Commento su Deuteronomio 14:21

לגר אשר בשעריך [YE SHALL NOT EAT ANY CARRION: THOU SHALT GIVE IT] UNTO THE STRANGER THAT IS IN THY GATES — i.e. unto a stranger that is a sojourner (גר תושב) — one who has undertaken not to worship idols (i.e. one who has been converted to the fundamental tenet of Judaism) but who eats carrion (does not obey the other teachings of the Torah) (Sifrei Devarim 104:2; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 25:35).

FOR THOU ART A HOLY PEOPLE UNTO THE ETERNAL THY G-D. The purport thereof is connected with [the following prohibition], Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk. Although it is not an abhorrent food [for both meat and milk are permitted separately] He prohibited it because we are to be holy in [choice of] foods — or because we [ourselves] are holy — that we not become a cruel people that is not compassionate²²²See Jeremiah 6:23. by milking the mother and extracting its milk to seethe therein its kid. And although any meat [cooked] in milk is included in this prohibition [even though it is not its own mother’s milk, a situation without apparent cruelty, nevertheless it is forbidden] because any nursing animal is called “mother” and any suckling offspring is called “kid,” and if they are together in the process of cooking there is [an element of] cruelty in all [cases whether a kid in its own mother’s milk or not].
Now, Rashi wrote: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk. This is stated three times²²³Here, and in Exodus 23:19, and 34:26. in order to exclude a wild beast, fowls,²²⁴However, the cooking and eating of a chayah (clean wild beast) or fowl with milk is forbidden though by the Rabbis (Yoreh Deiah 57:3). and unclean animals” [from this prohibition]. This interpretation is derived from the Scriptural use of the term kid [an expression that does not apply to any of the excluded categories]. However, the thrice repeated] prohibition itself [teaches the following:] one forbids eating [meat cooked with milk], one forbids deriving benefit from it, and one forbids cooking it. And so did the Rabbi [Rashi] write in the section of And these are the ordinances.²²⁵Exodus 23:19.

לא תאכלו כל נבלה, even of the pure species which you may eat after they have been slaughtered ritually.

לא תאכלו כל נבלה, "You shall not eat any carcass, etc." The reason that the Torah adds the word כל, "any" or "all kinds of," is justified according to the sages who hold that two types of prohibitions do apply to the same animal simultaneously (compare Chulin 113). [supposing you were to eat the carcass of an animal which even if ritually slaughtered would have been forbidden because it was already forbidden as an unclean animal during its lifetime. According to that view you would be culpable for two sins. Ed.] According to the sages who hold that one is not culpable for an additional prohibition, i.e. for the prohibition of eating the carcass of say a pig, the word כל, "all or every," is needed to forbid the carcass of either domestic animal, free-roaming animal, or birds. However, carcasses of unclean animals would not be included in this prohibition.

כי עם קדוש אתה, “for you are a holy nation.” Nachmanides writes that Moses deliberately wrote the prohibition of mixing milk and meat right next to the reminder that we are a holy nation, to remind us that although milk and meat cannot be considered abominable foods, else how could each by itself be perfectly acceptable, but in order to remind us that we are not merely not abominable, not despicable, but on a much higher spiritual level, one that needs to concern itself also with more refinement in matters physical and material. A holy nation does not display signs of inhumanity, ruthlessness, and insensitivity, even when relating to its domestic animals. Milking a mother animal in order to boil its young in that milk is considered an act of extreme insensitivity towards both of the animals involved. Even though mixing any kind of milk with any kind of meat is included in the prohibition listed here, so that in the vast majority of situations the element of insensitivity vis a vis specific animals is not involved, seeing that basically any nursing woman or animal is considered as a “mother,” first and foremost, and every suckling is considered as a גדי, “kid,” observing this law brings home the underlying motive contained in it to each one of us.

לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, “Do not boil a kid in the milk of its mother.” I have explained the meaning of this verse in detail in Exodus 23,19. The reason it is written three times is that once it refers to the prohibition to eat such a mixture, once to the prohibition to merely boil it together, and once to the prohibition to derive indirect benefit from the result of boiling milk and meat together (Chulin 115). On folio 113 of Chulin the Talmud sees in the word גדי a restrictive clause, i.e. the prohibition does not apply to free-roaming beasts or to birds or to mammals of the kind which are forbidden for consumption by Jews. None of these are subject to this prohibition as a Biblical law though the Rabbis included the prohibition to cover all these cases (Maimonides Hilchot Maachalot assurot 9,4).

Sanctify yourselves by abstaining from that which is permitted, etc. Re”m writes: This prohibition, “Do not eat any carcass,” is not for the sake of beauty, as is, “Do not lacerate yourself (v. 1),” which is only for the sake of beauty — as Rashi explains there [and therefore it says there, “You are a sacred people” afterwards]. Rather, “Do not eat any carcass,” is required for the [well being of the] soul, and the phrase, “For you are a people sanctified, etc.,” does not apply to it. Therefore our sages explain: Since you are a sanctified people, it is fitting to sanctify yourselves even regarding that which is permitted to you, etc. But to me it seems that Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse here say differently from what is written at the end of Parshas Shmini (Vayikra 11:43). It should say here instead, “Do not eat any carcass and do not make yourselves repulsive, etc.” The reason why it is written, “For you are a people sanctified to Adonoy, etc.,” is to expound, “Sanctify yourselves, etc.”

V. 21. לא תאכלו כל נבלה. Jedes שחיטה-pflichtige Tier, also בהמה וחיה טהורה ועוף טהור, das nicht durch vorschriftsmässige שחיטה gestorben, ist: נבלה (Chulin 32 a). Bei טמאים ist שחיטה von keiner Bedeutung, בהמה טמאה שנשחטה ist gleichwohl נבלה und hat die טומאת נבלה in מגע und משא (Wajikra 11, 8 u. 26 f.) Allein in Beziehung auf אכילה tritt der איסור נבלה nicht ein, da das Tier bereits als טמאה vom איסור אכילה gefasst ist, nach dem Kanon אין חל על איסור, wenn es nicht איסור ,איסור כולל oder איסור בבת אחת ist (siehe Wajikra 7, 24; — 2 ,4 מאכלות אסורות רמב׳׳ם).

לא תאכלו כל נבלה, “you must not eat the carcass of any animal that died of natural causes.” This includes carcasses of normally ritually pure mammals, free roaming beasts birds and ritually not pure fish. Ritually pure fish are permitted to be eaten even if they died from natural causes. The reason why this appears to have been repeated is so that no one would have an excuse to say that only the carcasses of mammals, free roaming beasts and pure birds are forbidden if they died from natural causes.

כי עם קדוש אתה לה׳ FOR THOU ART AN HOLY PEOPLE UNTO THE LORD — This implies: show yourself holy (abstinent) in respect to things which are permitted to you — i.e. things that are actually permitted but which some treat as forbidden you should not treat as permissible in their presence (Sifrei Devarim 104:7).

כי עם קדוש אתה לה' אלוקיך, even though the dead carcass is in a state of being fit for human consumption, such as by strangers in your midst or residents who have not yet converted to embrace all of Judaism’s laws. עם קדוש, ready to achieve the perfection intended for it by its Creator. (this would be slowed down or impeded by eating lower forms of living creatures, not that eating them would be harmful, objectively speaking.)

Three times; this excludes wild animals, fowl, etc. Rashi’s explanation above in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 23:19), “This comes to forbid eating, cooking, and deriving benefit,” is based on the phrase, “do not cook,” which is written three times. But Rashi’s explanation here, “This excludes wild animals, fowl, and impure animals,” is based on the word, “kid,” which is written three times.

An additional meaning of the word כל may be related to what we have learned in Me-ilah 4,3 and which has been confirmed by a ruling of Maimonides in chapter four of his treatise Ma-achalot assurot. He writes: "all carcasses may be combined with one another. How does this work in practice? If someone takes a minute amount of the carcass of an ox plus a minute amount of the carcass of a deer, plus a minute amount of the carcass of a hen, if the three amounts combined are equal to the size of an olive then he who eats this combination is liable to thirty nine lashes." Thus far Maimonides. The statement: "you must not eat any carcass" therefore refers to the minimum quantity which is considered a violation, i.e. even if three separate animals were needed to make up the quantity of the size equal to an olive.

An der Tatsache, dass hier das Gesetz ausdrücklich die Gestattung des Verkaufs oder des Schenkens von נבלה an Nichtjuden auszusprechen veranlasst ist, wird Peßachim 21 b gelehrt, dass כל מקום שנאמר לא יאכל לא תאכל לא תאכלו אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה במשמע עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבלה, dass überall unter das Verbot des "Essens" auch das Verbot sonstiger "Benutzung" begriffen sei, wenn nicht das Gesetz die Gestattung der Benutzung ausdrücklich, wie hier bei נבלה, erkläre. So ist, diese Gestattung der Benutzung ausdrücklich auch für טרפה (Schmot 22, 30) für חלב. (Wajikra 7, 24) und, wie Peßachim daselbst entwickelt, auch für שרצים ,חדש יין לנזיר ,תרומה ,אבר מן החי ,דם ausgesprochen.

כל נבלה, “any type of carcass that died of natural causes.” The use of the word כל to mean “any,” and not “all,” we have seen already in verse 3 in our chapter “כל תועבה,” anything abominable, as well as in Exodus 20,10: לא תעשה כל מלאכה,”you must not perform any work.”

לא תבשל גדי THOU SHALT NOT SEETHE A KID [IN ITS MOTHER’S MILK] — Three times the prohibition of seething meat in milk is mentioned in the Torah (here, and in Exodus 23:19 and Exodus 34:26) and each time in the form: “thou shalt not seethe a kid” thus excluding three species: a wild beast, fowls and unclean beasts from the prohibition (Sifrei Devarim 104:8; Chullin 113a).

לא תבשל גדי, as is the custom among the Gentiles who believe that by doing so they will increase the numbers of their livestock (compare Moreh Nevuchim, section three 3,48)

לגר אשר בשעריך, "to the stranger who is in your gates, etc." When the Torah speaks of the stranger it mentions giving it to him, whereas when speaking about the Gentile [who does not even observe the 7 Noachide laws. Ed.] the Torah mentions selling the carcass to him. In Chulin 114 we find a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah concerning the meaning of our verse. The former holds that our verse indicates a preference for giving the carcass to the stranger rather than selling it to him although both is permitted; however at the same time the Torah prefers you to sell the carcass to the Gentile rather than to give it to him as a gift. Rabbi Yehudah understands the wording to mean that to the Gentiles the carcass may only be sold, whereas to the stranger it may only be given as a gift. Rabbi Yehudah bases himself on the word או meaning "or." Had the Torah wanted to permit selling the carcass to the stranger it should have written ומכור, "and sell it," instead of או מכור, "or sell it." Rabbi Meir understands the sequence of "giving or selling" as an indication of which method the Torah prefers in each respective situation. In order to understand the approach of Rabbi Yehudah of why the Torah does not state unequivocally that the Gentile may not be given the carcass, etc., we have to refer to Avodah Zarah 67. [The subject under discussion in the Talmud there concerns matters whose substance as well as whose taste is prohibited. The question is whether the taste is prohibited even if it does not only not cause pleasure but has a distinctly negative influence on the palate. Ed.] Rabbi Shimon permits a substance which has become less enjoyable due to the addition of forbidden foreign matter, whereas Rabbi Meir forbids such a substance regardless of whether the taste enhances it or makes it unpalatable. Rabbi Shimon uses our verse to prove that anything which is fit as food for a stranger is called a carcass, i.e. falls under the prohibition that a Jew must not eat it. If it is not fit for a stranger to eat, it no longer rates as a carcass in Jewish law. Thus far the Talmud. From the above we may assume that Rabbi Shimon's exegesis is based on what is given to a stranger. A person would not make a gift of something to someone unless the recipient would enjoy such a gift. Needless to say that something which is unfit to give away is impossible to offer for sale either. From the above the Talmud seems to conclude that the definition of the word "carcass" depends on the suitability of the carcass as either a gift or its having a commercial value. This argument does not appear convincing. It appears to me that the word כל in our verse is meant to tell us that the condition of the carcass is immaterial to the question of whether it is forbidden or not. The mention of selling it or giving it away is totally unrelated to the status of the carcass as a forbidden substance.

Aboda Sara 67 b wird ferner an unserem Satze gelehrt, dass das Verbot לא תאכלו כל נבלה voraussetzt, dass die נבלה noch genießbar sei, und daran die Folgerung geknüpft, dass הראויה לגר קרויה נבלה שאין ראויה לגר אינה קרויה נבלה, dass hinsichtlich des Genussverbotes נבלה und so auch andere verbotene Speisen, nur so lange dem איסור unterliegen, als sie für einen Menschen genießbar sind, was denn (ebendaselbst) für Mischungen (Wajikra S. 206 f.) die Folge hat, dass נותן טעם לפגם מותר, eine solche sich dem Geschmack kundgebende Mischung schon dann nicht אסור ist, wenn sie geschmackswidrig ist (vergl. Wajikra 31, 23), ein Kanon, dessen Anwendung doch noch näheren Bestimmungen unterliegt (siehe daselbst).

או מכור לנכרי, or to be sold to a gentile.” The letter ל in the word לנכרי has the semi vowel sh’va.

If you accept my argument we need to understand Rabbi Shimon differently. He uses the fact that our verse is phrased in an unusual manner to prove his point. The Torah wrote the word "stranger" next to the word carcass," i.e. "every carcass is for the stranger," instead of writing it in the same way as it did later when speaking about selling the carcass to the Gentile. There the Torah uses the normal syntax, writing: "or to sell it to the Gentile." It is this unusual positioning of the respective words נבלה לגר which form the basis of Rabbi Shimon's exegesis. He most certainly did not fail to give due weight to the word כל. Had the Torah written תתננה לגר, "you are to give it to the stranger," Rabbi Shimon would not have had an "exegetical leg" to stand on.

אכל ist nach unserer Auffassung: Stoffzerstörung (כל (ה, zum Zweck der Selbstergänzung, א. Ungenießbares und, bei stofflich bis nur noch für den Geschmack wahrnehmbarer Vermischung, dem Geschmackssinn Widerstehendes, dürfte eben in dieser Ungenießbarkeit oder Geschmackswidrigkeit, von dem genießenden "Selbst" so zurückgewiesen sein, dass es den vorausgesetzten Zweck der Selbstergänzung verliert.

לא תבשל גדי, “do not boil a kid;” This was repeated here to teach that (its youth notwithstanding?) it is considered as meat. (Ibn Ezra)

We can now understand the reason of Rabbi Yehudah who holds like Rabbi Shimon in the discussion we quoted about נותן טעם לפגם, "when the taste of the forbidden substance is displeasing." Seeing that he holds that once the carcass is not suitable either commercially or as a gift and is therefore not forbidden to the Jew who owns it, we needed to be told that even if the carcass still has commercial value it may be sold or given away by its owner. According to Rabbi Meir who holds that even a commercially unsaleable carcass is forbidden, the whole subject of the suitability of the carcass did not arise so that the wording of the verse did not have to take this into account.

In Beziehung auf טומאה verliert eine נבלה erst den נבלה-Charakter, wenn sie selbst für ein Tier nicht mehr genießbar geworden, נפסל מאכילת כלב, allein סרוח מעיקרא, wenn sie von Anfang an nie genießbar war, so tritt auch dann טומאה nicht ein, wenn diese Ungenießbarkeit nur für Menschen gewesen (Bechorot 23 a u. b).

I have found that in Avodah Zarah 68 the Talmud raises the question of a carcass which is unsuitable either as a gift or as something saleable. Rabbi Meir claims that the word כל includes only carcasses which prior to the animal having died were fit to eat or to give as a gift, whereas animals which were badly diseased before death are not included under the prohibition of the word "carcass" even according to the view of Rabbi Meir! Rabbi Shimon replied that the Torah did not need to write a special word in order for me to know that a diseased animal could not ever become forbidden under the heading of "carcass." According to what we have argued so far, what kind of objection did the Talmud raise against the view of Rabbi Meir? We have already explained that there is no room for Rabbi Meir to use the wording of the verse as Rabbi Shimon does? Perhaps we need to say that the Talmud only elaborates (unnecessarily) when raising this question as if to say: "even assuming that Rabbi Meir could use the exegetical approach of Rabbi Shimon, he would be able to apply the word כל to exclude an animal which had been totally unsuitable as potential food already while it was alive, etc." The fact is however, that there is no real question against Rabbi Meir as we have already mentioned. At any rate, even according to the view of Rabbi Meir that when the taste of the carcass has been negatively affected it is still forbidden, if it had been unfit to eat for reasons of disease and the accompanying stench before its death, it is considered as plain earth and certainly does not fit the definition of "carcass." The two scholars then only disagree as to whether we need a word in the Torah to teach us this latter point.

לא תאכלו כל נבלה וגו׳ כי עם קדוש וגו׳ לא תבשל וגו׳. Wir haben zu Kapitel 12. 21 die Ansicht geäußert, der Akt der שחיטה sei ein Aneignungsakt abseiten des jüdischen Menschen in Beziehung auf das bis dahin dem Tierleben angehörige leibliche Wesen, sei ein Einverleiben, ein Hinauf- und Hineinheben eines Tierleibes in den Kreis der jüdischen Menschenpersönlichkeit. (צבה ,צבא ,שבע ,שפח-זבח. Ist doch sehr wahrscheinlich auch שחט nur das potenzierte שחד und dieses: jemanden sich zu eigen machen, jemanden gewinnen). Sein gerades Gegenteil ist: נבלה, das schechitalos gestorbene Tier, dessen Leib nicht nur wie טרפה bereits von der Elementarwelt ergriffen, sondern derselben, der Welt der Unfreiheit, völlig verfallen ist: נול = נבל (Trümmer), נפל.

Wir haben ferner bereits zu Schmot 23, 19 entwickelt, wie das בשר בחלבVerbot nicht nur bei der Speisebereitung die Mahnung an den Gesetzgeber unserer Artbestimmung überhaupt, sondern diese Bestimmung selbst in solchem Gegensatz zum Tiercharakter vergegenwärtigt, dass in unserem Wesen das Tierische, Wahrnehmung und Wille (Sinne und Bewegung) nicht dem Pflanzlichen, der Ernährung und dem geschlechtlichen Leben verfallen, sondern mit diesen dem sittlich Freien des geistigen Menschtums untertan, nicht abwärts zur Erde, sondern aufwärts zum Menschlichen und Göttlichen gehoben werde.

Diese Bestimmung macht uns zu ׳עם קדוש וגו, und spricht sich daher das נבלה und בשר בחלב-Verbot in tief innerlichem Zusammenhange begrifflich also aus: Der unfreien Elementarwelt verfallenes Tierwesen sollst du nicht als Nahrung deines persönlichen Wesens in dich aufnehmen; denn als Glied eines Gott heiligen Menschenkreises hast du vielmehr eine Bestimmung, welches alles Tierischleibliche in deinem Wesen nicht hinab an die Reize pflanzlicher Lebensfunktionen hingeben darf, sondern in den Bereich Gott dienender Menschensittlichkeit hinauf retten soll — nicht nur נבלה sollst du nicht essen, sondern selbst mit den dir erlaubten Tierspeisen und bei Bereitung derselben soll dir die sittlich heilige Bestimmung des Wesens, das du nähren willst, und die Anforderungen gegenwärtig sein, die durch diese Bestimmung bedingt sind. —