Parasha: Shemini · Aliyah: Sixth (Yesod)

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 to write such a comment and to quarrel with the ancient commentators seeing that what he wrote cannot be supported at all. Who is going to take him seriously especially when he teaches something which contradicts our accepted tradition? Even a junior scholar can determine that this could not be the plain meaning of the verse. [The author continues to lambast Ibn Ezra in this vein. Ed.]

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 lizards the Torah would still use the word למינהו. In Chulin 122 we find the following Baraitha: "when the Torah speaks of הטמאים, the impure ones (an unnecessary letter ה ), this includes the skin of the soft skinned שרצים being considered as part of their flesh [when the skin is attached to the flesh. Ed.]; I might think that this rule applies to all of the animals listed; to inform me that this is not so the Torah writes אלה in the following verse (30). To the question that the word אלה is a collective term including all the previously mentioned animals, Rav answered that the word למינהו separates between what was described in the previous verses and what follows from here on in." Whence does Rav know that the word למינהו is intended to serve as an interruption of what was listed before instead of telling us that there are several varieties of turtles and lizards? We must assume that Rav did not mean to invalidate the plain meaning of the verse, i.e. that there are different varieties of lizards. He considered the fact that on the one hand the word הטמאים is used inclusively to extend the ritual impurity to the skins of these animals. On the other hand, the verse immediately adds an exclusion by writing the word אלה. If the word למינהו had not been written in between I would not have known how to apply the inclusive ה in the word הטמאים and the exclusive message contained in the word אלה. Now, -even though the word למינהו - is required in its own right, it also serves to separate between what was written in the previous verse and what is written in verse 30. This also answers the question raised by Tossaphot on that folio that if the word למינהו acts as separating the previous verse from the following one, why did the Torah have to write the word אלה? (Tossaphot remain with the question). When you adopt our approach there is no problem even according to the opinion that the word הטמאים includes the legislation that the skin of these animals also confers impurity. If we follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, the determining factor of whether the skin is treated like the flesh of the animal depends on the feel of the skin relative to the flesh. It does not depend on the verse these animals are mentioned in relative to other verses. [it appears that the main disagreement concerns the skin of the lizard which according to Rabbi Yehudah (Shabbat 107) would certainly not be considered as integral to the rest of the body. Ed.] At any rate, the word למינהו is certainly needed in its own right.

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.