[א] "וצוה הכהן" – ציווי בכהן ושחיטה בכל אדם דברי ר' יהודה בר' יוסי. ורבי אומר אף שחיטה בכהן. 1) (Vayikra 14:5) ("And the Cohein shall command, and he shall slaughter the one bird into an earthen vessel over living water.") "And the Cohein shall command": The commanding is by the Cohein; the slaughtering, by any man. These are the words of R. Yehudah b. R. Yossi. Rebbi says: The slaughtering, too, is by a Cohein.
[ב] "ושחט את הצפור האחת" – הברורה שבשתיים. "האחת" – שאם מתה אחת מהם או שנעשה טריפה יקח זוג לשנייה. 2) "and he shall slaughter the one bird": the more distinctive of the two. "the one": so that one if of them dies or becomes a treifah, he takes a mate for the second one.
[ג] "האחת אל כלי חרש" – ואין שתיהם אל כלי חרש. והלא דין הוא: מה אם במקום שלא כשרו משם לשם – כשרו לעירובים, כאן שכשרו משם לשם אינו דין שיכשרו לעירובים?! ת"ל "האחת אל כלי חרש" – ואין שתים אל כלי חרש. 3) "the one into an earthen vessel": and not two of them (i.e., two different birds of two different lepers) into an earthen vessel. For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in an instance (that of a sin-offering) where (slaughtering) from name to name (i.e., slaughtering one man's sin-offering in the name of another) is not kasher, yet the mingling (of their bloods) is kasher, then here, where from name to name is kasher (see Section 1:10) how much more so should their mingling be kasher! It must, therefore, be written "the one into an earthen vessel," and not two into an earthen vessel.
[ד] "כלי" – יכול א' מן הכלים? ת"ל "חרש". אי חרס יכול מקידה? ת"ל "כלי". הא כיצד? זו פיילי של חרש. "מים חיים" – ולא מים מלוחים, ולא מים פושרים, ולא מים מכזבים, ולא מים מנטפים. ר' אליעזר אומר, מה מים שלא נעשה בהם מלאכה אף כלי שלא נעשה בו מלאכה. ר' שמעון אומר, מה מים הברורים שבמינם אף צפור הברורה שבמינה זו קיפל. 4) "vessel": I might think any vessel; it is, therefore, written "earthenware." If "earthenware," I might think (even) a fragment (of earthenware). It is, therefore, written "vessel." How so? (He takes) a (broad, flat) bowl of earthenware. "living water": and not salted water, and not lukewarm water, and not failing water (i.e., water whose source dries up), and not dripping water. R. Eliezer says: Just as (living) water has had no work done in it, so a vessel (is required) that has had no work done in it. R. Shimon says: Just as (living) water is the most distinctive of its kind, so the bird must be the most distinctive of its kind, a partridge.
[ה] כיצד הוא עושה? נוטל ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת וכורכן בשירי לשון ומקיף להם ראשי גפיים וראש הזנב משל שנייה וטובל ומזה. "בדם" – יכול בדם ודאי?... ת"ל "ובמים חיים". אי מים חיים יכול עד שיהיה כולם מים חיים?... ת"ל "בדם". הא באיזה צד? מים חיים שדם צפור ניכר בהם, שיערו חכמים רביעית. 5) How does he do (the cleansing)? He takes the cedar, the myrtle and the tongue of wool and binds them in the end of the tongue, and circles them with the wing tips and the tail tip of the second (living) bird, and he dips (them into the blood of the slaughtered bird), and he sprinkles (upon the leper). "in the blood": I might think in the blood, exclusively; it is, therefore, written "living water." If "water," I might think "living water," exclusively; it is, therefore, written "blood." How is this effected? With living water in which the blood of the bird is discernible, which the sages estimated to be a quarter (of a log).
[ו] ומנין אם נשפך הדם – תמות המשולחת. מתה המשולחת – ישפך הדם? ת"ל "את הצפור החיה יקח אותה". "יקח אותה" – מלמד שהוא מפרישה לעצמה. "ואת עץ הארז ואת שני התולעת ואת האזוב וטבל" מה ת"ל? יכול הואיל ולא היתה עמם בכלל אגודה, לא תהא בכלל טבילה?... ת"ל "וטבל אותם ואת הצפור החיה בדם הצפור השחוטה" – החזיר את הצפור לכלל טבילה. 6) (Vayikra 14:6) ("The living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar-wood, and the scarlet wool, and the hyssop, and he shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the slaughtered bird over the living water.") And whence is it derived that if the blood has been spilled, the bird for "sending" is to be allowed to die (and two new birds brought), or that if the bird for "sending" died, the blood is to be spilled out (and two new birds brought)? From "the living bird … and he shall dip them in the blood of the slaughtered bird" (whence it is derived that the two birds are mutually indispensable). "he shall take it": We are hereby taught that he separates it by itself. "and the cedar-wood and the scarlet-wool, and the hyssop": (they, too, [bound] by themselves). "and he shall dip": What is the intent of this? (i.e., why add "them and the living bird" instead of simply stating "and he shall dip in the blood of the slaughtered bird," and I would know that it refers to all of the aforementioned?) For I might think that since it (the living bird) was not together with them for binding, it should not be together with them for dipping; it must, therefore, be written "and he shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the slaughtered bird." The (living) bird was "returned" for dipping.
[ז] "השחוטה" – ולא המלוקה. והלא דין הוא: הואיל ודרך הכשרו בפנים בעוף ודרך הכשרו בחוץ בעוף, מה דרך הכשרו בפנים במליקה אף דרך הכשרו בחוץ במליקה... ת"ל "השחוטה" – ולא המלוקה. "צפור השחוטה על המים החיים" – אין כלי חרש על מים חיים. 7) "the slaughtered bird" (hashchutah"): slaughtered through shechitah, and not through melikah ("pinching"). (What is the intent of this [of the apparently superfluous word "shechutah"])? I might think (without "hashchutah") that it follows that since the leper's amendment within (the sanctuary [viz. Vayikra 14:22]) is through birds, and his amendment outside (the sanctuary, i.e., our instance) is through birds — Just as his amendment within is through melikah, so his amendment outside is through melikah; it must, therefore be written "hashchutah," and not hamelukah." "the (blood of) the slaughtered bird over the living water (in the vessel)": not "the earthen vessel over the living water."