Le Deutéronome 14:7 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Niddah & Makkot

And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. The following are the criteria: The forehead, the eyebrows, the eye, the ear, the mandible, the nose, the beard, and the dimple. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi: Only if the entire face has human traits; but the words of the rabbis: Even one of the criteria⁵³In the Babli, 23b, one baraita states that one criterion is sufficient except for the ear but all Amoraim hold that all criteria together have to be fulfilled for a human birth.; and the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Even its fingernails. Rebbi Phineas asked: Are not the statements of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai inverted? There⁵⁴Tosephta Bekhorot 1:9: “R. Simeon says, why does the verse say ‘camel, camel’ two times (Lev. 11:4, Deut. 14:7) to add a camel born from a cow as if it were born from a she-camel but if its head and most of its body are similar to its mother it is permitted as food. But the Sages say that what comes from an impure animal is impure, from a pure animal is pure, since no pure animal can be impregnated from an impure animal and vice versa, nor cattle from sheep and goats and vice versa, nor a human from an animal and vice versa.” Here R. Simeon requires that most of the animal be similar to its mother to accept it as animal birth., he says, “only if its head and most of its body are like its mother,” and here, he says so? Here about humans, there about animals⁵⁵In Sifra Šemini Pereq 4(6), the fact that a camel is not kosher is brought as proof that one criterion for a kosher animal is not sufficient; all criteria must be satisfied. Since that statement is obvious from the verses, one may see in it a veiled attack on the position that one criterion is sufficient to determine a human birth.. Rebbi Abba said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went South. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its entire body is human and only its face is animal? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, it is no birth. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Zeugos went out, Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its eyes are shapeless⁵⁶According to Rashi in the Babli, 24a, the skull has no sign of indenture where the eyes should be. In the Babli, R. Hiyya’s sons were asked and gave the wrong answer.? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, there is no child. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his own opinion since Rebbi says, only if the entire face has human traits. What if its face was crushed⁵⁷The face is barely recognizable (Rashi in Babli 24a).? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is no child; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is a child. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, not that Rebbi Joḥanan said it is no child in every respect but it is no child to provide the mother with days of purity; it is a child to require the mother to observe the days of birth⁵⁸14 days of impurity for a female birth (Rashi in Babli 24a).. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If its hip is unformed⁵⁹A stillbirth whose legs are not movable. This is a birth defect which is not mentioned in the Babli., it is not a child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Joshua: If the navel is unformed⁶⁰Since the navel is the point where the fetus is connected to the placenta, an absence of an indication of the place of the navel is proof that there is no human fetus. The Babli agrees, 24a., it is no child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zakkai: If its holes are unformed⁶¹Neither bladder nor intestines have an outlet. The Babli agrees, 24a., it is no child. Rebbi Ze‘ira⁶²In the Babli, 24a: R. Joḥanan. in the name of Gidul: If its skull is unformed there is no child.

Rava asked, (Deuteronomy 14,6) "And any animal that has split hooves and has the hoove completley split into two and chews its cud,among the animals that you may eat". "That" you may eat, but a different anoimal you may not eat. And if it is as you say then why do I need (Deuteronomy 14,7) "This you may not eat"?