[א] "או נפש אשר תגע בכל דבר טמא". הזקנים הראשונים היו אומרים, יכול אפילו נגע אדם במגע טומאות יהא חייב? תלמוד לומר 'בנבלת חיה..בנבלת בהמה..בנבלת שרץ" – מה אלו מיוחדים שהן אבות הטומאה, יצא דבר שאין אב הטומאה. 1) (Vayikra 5:2) ("Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, or the carcass of an unclean animal, or the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing, and it be hidden from him, and he is unclean and he is guilty") "Or if a soul touch any unclean thing": The early masters were wont to say: I might think that even if one touched something that had touched an unclean thing (tamei), he was liable (for entering the sanctuary or eating consecrated food); it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "the carcass of an unclean animal," "the carcass of an unclean beast," "the carcass of an unclean creeping thing" — Just as these are unique in being avoth hatumah (primary causes of tumah), (so all that are avoth hatumah are included), excluding those which are not av hatumah).
[ב] ר' עקיבא אומר יכול אפילו נגע באוכלין במשקין ובכלי חרס יהא חייב? תלמוד לומר 'בהמה' – מה בהמה מיוחדת שהיא אב הטומאה, יצאו אלו שאינם אבות הטומאה. 2) R. Akiva said: I might think that even if one touched food, drink, or earthenware vessels (that had become tamei) he was liable, these are excluded, not being avoth hatumah.
[ג] או דבר שאתה למדו בדרך אחד אתה למדו בכל דרכים שיש בו! מה בהמה טמאה מיוחדת שחילק מגעה ממשאה, ומשאה אב הטומאה לטמא-אדם-לטמא-בגדים – אף איני מרבה אלא את כיוצא בה! ואת מה אני מרבה? – את רוב מי חטאת והמרכב; שחילק מגען ממשאם ומשאם אב הטומאה לטמא-אדם-לטמא-בגדים. כשהוא אומר "בכל דבר טמא" – לרבות את מיעוט מי חטאת והמשכב והמושב; ששוה מגען למשאן ועשאן אב הטומאה לטמא-אדם-ולטמא-בגדים. כשהוא אומר "בכל דבר טמא" – לרבות השורף הפרה ופרים והמשלח את השעיר; שאין מטמאין לא במגע ולא במשא. וכשהוא אומר "בכל דבר טמא" – לרבות הסככות והפרעות והקירוי, דברי ר' יהודה. 3) Or, if you learn a thing in one way (viz., binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles 3), you learn it in all of its aspects — Just as an unclean beast is unique in that touching it is distinct from carrying it (i.e., by touching it, one's garments do not become tamei, whereas by carrying it they do) and it becomes an av hatumah to render tamei both man and beast, so I include only those things which are like it. What do I include? The qualifying amount of the sprinkling waters of the red heifer and the saddle (mercav) (of a zav, one who is unclean by reason of a seminal emission), the touching of which is distinct from carrying them, (touching not rendering one's garments unclean; carrying, doing so) and which become an av hatumah to render tamei both man and beast. "any unclean thing" includes the chair and the couch (of a zav), whose touching is like its carrying and which become an av hatumah to render a man tamei to make his garments tamei. "unclean" includes the burner of the red heifer, and bullocks (the bullock of the anointed high-priest, the bullock of "forgetfulness" (helem davar) of the congregation, and the Yom Kippur bullock), and the sender-away of the (Yom Kippur) scape-goat, without touching, (a man who touches them not becoming tamei). "any unclean thing" includes (for tumah liability in entering the sanctuary a man who walks under unclean) overhanging boughs, (under unclean) jutting stones (adjoining a cemetery), and (who touches) semen (even though carrying it does not confer tumah). These are the words of R. Yehudah.
[ד] "בנבלת חיה…" – מה תלמוד לומר "טמאה"? שיכול, אין לי אלא כולה; כזית מנין? תלמוד לומר "טמאה". 4) ("the carcass of an unclean animal":) Why is "unclean" needed? (For even the carcass of a clean animal confers tumah!) I might think that (touching) only a whole animal is intended. How do I know that (touching) only an olive-size of it suffices? From "unclean" (i.e., a size that is susceptible of that term.)
[ה] "בנבלת בהמה…" – מה תלמוד לומר "טמאה"? שיכול, אין לי אלא נבלה עצמה; קרנה, שערה, חבורה מנין? תלמוד לומר "טמאה". 5) ("the carcass of an unclean beast":) Why is "unclean" needed? I might think that only the carcass itself is intended. How do I know that (touching) the attached horns and hair is included? From "unclean."
[ו] "בנבלת שרץ…" – מה תלמוד לומר "טמא"? שיכול, אין לי אלא בשרו; דמו, צרופו, ערובו מנין? תלמוד לומר "טמא". 6) ("the carcass of an unclean creeping thing [sheretz]":) Why is "unclean" needed? I might think that only its flesh is intended. How do I know that (touching) its blood, its combination (e.g., half a lentil-size of one sheretz with half a lentil-size of another) and its admixture (with other species of sheretz) is included? From "unclean."
[ז] "ונעלם ממנו" – ונעלמה ממנו טומאה. או יכול ונעלם ממנו מקדש? תלמוד לומר "ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא" – על העלם טומאה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם מקדש, דברי רבי עקיבא. ר' אליעזר אומר, "השרץ..ונעלם ממנו" – על העלם שרץ הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם מקדש. ר' ישמעאל אומר, "ונעלם ממנו..ונעלם ממנו" שתי פעמים לחייב על העלם טומאה ועל העלם מקדש. 7) ("and it be hidden from him":) What is hidden from him? Uncleanliness (i.e., his having become unclean)? Or the sanctuary (i.e., the fact that he had entered the sanctuary)? It is, therefore, written (in clarification) "and it be hidden from him and he is unclean." It is for hiddenness of uncleanliness that he is liable and not for hiddenness of the sanctuary. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Eliezer cites "a sheretz and it be hidden from him." It is for hiddenness of the sheretz that he is liable and not for the hiddenness of the sanctuary. R. Yishmael says: "and it be hidden from him" is written twice (verses 2 and 3), to make him liable for hiddenness (i.e., non-awareness) of uncleanliness and hiddenness of the sanctuary.
[ח] "או כי יגע בטומאת אדם". 'אדם' – זה המת. "בטומאת אדם" – זה טמא מת. "טמאתו" – לרבות זבים וזבות נדות ויולדות. אין לי אלא ימי חומרן; ימי קולן מנין? תלמוד לומר "לכל טמאתו". "אשר יטמא" – לרבות בועל נדה. "בה" – לרבות הבולע נבלת עוף הטהור. 8) (Vayikra 5:3) ("or if he touch the uncleanliness of a man, for all his uncleanliness in which he becomes unclean") "a man" — this is the dead person himself; "with the uncleanliness of a man" — this is one who has come in contact with a body; "his uncleanliness" — to include zavim (men with genital discharges), zavoth (women with genital discharges), menstruating women (niddoth), and women who had given birth. This tells me only of their stringent days (i.e., the days of their sighting). Whence do I derive the same for their less stringent ("white") days? From "for all his uncleanliness." "in (which) he becomes unclean" — to include one who cohabits with a niddah. "bah" (lit., "in it") — to include one who swallows the carcass of a clean bird.
[ט] אם נאמרו הקלות למה נאמרו החמורות? אילו נאמרו הקלות הייתי אומר: על הקלות – עולה ויורד, על החמורות – בקבועה! צריך לומר החמורות. או אילו נאמרו החמורות ולא נאמרו הקלות הייתי אומר: על החמורות יהא חייב ועל הקלות יהא פטור! צריך לומר הקלות וצריך לומר החמורות. 9) If the less stringent instances (the tumah of sheretz and carcass) are mentioned (as being liable for an offering), why need the more stringent ones (dead body, zav and zavah) be mentioned? If only the less stringent instances were mentioned, I would say that in these instances he is liable for a sliding-scale (oleh veyored) offering and in the stringent instances, for a fixed offering. The stringent instances must, therefore, be mentioned. Or if (only) the stringent ones and not the les stringent ones were mentioned, I would say that he is liable in the stringent instances but not in the less stringent ones. Therefore, both the less stringent and the stringent instances must be mentioned.
[י] ומנין שאינו מדבר אלא בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו? הזהיר וענש על ידי טומאה וחייב קרבן על הטומאה. מה ענוש ואזהרה אמורים להלן – על ידי טומאה בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו, אף קרבן שחייב כאן – על ידי טומאה בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו. 10) And whence is it derived that Scripture here speaks only of tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects, (but if he became tamei and did not thereafter eat consecrated food he is not liable)? It warned and punished for tumah and made one liable for an offering for tumah. Just as the punishment and the warning for tumah stated later (in Emor) were for the tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects, so the offering liability here is for tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects.
[יא] ומנין שאינו חייב עד שיהיה בה ידיעה בתחלה וידיעה בסוף והעלם בינתיים? תלמוד לומר "ונעלם ממנו..ונעלם ממנו" – שני פעמים, דברי ר' עקיבא. רבי אומר "ונעלם ממנו" מכלל ידיעה; "והוא ידע" – הרי שתי ידיעות. 11) And whence is it derived that he is not liable until there be awareness in the beginning and awareness in the end and "hiddenness" in the middle? From its being written twice (verses 2 and 3) "and it be hidden from him," (the implication being that he was aware in the beginning and in the end). These are the words of R. Akiva. Rebbi says: "and it be hidden from him" implies that before that he was aware; "and he knew" makes it two awarenesses.