses a degree of holiness by definition. Food that is of a secular type, may be consumed by the ordinary Israelites, even when they are in a state of ritual impurity without their having been immersed in a ritual bath. Therefore, if such food has been immersed in a ritual bath there is certainly no need to await sundown before it may be eaten.
Rashbam
מכל כלי עץ, the legislation mentioned here does not apply to vessels constructed out of stone or out of earth. שק, a garment made of goat’s hair. אשר יעשה מלאכה בהם, something that is being actively used, as opposed to something which only serves as a cover.
And every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it.
verse value 4159
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 47 letters. The shortest word is "all" (כֹּ֣ל, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·all·vessel·of·clay" (וְכׇ֨ל־כְּלִי־חֶ֔רֶשׂ, 9 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·all·vessel·of·clay" (וְכׇ֨ל־כְּלִי־חֶ֔רֶשׂ), "into·it" (אֶל־תּוֹכ֑וֹ), "inside·it" (בְּתוֹכ֛וֹ). The root תוך appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "it·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root תוך ("into·it") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'into·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְכׇ֨ל־כְּלִי־חֶ֔רֶשׂ [and·all·vessel·of·clay] (624) + אֲשֶׁר־יִפֹּ֥ל [which·it·shall·fall] (621) + מֵהֶ֖ם [from·them] (85) + אֶל־תּוֹכ֑וֹ [into·it] (463) + כֹּ֣ל [all] (50) + אֲשֶׁ֧ר [which] (501) + בְּתוֹכ֛וֹ [inside·it] (434) + יִטְמָ֖א [it·shall·be·impure] (60) + וְאֹת֥וֹ [and·it] (413) + תִשְׁבֹּֽרוּ [you·shall·break] (908) = 4159.
Onkelos
And every earthenware vessel into which any of them falls — everything within it shall be unclean, and you shall break it.
Rashi
אל תוכו [AND EVERY EARTHEN VESSEL] WHEREINTO [ANY OF THEM FALLETH SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — An earthen vessel does not become unclean except through the medium of its interior (i. e. only if something unclean is inside it) but not by something unclean touching its exterior) (cf. Chullin 24b). כל אשר בתוכו יטמא WHATSOEVER IS INSIDE IT SHALL BE UNCLEAN — the vessel, in turn, renders anything inside it unclean. ואתו תשברו AND IT SHALL YE BREAK — This teaches that there is no purification for it by immersion in a ritual bath, (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 7 13).
Ibn Ezra
"That falls from them into its interior" — from one of them, as in "and he was buried in the cities of Gilead" [Judg. 12:7, where a singular form likewise refers to one of a group].
Chizkuni
אשר יפול מהם, “when into one of them falls;” we find a similar construction to this in Judges 12,7, i.e. באחד מערי גלעד where according to the text as written, ויקבר בערי גלעד, literally: “he was buried in the cities of Gilead,” we might have thought that different parts of his body were buried in different cities, which is of course absurd. The author simply did not feel it necessary to add the word אחד, “one of,” in order for the reader to understand his meaning. אל תוכו, “into its inside;” Rashi comments here that earthen vessels do not become ritually unclean except through the airspace they enclose. The reason for this is that because there is no way to dispose of this contamination except by breaking the vessel in question, the Torah, out of concern for the owner, did not want to make it easy for such vessels to become ritually contaminated, as by its outside coming into contact with ritually polluted items. This is why the Torah wrote: (Numbers 19,15) וכל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו טמא הוא, “and any open vessel which has no covering which closes it tightly on it, is ritually unclean.” In other words, if it had had a tight lid on it, it would not have become ritually unclean. If the outside of this vessel without a tight covering had been in contact with something ritually unclean all day it would need to be broken up completely to dispose of this impurity. There is no way that it could have been reinstated as fit for use. ואתו תשבות, “and you will have to break it.” The reason is that it had absorbed too much impurity.” Besides, seeing that it is not expensive to replace, the financial loss for the owner is minimal.
All food in it which may be eaten, that on which water comes, shall be unclean; and all drink in every such vessel that may be drunk shall be unclean.
verse value 3383
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 56 letters. The shortest word is "that" (אֲשֶׁ֣ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "from·all·the·food" (מִכׇּל־הָאֹ֜כֶל, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 501: that, that, and·any·liquid, that. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "from·all·the·food" (מִכׇּל־הָאֹ֜כֶל), "waters" (מַ֖יִם), "and·any·liquid" (וְכׇל־מַשְׁקֶה֙). The root אשר appears 3 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "it·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "upon·it" (root על, 127x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it·shall·be·impure', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 5 words. Full calculation: מִכׇּל־הָאֹ֜כֶל [from·all·the·food] (146) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [that] (501) + יֵאָכֵ֗ל [shall·be·eaten] (61) + אֲשֶׁ֨ר [that] (501) + יָב֥וֹא [comes] (19) + עָלָ֛יו [upon·it] (116) + מַ֖יִם [waters] (90) + יִטְמָ֑א [it·shall·be·impure] (60) + וְכׇל־מַשְׁקֶה֙ [and·any·liquid] (501) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [that] (501) + יִשָּׁתֶ֔ה [shall·be·drunk] (715) + בְּכׇל־כְּלִ֖י [in·all·vessel] (112) + יִטְמָֽא [it·shall·be·impure] (60) = 3383.
Onkelos
Any food that may be eaten upon which water comes shall be unclean; and any liquid that may be drunk in any vessel shall be unclean.
Rashi
מכל האכל אשר יאכל OF ALL THE FOOD WHICH MAY BE EATEN — This is to be connected with the preceding verse (consequently the words ואתו תשברו v. 33 are a parenthesis): “whatsoever is in it shall be unclean”; viz., anything of all food which may be eaten upon which water has once come, if it is in an earthen vessel which is unclean, itself becomes unclean. [And similarly all drink that may be drunk in any vessel, if it is in an earthen vessel that is unclean, itself becomes unclean]. From this we learn several things: we learn that food is not fitted and liable to become unclean until water has once come upon it, and after water has once come on it it can any time after become unclean, and even after it has become dry; that wine and oil and anything which is termed משקה, liquid, (besides the three mentioned, also blood, milk, dew and honey of bees; cf. Mishnah Makhshirin 6:4) makes vegetation fitted to become unclean even as water does, for thus must the verse be expounded: any food upon which there cometh water or any liquid which may be drunk out of any vessel, that food shall become unclean. Further our Rabbis derive from here the law that a “secondary uncleanness” (ולד הטומאה) cannot render “vessels” (a term used to denote anything except food and animate beings) unclean. For thus we read in a Boraitha (Pesachim 20a): One might think, since Scripture states v. 33: anything that is inside it shall be unclean, that all “vessels” that are placed inside an earthen vessel become unclean through the medium of the interior of an earthen vessel (i. e. because they are in contact with the earthen vessel which has itself become unclean through something unclean having been inside it)! It, however, says: all that is within it shall become unclean … of any food etc., — i.e., food [and liquids] may become unclean through the medium of the interior of an unclean earthen vessel, but no “vessels” can become unclean through the medium of the interior of an unclean earthen vessel. Now since a dead שרץ, “reptile” (which causes the uncleanness to the earthen vessel) is a primary source of uncleanness (אב הטומאה) and the object which has been rendered unclean by it (in this case the כלי חרס) is a secondary uncleanness (ולד הטומאה), consequently we have the rule that the latter a secondary uncleanness — cannot in turn render unclean “vessels” which are in it. And we further learn from this (Pesachim 20a) that if a dead reptile (שרץ) falls into the interior of an earthen oven in which there is bread, but the reptile does not come in contact with the bread, the oven becomes a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree (ראשון לטומאה) and the bread one of the second degree (because the bread only becomes unclean through having come in contact with the oven which is only a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree, and not a primary source): and we do not say that we regard the oven which contains the primary source as though it were full of uncleanne...
Ramban
OF ALL THE FOOD WHICH MAY BE EATEN, THAT ON WHICH WATER COMETH, SHALL BE UNCLEAN. Rashi commented: “This verse according to its [Rabbinical] interpretations teaches many things. We learn that food does not become fit to be susceptible of impurity until water has once come upon it, and once water has come upon it, it can subsequently at any time become impure, even after it has become dry, etc. Our Rabbis have further learned from this verse that ‘a secondary impurity’ does not render vessels impure, for so we are taught etc. Again we learn that the coming of water upon vegetation makes it susceptible to impurity only after it has been plucked from the soil etc.” And included among the principles [we learn from this verse], Rashi said: “And we further learn that impure foodstuff does not convey impurity to other objects unless it [the former] consists of at least the size of an egg, for it says, of all the food which may be eaten, which means food which can be eaten in one gulp, and the Sages calculated that the esophagus does not hold more than a hen’s egg.” This is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi.].But there is [too great a] brevity in Rashi’s comment. For this verse speaks about foodstuff itself becoming impure, and does not refer to its conveying impurity to others. The Rabbi [Rashi], however, derived this principle from what the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim: “Of all the food etc. shall be unclean. This teaches that food [upon which a dead creeping thing falls], is rendered impure even if it be of the smallest quantity. Now I might think that it can also convey impurity to other objects if the [original] impure food was of the smallest quantity; Scripture therefore says, which may be eaten. Thus you learn that it cannot render other things impure unless it is itself the size of an egg.” But other authorities have already differed with the Rabbi [Rashi], and they brought proofs that by Scriptural law foodstuffs do not [even] become impure at all unless they are of the size of an egg. Thus the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim [mentioned above] is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic law, the Rabbis having added [the stricture] that foodstuffs of even the smallest size also become impure [although they cannot convey impurity to others unless they themselves are the size of an egg]. The main interpretation of the verse is as the Rabbis have said there [in the Torath Kohanim]: “The food. This is to exclude food for cattle [that it is not susceptible to impurity]. Of all the food — this is to include food for cattle which one intended to use for human consumption. Which may be eaten, excepting decomposed foods.”
Ibn Ezra
"And any beverage" [mashkeh] — here it is a noun; whereas va-ani hayiti mashkeh ["and I was the cupbearer"] is an active participle.
Chizkuni
אשר יבא עליו מים יטמא, “(any food) which has become wet through contact with water has become subject to ritual impurity.”The Torah had found it as necessary to spell out the rules governing how different kinds of food or drink and seeds may become subject to ritual contamination until this point. [As long as fruit or grain is on the tree or attached to the soil, no rainfall can contaminate it. Ed.] As soon as it had been mixed with water it became fit as food and seeing that water was no longer connected to its origin, river or pond, liquids other than water when not integral to the fruit from which they have been squeezed, confer basic susceptibility to ritual defilement. Orange juice, etc, while in the orange is therefore not considered as a “liquid” at that stage. Wine, dew, oil, blood, which are not part of their original status anymore are subject to the same rules as water that is no longer part of the earth it came forth from. This is also the reason why the Torah had written: מים, “water,” and not כל מים, “water, “any (kind of) water.” בכל כלי, “in any such vessel,” the logic is that just as the vessel is no longer attached to the origin from which its craftsman had detached it, so any other material which has been attached from its origin is liable to become a source directly or indirectly of ritual defilement. This rule means that water contained in cisterns and caves is not liable to make the vessels in that airspace subject to ritual defilement as long as they have not been detached.
Rashbam
אשר יבא עליו מים יטמא, those who wish to find a reason for G’d’s commandments in order to confound the heretics, and in order to make them intelligible in terms of the laws of nature, would do well to consider this piece of legislation. Foodstuffs, originating in the earth, though subject to ritual impurity under certain conditions, are free from even potential impurity as long as they have not been in contact with water The first step in preparing earth grown food is to wash it, etc. Therefore, as long as no water has fallen on such potential food it is free from such impurity or potential impurity. [Water which fell on it against the wishes of its owner does not count. Ed.]
And everything on which any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean; whether oven, or range for pots, it shall be broken in pieces; they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you.
verse value 3229
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 56 letters. The shortest word is "they" (הֵ֑ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "which·it·shall·fall" (אֲשֶׁר־יִפֹּ֨ל, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "or·stove" (וְכִירַ֛יִם), "shall·be·smashed" (יֻתָּ֖ץ), "and·impure" (וּטְמֵאִ֖ים). The root טמא appears 3 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "they·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "it·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "upon·it" (root על, 127x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'they', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְ֠כֹ֠ל [and·all] (56) + אֲשֶׁר־יִפֹּ֨ל [which·it·shall·fall] (621) + מִנִּבְלָתָ֥ם [from·their·carcass] (562) + עָלָיו֮ [upon·it] (116) + יִטְמָא֒ [it·shall·be·impure] (60) + תַּנּ֧וּר [an·oven] (656) + וְכִירַ֛יִם [or·stove] (286) + יֻתָּ֖ץ [shall·be·smashed] (500) + טְמֵאִ֣ים [impure] (100) + הֵ֑ם [they] (45) + וּטְמֵאִ֖ים [and·impure] (106) + יִהְי֥וּ [they·shall·be] (31) + לָכֶֽם [to·you] (90) = 3229.
Onkelos
And anything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean; an oven or a stove shall be demolished — they are unclean and shall remain unclean to you.
Rashi
תנור וכרים OVEN OR RANGES FOR POTS — These are movable objects, and they are of earthenware, they have an interior and one places the pot over the opening of the hollow space (the cavity); both have their openings on top. יתץ SHALL BE BROKEN DOWN — because for an earthenware article there can be no purification by immersion in water. וטמאים יהיו לכם AND THEY SHALL BE UNCLEAN TO YOU — In order that you should not say, “I am under a command to break it down”, it therefore states וטמאים יהיו לכם — i. e. if one wishes to let them remain in their state of uncleanness (when they may still be used for חולין) one has the right to do so (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 10 10). [יתץ therefore means: “should be broken down”, and the following words signify: “but though they are unclean (וטמאים) they may remain with you (יהיו לכם)”].
Ramban
AND EVERYTHING WHEREUPON ANY PART OF THEIR CARCASS FALLETH SHALL BE UNCLEAN; WHETHER OVEN, OR RANGE FOR POTS, ‘YUTATZ’ (IT SHALL BE BROKEN DOWN). Scripture teaches you here that the law of the oven and range for pots which are made of clay — in which fire is kindled and bread baked — is, [although they are] attached to the ground, like the law of earthenware pottery such as pots and jugs, which are burnt in a furnace and are movable objects, in that they too [oven and ranges], can become impure, and cannot [thereafter] be purified in an immersion-pool [in the same way that movable pottery cannot be purified]. Scripture states ‘yutatz’ (it shall be broken down) and does not say yishaber [“it shall be broken in pieces” — as it says in speaking of movable earthenware which has become impure,] in order to teach that the oven and range need not be broken so that there shall not be found among the pieces thereof a shard to take fire from the hearth, but instead they should be destroyed to the extent that they should no longer be capable of serving their [original] purpose. [The word ‘yutatz’ is] further used to teach that they become impure even though they are attached to the earth, and [the owner] must break down what he built, for the meaning of the term nethitzah is the breaking down of something built, such as the expressions: ‘vatitzu’ (and ye broke down)the houses; ‘v’nathatz’ (and he shall pull down) the house.
Ibn Ezra
The oven — used for baking bread — and the stove — used for cooking meat — are to be demolished, for they are impure; this is the decree of the King.
Chizkuni
תנור, and an oven for baking bread; כירים, a kitchen range, for boiling meat, will be considered as having been contaminated and unfit for further use. These vessels are usually made of earthenware [in those days. Ed.] The warning is addressed to both men and women as well as to children.
Tur HaArokh
תנור וכירים יותץ, “an oven or stove must be smashed;” the news in this verse is that although these ovens or stoves are fastened to the ground they stand on, something which normally would make them immune to becoming affected with ritual impurity, in the situation described they are subject to the same rules as are earthenware vessels which are not fastened to the ground anymore. In order for such vessels to lose their contamination they must be broken up into pieces small enough to make them practically useless in terms of what they were made for. The reason why the Torah employed the expression יותץ instead of the more common ישבר, for describing something broken, is because the term יותץ which describes the destruction of a building, contains within it the hint that even stoves and ovens which are like buildings must also be destroyed in order to shed their ritual impurity. We find this expression in connection with houses afflicted with tzoraat, as in Leviticus
Nevertheless a fountain or a cistern in which is a gathering of water shall be clean; but he who touches their carcass shall be unclean.
verse value 1609
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 39 letters. The shortest word is "only" (אַ֣ךְ, 2 letters) and the longest is "gathering·of·water" (מִקְוֵה־מַ֖יִם, 7 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "spring" (מַעְיָ֥ן), "and·cistern" (וּב֛וֹר), "gathering·of·water" (מִקְוֵה־מַ֖יִם). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "he·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "and·touching" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'pure', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: אַ֣ךְ [only] (21) + מַעְיָ֥ן [spring] (170) + וּב֛וֹר [and·cistern] (214) + מִקְוֵה־מַ֖יִם [gathering·of·water] (241) + יִהְיֶ֣ה [it·shall·be] (30) + טָה֑וֹר [pure] (220) + וְנֹגֵ֥עַ [and·touching] (129) + בְּנִבְלָתָ֖ם [in·their·carcass] (524) + יִטְמָֽא [he·shall·be·impure] (60) = 1609.
Onkelos
However, a spring or a cistern — a gathering-place of water — shall remain clean; but one who touches their carcass shall be unclean.
Rashi
עין ובור מקוה מיםאך מ NEVERTHELESS A FOUNTAIN OR A PIT WHERE THERE IS A GATHERING OF WATERS which are attached to the ground are not receptive of uncleanness (not being included in וכל משקה וגו׳ בכל כלי mentioned in v. 34, since it states here יהיה טהור, it shall remain clean). But you may also give it the meaning: יהיה טהור, he shall be clean i.e. he who immerses himself in them to free himself from his uncleanness. ונגע בנבלתם יטמא BUT THAT WHICH TOUCHES THEIR CARRION SHALL BE UNCLEAN — even if one is in the fountain or pit and comes in contact with their uncleanness (their carcasses) he shall be unclean. This is specifically stated in order that you should not argue à fortiori as follows: since it cleanses the unclean from their uncleanness, it follows à fortiori that it will save the clean from becoming unclean, — it stales therefore, “but whoever touches their carrion shall be unclean” (Sifra, Shemini, Section 9 5; Nedarim 75b).
Ramban
NEVERTHELESS A FOUNTAIN OR A CISTERN WHEREIN IS A GATHERING OF WATER SHALL BE CLEAN. Scripture is stating that the waters in the immersion-pool whilst attached to the ground are not susceptible to impurity if any [source of] impurity should fall therein. BUT THAT WHICH TOUCHETH THEIR CARCASS SHALL BE UNCLEAN. The meaning thereof is as follows: “but waters which touch the carcass [of any of the creeping things] shall become impure, [meaning that waters which are separated [from a gathering of water] are rendered impure if they touch their carcass. [The phrase, and [waters] which touch their carcass shall be unclean, must be referring to detached waters], for when the waters are still attached to the pool, they cannot [be said to] ‘touch’ their carcass, but rather [Scripture should have said], their carcass ‘fell’ into it.” Scripture speaks of water in the singular [saying, v’nogeia — “and that which toucheth”], just as it says elsewhere, the water of sprinkling was not sprinkled upon him. Or it may be that Scripture is saying, “and whatsoever touches their carcass shall be impure,” and the intent is to include water and [the other] drinks mentioned. In general, this verse comes to teach that water is susceptible to impurity when it is detached [from a pool], but not when it is attached thereto, a principle that has not been mentioned heretofore. Now in the Torath Kohanim we find that [the Rabbis gave this interpretation]: “Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said: But that which toucheth their carcass shall be unclean. By touching they [i.e., the eight dead creeping things] convey impurity, but not by carrying them.” This too is feasible, that [the verse] is referring back to all the laws mentioned [in Verses 24-5] previously, and saying that creeping things convey impurity only by touch. Our Rabbis have further interpretations of the redundant expressions in this [whole] verse, all of them laws given to Moses on Sinai. Now Scripture mentioned the purity of the immersion-pool and waters attached to the ground in speaking of [the impurity conveyed by] creeping things, but the same law applies to [that conveyed by] carrion [of animals forbidden as food, and of those permitted animals not slaughtered properly or which died by themselves]. It waited, however, to mention [the law concerning the purity of pools till now], until it had completed the enumeration of all objects that convey impurity. Or it may be that it is because creeping things frequently die in fountains or in cisterns. I have already mentioned my opinion [that this verse mentions the impurity of vessels conveyed by creeping things and their purification by immersion, and from it we learn the law of people and vessels in connection with the other forms of impurity mentioned above].
Ibn Ezra
"Be'er" [a spring] — in the Holy Tongue this is feminine; it is a naturally flowing [source], as in "as a well keeps its waters fresh" [Jer. 6:7]. A bor is [a cistern] dug or excavated downward beneath the ground. If so, the be'er is like a spring, and there is no need to mention a stream. "A gathering of water" [miqveh mayim] is annexed [as a phrase] to bor, for there is a bor that has no water in it. Some say that miqveh is defective in spelling, missing a vav, as are Re'uven, Shim'on, shemesh, and yareaḥ [which similarly lack expected vavs]. "And [he who] touches their carcasses" — waters that come into contact with their carcasses become impure.
Rashbam
אך מעיין ובור, according to the plain meaning of the text, water connected to the earth, though in a container such as a pool, is not subject to ritual impurity as mentioned in verse 34, except water which is in a man made container, the container having already become subject to such purity before any water was poured into it.
And if anything of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it is clean.
verse value 2448 — וְכִ֤י = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 37 letters. Notable word values: "and·if" (וְכִ֤י) = 36, double chai. Verse gematria: 2448 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "and·if" (וְכִ֤י, 3 letters) and the longest is "upon·all·seed" (עַל־כׇּל־זֶ֥רַע, 7 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "he·shall·fall" (יִפֹּל֙), "upon·all·seed" (עַל־כׇּל־זֶ֥רַע), "sown" (זֵר֖וּעַ). The root זרע appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "and·if" (root כי, 81x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root זרע ("upon·all·seed") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be·sown', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְכִ֤י [and·if] (36) + יִפֹּל֙ [he·shall·fall] (120) + מִנִּבְלָתָ֔ם [from·their·carcass] (562) + עַל־כׇּל־זֶ֥רַע [upon·all·seed] (427) + זֵר֖וּעַ [sown] (283) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [that] (501) + יִזָּרֵ֑עַ [shall·be·sown] (287) + טָה֖וֹר [pure] (220) + הֽוּא [it] (12) = 2448.
Onkelos
And if any of their carcass falls upon any seed grain that is to be sown — it is clean.
Rashi
זרע זרוע means seed of any kind of seed-plant. The word זרוע is a noun (not a passive participle, when it would be punctuated זָרוע), like (Daniel 1:12) "and let them give us of pulse — זֵרוֹעִים". טהור הוא HE SHALL BE CLEAN — Scripture by means of this and the following verse teaches you that it does not become fitted and proper to be termed food and therefore to be receptive of uncleanness, until water comes upon it.
Ramban
ZERA ZEIRUA’ (SEED OF SOWING). “Zera means ‘seed’ of any kind of seed-plant. Zeirua is the noun (‘sowing,’ ‘thing sown’), like the expression, and let them give us ‘zeiro’im’ (edible seeds) to eat. [And if aught of their carcass fall upon any seed of sowing which is to be sown] it is clean. This is to teach you that food is not fit and susceptible of becoming impure until water has once come upon it.” This is Rashi’s language. Now Scripture mentioned above, of all the food which may be eaten, that on which water cometh [shall be unclean], establishing the principle that foodstuff must first become susceptible to impurity [through coming into contact with water]. But there the Rabbis interpreted it to mean the foodstuff is not rendered impure through the medium of the interior of an [impure] earthen vessel, unless it was made susceptible of receiving impurity by being moistened by water. But here Scripture added that even from [contact with] the creeping things themselves, foodstuff does not become impure unless it was made susceptible [by water]. So it is explained in the Torath Kohanim. It is also possible to say that the expression of all the food which may be eaten. refers to the things mentioned above — meat and various foods. But here He states that even seeds when taken out to be sown, can be rendered impure if they have become susceptible to impurity by being moistened by water. The reason for foodstuffs having to be made susceptible by water [before they can become impure], is that the uncleanness of [dead] creeping things and the other sources of impurity, attaches to foodstuffs in their state of moisteness, but not when they are dry. The Torah then, as an extra precautionary measure, declared impure those foods on which water had once come, although they have [subsequently] become dry, [if they were then touched by any of the sources of impurity], in order that the rule should not vary according to different standards. Now the law of making food susceptible of becoming impure applies also to the impurity [conveyed] by carrion, Scripture having mentioned it here for the reason we have stated above.
Ibn Ezra
"Seed" [zeru'a] — an adjective [i.e., "sown seed"], like a pa'ul form; or they are two distinct words [zer'a and zeru'a], as evidenced by "and he shall give them zir'onim" [Dan. 1:12, a related form].
Chizkuni
אשר יזרע, “which is to be sown;” which is to take root in the soil. This teaches that even seed which had been ritually impure will be transformed and be ritually clean once it has taken root. (Rash’bam.
Tur HaArokh
על כל זרע זרוע, “upon any edible seed that has been planted;” we learn from here that what has been planted as potential food will never be able to be ritually contaminated unless, after having been separated from the earth, it also has undergone a process of making it potentially fit to be ritually contaminated. In most cases, such as here, it means that it had become wet with the active or passive consent of the owner. Although we have already derived this rule from the verse (34) commencing with the words מכל האוכל, I would have had reason to think that such food is immune from contamination in the airspace of an earthenware vessel only. Alternately, previously the Torah only spoke about the kind of foodstuffs that are ready to be eaten in their present state, whereas in our verse here the Torah includes the seed, i.e potential food. As for the reason why these foodstuffs require a preparatory step approved by their owner before they are liable to become ritually contaminated, according to Nachmanides, the reason is that the dirt from these teeming creatures have a tendency to adhere to wet foodstuffs, (fruit) but not to dry ones. The Torah therefore decreed that wet foodstuffs are liable to be contaminated ritually. To the question why they should still be capable of becoming contaminated even if the owner had thoroughly dried these foodstuffs after they had become wet, the answer is that the sages never make their rules apply only partially, i.e. to some scenarios and not to others.
Rashbam
אשר יזרע (בקרקע) טהור. Anything still connected to the earth is not subject to ritual defilement. זרע זרוע, the seed inside seed kernels. The word zerua is the singular mode of the word zeronim, זרעונים in Daniel 1,12, meaning “pulse.” [Alshich explains that it is a reference to raw pulse. At any rate this is the kernel containing the reproductive power of the plant in question. Ed.]
But if water be put upon the seed, and anything of their carcass fall on it, it is unclean to you.
verse value 1959 — וְכִ֤י = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 37 letters. Notable word values: "and·if" (וְכִ֤י) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "and·if" (וְכִ֤י, 3 letters) and the longest is "shall·be·given·waters" (יֻתַּן־מַ֙יִם֙, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "shall·be·given·waters" (יֻתַּן־מַ֙יִם֙), "upon·seed" (עַל־זֶ֔רַע), "and·it·shall·fall" (וְנָפַ֥ל). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "upon·it" (root על, 127x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְכִ֤י [and·if] (36) + יֻתַּן־מַ֙יִם֙ [shall·be·given·waters] (550) + עַל־זֶ֔רַע [upon·seed] (377) + וְנָפַ֥ל [and·it·shall·fall] (166) + מִנִּבְלָתָ֖ם [from·their·carcass] (562) + עָלָ֑יו [upon·it] (116) + טָמֵ֥א [impure] (50) + ה֖וּא [it] (12) + לָכֶֽם [to·you] (90) = 1959.
Onkelos
But if water has been placed on seed grain and then any of their carcass falls upon it — it is unclean to you.
Rashi
זרע על מים וכי יתן BUT IF ANY WATER BE PUT ON THE SEED, after it has been plucked, … it shall be unclean; for if you assert that there can be fitness to receive uncleanness whilst it is still attached to the soil, you will never have any seed which has not become thus fitted (Chullin 118b; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 8 2 and Rashi on v. 34). מים על זרע WATER ON SEED — whether it be water or any other liquids, whether these are on the seed or the seed falls into them — all this is derived in Torath Cohanim (from the wording) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 11 7-10). ונפל מנבלתם עליו AND ANY PART O. THEIR CARRION FALL THEREON, even after it has become dry from the water, because the Torah is particular only that the name “food” should be applicable to it. Consequently as soon as the fitness to receive uncleanness has once fallen upon it, it can never again be removed from it even if it becomes dry again (cf. Bava Metzia 22a).
Ibn Ezra
"But if water is put" [ki yuttan mayim] — [meaning] that the field was irrigated, and then some of their carcass fell upon the seed; some say [it fell] upon the water. The use of yuttan as a singular verb with mayim [a plural noun] occurs similarly in mei niddah lo zarak alav ["water of lustration has not been sprinkled on him," Num. 19:20]. The word yuttan is like yukkaḥ na me'at mayim ["let a little water be fetched," Gen. 18:4], in the heavy augmented [pu'al] conjugation.
Chizkuni
ונפל מנבלתם, “and part of their carcass fell upon them;” Bones free from flesh, Teeth, horns and hair are not included in the definition “carcass.”
Rabbeinu Bahya
וכי יותן מים על זרע, “But if water had been placed upon a seed,” this verse prompted our sages (Sifra Shemini 11,5) to say that water is a preparatory step to cause plants -including seed which has not yet taken root- to contract ritual impurity. As soon as water (rain) falls on such produce (provided the owner is content that it does) they become capable of being ritually contaminated. They then remain potentially capable of becoming impure even while perfectly dry. The reason is that if we were to treat the cause of the impurity as only objectionable when it sticks to wet or moist produce (after harvest) then the Torah would introduce a double standard, something halachically never accepted. Either certain produce is subject to ritual impurity or it is not. To make it potentially impure only when it is in a state of wetness is not practical.
And if any beast, of which you may eat, die, he that touches the carcass of it shall be unclean until the evening.
verse value 2360 — וְכִ֤י = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 48 letters. Notable word values: "and·if" (וְכִ֤י) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "and·if" (וְכִ֤י, 3 letters) and the longest is "from·the·cattle" (מִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֔ה, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "which·is" (אֲשֶׁר־הִ֥יא), "in·its·carcass" (בְּנִבְלָתָ֖הּ). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "he·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "who·touches" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus); "and·if" (root כי, 81x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·food', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְכִ֤י [and·if] (36) + יָמוּת֙ [he·shall·die] (456) + מִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֔ה [from·the·cattle] (147) + אֲשֶׁר־הִ֥יא [which·is] (517) + לָכֶ֖ם [to·you] (90) + לְאׇכְלָ֑ה [to·food] (86) + הַנֹּגֵ֥עַ [who·touches] (128) + בְּנִבְלָתָ֖הּ [in·its·carcass] (489) + יִטְמָ֥א [he·shall·be·impure] (60) + עַד־הָעָֽרֶב [until·the·evening] (351) = 2360.
Onkelos
And if an animal that you are permitted to eat dies, whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening.
Rashi
בנבלתה [HE THAT TOUCHETH] THE CARRION THEREOF [SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — but not if he touches the bones and sinews, nor the horns and claws, and not the hide after these have been removed from the body (Sifra, Shemini, Section 10 5; Chullin 117b).
Ibn Ezra
"That is permitted to you" [asher hi lakhem] — permitted to eat. "He shall be impure until evening" — after he washes in water.
Chizkuni
וכי ימות מן הבהמה, “if any beast (of the ones you may eat) dies;” if it dies by a cause other than ritual slaughter; once it has been slaughtered ritually, even if found diseased afterwards and therefore unfit to be eaten, it will not become ritually contaminated. (Sifra) אשר היא, this word is spelled with the letter י in the Torah.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וכי ימות מן הבהמה, “if any of the animals (which are pure) has died by natural causes, etc.” The Torah should have used the expression תמות, (feminine form of “it will die”) seeing that the noun בהמה is feminine. Had the Torah written the word תמות we would have concluded that such a carcass can confer ritual impurity only when it is whole, but that sections of it could not confer impurity. By using the masculine ימות we infer that any part of it חלק (masc.) is capable of conferring ritual impurity through contact with it. The expression מן הבהמה must be understood as “part of the beast,”‘ not as “any of certain categories called בהמה.” The expression matches the words וכי יפול מנבלתם “if part of their carcass falls, etc.,” in verse 37. Seeing that the word נבלה which is the subject in that verse is feminine, the Torah could also have been expected to write וכי תפול instead of וכי יפול. Seeing it did not, we can surmise that the same considerations which prompted the use of the masculine form in verse 39 also prompted the use of the masculine form in verse 37. As to the words: “he who touches their carcass” (verse 36), or the words: “who eats of them” in verse 40, our sages explained that such parts of the carcass as the hooves, antlers, horns, skin and hair are exempt from the rule that they confer impurity provided these parts are no longer attached to the flesh when one touches them or eats them. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Ma-achalot Assurot 4,18). Proof of this is that we find that the Israelites took as part of their booty in war numerous vessels made of leather after the campaign against Midian (Numbers 31,20) and the Torah okayed their use by the Israelites after they had been duly immersed in a ritual bath. If these items had possessed the same degree of impurity as the carcasses they had been removed from, no amount of immersion in a ritual bath or other process of purification would have sufficed to permit their use by the Israelites. We also find that Solomon made for himself a throne of ivory (tusk of the elephant, same category as horns) as reported in Kings I 10,18.
Rashbam
'וכי ימות מן הבהמה אשר היא לכם לאכלה וגו, however if it did not die until after it had been slaughtered ritually, even if subsequently found as having been unfit to eat due to a terminal disease, contact with it does not confer any ritual impurity at all on the person having been in contact with it. Our sages (Chulin 74) derive from the expression מן הבהמה that on occasion an animal confers ritual impurity whereas on another occasion the same animal does not. This refers to the fact that ritual slaughter of a species of animal fit to be eaten by Jews is protected against its carcass conferring ritual impurity as long as the immediate cause of death was ritual slaughter.
And he who eats of the carcass of it shall immerse his garments, and be unclean until the evening; he also who bears the carcass of it shall immerse his garments, and be unclean until the evening.
verse value 2887
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 61 letters. The shortest word is "he·shall·wash" (יְכַבֵּ֥ס, 4 letters) and the longest is "its·carcass" (אֶת־נִבְלָתָ֔הּ, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 351: until·the·evening, until·the·evening. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "from·its·carcass" (מִנִּבְלָתָ֔הּ), "its·carcass" (אֶת־נִבְלָתָ֔הּ). The root נבלה appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·he·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "and·who·eats" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "his·clothes" (root בגד, 52x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'until·the·evening', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְהָֽאֹכֵל֙ [and·who·eats] (62) + מִנִּבְלָתָ֔הּ [from·its·carcass] (527) + יְכַבֵּ֥ס [he·shall·wash] (92) + בְּגָדָ֖יו [his·clothes] (25) + וְטָמֵ֣א [and·he·shall·be·impure] (56) + עַד־הָעָ֑רֶב [until·the·evening] (351) + וְהַנֹּשֵׂא֙ [and·who·lifts] (362) + אֶת־נִבְלָתָ֔הּ [its·carcass] (888) + יְכַבֵּ֥ס [he·shall·wash] (92) + בְּגָדָ֖יו [his·clothes] (25) + וְטָמֵ֥א [and·he·shall·be·impure] (56) + עַד־הָעָֽרֶב [until·the·evening] (351) = 2887.
Onkelos
And one who eats of its carcass shall immerse his garments and be unclean until the evening; and one who carries its carcass shall immerse his garments and be unclean until the evening.
Rashi
והנשא את נבלתה HE ALSO THAT BEARETH THE CARRION OF IT [SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — The uncleanness resulting from bearing the carrion is more stringent than the uncleanness resulting from contact with it; for he who bears it thereby renders his garments unclean, whilst as for him who touches it his garments do not thereby become unclean, since it does not state regarding him in the preceding verse: “he shall wash his garments” (cf. Rashi on v. 25). והאכל מנבלתה AND HE THAT EATETH OF ITS CARRION [… SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — One might think from this statement that the act of eating therefrom makes him unclean! But this is not so because when it states of the carcass of a clean fowl (Leviticus 22:8) “that which dies of itself (נבלה) or that which is torn he shall not eat to defile himself therewith”, we may learn from it: בה “therewith” — only that (the carcass of a clean fowl) makes a person’s clothes unclean by the very act of eating therefrom, but the carcass of cattle does not make a person’s clothes unclean by the very act of eating therefrom if there is no carrying involved, e. g., if another person inserts it into his gullet (for one it not regarded as carrying something which is inside his body). But if this be so, why is it here stated “he that eateth”? In order to prescribe as a minimum for making unclean him who bears or touches such carrion a quantity as much as can be called “eating” viz., a piece as large as an olive (Sifra, Shemini, Section 10 7; Niddah 42b). עד הערב וטמא AND HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTO THE EVEN — although he may have immersed himself in water he must await sunset before he becomes clean.
Ramban
AND HE THAT EATETH OF THE CARCASS OF IT SHALL WASH HIS CLOTHES, AND BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse speaks here of one who eats in the way that people usually eat, namely, that he touches and carries what he eats, and therefore becomes impure by contact and by carrying. It was necessary to mention this case so that it should not occur to anyone that because of eating, his degree of impurity should be greater [than that resulting merely from contact and carrying]. It mentioned this law in regard to an animal fit for food [as mentioned in the preceding Verse 39], because a person can [easily] err with regard to it, thinking that it was slaughtered properly [and he will therefore eat it], but such errors do not normally occur with regard to forbidden animals, and the way of the Torah is to speak of what usually happens. But according to its [Rabbinic] interpretation, the verse comes to prescribe the [minimum] size required to become impure through carrying or touching, namely an amount that can be called “eating,” which is the size of an olive and Scripture also mentioned this law in regard to carrion of an animal fit for food, whilst the same law applies to an animal not permitted as food, because He finished here the law of impurities. According to the opinion of the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim, all impurities [conveyed] by carrion [of animals fit for food and those which are unfit animals] are included here, and the section above refers to limbs of animals. I have already mentioned this.
Ibn Ezra
"One who eats" is subject to greater stringency than one who carries, since both carry it — one externally and one internally.
Or HaChaim
והאכל מנבלתה, anyone eating of its carcass, etc. According to Torat Kohanim the only reason this verse was written is to inform us that the size of an animal which confers ritual impurity on someone carrying or touching its carcass is the same as that of someone eating of it, i.e. the size of an olive. The verse does not intend to convey the meaning that a reader who did not read any of the aforegoing would have derived from it, namely the prohibition of eating from such a carcass and that swallowing it confers impurity. The reason that we cannot understand the verse in that way is that we already have a clear verse in Leviticus 22,8: "he must not eat it on pain of becoming impure through it." The word בה in that verse is an exclusion and means that only the carcass of a pure bird which died of natural causes confers such impurity as soon as one swallows it but not the swallowing of parts of a mammal which dies of natural causes rather than ritual slaughter. Dead birds do not confer impurity through contact; therefore the Torah had to tell us that if the bird was a pure bird it does confer impurity as soon as it reaches one's esophagus and if a priest ate from that bird he is disqualified from performing his duties unless he purifies himself. Why did the Torah not spell out such a regulation but depended on our deriving it through exegesis? Perhaps the Torah intended to teach us numerous halachot from a single verse, something that would have been difficult if the verse had only stated that the carrion of a clean bird is capable of conferring impurity by one's swallowing it. We are taught in Chulin 71, for instance, that if the meat of a dead swarming thing has deteriorated to the extent that a dog would reject it as unfit to eat, it no longer confers impurity. This halachah is derived by Tossaphot in Bechorot 23. We have a verse in Kings II 9,10 where Izzevel, wife of king Achav, is described as being eaten by the dogs, not being buried. We note that consumption of meat by dogs is described by the term אוכל the same term used for humans consuming food. Seeing that it is the intention of our verse to establish a linkage between eating and impurity, it is only logical that other halachot of that nature may be derived from this verse.
Chizkuni
והאכל מנבלתה, והנושא את נבלתה, “and anyone who eats from its carcass, or anyone who carries part of that carcass;” the same law applies even if one person carries the carcass while outside sacred grounds and his partner is within sacred grounds. You cannot argue that instead of repeating the words: את נבלתה a second time, the Torah need only have written the pronoun: “it;” different measurements are applied to what is called “eating,” and what is called “carrying;” therefore the noun “its carcass,” had to be repeated. (Compare Rashi).
Rabbeinu Bahya
והאוכל מנבלתם, “if someone eats of the carcass of any of these animals, etc.” Here the Torah speaks of the carcass of a pure bird which had not (previously) conferred ritual impurity on the person eating it through his having touched it. Four-legged pure animals which have died by natural causes (נבלה) do confer impurity by mere touch of their carcass. Not only does the carcass of a pure bird not confer impurity through touch of its carcass by one’s body, but it does not confer impurity when contacting the clothing of the person touching it. The only time it confers impurity is while it is in the gullet of a person swallowing it and that person wears clothing. The clothing of such a person does become ritually impure through such indirect exposure. (Maimonides She-ar Avot Hatum-ah 3,1). It follows from the above that in our verse the word בהמה must include birds. Seeing that this is so there was no need for the Torah to write that the carcasses of free-roaming four-legged pure animals are also included in this legislation (compare Sifra Shemini 2,8). Do not be amazed that according to our tradition the immediate subject of this verse are the pure birds, nor that we understood the term בהמה as applying to a category of bird. This is not the only time in the Torah that such a meaning of the word בהמה is accepted in halachah. We find that the Torah writes (Leviticus 24,21) “one who strikes an animal (בהמה) shall make restitution.” There is certainly no reason to assume that that legislation does not include birds and people who have harmed them. It is simply the style of the Torah to mention examples of things more common rather than situations which are rare. When the Torah writes (Exodus 22,9) that the owner of an ox or a donkey or other four-legged beast which he has entrusted to someone and which has died, is entitled to either compensation or an oath that the person in charge had not been negligent, it goes without saying that if the dead animal had been a bird the same rule would apply.
Tur HaArokh
והאוכל מנבלתה יכבס בגדיו, “and he who eats from that cadaver must wash his clothes (immerse them in a ritual bath)”. Our sages explained this verse as an attempt by the Torah to apply the same yardstick regarding purification of someone who had consumed ritually contaminated food, as to someone whose clothing had become contaminated by it. In both instances contamination, i.e. eating the size of an olive results in the person becoming contaminated, just as contact through carrying of an amount of an olive’s size, results in the carrier becoming ritually unclean. According to the plain meaning of the text, the Torah describes a normal person’s eating habits. He both touches and lifts up the food that he is eating. You might have thought that a worse degree of contamination occurs when the party concerned has not only touched the contaminated food but has also eaten it. The Torah teaches that this is not so. This point is made by the Torah in conjunction with the discussion of “kosher” animals because it is easy to err and to assume that because the animal in question had been prepared for consumption by being ritually slaughtered, that it could not become ritually contaminated. To disabuse us of such thinking the Torah used as its model for this legislation specifically a “kosher” animal. The error the Torah tries to head off, is not likely to occur in conjunction with ritually unclean animals, and it is the habit of the Torah to address the most common scenarios.
Rashbam
מנבלתה , our sages in Niddah 42 understand the wording as telling us something about the minimum size of the carcass which can confer such ritual impurity. [based on the preposition מ in the word מנבלתה, meaning “part of its carcass.” If one carries a sufficient quantity of such a carcass which would qualify halachically as “food,” i.e. consumption of this quantity of forbidden food would make the party culpable for a penalty, then it confers ritual impurity on the person carrying it. The amount is the equivalent of the size of an olive. According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that if one eats of this carcass one become ritually impure even if one never touched any part of it. (compare what the Torah writes in Leviticus 22,8)
And every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten.
verse value 2236
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 29 letters. Verse gematria: 2236 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·all·the·swarming·thing" (וְכׇל־הַשֶּׁ֖רֶץ, 7 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·all·the·swarming·thing" (וְכׇל־הַשֶּׁ֖רֶץ). The root שרץ appears 2 times in this verse. 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "be·eaten" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·the·earth', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְכׇל־הַשֶּׁ֖רֶץ [and·all·the·swarming·thing] (651) + הַשֹּׁרֵ֣ץ [that·swarms] (595) + עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ [upon·the·earth] (396) + שֶׁ֥קֶץ [something·detestable] (490) + ה֖וּא [it] (12) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + יֵאָכֵֽל [be·eaten] (61) = 2236.
Onkelos
And every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth — it is an abomination; it shall not be eaten.
Rashi
על הארץ ושרץ THAT CREEPETH ON THE EARTH — the law is worded thus in order to exclude the insects in peas and in beans and the mites in lentils, for, you see, these do not move about on the ground but inside the food, but so soon as they have emerged into the air and have moved about they become prohibited to be eaten (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 1; Chullin 67b). לא יאכל IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN — This passive form; it shall not become the object of eating, is used to make the liability to punishment fall upon the one who gives these abominable things to others (to minors) to eat just the same as upon him who himself eats them (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 1; cf. Rashi on v. 13). — Only that is called שרץ which is low and has short feet and which seems only to progress by a creeping movement.
Ramban
AND EVERY CREEPING THING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH IS A DETESTABLE THING; IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN. The meaning of this verse is as follows: He mentioned above the [eight] creeping things in connection with impurity [conveyed through contact when they are dead], and expressly mentioned those that are impure, but did not speak at all of the prohibition of eating. It is for this reason that He now says, And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten, meaning to say that as far as eating is concerned, there is no difference between them, for they are all forbidden. Then He spoke of them again in detail [in the following verses], and increased the negative commandments about them, [in order to increase the liability] to whipping, just as Rashi mentioned.
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "every swarming creature that swarms upon the earth" — every land swarming creature, including within this [category] the eight swarming creatures mentioned [earlier]; and he states that they are not to be eaten.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ שקץ הוא לא יאכל, “and all teeming creatures that teem on the ground, it is something abhorrent, it shall not be eaten.” This refers to the worms growing in fruit such as in dates and figs, as well as the ones in lentils and peas (Chulin 67). In verse 42 the Torah mentions לכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ, which sounds like a repetition. Actually, there the Torah had modified the word השורץ first by saying ההולך על הארץ. The animals mentioned in verse 42 are the result of the male and female of those species having mated in the accepted manner. Man endangers himself by eating these creatures. The ones described as “walking on its belly” are the snakes; the ones described as “walking on four,” are the hornets; the expression כל, i.e. “all,” is applied to four-legged dung beetles and the like. The word מרבה רגלים, “having many feet,” refers to centipedes of all kinds. The words על הארץ repeated once more, refer to such moths, worms, etc., which are generated in mould, garbage, compost, etc.
Tur HaArokh
וכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ, “and every teeming creature whose habitat is the earth (land, as opposed to the water and oceans).” Seeing that there are only 8 of these species whose cadavers confer ritual contamination, one might have thought that all the other species are also fit to be eaten. The Torah therefore spells out that none of these species may be eaten.
Whatever goes upon the belly, and whatever goes upon all fours, or whatever has many feet, even all swarming things that swarm upon the earth, them you shall not eat; for they are a detestable thing.
verse value 4181
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 70 letters. The shortest word is "all" (כֹּל֩, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·all·the·swarming·thing" (לְכׇל־הַשֶּׁ֖רֶץ, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 61: walking, walking. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "upon·belly" (עַל־גָּח֜וֹן), "all·with·many" (כׇּל־מַרְבֵּ֣ה), "to·all·the·swarming·thing" (לְכׇל־הַשֶּׁ֖רֶץ). The root כל appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "eat·them" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root רבה ("all·with·many") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·the·earth', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 4 words.
Onkelos
Whatever goes upon its belly, and whatever goes on four legs, up to whatever has many legs, among all creeping things that creep upon the earth — you shall not eat them, for they are an abomination.
Rashi
גחון הולך על THAT GOETH ON THE BELLY — This is the serpent (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2; Chullin 67b), and the expression גחון denotes bending low, so that the phrase means: that which walks bent down and fallen upon its belly. כל הולך EVERYTHING THAT GOETH — The word “everything” is employed to include worms and whatever is similar to anything similar to it (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2). הולך על ארבע THAT GOETH UPON ALL FOUR — This is the scorpion (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2). כל EVERYTHING [THAT GOETH UPON ALL FOUR] — The word “everything” is intended to include the beetle, — escarbot in O. F. — and whatever is similar to anything similar to it (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2). מרבה רגלים [AND] WHAT HATH MANY FEET — This is the centipede (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2) — an insect which has feet from its head to its tail on both sides of its body, and it is called centpies in old French
Ibn Ezra
"Gaḥon" [belly] — as in "upon your belly you shall walk" [Gen. 3:14]. "And all that walks on four" — with respect to a swarming creature, which is small, as I explained for the swarming creatures of the water. "Having many legs" [marbeh raglayim] — an adjective in the construct state.
You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them, that you should be defiled by them.
verse value 4597
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 46 letters. The shortest word is "in·them" (בָּֽם, 2 letters) and the longest is "your·souls" (אֶת־נַפְשֹׁ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם, 9 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "you·shall·not·make·detestable" (אַל־תְּשַׁקְּצוּ֙), "and·you·shall·become·impure" (וְנִטְמֵתֶ֖ם). The root שרץ appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "you·shall·defile·yourselves" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "your·souls" (root נפש, 58x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root בם ("in·them") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'that·swarms', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 5 words. Full calculation: אַל־תְּשַׁקְּצוּ֙ [you·shall·not·make·detestable] (927) + אֶת־נַפְשֹׁ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם [your·souls] (1301) + בְּכׇל־הַשֶּׁ֖רֶץ [in·all·the·swarming·thing] (647) + הַשֹּׁרֵ֑ץ [that·swarms] (595) + וְלֹ֤א [and·not] (37) + תִֽטַּמְּאוּ֙ [you·shall·defile·yourselves] (456) + בָּהֶ֔ם [in·them] (47) + וְנִטְמֵתֶ֖ם [and·you·shall·become·impure] (545) + בָּֽם [in·them] (42) = 4597.
Onkelos
Do not make yourselves abominable through any creeping thing that creeps, and do not defile yourselves with them, for you will become unclean through them.
Rashi
אל תשקצו YE SHALL NOT MAKE [YOUR SOULS] ABOMINABLE, by eating these (Meilah 16b): this must be the meaning, because you see it is written “[ye shall not make] your souls [abominable]” and no soiling of the soul arises from touching these creatures. And similarly the words (v. 44) “neither shall ye defile [your souls]” mean: by eating them. ונטמתם בם THAT YE SHOULD BE DEFILED THEREBY — If you become defiled thereby on earth I will treat you as defiled in the world-to-come and in the heavenly academy (cf. Yoma 39a).
Ibn Ezra
"Do not make your souls detestable" — so that they become filthy and defiled. "And do not become impure through them" — for it is well known that the food one eats becomes flesh within the body of the eater. "Ve-nittemtem bam" — the alef is missing [i.e., the spelling is defective], as in me-reshit [Deut. 11:12] without the alef of ha-shanah. Others say these are two distinct roots, citing ve-nitamenu be-eineikhem ["and we were as grasshoppers in our own eyes," Num. 13:33], with the meaning of being like a person who has no sense.
Sforno
ולא תטמאו בהם כי אני ה' אלוקיכם והתקדשתם, do not contaminate yourselves in a manner that will make this contamination really serious, i.e. by eating these creatures or parts of them. Seeing that I am your G’d I desire you to sanctify yourselves so that you will be in a state capable of absorbing holiness on an ongoing basis.
Or HaChaim
אל תשקצו את נפשותיכם, "Do not make something detestable out of your persons, etc." Why did the Torah repeat this commandment? Torat Kohanim writes that this includes separate culpability for someone who after having contacted the dead part, let it go, and then touched it again. Granted that what is stated in Torat Kohanim is true and that one is indeed culpable for repeated contact with carrion, why did the Torah have to write this? Who would have imagined that the second time one contacted the carrion one would not be culpable? Perhaps the verse wants to inform us that if someone eats these swarming things his soul will become something detestable and the Torah warns us in clear terms not to cause our souls to become something detestable. The Torah hints at the same time how much or how little of such carrion will have such an effect on our souls. Look at what we have written on Genesis 1,26 on the words וירדו בדגת הים, "and they are to have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc." You will find there that our sages in Pessachim 49 referred to עמי הארץ, unlearned and therefore not truly observant Jews, as שקץ and that they compared the daughters of such people to שרץ also. All such statemnents of our sages are inspired by the Holy Spirit. These words are identical to what we have written here. The Torah says here ולא תטמאו בהם, "do not make yourselves unclean with them." We need to be very circumspect concerning anything which may possibly infringe on this warning. Whenever we are in doubt about contacting something which may or may not fall under the category of things that would confer impurity on our souls we must avoid such things at all costs. There is no vegetable or other produce which is not infested with some of the things which are detestable; we must therefore be most careful in examining all such produce before consuming it.
Chizkuni
ונטמתם בם, “so that you have become ritually contaminated by them.” The word ונטמתם has the letter א after the letter מ missing. We find more such examples in the Torah, as in Genesis 20,6: מחטו לי, “from sinning against Me, or Numbers 10, 13, צב instead of צבא, as well as Deuteronomy 11,12, מרשית instead of מראשית. [Our author cites similar examples also from the Books of the prophets. Ed.]
Rabbeinu Bahya
בכל השרץ השורץ, “through any of the teeming creatures which teem.” Significantly, the words “on earth,” are absent in this verse. If the Torah had added these words (as previously) we would have thought that the warning not to allow these abhorrent things to contaminate us was limited to the creatures moving about on the earth. We are aware already that the creature known as עכבר, exists both on land and in the sea (compare Chulin 126). When seen on land we know it as “a mouse.” The same applies to some of the species which we are not familiar with. By omitting mention of “on land,” the Torah ensures that we know that all the creatures bearing the names mentioned here, be they land-based or water-based, fall under the same prohibition. He who eats them makes himself an abomination and defiles himself ritually. ולא תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם, “and do not contaminate yourselves by means of them so that you will not become contaminated through them.” The first warning לא תטמאו refers to our bodies, whereas the second warning i.e. ונטמתם refers to the effect eating such abominable things would have on our souls. The word ונטמתם is written without the letter א after the letter מ. According to Yuma 39 the hidden warning in that missing letter א is that anyone eating these creatures would become מטומטם, “dull-witted” as a result. Man’s heart becomes “encrusted” through the ingestion of such forbidden creatures so that it is no longer accessible to the Holy Spirit. It is possible that the origin of this interpretation is the fact that the letter א symbolises the One and Only Creator. Absence of this letter where it should have appeared suggests that the One and Only One was unable to gain entrance to the heart of the person who had contaminated himself by eating these abhorrent creatures which the Torah has forbidden. G’d’s presence always withdraws from where ritual impurity prevails. Compare what is written in Deut. 23,15: “for Hashem, your G’d, walks in the midst of your camp to rescue you and to deliver your enemies before you, your camp shall be sacred. He shall not see any shameful thing (anything obscene) among you and turn away from you.” This is also the meaning in another verse where the letter א has been mysteriously omitted. We read in Genesis 20,6 where G’d appeared to Avimelech in a dream and the latter complains that seeing he was innocent why should G’d warn him of killing him, that G’d responds that his innocence in deed was due only to ואחשך אותך מחטו לי, “I, G’d have prevented you from sinning against Me.” The word מחטו in that verse should really have been spelled מחטא, i.e. with the letter א added at the end. Absence of that letter then indicates that G’d is holding something back, in Avimelech’s case He frustrated his free choice to rape Sarah by making him impotent. When reflecting further on this concept, we may say that when we call someone קדוש, holy, in referring to him, we have in mind someone who has distinguished himself in devoting himself exclusively to the service of the Lord. By the same token, if someone has devoted himself with equal enthusiasm and determination to carnal pursuits the Torah calls such a person קדש, almost the same word without the letter ו. The letter ו is part of the tetragram; its absence in the word קדש points out the chasm between one kind of dedication and the other kind of dedication. Sanctity, i.e. קדושה cannot co-exist with dedication to ritual impurity such as sexual misconduct. All this gives you an idea of the power of the Hebrew language if such a radical change in behaviour can be expressed by such a minor change in the spelling of a word. It defies our imagination to realise what tremendous concepts “hang” by the slender thread of a single vowel or consonant. Our sages in Yuma 39 taught that the words in our verse: “do not contaminate yourselves so that you do not become contaminated,” mean that if a person begins by contaminating himself just a little, others will ultimately contaminate him a lot. If a person becomes guilty of contaminating himself here on earth, there are forces in the celestial regions which will contaminate him there. If a person contaminates himself in this life, he will be considered as contaminated regarding life in the hereafter. It is due to considerations of this nature that the Torah continues with the exhortation (verse 44): “sanctify yourselves so that you will be holy, for I am holy.” The Torah promises: “if you sanctify your body, I, G’d, will sanctify your soul.” and will assure you of life in the hereafter.
For I am Hashem your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am holy; neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing that moves upon the earth.
verse value 6286 — יְהֹוָה֮ = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 77 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָה֮) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֣י, 2 letters) and the longest is "your·souls" (אֶת־נַפְשֹׁ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 61: I, I. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "that·creeps" (הָרֹמֵ֥שׂ). The root כי appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "and·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "and·you·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root אני ("I") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root רמש ("that·creeps") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'I', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 6 words.
Onkelos
For I am Hashem your God — sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy; and do not defile yourselves through any creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
Rashi
כי אני ה׳ אלהיכם FOR I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Just as I am holy, I, Who am the Lord your God, similarly והתקדשתם MAKE YOURSELVES HOLY below on earth ( (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 3), והייתם קדשים AND YE WILL BE HOLY, because I will then treat you as holy, above and in the world-to-come (Yoma 39a). ולא תטמאו NEITHER SHALL YE DEFILE [YOUR SOULS] etc. — This is repeated in order to bring it about that a person transgresses many negative commands when he eats such abominable things: and every single negative commandment involves for its transgression the punishment of lashes. This is the meaning of what they said in the Talmud (Makkot 16b): if one has eaten a Putisa (a shell fish or water reptile), he receives floggings (39 lashes) four times, (because four of the different prohibitions referring to שרצים apply to such a water reptile); if he has eaten an ant, he receives five such floggings; a hornet, six such floggings.
Ibn Ezra
"And you shall be holy, for I am holy" — therefore I have commanded you not to become impure. The vav [in ve-hiyyitem] functions like the fa' rafah in Arabic, and similarly va-ya'azov et avadav ["and he left his servants," 1 Sam. 9:5] and many like it.
Sforno
והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני, so that your holiness will endure indefinitely. The reason why I desire this is because I am holy, and I would like you to become as close to My own essence as it is possible for a creature to become. All of this you will be able to achieve by adhering strictly to the legislation governing what you may eat and what you must eschew. Our sages paraphrased the result of observing this legislation in the following words: “when man sanctifies himself a little, the additional amount of sanctity supplied for him from the heavenly regions is many more times this.” (Yuma 39).
Or HaChaim
כי אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "for I am the Lord your G'd." The major difference between Israel and any other nation is that G'd has not described Himself as the "Lord G'd" of any other nation. This obligates us to keep our distance from anything which contaminates us. והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים, "sanctify yourselves and be holy." The meaning of this statement is that if we do our share in trying to deserve the appellation "holy," G'd on His part will bestow such a title upon us by not allowing such contaminating elements to enter our bodies. We have already quoted the Talmud Chulin 4 in which G'd is described as insuring that even the beasts of the righteous do not eat matters unfit for the owner to eat. G'd would certainly protect the צדיק himself against erroneously consuming such matters. Another meaning of the word והתקדשתם is "sanctify yourselves by means of erecting protective legal fences," i.e. rabbinic ordinances designed to reduce the likelihood of contacting and absorbing impure material. G'd tells us that if you do this: "I in turn will help you become holy." The Torah then spells out in what respect you are going to be holy. כי קדוש אני, "for I am holy;" G'd made His presence amongst us dependent on our keeping ourselves apart from contaminating influences. This is why such people are entitled to the same appellation "holy" as is applied to G'd Himself. ולא תטמאו "and you will not become defiled, etc." This is a promise by G'd that if we make every effort not to become contaminated by the שרצים ושקצים swarming detestable things mentioned in this chapter, G'd's appreciation will become manifest in that we will not become the passive victims of other kinds of impurity. Pagans are included in the terminology שרצים ושקצים. G'd promises that if we make every effort not to become contaminated by the swarming or creeping things mentioned in this chapter, He will make sure that we will not be under the dominion of pagans.
Rabbeinu Bahya
והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני, “Sanctify yourselves and become holy for I am holy.” The sanctity the Torah speaks of here is one which is associated more with the Jewish people than with any other nation. It is attainable only through the study of Torah and performance of its tenets. Study of Torah and performance of its commandments strengthens the forces of our intelligence and weakens our tendency to indulge our various cravings. It is a well known fact that these cravings are a constituent part of our psyche and initially are more powerful drives than our intellect. We possess cravings from the moment we are born whereas our intellect begins to develop only as we grow older. It is not surprising therefore that initially man has a tendency to indulge his cravings and to allow them full reign. Maturity in years is the time when the intellect, the force which is to predominate within us proves itself capable of displacing the influence of these various cravings we experience since youth. Unfortunately, these various cravings also become more powerful as our body develops, so that they threaten to overpower the voice of reason, i.e. our intelligence. Seeing that the intelligence with which man has been equipped originates in the celestial regions, it is an alien in this terrestrial world and as such has to contend with many entrenched forces in its efforts of trying to assert itself. It is a solitary force within man, not enjoying natural allies as do the various cravings all of which are enjoying the encouragement of various parts of our bodies. This is why Torah and its commandments are so essential to the development of our intellectual/spiritual forces as if left to its own devices the intelligence and spiritual forces of man would be overpowered by opposite tendencies. Seeing that the Torah contains commandments addressed to the way we treat our bodies, i.e. what not to eat, what not to drink, etc., fulfilling these directives is a powerful tool in reining in the various cravings man is subject to. Restrictions on the sexual outlets we are permitted, the commandment to spend time devoted to prayer, handing out charity, etc., etc., all play a vital part in keeping our cravings under control and in eventually attaining the Torah’s objective that we become holy. This explains the comment in Sifrei that the words והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים mean “if you will keep the commandments you will achieve sanctity.” The word והתקדשתם, may also be understood in terms of פרישות, asceticism, introversion, abstinence. Anyone who displays abstinence from the pleasures this world has to offer is considered holy, קדוש. Similarly, our sages in Torat Kohanim Sifra Shemini 12,3 explain the verse simply by reversing these words and translating: “just as I am holy, I want you to sanctify yourselves. Just as I am ascetic, separate, I want you to practice similar traits.” The idea is that man should try not to indulge in any of the cravings which are natural to him unless they are vital for his health and well-being. When someone manages to deny himself all the physical gratifications which are permissible but not necessary for his health and well-being he is called קדוש, holy. Anyone however, who indulges bodily cravings over and beyond the necessary minimum is called כסיל, “fool.” The more one indulges physical cravings the greater the likelihood of committing infractions of Torah law (compare Proverbs 20, 3). This is why the Torah had to write the instruction “sanctify yourselves!” Restrictions that are desirable do not only include too much food and drink and marital relations with one’s wife, but also excess use of one’s mouth for unnecessary conversation. This is why Solomon said in Proverbs 15,2: “the tongue of the wise uses knowledge properly; the mouths of fools express folly.” Solomon continues immediately, warning: “the eyes of G’d are everywhere; they behold both the good and the wicked.” He meant that G’d’s supervisory stance is such that people guilty of offending speech may expect to pay the price. The prophet Isaiah 9,16 deals with the same subject when he said: “that is why my Lord will not spare their youths, nor show compassion to their orphans and to their widows; for they are all ungodly and wicked and every mouth speaks impiety.” The reason the prophet singles out the youths, the immature in years, is that they more than older people are guilty of such abuse of the power of speech. The Talmud Shabbat 33 remarks on the subject of improper use of one’s power of speech that anyone guilty of this sin will experience that he will sink even lower inside gehinom, purgatory. They base this on Proverbs 22,14: “the mouth of the immoral woman is a deep pit; he who is doomed by the Lord will fall into it.” We also find that the prophet Ezekiel has something pertinent to say on this subject in Ezekiel 35,10: “because you said: ‘the two nations and the two lands will be mine and we shall inherit them!’ But Hashem was there.” The prophet goes on to threaten retribution for such abuse of one’s mouth, telling us that G’d is mindful of such boasts. A Midrashic approach to our verse is that it is a warning to man to have a clean body and clean hands, seeing this all comes under the heading of פרישות. Accordingly, they view the word והתקדשתם as an instruction to wash before the meal and the words והייתם קדושים as a warning to wash one’s hands after the completion of the meal (what is known as מים אחרונים). The words כי קדוש אני are understood by that Midrash as referring to the use of oil for anointing one’s body. Finally, the words אני ה' אלו-היכם are understood as a blessing (compare Berachot 53). The idea underlying this interpretation is that when man sits down to eat, i.e. to indulge a basic physical craving he is to sanctify himself with three different kinds of sanctification in order to make the meal something spiritual rather than a mere physical indulgence. The first two kinds of “sanctification,” (washing) are meant to cleanse the body, the third one (the anointing), is intended to arouse the dormant spiritual forces within the body through the pleasant fragrance of the oil. When he has done all this, such a person is entitled to G’d’s blessing.
Kli Yakar
“And you shall sanctify yourselves and you will be holy, etc.” According to what our Sages of blessed memory said (Shabbat 104a), “One who comes to purify himself is assisted, while one who comes to defile himself is given an opening.” Nevertheless, one who comes to defile himself is not assisted. Therefore, regarding one who comes to purify himself, it says, And you shall sanctify yourselves and you will be holy as a statement of fact, meaning that if you begin to sanctify yourselves from below, then certainly you will be holy because I will sanctify you from above and assist you so that you may be holy like Me, for I am holy. But regarding one who comes to defile himself, it says, Do not defile yourselves with them and you will become defiled through them. It does not say “and you will be defiled” because it is not a definite outcome, since even though a person begins to corrupt himself, perhaps his actions will not be effective since he is not assisted from heaven, but rather only given an opening, as the door is open for him and no one closes it before him. And as a hint, it says venitmetem [you will become defiled] without the letter alef [which has the numerical value of one], to tell you that the Unique One of the world, blessed be He, turns away from him, and He has no part in his defilement, and his actions will distance him.
For I am Hashem that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; you shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
verse value 3516 — יְהֹוָ֗ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 60 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֗ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֣י, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·God" (לֵאלֹהִ֑ים, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 61: I, I. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "who·brought·up" (הַֽמַּעֲלֶ֤ה), "to·be" (לִהְיֹ֥ת). The root כי appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "to·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "holy" (root קדש, 101x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root מצרי ("Egypt") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·God', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 5 words.
Onkelos
For I am Hashem, who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God — and you shall be holy, for I am holy.
Rashi
כי אני ה׳ המעלה אתכם FOR I AM THE LORD THAT BRINGETH YOU UP [OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT] — On condition that you should accept My commandments did I bring you up (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 4). Another explanation of: FOR I AM THE LORD THAT BRINGETH YOU UP — In all other places it is written, “I brought (you) forth”, and here it is written “that bringeth (you) up” — in reference to this it was taught in the school of R. Ishmael: If I had brought up Israel from Egypt only to effect this one thing — that they do not defile themselves by reptiles as do the other peoples, that should be sufficient for them (Bava Metzia 61b), and it should be regarded by them as an elevation for themselves — this is what is implied in the expression used here: מעלה (I raised you above the people of the land of Egypt).
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "for I am Hashem" — for I brought you up from the land of Egypt only to be your God; and if you are not holy I will not be your God. Therefore, if you desire that I be your God, you must be holy.
Sforno
כי אני ה' המעלה אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלוקים. It is no more than appropriate that you do all this in order to attain this level of holiness in order to carry out My will; for indeed when I took you out of Egypt this was expressly in order for you to achieve this spiritual level and for Me to be your G’d, a G’d to Whom you could relate directly without any intermediary. You are meant to be holy forever by emulating My attributes and My way of thinking, in other words, you are to emulate that part of Me which I describe as קדוש, holy, beyond compare.
Or HaChaim
כי אני ה׳ המעלה אתכם מארץ מצרים, "For I am the Lord who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, etc." The Torah provides proof that G'd will protect the Jewish people from becoming enmeshed in the sin of contamination by impuriy. He took the Israelites out of such a contaminated environment in which their souls were completely submerged. We have mentioned this concept on previous occasions. If the Israelites will now take active steps to preserve their isolation from such contamination, G'd will certainly do His share to see that it does not occur again. If, on the other hand, the Israelites were to absorb any of these forbidden שקצים ורמשים as nutrients, they would revert to the environment dominated by the spiritually negative forces of the world, the קליפות. In such a case G'd could not be their companion as He does not associate His name with such forces. This was the reason He never associated His name with the Israelites until after the people had left Egypt.
Chizkuni
כי אני ה' המעלה אתכם מארץ מצרים, “for I am the Lord Who has brought you up from the land of Egypt.” I did so in order that you accept the Torah from Me. להיות לכם לאלוקים, “in order for me to be your G-d.” Even if you had not wanted to become My servants. Compare (Sifra) on this verse. [I believe that the words: ”even against your will,” in Sifra refer to what follows, i.e. “having accepted My Torah you cannot help becoming holy, seeing that I am Holy.” Ed.]
Kli Yakar
For I am the Lord who brings you up, etc. Regarding Rashi’s explanation, it is difficult to understand why this detail is specified in this commandment more than in other commandments. Additionally, there are several differences between the swarming things that swarm and the swarming things that creep on the earth, which cling more closely to the ground and whose movement is not noticeable. For regarding the latter, it says on the earth, which is not mentioned regarding the one that swarm. And with the ones that creep, impurity is mentioned in relation to the soul, as it is said and do not defile your souls, while regarding the ones that swarm, it says and do not make your souls detestable. Therefore I say, that anything that is closer to the earth and further from the air has a greater portion of earthiness, compared to those somewhat elevated from the earth, because it turns and looks toward its source of origin. This is the reason why humans do not walk on all fours, because they are half physical and half spiritual, and face upward. The term “impurity” [tumah] is worse than the term “abomination” [shikutz] which indicates something detestable to a person even though it has no inherent impurity. Therefore, that which crawls on the earth and drags itself upon it, whose movement is not distinct, has a greater portion of earthiness. Consequently, it defiles the soul to a greater extent. And since the body is more susceptible to receiving impurity than the soul, therefore regarding swarming things that swarm [sheretz hashoretz] which are somewhat distant from the earth, it says do not make your souls abominable, as they only cause the soul abomination but not impurity, and do not become impure through them, referring to the body which is more susceptible and also receives impurity. But regarding the swarming things that crawl on the earth, which are worse, it says do not defile your souls, and all the more so the body, and all the more so regarding abomination. And the reason given for this is for I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt, a low place, to the land of Israel which is higher than all other lands (Zevachim 54b), in order to distance you from the earthiness that dominates more in low places where air does not rule as it does in high places. Therefore, you should be especially careful regarding swarming things that crawl on the earth. This is a correct and clear explanation. The reason for slaughter proves this, for slaughter comes to remove the impurity of earthiness in animals that were created from the earth. But fish, which were created from water whose source is purity, do not need slaughter at all, but gathering alone is sufficient. And birds, which were created from muck — a mixture of earth and water — require only one sign [of kosher slaughter] due to the minimal earthiness in them. And regarding why water brings impurity upon food, you will find this explained later in the section of Chukat, in the secret of the red heifer that makes the pure impure and purifies the impure.
This is the law of the beast, and of the birds, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that swarms upon the earth;
verse value 5096
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 54 letters. Verse gematria: 5096 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "this" (זֹ֣את, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·to·every·creature" (וּלְכׇל־נֶ֖פֶשׁ, 7 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·cattle" (הַבְּהֵמָה֙), "and·the·birds" (וְהָע֔וֹף), "that·creeps" (הָרֹמֶ֖שֶׂת). The root נפש appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus); "upon·the·earth" (root ארץ, 77x in Leviticus); "creature·of" (root נפש, 58x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·waters', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 3 words. Full calculation: זֹ֣את [this] (408) + תּוֹרַ֤ת [instruction·of] (1006) + הַבְּהֵמָה֙ [the·cattle] (57) + וְהָע֔וֹף [and·the·birds] (167) + וְכֹל֙ [and·all] (56) + נֶ֣פֶשׁ [creature·of] (430) + הַֽחַיָּ֔ה [the·living] (28) + הָרֹמֶ֖שֶׂת [that·creeps] (945) + בַּמָּ֑יִם [in·the·waters] (92) + וּלְכׇל־נֶ֖פֶשׁ [and·to·every·creature] (516) + הַשֹּׁרֶ֥צֶת [that·swarms] (995) + עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ [upon·the·earth] (396) = 5096.
Onkelos
This is the teaching concerning beasts and birds and every living creature that swarms in the waters, and concerning every living creature that creeps upon the earth —
Sforno
זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף, this is the underlying motivation of the regulations governing the prohibitions affecting forbidden foods mentioned earlier.
Or HaChaim
זאת תודת הבהמה והעוף, "This is the law of the beast and of the fowl, etc." The entire verse appears superfluous. Chulin 27 explains that the reason for the verse is to teach us that birds too require ritual slaughter; we learn this from the fact that the word עוף appears between the word בהמה and the word חיה הרומשת, the fish. Placing the bird where it did, the Torah indicated it was part חיה and part דג, fish. This is why when you slaughter a bird you need to sever only either the gullet or the windpipe not both, as in the case of mammals. We now understand why the Torah (Moses) in Numbers 11,22 does not use the expression ישחט when describing the fish of the sea. We never would have expected that fish would require ritual slaughter; why did the Torah have to exclude it by writing יאסף in that verse? Answer: seeing that the Torah in our verse listed mammals, birds, and fish in one sequence, I might have thought that the common denominator is that all of them require ritual slaughter. The word יאסף in conjunction with the words: "the fish of the sea" in Numbers 11,22 ensures that we do not arrive at the conclusion that fish need to be slaughtered in the regular way. Once we know that mammals need to have two vital pipes severed by slaughter and fish none, it is easy to arrive at the conclusion that birds need to have only one vital pipe severed by slaughter. You may ask that if this is so why did the Torah bother to also mention נפש השורצת על הארץ "every creature that swarms on earth" i.e. the grasshoppers or locusts in our verse? Answer: The Torah was concerned that since these creatures were not mentioned as exempt from ritual slaughter by the word יאסף in connection with fish in Numbers 11,22 that I might conclude locusts have to be slaughtered. By mentioning them in our verse after the fish which do not require slaughter the Torah precludes us from making such an error.
Chizkuni
זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף וכל נפש החיה הרומשת במים .“This is the law of the beast, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moves on the earth. The Torah inserted the fowl between the beasts that live on the land and the creatures that inhabit the waters. It was impossible to allow the fowl to be killed regardless of certain rites to make it permissible to be eaten, but on the other hand, the Torah did not want to treat it as it had the mammals. The Rabbis therefore decided that when killing fowls ritually, only one of the vital windpipe and gullet need to be severed in order for the bird to qualify as food for Israelites. (Talmud, Chulin, folio 27.) ולכל נפש השרצות, “and for any creature that swarms upon the earth. The first letter ל in the word לכל is unnecessary, as it is in Exodus 27,3 in לכל כליו.
to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten.
verse value 2166
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 52 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·set·apart" (לְהַבְדִּ֕יל, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 68: and·between, and·between, and·between. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "to·set·apart" (לְהַבְדִּ֕יל), "that·may·be·eaten" (הַֽנֶּאֱכֶ֔לֶת). The root בין appears 4 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "the·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·pure', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 8 words. Full calculation: לְהַבְדִּ֕יל [to·set·apart] (81) + בֵּ֥ין [between] (62) + הַטָּמֵ֖א [the·impure] (55) + וּבֵ֣ין [and·between] (68) + הַטָּהֹ֑ר [the·pure] (219) + וּבֵ֤ין [and·between] (68) + הַֽחַיָּה֙ [the·living·thing] (28) + הַֽנֶּאֱכֶ֔לֶת [that·may·be·eaten] (506) + וּבֵין֙ [and·between] (68) + הַֽחַיָּ֔ה [the·living·thing] (28) + אֲשֶׁ֖ר [that] (501) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + תֵאָכֵֽל [be·eaten] (451) = 2166.
Onkelos
to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.
Rashi
להבדיל TO MAKE A DISTINCTION — Not that one should only learn the laws, but it is a command that you should know and recognize the differences and be expert in them (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 6). הטהור בין הטמא ובין BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN — Is it necessary to say. that one should understand to distinguish between the ass and the cow? Have they not already been closely defined as to their distinguishing characteristics? But the meaning is: that you should thoroughly understand to distinguish between what is unclean for you and what is clean for you (i. e. between what is forbidden and what is permitted to you) — between the case of an animal only half of whose wind-pipe has been cut through by the knife, and the case when the greater part has been cut through (in the former case the animal is forbidden, in the latter it is permitted as food) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 7). ובין החיה הנאכלת AND BETWEEN AN ANIMAL THAT MAY BE EATEN — Is it necessary to say that one should learn to distinguish between a stag and a wild ass? Have not these already been closely defined as to their distinguishing characteristics? But the meaning is: that you should thoroughly understand to distinguish between the case when there have arisen in it (in the animal) signs by which one might regard it as forbidden (טרפה) and yet it is permitted as food (כשרה), and the case when there have arisen in it signs by which one might regard it as forbidden and because of which it is actually unfitted to be eaten (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 8).
Ramban
TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN. This means that we should distinguish between all things mentioned above, between the unclean and the clean, with regard to impurity[through contact]. AND BETWEEN THE ANIMAL THAT MAY BE EATEN. This is connected with the word “soul” mentioned [in the preceding verse], thus meaning: “and between the living animal that may be eaten.” Scripture is thus stating that we should distinguish as far as eating is concerned, between the living animal that may be eaten according to the Torah in the waters and upon the earth, and the animal in them that may not be eaten. In the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis said: “And ‘hachayah’ (the beast) that may not be eaten. The Sages say, this establishes a prohibition against eating a [forbidden type of] beast.” If so, there is a special negative commandment regarding it. Now Rashi wrote: “To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean. Is it necessary to tell us to distinguish between the cow and the ass? Have they not clearly been defined already [by distinguishing signs]? But the meaning is: [to make a distinction between] that which is forbidden for you and that which is permitted for you, between the case of an animal of which only half of the windpipe was cut, [in which case, even if he cut through the whole gullet, it may not be eaten], and the case of an animal of which the greater part of the windpipe [or the entire windpipe] was cut through, [in addition to the gullet, or the greater part of it being cut through, which is permitted to be eaten].” There [in Tractate Chullin] it is taught: “And how much is there between half and the greater part of it? As much as a hair’s breadth,” [and it is this which requires ‘making a distinction’]. Do not be disturbed here because of that which they said there in the Gemara that it must be “a greater part which is apparent to the eyes” [thus a mere hair’s breadth would not be sufficient], for the meaning of that was only in order to exclude the opinion of the Sage who says that half and half is treated as if the majority [was cut through]; therefore they said that the part cut through must actually be a greater part, which is apparent to the eyes, not a half which we only treat in our minds [as the greater part], and we say that “the greater part” was cut through since the part not cut through is not larger than it [the part which was cut through]. But so long as more than half was [actually] cut through, it may be eaten, even if it be only by as much as a hair’s breadth, as is clearly explained in that Beraitha, and as it emerges from the discussion of the Gemara. Tazria
Ibn Ezra
"To distinguish between the impure" — with respect to birds and swarming creatures of the water. "Ha-ne'akhelet" [that which may be eaten] — that which is permitted for eating. "That shall not be eaten" — according to the Torah.
Chizkuni
בין הטמא ובין הטהור, “between the ritually pure and the ritually contaminated. This refers to the earth based mammals, the creatures in the water, other than fish, and the fowl. After the Torah has spelled out the details concerning the above, it spells out details concerning free roaming beasts, followed by the laws concerning women giving birth, the phenomenon of the dreaded skin diseases tzoraat, which can afflict human skin, clothing, or houses. The common denominator of all these is that they are subject to becoming ritually contaminated. בין החיה הנאכלת, “between living creatures that may be eaten, etc.;” on this phrase Rashi comments regardless of whether these animals displayed such symptoms, such as when one of the abovementioned pipes had been duly cut whereas the other had been punctured prior to having been cut i.e. after it had already displayed the symptom of being treyfah. A punctured lung is also a definite symptom of such an animal being treyfah, as the life expectancy of such an animal had it not been slaughtered would have been less than 12 months. (Compare Chulin folio 32) ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל, “and between a living creature that may not be eaten.” (Sifra on this verse explains why this line is not superfluous.)
Tur HaArokh
ובין החיה הנאכלת, “and between the animal that may be eaten;” Rashi (quoting Torat Kohanim) writes that actually we would have expected the Torah to write:בין צבי לערוד, i.e. between a gazelle (a permitted species of free roaming mammal, and the wild ass, (a “non kosher” free roaming mammal). Seeing that these two species could not possibly be mistaken for another, seeing they do not look alike at all, the meaning of the verse must be “to distinguish between permitted species which display symptoms that would make it “treifah” (injuries) and others displaying similar symptoms which however do not result in that animal being pronounced treifah.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that if these symptoms are below the knee joint, the symptom is ignored and the animal remains “kosher” and can be slaughtered and eaten. If, however, the symptom is above the knee joint, the animal can no longer be eaten even if slaughtered forthwith. People nowadays are very particular in their attitude to all these definitions of symptoms of a terminal disease. The very fact that the halachah recognizes a term such as טרפה כשרה, “treifah which is kosher, creates some confusion. An example of such a “kosher” symptom of ”treifah” symptoms would be an animal whose windpipe and gullet have been cut but not cut through, or instances when a small hole pierces the lung of the animal, such a hole not being necessarily fatal within 12 months. The question arises there that seeing the lung is directly dependent on the windpipe, damage to both would appear to be especially serious. The subject is discussed in Chulin 32, and basically, if the slaughtering proceeded to the point where it is deemed completed, [most of the windpipe and most of the gullet. Ed.] this animal will not be considered as treifah unless another major problem such as a pierced lung is present. Similarly, these sages discuss that if an animal has 5 legs instead of 4 and the fifth has an injury that, if it occurred on any of the other 4 legs would have made it treifah, whether this is a case of “treifah” that is treated as kosher. It would appear that such interpretation of the written text here is excessive.
Onkelos
Rashi
Ramban
Ibn Ezra
Or HaChaim
Kli Yakar
Tur HaArokh
Rashbam