[א] מנין לרבות חמש חטאות מתות? תלמוד לומר "ממעלי הגרה..טמא…" מנין לרבות פסולי המוקדשים? תלמוד לומר "וממפריסי הפרסה..טמא…". מנין לרבות חלב חמש חטאות מתות? תלמוד לומר "ממעלי הגרה..טמא". מנין לרבות חלב פסולי המוקדשין? תלמוד לומר "וממפריסי הפרסה..טמא". מנין לרבות חלב בהמה טמאה? ודין הוא! אסר בהמה טמאה, אסר ענבים בנזיר. מה ענבים בנזיר – עשה מה שיוצא מהם כמותם, אף בהמה טמאה – נעשה את שיוצא מהם כמותם. 1) Whence is it derived that five (animals in the class of) sin-offerings must (be allowed to) die (and not be eaten)? From (the redundant) "of those that chew the cud … it is unclean to you." (i.e., even though they have both cleanliness signs they are unclean) (the five sin-offerings: the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitute for a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner had died, a sin-offering which had been lost and which was found after atonement had been made with another animal, and a sin-offering whose year (of acceptability) had expired) Whence is derived for inclusion (as being allowed to die), (a substitute for) invalidated sanctified animals (i.e., sanctified animals which had sustained a blemish and been redeemed)? From "and of those whose hooves are parted … it is unclean to you." Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of the five sin-offerings which must die? From "of those that chew the cud … it is unclean." Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of invalidated sanctified animals? From (Devarim 14:7): "of those whose hooves are parted, the shesua … they are unclean to you." Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of an unclean animal? It follows, viz.: An unclean animal is forbidden, and grapes are forbidden to a Nazirite — Just as with grapes to a Nazirite, what is extracted from them is (forbidden) like them; so, with a beast, what is extracted from it (milk) is (forbidden) like it.
[ב] הין! אם עשה את היין כענבים – שהוא כגופן! נעשה חלב בהמה כבהמה שאינה כגופה?! רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, אם עשה את היין כענבים בנזיר – שאסור בפסולתם! נעשה חלב בהמה כבהמה שאין אסור בפסולתה?! תרומה תוכיח! שאין אסור בפסולתה ועשה את שיוצא ממנה כמותה! 2) But, if wine is (forbidden) like grapes, it is because it is found in their body, (the body collapsing when the wine is removed from it). Shall the milk of a beast, then, be (forbidden) like the beast, when it is not in its body (but something extraneous to it)! R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: If wine is (forbidden) like grapes, it is because their residue (their kernels and their husk) is forbidden. Shall the milk of a beast, then, be (forbidden) like the beast, when its residue (its feces and its urine) is not forbidden! — This (argument) is refuted by (the instance of grapes of) terumah, where, (even though) their residue (i.e., kernels and husks) is not forbidden, yet what is extracted from them (wine) is forbidden!
[ג] הין! אם החמיר בתרומה באיסור חמור נחמיר בבבהמה באיסור קל?! תלמוד לומר "גמל" "גמל" שני פעמים – אם אינו ענין לבשרה תנהו ענין לחלבה. 3) — But, if this stringency obtains in (the instance of the eating of) terumah (by a non-priest), a grave transgression, (punishable by death), shall this stringency obtain in the instance of an (unclean) beast, (the eating of which is) a lesser transgression! It is, therefore, written (to indicate that it does obtain, the redundant "camel" (Vayikra 11:4) - "camel" (Devarim 14:7), two times. If it (the redundancy) is not needed for (forbidding) its flesh, learn it as (forbidding) its milk.
[ד] יכול אף בשר מהלכי שתים וחלב מהלכי שתים יהא בלא תעשה על אכילתן? ודין הוא! ומה אם בהמה – שהקלת במגעה – החמרת בחלבה, מהלכי שתים – שהחמיר במגען – אינו דין שנחמיר בחלבם?! תלמוד לומר "זה" – זה טמא ואין חלב מהלכי שתים טמא. אוציא את החלב שאינו נוהג בכל ולא אוציא את הבשר שנוהג בכל? תלמוד לומר "זה טמא הוא" – זה בלא תעשה על אכילתו ואין בשר מהלכי שתים וחלב מהלכי שתים בלא תעשה על אכילתן. 4) I might think that one would be in transgression of the negative commandment against eating the flesh of bipeds (men) and the milk of bipeds (women); and it would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if (in the instance of) an (unclean) beast, where you have been lenient vis-à-vis its touch (i.e., it is permitted to touch an unclean beast), you have been stringent vis-à-vis its flesh (it is forbidden to eat it), then bipeds, where you have been stringent vis-à-vis touching them (i.e., niddah), how much more so should you be stringent vis-à-vis (drinking) their milk! It is, therefore, written, (in negation): "This" — "This … (is unclean"), but the milk of bipeds is not unclean. — But then I would exclude (from the negative commandment) (only) milk, which does not obtain with all (bipeds), but I would not exclude flesh, which does obtain with all bipeds! It is, therefore, written (two terms of exclusion): "This … unclean is it" — This (the flesh of an unclean beast) is subject to the negative commandment (against eating), but the flesh of bipeds and the milk of bipeds is not subject to the negative commandment against eating.
[ה] "את הגמל כי מעלה גרה הוא..ואת השפן כי מעלה גרה הוא..ואת הארנבת כי מעלה גרה היא" מה תלמוד לומר? אם לתיקון המקרא הרי כבר נאמר 'הגמל והארנבת והשפן כי מעלה גרה המה', ולמה באו? לרבות את הריבויים שאמרנו. 5) (Vayikra 11:4): "the camel, because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:5) and the coney because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:6) and the hare because it chews the cud, etc." What is the intent of this? It is already written (Devarim 14:7): "the camel, and the hare, and the coney, for they chew the cud, etc."! Why are they mentioned? To include the aforementioned inclusions.
[ו] "את הגמל כי מעלה גרה הוא" מה תלמוד לומר? שיכול יתירנו סימן אחד. ודין הוא! ומה אם חזיר – שמפריס פרסה – טמא, גמל – שאין מפריס פרסה – אינו דין שיהא טמא?! אילו כן הייתי אומר מי אוסר את החזיר? גרה! היא תתיר גמל! תלמוד לומר "את הגמל כי מעלה גרה היא" יאמר בגמל וקל וחומר לחזיר? ומה גמל שמעלה גרה טמא, חזיר – שאינו מעלה גרה – אינו דין שיהא טמא?! 6) (Vayikra 11:4): "the camel, because it chews the cud": What is the intent of this? I might think that one sign (chewing the cud) would permit it. Would I think so? If the swine, which has split hooves, is unclean, does it not follow that the camel, which does not have split hooves is unclean! (Why, then, need it be written that the camel is unclean?) — If so, I would say: Who forbade the swine? (The fact that it does not chew) the cud. Let that permit the camel. It must, therefore, be written "the camel because it chews the cud." — Let it, then, be stated for the camel, and, a fortiori for the swine! viz.: If the camel which chews the cud is unclean, how much more so, the swine, which does not chew the cud! (Why, then, need it be written that the swine is unclean?
[ז] אילו כן הייתי אומר מי אוסר את הגמל? פרסה! והוא תתיר את החזיר! תלמוד לומר "ואת החזיר כי מפריס פרסה ולא גרה טמא הוא". 7) If so, I would say: Who forbids the camel? (The fact that it does not have) cloven hooves. Let that permit the swine. It must, therefore, be written (Devarim 14:8) "And the swine, because its hooves are parted, but it does not chew the cud, it is unclean."
[ח] "מבשרם" – ולא מן העצמות ולא מן הגידים ולא מן הטלפים שלהם. "ובנבלתם לא תגעו" – יכול יהיו ישראל מוזהרים על מגע נבילות? תלמוד לומר "אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן ואמרת אליהם לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו" – הכהנים אין מטמאים למתים, ישראל מטמאים למתים. 8) (Vayikra 11:8) "Of their flesh you may not eat" — but not of their bones, or sinews, or hooves (i.e., you may eat those). "and their carcass do not touch": I might think that Israelites (as opposed to Cohanim) are exhorted against touching a carcass; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 21:1): "Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: For a dead body he (a Cohein) shall not become tamei among his people." Cohanim are not to become tamei to the dead; Israelites are to become tamei to the dead.
[ט] קל וחומר! אם מטמאים למתים חמורים – לא יטמא לנבלות הקלות?! הא מה אני מקיים "ובנבלתם לא תגעו"? ברגל. 9) Now if they are to become tamei to the dead, a severe form of tumah, should they not become tamei to carcass, a lesser form? How, then, am I to understand "and their carcass do not touch"? On a festival (when they are commanded to appear in the azarah).
[י] אחרים אומרים: "ובנבלתם לא תגעו" – יכול אם נוגע אדם בנבלה ילקה את הארבעים? תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יא, כד) "ולאלה תטמאו". יכול אם ראה אדם את הנבלה ילך ויטמא בה? תלמוד לומר "ובנבלתם לא תגעו". הא כיצד? הוי אומר רשות. 10) Others say: "and their carcass do not touch": I might think that if one touched a carcass he receives forty stripes; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:24): "and to these you shall become tamei." I might (then) think that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become tamei to it; it is, therefore, written "and their carcass do not touch." How are these verses to be reconciled? (As expressing) an option (i.e., if you wish to be clean, be careful not to touch their carcass, because if you do, you will become tamei).
[יא] "טמאים" – מלמד שמצטרפין זה עם זה; בשר ובשר, חלב וחלב, בשר וחלב – בין בחייהן בין במיתתם. 11) (Vayikra 11:8): "They are unclean to you": We are hereby taught that they (unforbidden quantities of different unclean animals) combine with each other (to form forbidden quantities) — flesh with flesh, milk with milk, flesh with milk, both alive (vis-à-vis ever min hechai [flesh torn from a living animals]) or dead (vis-à-vis carcass uncleanliness).
[יב] "טמאים" – לאסור צירן ורוטבן וקיפה שלהם. "הם" – פרט לשאין בהם בנותן טעם. "לכם" – מותרים הם בהנאה. 12) (Devarim 14:7): "They are unclean to you": including their brine, their marrow, and their jelly. "They": ("they," as they are) — to exclude (their becoming intermixed with something to which) they do not impart their flavor. "to you": They are permitted to you for benefit (not for eating [if you happen to acquire them]).