[א] "וכי ימות מן הבהמה" – הרי מיתה ודאי. "מן הבהמה" – יש מן הבהמה מטמא ויש מן הבהמה שאינה מטמאה; פרט לטריפה ששחטה. והלא דין הוא! אם מצינו בבהמה טמאה – שלא השם-פוסלה-מן-האכילה מביאה לידי טומאתה אלא מיתתה, אף טריפה – לא השם-פוסלה-מן-האכילה מביאה לידי טומאתה אלא מיתתה. או כלך לדרך הזו: בהמה טמאה אסורה קודם למיתתה וטריפה אסורה קודם למיתתה. מה בהמה טמאה – אין שחיטתה מטהרתה, אף טריפה – לא תטהרנה שחיטתה! תלמוד לומר "מן הבהמה" – יש מן הבהמה מטמאה ויש מן הבהמה שאין מטמאה; פרט לטריפה ששחטה.
1) (Vayikra 11:39) ("And if there die of the beast which it is yours to eat, he who touches its carcass shall be tamei until the evening.") "And if there die of the beast": "die," literally, (and not ever min hechai). "of the beast": There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude a treifah (an organically defective animal) which was slaughtered, (the shechitah "cleansing" it). But does this not follow (even without a verse)? viz.: If we find with an unclean beast that it is not the designation ("tamei") that forbids it to be eaten which brings it to a state of tumah, but its death — treifah, too; it is not the designation ("treifah") that forbids it to be eaten which brings it to a state of tumah, but its death, (but if there was shechitah before death, it remains clean of tumah). Or go in this direction: An unclean beast was forbidden (for eating) before its death, and a treifah is forbidden before its death. Just as an unclean beast is not cleansed (from carcass tumah) by shechitah, so, a treifah is not cleansed by shechitah. It must, therefore, be written "of the beast." There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude a treifah (that was slaughtered) by shechitah.
[א] "וכי ימות מן הבהמה" – הרי מיתה ודאי. "מן הבהמה" – יש מן הבהמה מטמא ויש מן הבהמה שאינה מטמאה; פרט לטריפה ששחטה. והלא דין הוא! אם מצינו בבהמה טמאה – שלא השם-פוסלה-מן-האכילה מביאה לידי טומאתה אלא מיתתה, אף טריפה – לא השם-פוסלה-מן-האכילה מביאה לידי טומאתה אלא מיתתה. או כלך לדרך הזו: בהמה טמאה אסורה קודם למיתתה וטריפה אסורה קודם למיתתה. מה בהמה טמאה – אין שחיטתה מטהרתה, אף טריפה – לא תטהרנה שחיטתה! תלמוד לומר "מן הבהמה" – יש מן הבהמה מטמאה ויש מן הבהמה שאין מטמאה; פרט לטריפה ששחטה.
1) (Vayikra 11:39) ("And if there die of the beast which it is yours to eat, he who touches its carcass shall be tamei until the evening.") "And if there die of the beast": "die," literally, (and not ever min hechai). "of the beast": There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude a treifah (an organically defective animal) which was slaughtered, (the shechitah "cleansing" it). But does this not follow (even without a verse)? viz.: If we find with an unclean beast that it is not the designation ("tamei") that forbids it to be eaten which brings it to a state of tumah, but its death — treifah, too; it is not the designation ("treifah") that forbids it to be eaten which brings it to a state of tumah, but its death, (but if there was shechitah before death, it remains clean of tumah). Or go in this direction: An unclean beast was forbidden (for eating) before its death, and a treifah is forbidden before its death. Just as an unclean beast is not cleansed (from carcass tumah) by shechitah, so, a treifah is not cleansed by shechitah. It must, therefore, be written "of the beast." There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude a treifah (that was slaughtered) by shechitah.