מכל האוכל אשר יאכל פירש רש"י (רש"י על ויקרא י״א:ל״ד) הכתוב הזה כפי מדרשו ילמד בו דברים הרבה למדנו שאין אוכל מוכשר ומתוקן וכו' ועוד למדו רבותינו מכאן שאין ולד הטומאה מטמא כלים שכך שנינו וכו' ולמדנו עוד על ביאת מים שאינה מכשרת וכו' ובכללם אמר ולמדנו עוד שאין אוכל מטמא אחרים אלא אם כן יש בו כביצה שנאמר "יאכל" אוכל הנאכל בבת אחת ושיערו חכמים אין בית הבליעה מחזיק יותר מביצת תרנגולת זה לשון הרב ויש בו קצור כי הכתוב הזה בטומאת האוכלין עצמה הוא ואינו מדבר בטומאתן לאחרים אבל הוציא הרב זה ממה שאמרו בתורת כהנים (פרק ט א) אוכל יטמא מלמד שמטמא בכל שהוא יכול יטמא לאחרים בכל שהוא תלמוד לומר אשר יאכל הא אינו מטמא אלא בכביצה וכבר חלקו על הרב והביאו ראיות שאין האוכלין מקבלין טומאה מן התורה כלל אלא בכביצה והמדרש בתורת כהנים אסמכתא מדבריהם שהם הוסיפו שיקבלו טומאה בכל שהוא ועיקר הכתוב ידרש במה שאמר שם האוכל להוציא אוכלי בהמה מכל האוכל להביא אוכלי בהמה שחשב עליהם למאכל אדם אשר יאכל פרט לאוכל סרוח: OF ALL THE FOOD WHICH MAY BE EATEN, THAT ON WHICH WATER COMETH, SHALL BE UNCLEAN. Rashi commented: “This verse according to its [Rabbinical] interpretations teaches many things. We learn that food does not become fit to be susceptible of impurity until water has once come upon it, and once water has come upon it, it can subsequently at any time become impure, even after it has become dry, etc. Our Rabbis have further learned from this verse that ‘a secondary impurity’252Or as generally also referred to “a first degree of impurity.” Reference here is to a person or vessel that touched one of the eight dead creeping things enumerated in Verses 29-30, which are considered “fathers of impurity.” The person or vessel that touched them become “a first degree of impurity.” There are many “fathers of impurity.” Thus the carrier of those animals that are unfit for food, or of those which are fit for food but have not been slaughtered in the proper ritual manner, mentioned above in this section, also belong to this category [[illegible]] “a first degree of impurity.” Now “fathers of impurity” can convey impurity to people and vessels, whereas “a first degree of impurity” can only convey impurity to foodstuffs and liquids. does not render vessels impure, for so we are taught etc. Again we learn that the coming of water upon vegetation makes it susceptible to impurity only after it has been plucked from the soil etc.” And included among the principles [we learn from this verse], Rashi said: “And we further learn that impure foodstuff does not convey impurity to other objects unless it [the former] consists of at least the size of an egg, for it says, of all the food which may be eaten, which means food which can be eaten in one gulp, and the Sages calculated that the esophagus does not hold more than a hen’s egg.” This is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi.].
But there is [too great a] brevity in Rashi’s comment. For this verse speaks about foodstuff itself becoming impure, and does not refer to its conveying impurity to others. The Rabbi [Rashi], however, derived this principle from what the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:253Torath Kohanim, Shemini 9:1. “Of all the food etc. shall be unclean. This teaches that food [upon which a dead creeping thing falls], is rendered impure even if it be of the smallest quantity. Now I might think that it can also convey impurity to other objects if the [original] impure food was of the smallest quantity; Scripture therefore says, which may be eaten. Thus you learn that it cannot render other things impure unless it is itself the size of an egg.”254In other words, it was on the basis of this Torath Kohanim that Rashi interpreted the expression in the verse here, of all food which may be eaten as applying to “impure” food conveying impurity to others, the verse teaching us that the conveyor of the impurity must be of the size which may be eaten, which is, as explained above, the size of an egg. The verse could not refer to the original foodstuff itself becoming impure because of having touched a dead creeping thing [or any “father of impurity” — see above Note 251], for in that case even the smallest quantity of food suffices to be rendered impure. — But, Ramban continues, other scholars have already differed with Rashi on this point, bringing proof etc. (see text). But other authorities have already differed255Tosafoth Shabbath 91 a. with the Rabbi [Rashi], and they brought proofs that by Scriptural law foodstuffs do not [even] become impure at all unless they are of the size of an egg. Thus the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim [mentioned above] is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic law,80See in Exodus, Seder Yithro, p. 314, Note 449. the Rabbis having added [the stricture] that foodstuffs of even the smallest size also become impure [although they cannot convey impurity to others unless they themselves are the size of an egg]. The main interpretation of the verse is as the Rabbis have said there [in the Torath Kohanim]:253Torath Kohanim, Shemini 9:1. “The food. This is to exclude food for cattle [that it is not susceptible to impurity]. Of all the food — this is to include food for cattle which one intended to use for human consumption. Which may be eaten, excepting decomposed foods.”
11:34
1