Halakhah su Deuteronomio 14:7

Whether or not there is a specific midrashic reference to a pig which chews the cud, it would appear that an animal which has split hoofs and which also chews its cud is ipso facto kosher. Indeed, Jewish law does not even deem it essential to examine an animal for the manifestation of both split hoofs and the chewing of the cud. Leviticus 11:4-6 enumerates three species of ruminants which chew the cud but which do not have split hoofs: the camel, the rock-badger and the hare. Deuteronomy 14:7 names a fourth animal, the shesu'ah, which is described as chewing the cud but as not having cloven hoofs. This animal is described by the Gemara, Hullin 60b, as a creature which has two backs and two spinal columns. The Gemara, Niddah 24a, further explains that the shesu'ah is the progeny of a permitted species. In effect, the birth of a shesu'ah is an anomaly. Both Leviticus 11:7 and Deuteronomy 14:8 name only one animal, the swine, which has split hoofs but does not chew its cud. The Gemara, Hullin 59a, on the basis of a pleonasm, regards these enumerated species, not as paradigmatic, but as exhaustive. Thus the Gemara comments, "The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast that chews the cud and is unclean except the camel [and the other species enumerated by Scripture]" and similarly comments, "The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast that parts the hoof and is unclean except the swine." These dicta pave the way for a determination that an animal may be declared kosher even without examination for the presence of both split hoofs and the chewing of the cud. The Gemara, Hullin 59a, notes that the absence of upper incisors and canines is a characteristic of all ruminants with the exception of the camel which has canines in both jaws.²²The front teeth in the upper jaw of ruminants are replaced by a horny pad. The front teeth of the lower jaw are directed forward and, upon closing the mouth, simply press the grass tightly against this pad. When the head is jerked sideways the gum is cut through by the sharp edges of the lower front teeth. See Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago, 1966), XIX, 752. Accordingly, declares the Gemara, "If a man was walking in the desert and found an animal with its hoofs cut off, he should examine the mouth; if it has no upper teeth he may be certain that it is clean, otherwise he may be certain that it is unclean; provided, however, … he recognizes the young camel." The possibility that the animal may be a young camel must be excluded since, even though the young camel has no teeth, it will eventually develop canines. The Gemara explicitly negates the possibility that there may exist some other animal that lacks teeth, i.e., a ruminant that chews the cud but is non-kosher by virtue of its non-cloven hoofs. Thus, if it were to be shown that the babirusa lacks incisors and canines on its upper jaw it may be declared a kosher species on that basis alone. Absence of incisors and canines is itself evidence that the animal is a cud-chewing ruminant.

He prohibited us from eating impure (domesticated) beasts and impure (wild) animals. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Nevertheless these you shall not eat of those which chew the cud, etc." (Deuteronomy 14:7). However an explicit negative commandment does not appear about the other impure animals, but it is rather from His saying, "And every beast that parts the hoof, forming thereby two entirely cloven hoofs, and chews the cud among the beasts, that may you eat" (Deuteronomy 14:7). Behold He made known that anything that does not have these signs together is forbidden to eat. However it is a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment, which is explained to be a positive commandment. [As] the principle with us is that a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment, and we do not give lashes for it. However the other impure beasts and animals are forbidden to us, and we are liable lashes for eating them, from an a fortiori argument (kal vachomer). As we say that we give lashes for the swine and the camel that have one sign of purity; all the more so should we give lashes for other impure beasts and animals that have no sign at all! And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3:1-2) about this is their saying, "'That may you eat' - it may be eaten, and not an impure beast. I only know of a positive commandment. From where [do we know that he also transgresses] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'that you shall not eat.' This tells me only of [those explicitly mentioned] alone. From where [do we know] the other impure beasts? It follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if a negative commandment against eating attaches to these which have [some] signs of purity; how much more so does it attach to those which do not have any signs of purity at all! It is found, then, that the camel, the hare, the coney and the swine [are prohibited] by Scripture, and the other impure beasts, by an a fortiori argument. Their positive commandment is written; their negative commandment is [derived] a fortiori." But this a fortiori argument is only a revelation of the matter, as we mentioned in Negative Commandment 336, regarding, "his daughter" - according to what we we will explain in its place. And therefore anyone who eats a kazayit of the meat of an impure beast or impure animal - from whatever type it may be - is lashed by Torah law. And know this. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 1.)