Halakhah su Levitico 11:7

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.

The comments of Or ha-Hayyim are, however, sharply challenged by R. Baruch ha-Levi Epstein, Torah Temimah, Leviticus 11:7, sec. 21. Torah Temimah asserts that the only rabbinic statement even vaguely resembling that which is quoted by Or ha-Hayyim is an etymological comment on the word "ḥazir" found in Va-Yikra Rabbah 13:5 and repeated in Kohelet Rabbah 1:28.²⁰See also Tanḥuma Yashan, Shemini 14. In context, the midrashic statement is clearly an allegorical reference to the eschatological role of gentile nations in causing the return of Israel to her original state of grandeur. A similar interpretation was presented much earlier by Rabbenu Baḥya in his commentary on Leviticus 11:7.²¹For other analyses of this midrashic statement see sources cited by R. Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. XXVIII, Leviticus 11:7, sec. 34. It should be noted that Or ha-Ḥayyim’s version of this midrashic statement is quoted verbatim by Abarbanel, Yeshu‘ot Meshiḥo, ha-Iyyun ha-Revi‘i, chapter 3, and attributed to Bereishit Rabbah. However, Abarbanel states that Bereishit Rabbah itself explains the comment as referring to the “devouring” of Edom rather than to the consumption of swine. Rabbenu Baḥya also cites a variant reading similar to that of Or ha-Ḥayyim. Rabbenu Baḥya himself, however, interprets that version allegorically. Recanati, Leviticus 11:7, Ritva, Kiddushin 49b, and Teshuvot Radbaz, II, no. 828, similarly deny that the swine will ever be permissible and offer allegorical interpretations of the midrashic comments.

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.

It is of interest to note that R. Meir Leibush Malbim, in his commentary on Leviticus 11:7, describes an animal remarkably similar to the babirusa. Malbim reports that the animal, which he calls a "tai'asu," is found in the tropical areas of South America and possesses four stomachs. Although Malbim is unclear, and perhaps even contradictory, with regard to whether this animal chews the cud, he reports that it has incisors in the upper jaw. As has been noted earlier, absence of incisors is regarded by the Gemara. Hullin 59a, as proof that the animal chews its cud and the converse is regarded as proof that it is unclean, i.e., the presence of incisors is incompatible with chewing the cud. Accordingly, it must be assumed that Malbim intends us to understand that the tai'asu does not chew its cud. Malbim declares the animal to be non-kosher and points to its physical characteristics in order to illustrate the use of the future tense in the phrase "ve-hu gerah lo yigar—it will not chew the cud." According to Malbim, the verse alludes to this particular species of swine and declares that, although it has developed some characteristics of a ruminant, viz., four stomachs, it remains non-kosher because "it will not chew the cud."

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.