Commento su Deuteronomio 14:3

כל תועבה [THOU SHALT NOT EAT] ANY ABOMINATION — i.e. anything that I have declared to be an abomination to you (which in itself may not be an abominable thing) — as for instance if one deliberately makes a slit in the ear of a firstborn animal (thus making it unfit for sacrifice) so that one may slaughter it in the country (i.e. outside Jerusalem) and eat it there. Here you have a thing I declared to be an abomination to you, in that I commanded you (Leviticus 22:21) “one shall cause no blemish to be therein”. Scripture now comes and teaches you here that one should not slaughter such an animal and eat it, on account of that blemish. Another example: If one boils meat in milk — here you have a thing that I have declared to be an abomination to you (cf. Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), and here it lays down the prohibition about eating it (Chullin 114b).

THOU SHALT NOT EAT ANY ABOMINABLE THING. He wanted now to add an explanation [to the laws] pertaining to forbidden foods, and therefore he said, Thou shalt not eat an abominable thing, thus declaring that all things that are forbidden are abhorrent to the pure soul, for the meaning of every expression of “abomination” is “hatefulness and repugnance,” similar to, for the king’s word was abominable to Joab;²⁰¹I Chronicles 21:6. their soul abhorred all manner of food.²⁰²Psalms 107:18. For forbidden foods that are coarse generate a thickness and obstruction in the soul, as I have explained in its place.²⁰³Leviticus 11:13. See also Exodus 22:30 (Vol. II, p. 401). Therefore he said further, Of all clean winged things ye may eat²⁰⁴Verse 20. in order to declare that [only] those [foods] which He prohibited are “abominable,” and the rest are clean and fit for the pure soul. And in the Sifre the Rabbis have said:²⁰⁵Sifre, R’eih 103. “Rabbi Shimon says: Of all clean winged things ye may eat²⁰⁴Verse 20. — these are the clean locusts; and all winged swarming things are unclean unto you²⁰⁶Verse 19. these are the unclean locusts.” He has said well. Now this is the sense of these verses. He mentioned the prohibition of all winged swarming things, those that go upon all fours,²⁰⁷Leviticus 11:20. and then he said Of all clean winged things ye may eat²⁰⁴Verse 20. to permit those of them which have joined legs above their feet:²⁰⁸Ibid., Verse 21. the locust, the bald locust, the cricket, and the grasshopper.²⁰⁹See ibid., Verse 22. It was not necessary to explain this because it has already been stated.²⁰⁹See ibid., Verse 22. But he mentioned in general, briefly, Of all clean winged things ye may eat²⁰⁴Verse 20. that is to say, all those that have been mentioned are abominable foods, and the rest of the fowls, according their species and multitudes, you may eat of them all clean things which I have not prohibited. Thus he included all things that are forbidden to us, for they are all abominable. It was not necessary afterwards to detail [here] the swarming things and all that creep upon the earth, for it is known that any pure-minded person abhors them completely. But he mentioned the signs of beasts and wild animals,²¹⁰See Verses 6-8. fish,²¹¹See Verses 9-10. fowl,²¹²See Verses. 11-20. and carcass [of an animal that died without being properly slaughtered]²¹³See Verse 21. in order to inform you that they, too, are abominable to the soul. He did not mention treifah²¹⁴A clean animal or fowl suffering from a serious organic disease whose meat we are forbidden to eat even if ritually slaughtered. since it is not “abominable;” nevertheless, in order to prevent harm to those who would eat it, it is forbidden, because of its poison or mortal sickness. Our Rabbis have yet more interpretations on this section:²¹⁵Chullin 63b. “Why were [these laws of forbidden foods] repeated here? In the case of beasts [the laws were restated] on account of hashesuah (the cleft one)²¹⁶See Verse 7. “This is a certain animal which has two backs and two spinal columns” (Chullin 63b, and quoted by Rashi here). [which we are forbidden to eat, and is not mentioned in Leviticus], and in the case of birds the laws were restated because of the glede”²¹⁷See Verse 13. [which is not mentioned in Leviticus and is forbidden]. And there is yet another interpretation:²⁰⁵Sifre, R’eih 103. “Of all clean birds ye may eat²¹⁸Verse 11. — this is intended to permit [as food] the bird that is set free [at the purification rite of] the leper;²¹⁹Leviticus 14:7. But these are they of which ye shall not eat²²⁰Verse 12. — this is intended to prohibit the bird that is slaughtered” [at the purification rite of the leper].²²¹Leviticus 14:5. They [the Rabbis] received [this tradition that the expression] of ‘all’ clean birds²¹⁸Verse 11. hints that the [living] bird, not contracting the impurity [of the leper], is permissible as food. The impurity of the leper does not attach to the living [bird] — for no living things among beast or fowl are susceptible to impurity when touching a corpse or dead creeping thing. But the slaughtered [bird], being susceptible to uncleanness, the spirit of impurity which leaves the leper, attaches thereto, and is [therefore] not clean. Thus it becomes one of the “abominable” things, because eating it is abhorrent.

לא תאכל כל תועבה; before the Torah had been revealed, given, the Israelites as well as mankind generally were aware of the concepts “pure, טהור,” and “טמא, impure.” This is clear already from G’d’s command to Noach to take into the ark with him one pair each of the “impure” species,” and seven pairs each of the “pure” species of animals and birds. (Genesis 7,2) When G’d, after the deluge, permitted man to eat meat, He did not distinguish between meat from “pure” animals and meat from “impure animals.” However, now, after the giving of the Torah, when the Jewish people had become so special, it was no longer appropriate for them to ingest the remains of impure animals or birds (or even fish). Our sustenance should not be dependent on such inferior living beings. We should remain constantly aware of the gulf between man and beast, especially beasts which had never been suitable as sacrifices.

לא תאכל כל תועבה, “You must not eat anything that is an abomination.” Nachmanides writes that this wording [the additional word כל, all, Ed.] expands the prohibition we have been taught in Leviticus chapter 11 in the sense that it teaches that the reason why eating the foodstuffs mentioned is forbidden, is because their consumption would leave a spiritually negative effect on our pure, G’d-given souls. The meaning of the term תועבה whenever it appears, is “something hateful and despicable,” the common denominator of the forbidden foods being that if absorbed by our tissue they are apt to leave behind an effect of deadening our spiritual impulses. The reason why the Torah actively promotes the eating of the fowl labeled טהור, is to contrast them with the vast majority of birds that are טמא, ritually impure, the flesh not being suitable to feed a pure soul. It is therefore a general rule to be remembered that everything the Torah has forbidden us, -although it had expressly permitted it for the rest of mankind in Genesis 9,3- is an abomination. The Torah does not need to repeat this again and again when referring to low life such as creeping reptiles large and small, -as most civilized persons, even gentiles refrain from eating these creeping creatures;-but by giving us the details of how to recognize animals that are “pure”, as well as forbidding consumption of the flesh of even such animals when they have died from natural causes, as opposed to ritual slaughter, it delineates clearly the creatures and their respective condition before death, that do not fall under the heading of תועבה, abomination. The consumption of animals that are suffering from a terminal disease or injury is not specifically mentioned as forbidden under the same heading, as the reason is not that they confer negative spiritual influences when eaten, but that they infect the person eating them with something physically poisonous but not spiritually poisonous. Our sages (Kiddushin 57) derive from the wording כל צפור טהורה תאכלו, “you may to eat every ritually pure bird,” (verse 11) [and the apparent repetition, slightly amended in verse 20 of כל עוף טהור תאכל, Ed.] that the live bird which served as part of the offering of the person healed from the dreaded tzoraat skin disease (compare Leviticus 14,8) has not been infected and is therefore potentially fit for consumption by Jews (if caught without injury after having been released) The emphasis by the Torah on the word טהורה in verse 11 is to tell us that the ritual impurity from which the person afflicted with tzoraat is infected does not transfer to the bird, as no living creatures other than man is susceptible to that kind of disease. None of G’ds creatures other than man, is susceptible to transmittable ritual impurity before it dies.

לא תאכל כל תועבה, “Do not eat anything which is an abomination.” The reason the prohibition to eat certain creatures follows here is that this is part of the definition of maintaining a level of holiness. When the Torah spoke about the Jewish people being a holy nation (verse 2) this meant that this holiness has to be manifest both in deed and in the way one uses one’s mouth (Ibn Ezra). Our sages in Chulin 114 explain the above words to mean that G’d is saying: “anything which I described as abominable you must not eat.” This includes even matters which though permitted for consumption individually, separately, are forbidden as a mixture such as meat and milk. [This is an expansion of the meaning “abomination,” i.e. anything forbidden automatically comes under the heading “abominable.” Ed.]

Anything I made abominable to you, etc. You might ask: Why then are we permitted to eat castrated chickens and animals? For Hashem made them abominable to us — it is forbidden to castrate them. The answer is: Since we need a verse (Vayikra 22:24) to prohibit their acceptance as a sacrifice, we can then infer that they are permitted for non-sacrificial purposes.

V. 3. לא תאכל וגו׳. Die vorangehenden Gesetze gravitieren alle in dem einen zuletzt hervorgehobenen Gedanken der unveräußerlichen Dignität einer jeden Einzelpersönlichkeit und deren unmittelbaren göttlichen Stellung und Bestimmung, aus welcher erst die zusammengegliederte gottheilige Volksgesellschaft hervorgeht.

לא תאכל כל תועבה, “you must not eat anything that is abominable.” This subject is linked here to that of forbidden rites of mourning, as it too is part of your being a holy nation, as repeated in the last verse. Holiness, i.e. apartness, means, among other things, that your food is different from that of the pagans, who are not too distinguishable from the creatures which they choose to worship. You are to eat only what is ritually pure.

Im Anschluss an diesen Gedanken und von ihm aus folgt nun eine Fortsetzung der eben mit den erwähnten Gesetzen (V. 19, Kap. 12 f.) unterbrochenen Speisegesetze, die ja wegen der mit der bevorstehenden Dezentralisation eintretenden בשר תאוה-Gestattung ihre geeignete Stelle in dem Volkskompendium der Gesetze zu finden hatten. Ausführlich waren sie ja bereits (Wajikra Kap. 11) im Zusammenhange mit den Gesetzen der Heiligung und Wahrung der sittlichen, geistigen und sinnlichen Lauterkeit niedergelegt. Entsprechend der volkstümlichen Bestimmung dieses Kompendiums, genügt hier nicht die theoretische Angabe der die Genusserlaubnis bedingenden Merkmale, sondern es werden Verse 4 und 5 die zum Genuss erlaubten zehn Säugetierarten ausdrücklich genannt, denen gegenüber die Kenntnis der Merkmale nur theoretische Bedeutung hat (siehe .(מאכלות אסורות רמב׳׳ם 8, 1 Es werden überhaupt nur die größeren Tiergattungen besprochen, aus welchen gemeinhin Tiere zur Nahrung genommen werden, bei welcher Gelegenheit denn auch unter den Vögeln einige wie ראה und איה (V. 3) aufgeführt werden, für welche zwei abweichende Benennungen im Umlauf waren. Die niederen Kriechtiere jedoch, die ja ohnehin nicht zum Genuss genommen werden, ja deren Genuss gescheut wird, werden unter den allgemeinen Ausspruch לא תאכל כל תועבה mitbegriffen. (Daraus dürfte sich der Satz Jeruschalmi Schabbat IX, 1 erklären: כתיב תועבה בשרצים שרצים .לא תאכל כל תועבה sind jedoch gerade hier nicht genannt. Allein eben deshalb sind sie zunächst unter den allgemeinen Kanon: לא תאכל כל תועבה begriffen.)

לא תאכל כל תועבה die Tragweite dieses Satzes ist nicht ganz sicher. Wie das soeben angeführte Zitat aus dem Jeruschalmi erweist, sind eben die verbotenen Speisen, deren wiederholter Ausspruch damit eingeleitet wäre, der Gegenstand desselben. Dafür spricht ja auch am natürlichsten die Stellung dieses Satzes am Anfange des מאכלות אסורות-Kapitels. Die verbotenen Tierspeisen wären damit als תועבה, als solche bezeichnet, deren Genuss unserem Wesen eine unserer sittlichen Natur und Bestimmung entgegengesetzte, darum von uns "zu verabscheuende" Richtung bringen würde, analog dem Ausdruck שקץ in dem entsprechenden Kapitel 11 des 3. Buches, und würde sich dieser Begriff dem in den vorangehenden Gesetzen vorherrschenden Gedanken von der unmittelbar gottnahen Beziehung eines jeden Einzelwesens der jüdischen Gesamtheit vollständig anfügen. Schließt doch dieses Kapitel ganz mit demselben Motive כי עם קדוש אתה לה׳ אלקיך, welches auch in V. 2 den Schlussgedanken der vorangehenden Gesetzesgruppe bildete.

Allein weder im Sifri noch im Babli wird einer Beziehung dieses Satzes auf die hier folgenden Speisegesetze erwähnt. ר׳׳מ׳s Lehre 66 ע׳׳ז a. מנין לכל איסורין שבתורה שמצטרפין זה עם זה שנא׳ לא תאכל כל תועבה כל שתיעבתי לך הרי היא בבל תאכל ist nicht als Halacha rezipiert (siehe מאכלות אסורות רמב׳׳ם s4, 16). Nur רב אשי (Chulin 114 b) findet darin das Genussverbot des בשר בחלב, von dem der Wortlaut des Gesetzes nur das Verbot des Kochens enthält: מניין לבשר בחלב שאסור באכילה שנאמר לא תאכל כל תועבה כל שתיעבתי לך הרי הוא בבל תאכל, d. i. alles, dessen Herstellung dir verpönt ist, ist auch zum Genusse dir verboten. Nach allgemeinster Annahme ist aber der איסור אכילה für בשר בחלב in dem dreimaligen Ausspruch des בישול-Verbotes niedergelegt (Chulin 111 b), und wenn (daselbst 115 a) eine jede sonstige Anwendung des Satzes ׳כל שתיעבתי לך וגו zurückgewiesen, so entfiele dem Kanon: כל ׳שתיעבתי לך וגו׳ der gesetzliche Gegenstand. Die von Raschi im Kommentar aus dem Sifri gegebene Erläuterung בגון צרם אזן בכור וגו׳ ist, wie schon in Mischne zu הל בכורות 1, 4 erwähnt, nicht der (Bechorot 34 a u. b) rezipierten Halacha gemäß, der zufolge der איסור אכילה nur קנס דרבנן wäre. Eine andere Auffassung im Sifri בפסולי המוקדשין הכתוב מדבר, nimmt allerdings דמב׳׳ם פסולי המוקדשים, auf 3 ,18 und führt darauf den איסור und מלקות für אכילה aller קדשים שנפסלו zurück; allein, so weit unsere Einsicht reicht, beruht dieser איסור nach Mackot 18 b auf dem Satze: לא יאכל כי קדש הוא כל שבקדש פסול בא הכתוב ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו, ein Satz, den auffallender Weise רמב׳׳ם selbst 10 הל׳, 18 für פגול und נותר anführt, der aber in seiner Allgemeinheit, כל שבקדש פסול, alle פסולי המוקדשין in sich zu begreifen scheint (siehe תוספו׳ Mackot 18 b) וצ׳׳ע.

Wir glauben nach allem dem, dass die vom Jeruschalmi zitierte Beziehung unseres Textes auf die folgenden מאכלות אסורות von allen unbestritten bleiben dürfte und die erwähnten verschiedenen Beziehungen auf andere gesetzliche Verhältnisse nur in dem generalisierenden כל תועבה ,כל, haben gefunden werden sollen. Dass aber gleichwohl ein לאו für בהמות טמאות im שמיני) ספרא) als גלוי מלתא durch ק׳ו gesucht, und nicht im direkten Verbotausspruch unseres Textes gefunden wird, dürfte sich vielleicht aus dem Umstande erklären, dass dann לא תאכל כל תועבה als לאו שבכללות nicht מלקות-schuldig machte, wogegen jedoch 66 ע׳׳ז ,תוספו׳a. וכל זה צע׳׳ע .ד׳׳ה כל שתיעבתי