[א] "לכל הבהמה" – להביא את השליל שיהא אבר מן החי ממנו מטמא. "טמאים" – מלמד שמצטרפין זה עם זה. יכול יצטרפו למתים? תלמוד לומר "הם". יכול לא יצטרפו למתים החמורים אבל יצטרפו עם נבילות הקלות? תלמוד לומר "הם". "כל הנוגע בהם יטמא" – להביא את בהמה טמאה שלא תהיה שחיטתה מטהרתה. 1) (Vayikra 11:26) "By (touching) every beast": to include the embryo, that ever min hechai from it confers tumah (i.e., if one cut a limb from it in the womb, it is tamei as ever min hechai.). (Vayikra 11:26): "They are tamei": We are hereby taught that they combine with each other (i.e., half a limb from one beast and half a limb from another combine to constitute the required amount for tumah). I might think that they (half-limbs of a beast also) combine with (half-limbs of) dead (men to constitute the required amount for ever min hechai tumah). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26): "They are tamei to you," (to exclude the above). I might think that they do not combine with (the tumah of) the dead, which is stringent (seven days), but they do combine with (the tumah of) neveiloth (of beasts), which is "light" (one day). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:27): "They are tamei to you" (and not half a limb of ever min hechai in combination with half a limb of neveilah). (Vayikra 11:26): "Everyone who touches them shall be tamei": to include an unclean beast, its shechitah not freeing it (of neveilah tumah).
[ב] והלא דין הוא! שרץ אסור באכילה ובהמה טמאה אסורה באכילה. מה שרץ אין שחיטתו מטהרתו אף בהמה טמאה אין שחיטתה מטהרתה. 2) (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow inductively? viz.: A sheretz (a creeping thing) may not be eaten and an unclean beast may not be eaten — Just as the shechitah of a sheretz does not free it (of neveilah tumah, viz. Chapter 7:5), so, the shechitah of an unclean beast does not free it (of neveilah tumah).
[ג] או כלך לדרך זו: טריפה אסורה באכילה ובהמה טמאה אסורה באכילה. מה טריפה שחיטתה מטהרתה אף בהמה טמאה תטהרנה שחיטתה. 3) Or, perhaps go in this direction: A treifah (an animal with an organic defect) may not be eaten and an unclean beast may not be eaten — Just as the shechitah of a treifah frees it (of neveilah tumah), so, the shechitah of an unclean animal should free it (of neveilah tumah)!
[ד] נראה למי דומין. דנין דבר שאין למינו שחיטה מדבר שאין למינו שחיטה ואל תוכיח טריפה שיש למינה שחיטה. או כלך לדרך זה: דנין דבר שמטמא במשא מדבר שמטמא במשא ואל יוכיח שרץ שאינו מטמא במשא. תלמוד לומר "כל הנוגע בהם יטמא" – להביא בהמה טמאה שלא תהא שחיטתה מטהרתה. 4) Let us see what it (an unclean animal) is (most) similar to — We derive something (i.e., an unclean animal) in whose kind shechitah does not (normally) obtain from something in whose kind shechitah does not (normally) obtain (i.e., a sheretz), and this is not to be refuted by treifah, in whose kind shechitah does normally obtain. Or, go in this direction: We derive something which confers tumah through being carried (i.e., an unclean animal, when it dies) from something (a treifah), which confers tumah (when it dies), and this is not to be refuted by sheretz, which never confers tumah through being carried. It must, therefore, be written "Everyone that touches them shall be tamei" to include an unclean beast, its shechitah not freeing it (of neveilah tumah).
[ה] 'כל הולך על כפיו' – זה הקוף. 'כל הולך' – להביא את הקופד ואת חולדת הסנאים ואת אדני השדה ואת כלב הים. זו חיה טהורה; חיה טמאה מנין? תלמוד לומר "ההולכת על ארבע". "בכל החיה" – להביא את הפיל. 5) (Vayikra 11:27): "that walks upon its soles": This is the ape. "And all that walk": to include (in all of these laws of tumah, even though they have no hooves at all) the long-tailed ape, the porcupine, the adnei hasadeh, and the sea-dog. (Vayikra 11:27): "the animal": This is the clean animal. Whence do I derive (for inclusion in the laws of tumah) the unclean animal? From "which walk on four." "among all animals": to include the elephant (though it is "unique").
[ו] אם נאמרו למעלה למה נאמרו למטה? אלא העליונים באבר מן החי והתחתונים באבר מן המת. והלא דין הוא! ומה אבר מן החי – שהבשר הפורש ממנו טהור – הרי הוא מטמא, אבר מן המת – שהבשר הפורש ממנו טמא – אינו דין שיהא טמא?! לא! אם אמרת באבר מן החי – שאסורו נוהג בבן נח כישראל! תאמר באבר מן המת שאין איסורו נוהג בבן נח כישראל! והואיל ואין איסורו נוהג בבן נח כישראל לא יטמא! תלמוד לומר "הנוגע..והנושא" – לרבות אבר מן המת. 6) If they are mentioned above, why are they mentioned below? (i.e., Why mention here "All who touch their carcass will be unclean until the evening. And he that carries their carcass shall wash, etc.", if this has already been stated above [Vayikra 11:23-24])? What is stated above speaks of ever min hechai, and what is stated below speaks of ever min hameth (even if it lacks an olive-size of meat. [For if it has an olive-size of meat, it is tamei in any event by reason of an olive-size of neveilah]). (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If ever min hechai, where meat that falls from it (a living animal) is clean, confers tumah, then ever min hameth, where meat that falls from it (a dead animal) is tamei, how much more so should it confer tumah? — No, this may be so in the case of ever min hechai, the prohibition of which obtains with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites. Would you say the same for ever min hameth, the prohibition of which does not obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites? Since this is so, (we would say that) it should not confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written "one who touches" and "one who carries" to include ever min hameth (as conferring tumah).
[ז] "והנוגע..יטמא עד הערב" – ואין הנוגע מטמא בגדים. והלא דין הוא! ומה אם במקום שלא נטמאו מחמת עצמם במשא – נטמאו מחמת הנושא, מקום שיטמאו מחמת עצמם במגע – אינו דין שיטמאו מחמת הנוגע?! תלמוד לומר "והנוגע..יטמא עד הערב" – ואין הנוגע מטמא בגדים. 7) (Vayikra 11:27): "All who touch their carcass will be unclean until the evening": But the toucher does not confer tumah upon (his) clothing. (Without this verse we would say) does it not follow a fortiori (that the toucher does confer tumah upon his clothing, viz.:) if in an instance — that of carrying — where they (the clothes) do not become tamei of themselves (e.g., if being in one balance of a scale, the clothes lifted the other balance containing neveilah) — they yet become tamei by virtue of the carrier (of neveilah, that they clothe), then how much more so, in an instance where they do become tamei of themselves (i.e., when the clothes themselves touch neveilah), (how much more so) should they become tamei by virtue of the toucher (of the neveilah, who wears them)! It must, therefore, be written that the toucher (himself) becomes tamei until evening, but the toucher does not confer tumah upon (his) clothing.
[ח] "והנושא..יכבס בדגיו" – מלמד שהנושא מטמא בגדים. והלא דין הוא! ומה אם במקום שנטמאו מחמת עצמם במגע – לא נטמאו מחמת הנוגע, מקום שלא נטמאו מחמת עצמם במשא – אינו דין שלא יטמאו מחמת הנושא?! תלמוד לומר "והנושא..יכבס בגדיו" – מלמד שהנושא מטמא בגדים. 8) (Vayikra 11:28): "And he that carries their carcass shall wash his clothes": We are hereby taught that the carrier confers tumah upon (his) clothing. (Without this verse we would say) does it not follow a fortiori (that the carrier does not confer tumah upon his clothing, viz.:) if in an instance — that of touching — where they become tamei of themselves (i.e., when the clothes themselves touch neveilah), they do not become tamei by virtue of the toucher (of the neveilah, who wears them), then how much more so, in an instance where they do not become tamei of themselves — that of carrying — (how much more so) should they not become tamei by virtue of the wearer! It must, therefore, be written that the wearer shall wash his clothes, whereby we are taught that the wearer confers tumah upon (his) clothing.
[ט] קל וחומר שלא יטמאו מחמת עצמם במגע! ומה אם במקום שנטמאו מחמת הנושא – לא נטמאו מחמת עצמם, מקום שלא נטמאו מחמת הנוגע – אינו דין שלא יטמאו מחמת עצמם במגע?! תלמוד לומר "כל הנוגע בהם יטמא" – בין אדם בין כלים. 9) We could reason a fortiori that they (clothes) should not become tamei of themselves by touching (neveilah), viz.: If in an instance where they become tamei through the carrier, they do not become tamei of themselves (by lifting neveilah in a balance scale), then, in an instance where they do not become tamei through the toucher (who wears them), how much more so should they not become tamei of themselves by touching (neveilah)! It is, therefore, written "Everything that touches them will be unclean," both men and implements.
[י] קל וחומר שיטמאו מחמת עצמם במשא! ומה אם במקום שלא נטמאו מחמת הנוגע – נטמאו מחמת עצמם במגע, מקום שנטמאו מחמת הנושא – אינו דין שיטמאו מחמת עצמם במשא?! תלמוד לומר "לכם" – לכם הם מטמאין ואין מטמאים לא אוכלים ולא משקים ולא כלים במשא. 10) We could reason a fortiori that they should become tamei of themselves by carrying (i.e., by lifting neveilah in a balance scale), viz.: If in an instance where they do not become tamei through the toucher (who wears them), they become tamei of themselves by touching (neveilah), then, in an instance where they do become tamei through the carrier (who wears them), how much more so should they become tamei of themselves by carrying (i.e., by lifting neveilah in a balance scale)! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:28): "they are tamei to you," and neither food, nor drink, nor implements become tamei by carrying (neveilah in a scale). It is the carrier (that confers the tumah), and not that which is being carried (the neveilah).