Halakhah su Levitico 11:3

Despite the great reluctance of the talmudic Sages to offer a rationale for the fundamentals of kashrut, others were not similarly reticent. The interpretations which have been advanced over the course of centuries are varied and sundry. The explanation which has probably enjoyed the widest circulation is the one which sees a connection between these laws and physical health and well-being. This concept gained currency in the days of antiquity: it is expressed in the Pseudepigrapha¹IV Macc. 5:25–27. and alluded to in the works of Philo.²De Specialibus Legibus, IV, 119. Translated by F. H. Colson (Cambridge, 1939), VIII, 81. Although these writings are not necessarily indicative of rabbinic thought, similar concepts are expressed by Maimonides,³Guide of the Perplexed, III, chap. 48. Nachmanides,⁴Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:43. Gersonides,⁵Commentary on the Bible, Parshat Ekev, To‘elet 26. and others.⁶Abraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Bible, Exod. 22:30; Rashbam, Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:3; Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, nos. 72 and 147. However, other rabbinic scholars were most emphatic in their denial of a hygienic interpretation of the laws of forbidden foods. Thus, R. Isaac Abarbanel writes, "Heaven forfend that I should believe so. For if that were to be so, the Book of God's Law would be in the same category as any of the brief medical books…. This is not the way of God's law or the depth of its intentions." ⁷Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:13. In almost identical language, R. Isaac Arama disparages this explanation, commenting that such an interpretation would "lower the status of divine Law to the status of any brief medical composition." ⁸Akedat Yiẓḥak, Sha‘ar 60. See also Kli Yakar, Lev. 11:1 and Menachem ha-Bavli, Ta‘amei ha-Miẓvot, negative commandments, no. 84.

The phenomenon of a kosher pig is not entirely unknown in rabbinic literature. R. Hayyim ibn Attar, Or ha-Hayyim, Leviticus 11:3, quotes an unidentified aggadic source which comments: "Why is it named 'ḥazir'? Because it will one day 'return' to become permissible," i.e., the pig will return to its pre-Sinaitic status as a permitted source of meat. In his commentary on Leviticus 11:7. Or ha-Hayyim questions the meaning of this statement. It is a fundamental principle of Judaism that the Torah is immutable; hence a pig which does not chew its cud cannot at any time be declared kosher.¹⁸Cf., however, Va-Yikra Rabbah 13:3; Midrash Shoḥer Tov, Ps. 146; and R. Joseph Albo, Sefer ha-Ikkarim, III, chapters 13-19. Accordingly, Or ha-Hayyim comments that the phrase "but it does not chew its cud" which occurs in Leviticus 11:7 is conditional in nature, i.e., the pig is forbidden only so long as it does not chew its cud, "but in the eschatological era it will chew its cud and will 'return' to become permissible." Indeed, the etymological analysis presented by Or ha-Hayyim would lead to acceptance of a cud-chewing pig not only as a kosher animal but as a harbinger of the eschatological era as well. A similar statement is made by Rema of Panu, Asarah Ma'amarot, Ma'amar Hikur Din, II, chapter 17.¹⁹See also R. Moses Sofer, Torat Mosheh, Deuteronomy 14:8.

Many authorities, including Rosh, Ketubot 5:19, Teshuvot ha-Rashba, I, no. 364, and Ramban, commentary on Leviticus 11:3, maintain that there is no specific biblical prohibition against eating human flesh. These authorities would nevertheless agree that partaking of the flesh of a dead person is forbidden on other, more general, grounds. Yoreh De'ah 349:1 records a general prohibition against deriving any benefit from a corpse; using the flesh of a corpse for food is, of course, a forbidden "benefit."⁵The prohibition with regard to deriving benefit from a Jewish corpse is biblical in nature. There is some disagreement as to whether the prohibition against deriving benefit from the corpse of a non-Jew is biblical or rabbinic in nature. See Pitḥei Teshuvah, Yoreh De‘ah 349:1; Mishneh, le-Melekh, Ma’akhalot Assurot 2:3 and Hilkhot Avel 14:21; and She’elat Ya’aveẓ, I, no. 41.

That is that He commanded us to check for the signs of beasts and animals that can be slaughtered - and that is that they chew the cud and have split hooves - and it is then permissible to eat them. And in that we are commended to check them for these signs, it is a positive commandment. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "These are the animals that you may eat" (Leviticus 11:2). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Chapter 3:1) is, "'Such may you eat' (Leviticus 11:3) - it may be eaten, but an unclean beast may not be eaten." This means to say, a beast that has these signs is permissible to eat; so it indicates that a beast that does not have these signs is not permitted to eat. And this is a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment - which is a positive commandment, as is a principle with us. And therefore, it said after this statement, "This tells me only of a positive commandment. From where [do we know that he also transgresses] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'the camel, etc.'"(Leviticus 11:4) - as I will explain in the Negative Commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 172). Behold it has already been made clear that His saying, "such may you eat," is a positive commandment. And the content of this commandment is that we are commanded to check for these signs in the beasts and animals; and it is not permissible to eat them without this. And this law is the commandment. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Chullin and in Bekhorot. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)

To not eat an impure beast or animal: To not eat an impure beast or animal, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:4), "this shall you not eat from those that bring up the cud and separate their hoof, the camel," "and the pig" (Leviticus 11:7), "and the hare" (Leviticus 11:6), "and the daman" (Leviticus 11:5). And a clear negative commandment about the other species of impure beasts does not appear. But since the Torah stated (Leviticus 11:3), "All that separate the hoof and [...] bring up the cud in an animal, it shall you eat," we know that we are prevented from eating anything that does not have these two signs together. And this is a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment. And the principle that we have is [that] a negative commandment that comes from the implication of a positive commandment, is a positive commandment, and [so] we do not administer lashes for it.

And so [too,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 67b) [that] worms that are found in the intestines of fish are forbidden on account of [being] a swarming creature, since they come from the outside; but those found in them between the skin and the flesh or in the flesh are permitted. Those that are found in the intestines of the beast are forbidden, since they came from the outside. But even those found in the brain of the beast or in its flesh are forbidden, since there is not anything in the beast that is permitted without slaughter, and they are not susceptible to slaughter. And also since the Torah added them [by implication] to the forbidden. And [it is] like they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 67b), "You shall abominate their carcasses' (Leviticus 11:11) - is to include deranin (the understanding of which is insects found between the skin and the flesh) that are in the beast." And if you will [ask], how is it that the embryo is permitted without slaughter; [it is] because the Torah permitted it - as we expound in the Gemara (Chullin 69a) from "among (which can also be read as, 'in') the beast[...] you may eat" (Leviticus 11:3). And so [too,] did they, may their memory be blessed, permit (Chullin 66b) water in vessels that became worm-ridden, or even [if they were] in ditches and caves - meaning to say, any gathered waters. And they said (Chullin 66b) that a man [may] swim and drink from them, so long as the insects have not separated to a different place. And even if they have separated to the sides of the vessel or the pit - once they returned to it, he may drink and not prevent himself [from drinking], as this is their habitat. And it appears that there is not even [an issue] of 'you shall not be disgusting' with them. And that is [the meaning] of their saying, "and he may drink and not prevent himself." And it appears that the reason is because they found explicit permissibility from Scripture for them - as they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Chullin 66b), "'In the seas and in the streams' - [is it] that what has [signs], you may eat; what does not have signs, you may not eat. But in vessels, and similar to vessels, whether they have or whether they do not have, it is permitted."