Vayikro
Book 3: Leviticus

Chapter 09 - Text Notes

1 The "eighth day."

2 Chapter 7; Seder Olom is a Midrash specializing in chronological problems in Tanach. The ten crowns, each of which symbolize the first or preeminent occurence of certain events, are those of 1) Maaseh Bereishis (since the installation occured on a Sunday), 2) that of the Princes ( {Hebrew Ref} ), in that they brought the first sacrifices, 3) of the {Hebrew Ref} of the tribe of Levi and the family of Aharon, which was installed for the first time; hitherto the {Hebrew Ref} had been held by the firstborn sons, 4) the Temple service, 5) that of the descent of the heavenly fire, 6) eating sacrificial meat within the Tabernacle courtyard, 7) the Presence of the Shechinoh, 8) blessing Israel, 9) the inauguration of the prohibition of local altars, 10) the inauguration of the first of the months, Nisan, which now officially opened the year and became the first month of the year; see Shemos 12, 2.

3 Literally, "by the mouth of the Word."

4 Tanchuma Shemini 6.

5 As described in Shemos 32, 1--6. Although he had not actually constructed the calf, it is attributed to him because he had not resisted the people and had seemed to go along with their demand.

6 That is, the Tabernacle.

7 Literally, "come [as] an obligation."

8 Sifra Millu'im 1:8.

9 Sifra Vayikro on 4, 4. The essential problem is this: Why are the sacrifices for the people (the kid of goats, young calf and lamb, as Rashi notes) all included in the expression "the people's sacrifice"---singular, while Aharon's are given in detail (Your sin offering---the young calf---and your burnt-offering---the ram); why not simply state: "the sacrifice of Aharon and the people"? The reason must be that each has a different rule applying to it, and so they must be separated. A calf brought as a sacrifice is usually two years old, and a kid is a year old; but if this is a general rule, why does verse 3 above need to state this explicitly? Simply because this is just the place where that general rule is set forth (M.L.).

10 That is, a sin-offering whose blood is sprinkled on the outside altar rather than of the Kohein G-dol brought on Yom Kippur, which is sprinkled "within."

11 As stated in this verse.

12 In the parallel verse in Shemos 29, 14, Rashi mentions only the first; see M., G.A. and Chizkuni there for an explanation.

13 Literally, "by the mouth of the Word."

14 That is, the sin-offering mentioned in verse 7. Since two calves were offered in the course of the ceremony, one mentioned in verse 2 (as a sin-offering) and one in verse 3 (as a burnt-offering), Rashi had to specify which calf is being referred to here (B.M.H.).

15 Verses 3--13. It is there that the Torah sets out the "rule"of the usual burnt-offering, namely, the freewill offering, as Vayikro 1, 2 states: "[If] a man among you will bring" (M., G.A.).

16 Sifra deMillu'im 11.

17 Since "aside" means "in addition to," this phrase refers to that which is in addition to the usual daily offerings (G.A.).

18 Even though the word "fat" is not mentioned here, it may be understood, since the expression "the fat covering the innards"appears above in Shemos 29, 13; 29, 22; Vayikro 3, 3; 3, 9; 3, 14; 4, 8; 7, 3 (M., G.A.).

19 As Rashi explained in his comments on 7, 30; see Menachos 62a.

20 The three blessings of Birkas Kohanim in Bemidbar 6, 24-26; see Sotoh 38a. The Ramban suggests that this is derived from the juxtaposition ( {Hebrew Ref} ) of Birkas Kohanim in Bemidbar and the paroshoh beginning "It was on the day Moshe completed erecting the Tabernacle..." in Bemidbar 7, 1. Thus, the blessing of Birkas Kohanim is connected with the setting up of the Tabernacle.

21 Since Aharon could hardly be descending from anywhere else,why does Rashi mention this? The issue seems to be whether the Birkas Kohanim preceded the completion of the sacrifices or followed them, as the verse seems to indicate. According to Sifra (Millu'im 18), the blessing was given only after all the sacrifices had been offered, and so this verse records the two acts in reverse order: First Aharon descended from the altar, and then he blessed the people. If so, Rashi might agree with Ibn Ezra's suggested interpretation of {Hebrew Ref} as a pluperfect, "he had descended [from the altar]"---before blessing the people.

22 A teaching of the {Hebrew Ref} not included in the Mishnah.

23 We have seen from verse 22 that Birkas Kohanim is required after the descent from the altar, and Sifra Millu'im 30 derives the requirement of blessing upon entering the Tabernacle by a {Hebrew Ref} : If the kohein must recite Birkas Kohanim upon leaving the Tabernacle (as described in the second half of this verse), which does not require washing his hands and feet, he should certainly be required to recite Birkas Kohanim upon entering the Tabernacle,when he is required to wash (see Shemos 30, 19 and 21). Having established the fact that blessing---a form of Temple service---is required for entering and leaving the Tabernacle, Sifra proceeds to define the purpose of this entrance as connected with the Temple service (see L.B., A.H.).

24 Why precisely the offering of incense and not some other ritual? Because Aharon would have observed Moshe performing the others during the seven days preceding; it is only the incense which must be offered in the Holy of Holies by one man alone, and so Aharon could not have accompanied Moshe while he offered it (M.L.). G.A. suggests rather that incense was not offered during that week, just as we do not find the daily burnt-offering was brought during that installation week.

25 The Divine Presence.

26 Literally, "said."

27 Because of my involvement with making the Golden Calf.

28 Sifra Millu'im 19.

29 Tehillim 90, 17.

30 That is, this prayer/blessing was necessary because the Shechinoh had not rested on the Tabernacle until the end of the installation week, as Rashi explains.

31 And yet it has not descended.

32 {Hebrew Ref} , "they praised." Rashi wishes to prevent a misunderstanding here; they did not merely express surprise or wonderment, but praised G-d (B.M.H.).

Chapter 10 - Text Notes

33 Because they offered a "strange fire" (verse 1), that is,though their action in offering a human-originated fire was proper, as Rashi explains in his comments to 1, 7, nevertheless they sinned in deciding the matter themselves without consulting Moshe, their teacher (see also G.A.). While it may seem an unduly harsh punishment to us, we must remember that G-d holds the righteous to a much higher standard of behavior, as the Gemara in Yevamos 121b points out.

34 And because of this their service was akin to a "strange fire." G.A. suggests that according to either opinion, that of R.Eliezer or that of R. Yishmo'el, they sinned in two ways, by bringing a "strange fire," and for one other sin, either by making a halochic decision in their masters' presence, according to R.Eliezer, or by performing the service while intoxicated, according to R. Shimon, and it was these sins which account for the immediacy of the punishment they received.

35 12:1. The Midrash continues: He found him standing at the entrance of some stores and had him beheaded without comment, appointing another member of his household in his place---and we do not know why he killed the first one. However, from what he instructed the second one, saying "Do not enter stores" we may know that it was for this reason that he was killed. So too---"A fire came forth from Ad-noy," and we do not know why they died. However, from what [G-d] instructed Aharon, saying to him: "Do not drink wine or any other intoxicant" (10, 9 below), we may know why--that they died only because of the wine.

36 Shemos 29, 43.

37 Which can be spelled the same way.

38 The sanctification would be accomplished either through you or me.

39 Sifra Millu'im 1:36.

40 Since the Torah singles out this action of Aharon's for mention, it must be meant in a positive way, as praise for Aharon in accepting the decree (M.L.).

41 Vayikro Rabbo 12; Zevochim 115b.

42 Meaning that when the righteous are judged, believers draw the conclusion Rashi notes. It is only believers who draw the proper conclusion, and "Your sanctified ones" refers to both---those who were judged and those who draw the proper conclusions. As above in regard to {Hebrew Ref} , the two meanings given are spelled the same.

43 Shemos 6, 18. The verse continues: "Amram, Yizhar, Chevron and Uzziel." Thus, Uzziel was a brother of Amram, the father of Moshe and Aharon, and thus the uncle of Aharon.

44 I.e., your kinsmen.

45 See Kesubos 17a. The verse could merely have stated: "Carry your kinsmen out and bury them," instead of referring to the Sanctuary. Because of this mention, the implication seems to be as Rashi notes, since the installation may be compared to a wedding (M., G.A.).

46 Sifra Millu'im 34. Just as the sin was spiritual in nature, so too the punishment (M.L.).

47 Since they were forbidden to mourn their dead, we learn that letting one's hair grow is a sign of mourning.

48 Moed Koton 14b.

49 Sifra Millu'im 40.

50 Will mourn the dead for you.

51 Moed Koton 28b.

52 Sifra Shemini 1:2. There is a three-way dispute among the Tanno'im; according to the Tanna Kamma, the word {Hebrew Ref} , "wine"refers to new wine, while {Hebrew Ref} refers to stronger old wine. The penalty for the first is malkos (whipping) and the second is "death at the hands of Heaven." R. Yehudoh is of the opinion that {Hebrew Ref} refers to all kinds of wine, with the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven, while {Hebrew Ref} refers to anything else which intoxicates, the punishment being whipping. Finally, R. Eliezar holds the opinion which Rashi sets forth,and whom the Halochoh follows.

53 That a kohein is liable to death for entering these areas while intoxicated.

54 Since the phrase refers to the Sanctuary proper, it seems not to include the courtyard, in which the outer altar stood.

55 Regarding the prohibition of entering while intoxicated.

56 I.e., the washing of hands and feet before entering the Tabernacle or Temple.

57 By the kohanim, as prescribed at Shemos 30, 20.

58 The kohanim were required to wash before ascending the altar.

59 Sifra Shemini par 1, 4. That is, we derive this rule by means of a {Hebrew Ref} , the use of a word or phrase in two places to indicate that the conditions which govern one govern the other; this is the second of Rabbi Yishmo'el's Thirteen Methods ( {Hebrew Ref} ) by which the Torah is interpreted.

60 Literally, "holy."

61 Literally, "profaned."

62 While intoxicated.

63 Sifra Shemini 1, 8; Zevochim 17b.

64 Since the same word, {Hebrew Ref} , is used for halachic decisions made by kohanim and talmidei chachomim , we might think that the penalties involved are the same.

65 Sifra Shemini, par. 1, 8. "With you" is a seemingly superflous phrase, and thus indicates that there is an exclusion here, as Rashi notes.

66 Devorim 9, 20.

67 Amos 2, 9. We see therefore that G-d had considered not only punishing Aharon for his role in the Golden Calf incident, but also to cause all his children to die.

68 Devorim 9, 20. See Rashi's comment there.

69 Mourners on whom the obligation of burying the deceased still falls.

70 Sifra Shemini, per. 1, 3. Nachshon son of Aminodov was the prince of the tribe of Judah, and was the first to offer his installation donations and offerings; see Bemidbar 7, 12--17.

71 That is, we might have thought that the mode of bringing it might have been different, since it was a unique offering; this teaches us that it conformed to the rules of the others, already laid down above in chapter 1 (L.B.); see Sifra Shemini, per. 1, 4.

72 Sifra Shemini, per. 1, 7. Although a kohein's daughters may share in other offerings, such as {Hebrew Ref} , holy things ( {Hebrew Ref} ) are forbidden to them, as this verse stipulates: sons, but not daughters.

73 Literally, "while in a state of {Hebrew Ref} . Sifra Shemini per 1, 8; Zevochim 101a.

74 The sin offering and the meal offering.

75 That is, the installation sin and meal offerings.

76 That is, within the Tabernacle or Temple courtyard, a holy place.

77 {Hebrew Ref} , people suffering from the skin diseases described in chapter 13 below were not allowed to remain within the camp; see Bemidbar 5, 1--4. Thus, the camp too was in some sense holy.

78 Zevochim 55a; see Rashi on 4, 12 above.

79 Which are portions devoted and presented to the kohein offering the sacrifice.

80 Verse 13.

81 From the holy things.

82 Sifra Shemini, per. 1, 10.

83 See Rashi on 7, 30 above.

84 See 9, 3.

85 See Rashi above on verse 12.

86 Since the verb {Hebrew Ref} , "it was burnt," is in the singular (L.B.).

87 So R. Yehudoh and R. Shimon, but they reconstruct the debate between Aharon and Moshe somewhat differently. According to R.Shimon, {Hebrew Ref} lasts only during the day of death by Torah law, and so Aharon and his sons wished to wait for nightfall to eat the two special goat offerings, and they burnt the Rosh Chodesh goat, which was an obligation which continued for future generations. According to R. Yehudoh, {Hebrew Ref} lasts during the night by Torah law, but it was explicitly permitted in this case to eat all the goat-sacrifices, since there were no other kohanim available; because they waited for nightfall, the Rosh Chodesh goat became ritually unclean in the meantime, and it was for this wait that Moshe became angry (Sifra Shemini, per. 2, 8 and 10; but compare Zevochim 101a, and see the next note regarding R. Nechemioh's opinion).

88 Which Aharon and his remaining sons were in, that is, they were required to attend to the burial of their dead sons and brothers. According to R. Nechemioh, the state of {Hebrew Ref} lasts twenty-four hours by Torah law, and Moshe held that all the goats should have been eaten as soon as possible, even during the day,since there was no benefit to be gained by waiting for nightfall, since the {Hebrew Ref} would still be in force. Aharon, on the other hand, distinguished between the goat for Rosh Chodesh, whose obligation applied to future generations as well, and the two others, whose obligations were only for that time; the first should not be eaten, though the latter could. In the end, Moshe agreed (Zevochim 101a).

89 I.e., those intended only for that time and not as rule for future generations.

90 Verse 12 above; Zevochim 101a.

91 Literally, the phrase {Hebrew Ref} may be rendered "inquiry he inquired." This may be midrashically interpreted as referring to two inquiries.

92 Sifra Shemini, per. 2, 2.

93 Sifra Shemini, per. 2, 6.

94 Literally, "my words." In this way he gave them permission to speak, even though ordinarily a talmid is not permitted to speak back to his Rebbe, even when the Rebbe is unjustifiably angry at him (Or Ha Chayim).

95 I.e., outside the Tabernacle.

96 As verse 16 itself testifies!

97 I.e., the sacrifice.

98 I.e., outside the Tabernacle courtyard which was marked by the curtains hung around it; see Shemos 27:9--15.

99 The sacrificial flesh had to be eaten within the Tabernacle precincts; if it was taken out, it became invalid and could no longer be eaten.

100 Sifra Shemini, per. 2, 4.

101 The sacrifice in question; see Rashi on verse 16 above.

102 I.e., were not brought.

103 Zevochim 101b.

104 I.e., the sacrifice.

105 Vayikro 6, 23. The verse continues: "within the Tent of Meeting to atone within the Sanctuary may not be eaten; it must be burned in fire." See Pesochim 82a.

106 See n. 69 above and text.

107 In verses 12 and 13.

108 Bemidbar 21, 5.

109 That the two did not respond to Moshe's reproof.

110 Literally, "they said."

111 Bemidbar 31, 21. This shows that when need be Elozor had the moral strength to stand up to an army.

112 That is, not the usual Sifrei, the tannaitic midrash on Bemidbar, but apparently what is now know as Sifrei Zutta; it is found in Yalkut Shimoni I, r. 185.

113 Since Aharon had already explained his actions in terms of {Hebrew Ref} , what was the purpose of his apology here? (L.B.).

114 The Ramban questions this interpretation, since we know already that the even after the sacrificial service was completed the heavenly fire still had not descended. The Tur, in the name of his father the Rosh, suggests that the Rosh Chodesh goat was saved for last, although the general rule is that more common sacrifices are brought first; the reason is that by definition installation sacrifices must be brought first! See also G.A.

115 Zevochim 101a.

116 Vayikro 21, which lists the relatives whose funerals a kohein must attend, even though he is ordinarily forbidden any contact with the dead, or even remaining under the same roof as a dead body.

117 Sifra Shemini per. 2, 9.

118 Rashi wishes to indicate that the word "if" is to be understood, even though it does not appear in the verse.

119 The state of being an {Hebrew Ref} .

120 That is, an {Hebrew Ref} is forbidden to perform positive commandments so long as he has not arranged the funeral of his deceased close relative (father, mother, etc.) only during the day,but not at night. On the contradiction between Rashi's explanation here and that above on verse 16, see next note.

121 Sifra Shemini, per. 2, 10; Zevochim 100b. Here Rashi interprets the situation according to the opinion of R. Shimon, who holds that night-time {Hebrew Ref} is not by Torah law, since Aharon here emphasizes the daytime as the time prohibited for eating (L.B.).

122 That is, a rule which does not apply to all time, but only to the time the Israelites spent in the wilderness.

123 Zevochim 101b.

Chapter 11 - Text Notes

124 There are thirteen verses of this sort which specify Moshe as the recipient of Divine revelation, and thirteen which specify both Moshe and Aharon; this indicates that in each of these cases Moshe was given the paroshoh to give over in turn to Aharon; see Rashi to Vayikro 1, 1 d.h. {Hebrew Ref} .

125 See Sifra Shemini, par. 2, 1.

126 I.e., Moshe and Aharon, Elozor and Isomor (L.B.).

127 Literally, "equal."

128 That is, the deaths of Nodov and Avihu, Aharon's sons and Moshe's nephews. Both Aharon and Moshe accepted G-d's decree without protest.

129 The word for animal in Hebrew, {Hebrew Ref} is related to the word {Hebrew Ref} "life."

130 That is, spiritually vibrant.

131 A parable: To what may this thing be compared? To a physician who went to visit two patients. He saw that one of them was in danger and said to the members of his household: "Give him whatever he asks for." He saw that [the other] was destined to live, and said to them: "He may eat such-and-such food, he may not eat such-and-such food." [The family members] said to the physician: "What is this? To one you say: 'He may eat any food he asks for,' and to the other you said: 'You may not eat such-and-such?'" The physician said to them: "To the one destined to live I said: 'This eat, and this you may not eat.' But [regarding] the one destined to die, I told them: Give him whatever he asks for,'for he will not live in any case." So too the Holy One, blessed be He, allowed idol-worshipers swarming and creeping things, but as for Israel, who are destined to life eternal, He said to them: "You shall be holy for I am holy: do not make your souls abhorrent." This is found in Tanchuma Shemini and in Vayikro Rabbo 13, 2.

132 Chullin 42a. The last is a quote from verse 9 below.

133 From verse 13 below.

134 Verse 29 below. In each of these cases, the Midrash points out that Moshe used the word "this," which generally indicates that the speaker is pointing out something close by to the listener. Each of these words is necessary, since I might have thought that Moshe would only have shown them the less repulsive creatures, and did not need to show them the others. However, since people's tastes are varied, he made sure to show each of the forbidden creatures to them.

135 Sifra Shemini, par. 2, 8, Chullin 70b. Likewise, on occasion {Hebrew Ref} is considered to be the more general category of living things of which {Hebrew Ref} , domesticated animals, are a sub-category (e.g., Devorim 14, 4); it all depends on the context.

136 And not the Hebrew word which means "hoof," since all these ruminants have hooves. It is not sufficient that it have a hoof, but that the hoof be split (L.B.).

137 Shmuel 2, 14, 14. {Hebrew Ref} , related to {Hebrew Ref} , "cud."

138 Since it is sufficiently clear that the verse is dealing with animals; why mention it again.

139 Sifra Shemini, par. 2, 9, Chullin 69a. As Rashi explains in Chullin, the word {Hebrew Ref} means literally "in the animal," and this is interpreted to mean "that which is within the animal,"viz., an embryo.

140 Literally, "the warning."

141 Sifra Shemini, per. 4, 8, Zevochim 34a. That is, if one eats flesh of a forbidden animal he has violated two counts of Torah law, a negative prohibition, which, if done unintentionally, requires him to bring a sin-offering, and a positive commandment ("to eat kosher flesh"), which would require a burnt-offering for atonement.

142 An argument from minor to major or major to minor, e.g., If I can lift ten pounds, I can certainly lift five; or: If I cannot lift five pounds, I can certainly not lift ten. In this case: If these [animals] which have some signs of purity are forbidden, those with no signs at all are certainly forbidden!

143 See previous note; this {Hebrew Ref} is found in Sifra Shemini, per. 3, 2.

144 Which are not included in this prohibition (ibid.).

145 That is, non-Kohanim.

146 Vayikro 21, 1 below, which prohibits kohanim from touching impurities. Kohanim are forbidden to come into such contact, but not non- kohanim.

147 See n. 142 above.

148 When Israelites are not affected by this prohibition?

149 Sifra ibid., Rosh Hashonoh 16b. While Israelites do not have to keep themselves away from most impurities during the rest of the year, on the festivals of Pesach, Shevuos and Sukkos they must be more careful, since they are coming into contact with holy food or entering the Temple Mount and the Temple itself.

150 Chullin 59a.

151 Shmuel 1, 17, 5, regarding Golyos (Goliath).

152 The parenthetical comment is not found in the first printing of Rashi's commentary.

153 The verse is repeated to prohibit all things with which the {Hebrew Ref} is mixed if they contain enough of the {Hebrew Ref} that is will impart its taste to them. (Sifra)

154 Sifra Shemini par. 3, 10.

155 Sifra Shemini, par. 3, 10, Chullin 67a.

156 Since it is more or less a repetition of verse 10.

157 Since the verse emphasizes that only those which lack fins or scales while in the water are forbidden; if they had them while in the water but subsequently lost them, they are permitted as food. Sifra Shemini par. 3, 11.

158 Devorim 14, 2.

159 E.g., using their hides for shoes, selling their flesh, etc.

160 Literally, "her."

161 Literally, "his."

162 And that is why sometimes the verse includes the expression,"to its kind" and sometimes not.

163 Chullin 63a.

164 In verse 30.

165 A mole.

166 Which has the literal meaning, "pious one."

167 Chullin 63a. It shares its food, and thus acts in a saintly way. This teaches us that G-d gives each creature its reward, praising the stork for its actions in His Torah by naming it as He did.

168 Gittin 68b, which describes a kind of "stonepecker" bird.

169 The Ramban objects to this definition, which seems to depend mostly on size; in his view, the difference between {Hebrew Ref} or {Hebrew Ref} and {Hebrew Ref} is not a matter of size, but of form: the former have two limbs with which to walk, an outstretched neck and wings (konof) with which to fly, while {Hebrew Ref} are as described in our verse---they have four legs, with neck and head facing the ground like insects. M. responds that Rashi did not wish to stress their size, either, but merely mentioned in passing that they are "thin."

170 Jointed legs.

171 Most commentators emend Rashi's text here to read "and there are those which have tails," according to the {Hebrew Ref} in Chullin 61a.

172 That is, this repetition of verse 20 here.

173 G.A. explains that "four" implies that an insect with fewer than four legs, e.g., a two-legged one, is {Hebrew Ref} , and no extra verse is needed for that deduction. Rather, this repetition of verse 20 comes to teach us that even insects with more than four legs are clean.

174 Sifra Shemini, per. 5, 10.

175 Literally, "said."

176 In verse 42.

177 That is, we should not interpret the {Hebrew Ref} , which usually refers to "causative action," as the translation implies, as such, but rather that if one touches it, he becomes {Hebrew Ref} (L.B.).

178 I.e., uncleanness caused by carrying.

179 Which the one carrying the unclean thing was wearing at the time; Sifra Shemini par. 4, 7. M., G.A. and others wonder why Rashi troubles to explain something which is all-but-explicit in verses 24--25. G.A. suggests that Rashi wishes to reject the possibility that one might interpret these verses as merely implying that carrying always involves touch, and so {Hebrew Ref} and {Hebrew Ref} are both of the same level of severity.

180 Verses 39--40.

181 And not only forbidden as food (B.B.).

182 That is, to cause {Hebrew Ref} by being touched.

183 A kohein who is {Hebrew Ref} may not eat {Hebrew Ref} , the thirtieth, fortieth or fiftieth of the crop set aside for kohanim.

184 Sacrifices and the like.

185 I.e., the Tabernacle or Temple.

186 See Zevochim 75a.

187 That is, unlike other types of vessels which can become {Hebrew Ref} when their exterior walls are touched by a {Hebrew Ref} severe enough to cause such impurity, earthenware vessels, only become {Hebrew Ref} when the impurity enters into the interior of the vessel, even if it does not touch the inner walls(Chullin 24b).

188 That is, once a {Hebrew Ref} has entered its interior and made the vessel itself {Hebrew Ref} , the vessel itself now transmits the impurity to whatever was inside it to begin with, even though that substance was not in contact with the {Hebrew Ref} .

189 But must be broken and made useless for its intended purpose before it can become {Hebrew Ref} (M.).

190 I.e., the previous verse (33) and the beginning of this one.

191 This parenthetical comment is not found in the first printing of Rashi's commentary.

192 Since the verse specifies that water has come upon it, not that it must remain on it; thus, even when dry the foodstuff accepts {Hebrew Ref} (G.A.).

193 Including wine, blood, oil, milk, dew, honey, water (L.B.).

194 From the beginning of verse 34.

195 At the end of verse 34.

196 That is, by a slight rearrangement of wording the verses may yield the meaning Rashi gives.

197 As Rashi now explains.

198 Verse 33.

199 Verse 34.

200 As verses 33--34 explain.

201 I.e., primary uncleanness, such as someone who has touched a dead body.

202 I.e., a secondary uncleanness.

203 As just explained; therefore, only a Father of Uncleanness (= a First [ {Hebrew Ref} ]) can cause uncleanness to vessels, but not objects which have secondary uncleanness (= a Second [ {Hebrew Ref} ]).

204 I.e., on their exterior walls, thus causing them to become unclean in the First degree, but we know that vessels cannot ordinarily cause uncleanness to other vessels, as stated just above. See Pesochim 20a.

205 While it was still rooted.

206 After all, if this can happen when the plant is still attached to the earth, there is no separate category of plants which are prepared to accept uncleanness, since all vegetables were at one time rooted in the ground and rained on! Since this rule applies universally, there is no need for the verse to make this stipulation. See Chullin 118b.

207 That is, the food that causes {Hebrew Ref}

208 Yomo 80a.

209 That is, they are not cemented to the ground.

210 That is, they are not solid, but have an interior; as earthenware vessels, of course, they transmit uncleanness within their interior.

211 Both the oven and the hearth.

212 Rather than on the side, as do our ovens.

213 See verse 33 above.

214 And thus to purify them.

215 And that is the reason for the repetition: "they are unclean and they shall be unclean to you"---if you do not purify them, but you may keep them in their unclean state as long as they are not used for ritually pure food.

216 Filled with water.

217 For, at least according to R. Yehudoh and R. Yose, water cannot acquire impurity unless it is separated from the ground,while R. Eliezer holds that water does not acquire impurity in any case (M., B.Y., and see Mishnoh Mikvo'os 1, 4, Tosefta Mikvo'os 1, 1, and Bavli Pesochim 15a).

218 But, under the proper circumstances they constitute a {Hebrew Ref} , a source of purity which purifies certain impurities. See immediately below.

219 That is, his immersion will not prevent him from contracting uncleanness if he is in contact with it; it will only purify him if he immerses without contact, as Rashi explains further.

220 A deduction from minor to major or the reverse.

221 Even while immersed in a mikveh; see Nedarim 75b.

222 Doniel 1, 12.

223 Even if a dead {Hebrew Ref} touches them they do not become unclean, because they have not yet become "prepared" to accept {Hebrew Ref} .

224 I.e., plant.

225 Chullin 118b. G.A. notes that it would be possible to derive this rule as the converse of the rule set forth in the previous verse, the Torah prefers a direct statement to an indirect deduction whenever possible; see his remarks on Shemos 22, 17 d.h. {Hebrew Ref} ; 30, 20, d.h. {Hebrew Ref} , and below in Vayikro 16, 2 d.h. {Hebrew Ref} .

226 The water.

227 Into the water.

228 Sifra Shemini, per. 11, 6.

229 Literally, "water."

230 That is, food ready for impurity.

231 This state of preparedness to acquire {Hebrew Ref} ( {Hebrew Ref} ).

232 Literally, "is uprooted."

233 Bovo Metzi'o 22a.

234 Sifra Shemini, par. 10, 5. The word "carcass" ( {Hebrew Ref} ) refers to the edible portions of the animal, not to these.

235 See Rashi on verse 25 above, and notes.

236 I.e., a fowl permitted to be eaten.

237 Vayikro 22, 8.

238 Without the person himself having touched the meat from the carcass until it touched his gullet.

239 Since this is hardly the usual way of eating it.

240 Sifra Shemini, par. 10, 7, Niddoh 42b. That is, the word "whoever eats" implies that the amount for causing impurity is an olive's-bulk, the minimum amount which our Sages estimated constitutes "eating." Less than that amount is not considered eating, either for liability, as if one eats less than that amount of food that is {Hebrew Ref} and enters the Temple, or, in the more familiar case, if one eats less than that amount of matzoh on Pesach he has not fulfilled his obligation of "eating" matzoh.

241 As set forth in verse 25 above (M.L.).

242 The seemingly unnecessary phrase "which crawl on the ground" comes to exclude from consideration those insects which do not crawl on the ground.

243 Sifra Shemini, per. 12, 1, Chullin 67a.

244 Passive form: "it may not be eaten" rather than "he may not eat."

245 As Y.H. and D.H. point out, this is difficult, since the word {Hebrew Ref} means "belly" and not "bending low." Y.H. notes that the first printing of Rashi does not have the word {Hebrew Ref} here, but {Hebrew Ref} , which does mean "bending low" and presumably refers to various Talmudic passages which use the expression, the point being to relate {Hebrew Ref} to {Hebrew Ref} here in the verse.

246 Which is like the snake in that it is venomous, but is a {Hebrew Ref} (D.H.).

247 Sifra Shemini, per. 12, 2.

248 {Hebrew Ref} , translated as "yourselves" literally means "your souls."

249 And so consumption must be intended and not merely touch.

250 In verse 44.

251 In Heaven; see Yomo 39a. M. does not seem to have had this last phrase in his edition of Rashi, and, indeed, it is not typical of Rashi.

252 In this world.

253 In return for your sanctifying yourselves in this world.

254 A shell fish or water reptile; see Makkos 16b.

255 Of a maximum of 39 strokes each, one for each count transgressed, and each phrase such as "you shall not eat," "it shall not be eaten," "you shall not defile yourselves," etc. constitutes one transgression, or "count." Here the counts are in verses 10--11, which contain three counts---1) as a water creature, 2) as a creature without scales, and 3) fins, and 4) from verse 43.

256 1) As an insect crawling on the ground (verse 41), 2) as many-footed (verse 42), 3) and 4) twice forbidden as food (verse 43), and 5) once more as an insect crawling on the ground (verse 44); see Rashi on Eruvin 28a.

257 The five for the ant, and a sixth for Devorim 14, 10.

258 That is, the merit of refraining from eating these detestable things would have been sufficient to give them the merit of being saved from Egyptian slavery.

259 Which is related to the word {Hebrew Ref} , which which means "an advantage, of [greater] degree."

260 The knowledge of these prohibitions should not be merely theoretical, but you should be able to carry them out in practice by knowing the characteristics of permitted and forbidden foods;Sifra Shemini, per. 12, 6.

261 And is therefore forbidden.

262 And is therefore permitted.

263 Literally, "been born."

264 Sifra Shemini, per. 12, 8. Rashi here refers not to the colloquial use of the word {Hebrew Ref} as meaning "unfit for eating,"but rather to the technical use of the word in Chullin, where it refers to an animal with an organic defect, some of which render it forbidden, and some which do not.