Seeing as the Neveilah of a Tahor animal is not Metamei the person who eats it (as will be clarified in Emor, 22:8), what is the Torah saying here?
Rashi and Rashbam (citing Nidah, 42b): The Torah is teaching us that the Shi'ur of touching and carrying a Neveilah is a k'Zayis (which is the Shi'ur Achilah).
Ramban: Refer to 11:40:5:1 & 2..
Rashbam : It is saying that sometimes, eating Neveilah 1 without touching it renders a person Tamei.
If touching is Metamei, how is it possible to eat a piece of Neveilah and remain Tahor?
Rashi: It is possible there where Reuven's friend sticks the food into his (Reuven's) throat. 1
It is possible where he himself put half a k'Zayis in his mouth (Refer to 11:40:2:1*), and then another half-k'Zayis, and swallowed them together. (PF)
Mizrachi: Tum'ah is not Metamei through touching in covered places. According to Abaye there, even if he sticks it in his throat, it is considered Belu'ah, and it is not Metamei through moving (swallowing) it. According to Rava, it is not Belu'ah; a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv is Metaher one who eats Nivlas Behemah. (The Gemara there discusses sticking the food in his mouth. All agree that Tum'as Maga applies to the tongue (Kidushin 25a)! We must say that it did not touch his tongue, for a Chatzitzah (e.g a leaf) separated the Tum'ah from his tongue, or it was stuck in his throat, - PF)
Having taught us in the previous Pasuk that someone who merely touches a Neveilah becomes Tamei, why does the Torah need to discuss someone who carries it?
Rashi: Refer to 11:25:1:1.
Chulin, 125a: The Torah places Masa next to Maga to teach us that whatever is not subject to Maga is not subject to Masa. Consequently a marrow-bone is only subject to Tum'as Masa if it has a hole that enables a person to touch the marrow inside; otherwise not. 1
Consequently a marrow-bone is only subject to Tum'as Masa if it has a hole that enables a person to touch the marrow inside; otherwise not.
Having already taught us the Din of touching and carrying a Neveilah (in Pesukim 24, 25), why does the Torah repeat it here?
Ramban #2 (citing the Sifra): The earlier Parshah is referring to the Tum'ah of Eiver min ha'Chai, and the current one, to Tum'as Neveilos. 2
Why does the Torah insert "ha'Ochel mi'Nivlasah, and why did it insert it here, regarding a Tahor animal?
Ramban #1 and Moshav Zekenim: To teach us that the Tum'ah is not greater due to the fact that he also ate it - and it mentions it here 1 because one is more likely to 'mistakenly' eat it, bearing in mind that the animal was Shechted. 2
Which garments are "Yechabes Begadav" referring to?
R. Chaim Paltiel: The clothes that he is wearing at the time that he is carrying the Neveilah.
Moshav Zekenim: While carrying the Neveilah, he is an Av ha'Tum'ah [regarding most Keilim] and he is Metamei clothes that he touches even if he is not wearing them, but not people or K'lei Cheres.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that the current Pasuk teaches us about the Shi'ur of Tum'as Maga and Masa. But the Torah mentions here that he is Metamei Begadim, which applies to Masa exclusively, as the Gemara statess in Yoma 14a it says (in connectin with the Mei Chatas)?
R. Chaim Paltiel: There, the Torah mentioned, only, "Mazeh" - it mentioned Maga only later - so we cannot say that "Mazeh" means touching, whereas here, "Noge'a" is written before eating, and eating therefore teaches the Shi'ur for touching. We would have said that there is no Shi'ur for Masa, if not that the Reisha mentions Tum'as Begadim, which applies only to Masa. Also, if eating did not teach about the Shi'ur for Masa, the Torah would have written about Masa only Tum'as Begadim, but not "v'Tamei Ad ha'Erev", which applies even to Maga. 1 .
It seems that Moshav Zekenim answers that since it is needed to teach about Masa, for which there is no challenge, it is needed also for Maga. I did not understand this. (PF)
