Midrash su Deuteronomio 14:7

1) Whence is it derived that five (animals in the class of) sin-offerings must (be allowed to) die (and not be eaten)? From (the redundant) "of those that chew the cud … it is unclean to you." (i.e., even though they have both cleanliness signs they are unclean) (the five sin-offerings: the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitute for a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner had died, a sin-offering which had been lost and which was found after atonement had been made with another animal, and a sin-offering whose year (of acceptability) had expired) Whence is derived for inclusion (as being allowed to die), (a substitute for) invalidated sanctified animals (i.e., sanctified animals which had sustained a blemish and been redeemed)? From "and of those whose hooves are parted … it is unclean to you." Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of the five sin-offerings which must die? From "of those that chew the cud … it is unclean." Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of invalidated sanctified animals? From (Devarim 14:7): "of those whose hooves are parted, the shesua … they are unclean to you." Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of an unclean animal? It follows, viz.: An unclean animal is forbidden, and grapes are forbidden to a Nazirite — Just as with grapes to a Nazirite, what is extracted from them is (forbidden) like them; so, with a beast, what is extracted from it (milk) is (forbidden) like it.

3) — But, if this stringency obtains in (the instance of the eating of) terumah (by a non-priest), a grave transgression, (punishable by death), shall this stringency obtain in the instance of an (unclean) beast, (the eating of which is) a lesser transgression! It is, therefore, written (to indicate that it does obtain, the redundant "camel" (Vayikra 11:4) - "camel" (Devarim 14:7), two times. If it (the redundancy) is not needed for (forbidding) its flesh, learn it as (forbidding) its milk.

“He sent scrolls to all the king’s provinces, to each province in its script, and to each people in its language; for every man to be the ruler in his house, and speak the language of his people” (Esther 1:22).
Rav Huna said: Aḥashverosh had a warped sensibility. The way of the world is that if a man wishes to eat lentils and his wife wishes to eat peas, can he compel her? No, she will do whatever she wants. Rabbi Pinḥas said: Moreover, he became a laughingstock throughout the world. The way of the world is if a Median man marries a Persian woman, is she to speak the Median language? And if a Persian man marries a Median woman, is she to speak the Persian language?¹⁸If the wife does not know the language, how is she to speak it? However, the Holy One blessed be He spoke with the people of Israel in the language that they learned; that is what is written: “I am [anokhi] the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2),¹⁹According to Pesikta deRav Kahana, ‘anokhi’ means ‘I am’ in Egyptian and that is why God used it instead of the more usual ‘ani’. an expression of yeḥonekha.²⁰This is perhaps a reference to Genesis 43:29, where Joseph, the ruler of Egypt, blesses Benjamin, saying: ‘May God show grace to you [yeḥonekha], my son.’
Rabbi Natan of Beit Guvrin said: There are four languages that are the most beautiful that the world uses: Greek for song, Persian for elegy, Hebrew for speech, Latin for intimacy; some say: Assyrian for writing. Hebrew has speech, but does not have a script. Assyrian has a script, but does not have speech. They chose for themselves Assyrian script and Hebrew speech.²¹The characters used for writing Hebrew are known as ‘Assyrian script.’
A certain villager said they selected for themselves the Latin language from the Greek language.²²Latin is derived from Greek. Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Simon said: It is a disgrace for them that its mark is not its own. Rav Ḥanin bar Ada said: Nevertheless, “its claws were of bronze”²³The animal described in Daniel is understood to refer to Rome. (Daniel 7:19), its seals are only with its language.²⁴Perhaps this means that although Greek was spoken in the Roman empire, official documents were in Latin. Rav Shmuel bar Naḥman said: From here it is derived that a person is required to review his Torah portions. Had Moses not reviewed the Torah, from where would we know the meaning of “hashesua”²⁵This is understood to be a distinct animal with two backs and two spines, and not a description of cloven hooves.? (Deuteronomy 14:7). Likewise, had Daniel not reviewed his dream for us, from where would we know “its claws of bronze”?