Halakhah su Deuteronomio 14:4
זֹ֥את הַבְּהֵמָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֹּאכֵ֑לוּ שׁ֕וֹר שֵׂ֥ה כְשָׂבִ֖ים וְשֵׂ֥ה עִזִּֽים׃
Queste sono le bestie che potresti mangiare: il bue, la pecora e la capra,
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol III
If the babirusa is indeed a "kosher pig" it is a much more obvious example of a kosher counterpart to the non-kosher swine than is the brain of the fish known as the shibbuta. Moreover, the Gemara, Hullin 80a. states that the only animals which are kosher are the ten species specifically enumerated in Deuteronomy 14:4-5. This dictum is recorded as a normative ruling by Rambam, Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot 1:8. There are, of course, other kosher animals which one might regard as distinct species, including perhaps the kevi (or koi), which according to one talmudic opinion is an "independent species." Those animals, for purposes of halakhic classification, are subsumed under one or another of the species enumerated by Scripture.34Cf., Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De‘ah 79:41.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sefer HaChinukh
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Zevachim 70a) that Scripture did not distinguish with an impure beast or animal between its meat and its chelev - as it is all forbidden. And [regarding] flesh of a person, his flesh is not included in the prohibition of an impure beast, to transgress a negative commandment for it, even though man is called a living (or animal) soul and he does not bring up the cud or completely divide [his foot]. And therefore, we do not administer lashes for one who eats from his flesh or drinks from his chelev - whether alive or dead. But it is nonetheless forbidden with a positive commandment, as behold Scripture numbered seven species of animals and stated about them (Leviticus 14:4), "this is the animal that you may eat." And a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment, is a positive commandment. This is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 2:3). But Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Ramban on Leviticus 11:3) that there is not even a positive commandment about the flesh of a man. And he brought a proof from that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Keritot 21a), "There is not even a commandment of separation from the blood and chelev of those that walk on two [legs]." And he, may his memory be blessed, wrote that the law is the same for flesh, that it is permitted like the blood. As if not, how could blood be permissible - and as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Keritot 22a), "Blood that is between the teeth, he should suck and swallow" - and it is established for us (Bekhorot 5a) "All that comes out of the impure is impure." And nonetheless, the flesh of the dead (Israelite) is forbidden to benefit from. And the rest of his proofs are in his book. And the rest of the details of the commandment are elucidated in the third chapter of Chullin and in other places (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 2).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy