Halakhah zu Wajikra 11:3

Despite the great reluctance of the talmudic Sages to offer a rationale for the fundamentals of kashrut, others were not similarly reticent. The interpretations which have been advanced over the course of centuries are varied and sundry. The explanation which has probably enjoyed the widest circulation is the one which sees a connection between these laws and physical health and well-being. This concept gained currency in the days of antiquity: it is expressed in the Pseudepigrapha¹IV Macc. 5:25–27. and alluded to in the works of Philo.²De Specialibus Legibus, IV, 119. Translated by F. H. Colson (Cambridge, 1939), VIII, 81. Although these writings are not necessarily indicative of rabbinic thought, similar concepts are expressed by Maimonides,³Guide of the Perplexed, III, chap. 48. Nachmanides,⁴Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:43. Gersonides,⁵Commentary on the Bible, Parshat Ekev, To‘elet 26. and others.⁶Abraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Bible, Exod. 22:30; Rashbam, Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:3; Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, nos. 72 and 147. However, other rabbinic scholars were most emphatic in their denial of a hygienic interpretation of the laws of forbidden foods. Thus, R. Isaac Abarbanel writes, "Heaven forfend that I should believe so. For if that were to be so, the Book of God's Law would be in the same category as any of the brief medical books…. This is not the way of God's law or the depth of its intentions." ⁷Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:13. In almost identical language, R. Isaac Arama disparages this explanation, commenting that such an interpretation would "lower the status of divine Law to the status of any brief medical composition." ⁸Akedat Yiẓḥak, Sha‘ar 60. See also Kli Yakar, Lev. 11:1 and Menachem ha-Bavli, Ta‘amei ha-Miẓvot, negative commandments, no. 84.

The phenomenon of a kosher pig is not entirely unknown in rabbinic literature. R. Hayyim ibn Attar, Or ha-Hayyim, Leviticus 11:3, quotes an unidentified aggadic source which comments: "Why is it named 'ḥazir'? Because it will one day 'return' to become permissible," i.e., the pig will return to its pre-Sinaitic status as a permitted source of meat. In his commentary on Leviticus 11:7. Or ha-Hayyim questions the meaning of this statement. It is a fundamental principle of Judaism that the Torah is immutable; hence a pig which does not chew its cud cannot at any time be declared kosher.¹⁸Cf., however, Va-Yikra Rabbah 13:3; Midrash Shoḥer Tov, Ps. 146; and R. Joseph Albo, Sefer ha-Ikkarim, III, chapters 13-19. Accordingly, Or ha-Hayyim comments that the phrase "but it does not chew its cud" which occurs in Leviticus 11:7 is conditional in nature, i.e., the pig is forbidden only so long as it does not chew its cud, "but in the eschatological era it will chew its cud and will 'return' to become permissible." Indeed, the etymological analysis presented by Or ha-Hayyim would lead to acceptance of a cud-chewing pig not only as a kosher animal but as a harbinger of the eschatological era as well. A similar statement is made by Rema of Panu, Asarah Ma'amarot, Ma'amar Hikur Din, II, chapter 17.¹⁹See also R. Moses Sofer, Torat Mosheh, Deuteronomy 14:8.

Many authorities, including Rosh, Ketubot 5:19, Teshuvot ha-Rashba, I, no. 364, and Ramban, commentary on Leviticus 11:3, maintain that there is no specific biblical prohibition against eating human flesh. These authorities would nevertheless agree that partaking of the flesh of a dead person is forbidden on other, more general, grounds. Yoreh De'ah 349:1 records a general prohibition against deriving any benefit from a corpse; using the flesh of a corpse for food is, of course, a forbidden "benefit."⁵The prohibition with regard to deriving benefit from a Jewish corpse is biblical in nature. There is some disagreement as to whether the prohibition against deriving benefit from the corpse of a non-Jew is biblical or rabbinic in nature. See Pitḥei Teshuvah, Yoreh De‘ah 349:1; Mishneh, le-Melekh, Ma’akhalot Assurot 2:3 and Hilkhot Avel 14:21; and She’elat Ya’aveẓ, I, no. 41.