레위기 11:13의 주석

לא יאכלו THEY (the fowls to be mentioned) SHALL NOT BE EATEN — The prohibition is put in this form and not in the words “Ye shall not eat them” (v. 42) to declare liable to punishment those who give them as food to minors, the latter themselves not being liable, for the following is what it implies: They shall not be eaten through any act of yours. But perhaps this is not the meaning, but the words are intended to prohibit any beneficial use to be made of them? It says, however, in reference to a similar case (v. 42) “Ye shall not eat them” — for eating they are forbidden, for any other use they are permitted! And the same is the case here (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 5 1; Zevachim 114a). — In reference to every fowl of which it is stated למינהו ,למינו ,למינה, “after its kind”, there are in that species some that are not alike one to the other either in their color or in the names they bear, and yet they are all one species.

AND THESE YE SHALL HAVE IN DETESTATION AMONG THE FOWLS. Of all fowls [existent], only those mentioned expressly in this section and their species — such as those concerning which it says, after his kind,²⁰⁸Verse 15. or after her kind²⁰⁹Verse 14. — are prohibited, since Scripture did not mention any signs of unclean birds [by which we may know that they are] forbidden, or of clean birds [by which we may know that they are] permitted. Instead, it said, And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls — [so that only those specifically mentioned are prohibited], and no others apart from these. Similarly, in connection with the swarming things which convey impurity, which Scripture mentioned in detail,²¹⁰Verses 29-30. only those mentioned by name in the section are included in that law. Our Rabbis, however, have specified certain signs [of impurity as food] in birds, so that one may recognize through them that the fowls which lack those signs are not amongst those which are prohibited [here].
Now the most important sign [of unfitness as food] in fowls is preying, for every bird of prey²¹¹According to Rashi (Chullin 59 a) this means that the bird seizes its food from the ground in its claws, and eats it. Rabbeinu Tam explains it as meaning that it eats animals before they are dead. Ramban in his commentary (ibid.) interprets it as a bird of prey that kills by attacking with its claws. Further on in the text here Ramban will also elaborate on this characteristic. is invariably unfit [as food]. The Torah removed it [from us] as food, because its blood becomes heated up due to its cruelty, and is dark and thick, which gives rise to that bitter [fluid in the body] which is mostly black²¹²See in Seder Vayikra Note 264. and tends to make the heart cruel. There is not another fowl in the whole world that is a bird of prey apart from those mentioned in this section,²¹³Verses 13-19. and therefore one may know that any fowl which is a bird of prey, is one of those mentioned here. Thus if it is known for sure that it does not prey, it may definitely be eaten, for amongst all the forbidden fowls, there is only one which does not prey, namely the bearded vulture or the osprey, and the Sages were not concerned about it [being eaten because of reliance on the fact that it does not prey], since it is not found in habitated places, but dwells always in wilderness. Perhaps it is because it dwells in wastelands and its blood is affected for the worse by the burning heat, like that of the birds of prey, that the Torah prohibited it as food together with them.
The Sages furthermore counted¹⁸⁶Chullin 59 a. amongst the signs [of fitness as food] that if a fowl be found which has an “extra” toe, and its crop and gizzard can be peeled, it is definitely fit [to be eaten], for the Sages knew that such a bird does not prey. But if it has only two of the three signs mentioned, we may not eat it; for the raven [which is a bird unfit as food, as stated in Verse 15], has an extra toe and a gizzard that can be peeled, and [therefore any bird that has only two signs of fitness] we suspect of being a raven or of its species, since they all have two tokens. It does not need to be said that if it has only one of the three signs mentioned we treat it as forbidden, for all the other forbidden fowls have one sign, except for the great vulture which has none of these three signs. Now the meaning of the term “preying” is that in hunting for food it chases after birds, catches them alive, presses on them with its claws and eats them, just as is done by the great hawk called astur, and the little hawk called ashproir,²¹⁴This term is mentioned by Rashi on the word haneitz (the hawk): Espervier in old French; in English, sparrow-hawk (see Rosenbaum-Silberman’s translation). and in Arabic, butz. The above is the correct law of birds, as to which are forbidden food and which are permitted, and that which is the final result of the [discussions in the] Gemara, and is in accordance with that which we have searched and found to be so through the examination of birds.²¹⁵In his commentary to Tractate Chullin 62 b, Ramban relates that in order to ascertain the meaning of the Talmudic texts on the difficult subject of the signs of birds, he conducted a lengthy investigation into the characteristics of all kinds of birds, realizing that “we cannot deny things visible to the eyes.” This is the background of his concise statement here: “It is something we have searched etc.” Discussions he held with hunters were also a part of that investigation.
Thus the reason for certain birds being forbidden as food is on account of their cruel nature. It is also possible that the reason for certain animals [being forbidden] is similar, since no animal that chews the cud and has a parted hoof is a beast of prey, while the rest all devour others. There has also been found a difference in nature [between animals fit for food and those which are unfit], as the Sages have mentioned,²¹⁶Abodah Zarah 38 b. namely that all milks of animals fit for food, curdle, whereas all milks of those unfit for food, do not coagulate and cannot ever be made into cheese. Thus they are [physically] different. It is possible to say on the basis of this [difference in their natures, that those animals unfit for food] harm the procreative organs, so that the seed which gathers from their moisture is cold and extra-moist and will not beget at all, or not in the best and proper way, apart from the fact that there is a certain known benefit according to medical sciences [in eating those] animals that are permitted [by the Torah] as food. Now I have seen in some books of experiments²¹⁷“Experiments.” Rabbeinu Bachya in quoting this passage of Ramban writes “Medicine” (in my edition, Vol. II, p. 461). that if an infant drinks of the milk of a swine, that child will become a leper. This is a sign that there are very bad features to all unclean animals.

ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף, “and these are the species of birds which you are to abominate;” Nachmanides writes that only the species named hereafter are forbidden, as well as their sub species where the Torah adds the word למינו or למינהו, to indicate that there are such sub species. Our sages have provided us with physical peculiarities of the forbidden categories of birds, seeing that not all of us are familiar with all these birds by name, and some may be known by different names in different parts of the globe. The most easily recognizable physical abnormality of these forbidden birds, something they all have in common, is that they are predators. In fact, if we encounter a bird that attacks other birds or even larger animals, it is certain that it belongs to a forbidden species regardless of any other marks of identification to that effect. These birds are hot blooded especially when they are on the attack, and consuming such victims. While engaged in attack, their blood turns black from the cruelty with which they kill their prey. This cruel streak leaves it mark on its heart, i.e. its personality. However, the only such birds in the whole globe are the ones mentioned by name in our chapter here. When we encounter a species of bird with which we are not familiar, but we are sure that it is not a bird of prey, we can be certain that it belongs to the large majority of “pure” birds, and that after the proper procedures we may eat it. There are only two species of the forbidden birds listed here that are not birds of prey, and they are not found in parts of the globe inhabited by man. They are the פרס and the עזניה. Possibly, the nature of their habitat, a primitive, creature-hostile environment, left its marks on the blood of these two creatures so that the Torah forbade them in spite of the fact that neither category of bird fits the description דורס, bird of prey. The underlying reason for the 24 species of birds which the Torah singled out as forbidden for the Israelites is the fact that we observe that they transmit their cruel streak also to their offspring. The reason why the Torah chose seven categories of mammals that chew the cud and have spilt hooves as acceptable for consumption by Israelites, is the fact that none of them feed on live creatures. All the others look for living creatures to become their source of sustenance. Our sages, (Avodah Zarah 35), as well as Maimonides maachalot assurrot basing themselves on empirical; knowledge, state that milk from animals not permitted to us is easily distinguishable by the fact that the milk of all the forbidden animal does not curdle, and even when mixed with milk of “kosher” animals does not lose its characteristics. He speculates that milk of the ritually forbidden animals may have a negative influence on the semen of the person consuming it, thus making him less likely to produce sperm that develops normally. When the infant would drink the milk of a mother who had born a child by a father who had eaten ritually unclean mammals, her milk would be affected. This would be in addition to the health and growth promoting nutrients provided by the milk and meat of the ritually clean mammals. I have personally read in a number of medical; textbooks (Nachmanides writing) that children raised on pig’s milk are liable to be afflicted with tzoraat, a terribly serious skin disease.

“To be eaten.” [Rashi knows this] from the fact Moshe Rabbeinu changed the expression in Mishneh Torah (Devarim 14:12) and wrote: לא תאכלו, and did not write לא יאכלו, which implies both the prohibition of eating and obtaining benefit, as he heard the Divine word from Hashem. Rather, it must be that this was how he received it at Sinai: [The phrase] לא יאכלו written regarding impure birds does not come to prohibit one to receive any benefit from them. Perforce, then, it [comes to make] liable one who feeds them to a minor.

הנשר, “the eagle;” its is called such as it can see even small objects from a long distance and identify them. The word is reminiscent of Bileam’s describing his visions of future events with his eyes as: אשורנו. (Numbers, 23,9)[Translation of these birds presents the editor with a problem as there is disagreement among the scholars. Basically, seeing that the Torah did not give clear guidelines how to recognise the few species (20) we are not allowed to eat, I will limit myself to the statement by our sages that they are all birds of prey and that the arrangement of their toe nails is a clue as to their nature. The Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 63 deals with this. Principally, if the bird has two toes at the back of its leg and two in front, it is a sign that it is a bird of prey, as that enables it to better grab and hold on to its prey. In ritually pure birds the three toes are at the front and only one at the back. In addition to this if it has a zaphak a crop, and/or a korkovov, gizzard, maw beneath its chin that can be peeled off without difficulty this is a sign that it is a forbidden species. Reserved for illustrations

All of them are of one species. You might ask: How does this relate to what Rashi explains beforehand? The answer is: Since he explains beforehand that the impure birds written in the Torah explicitly are permitted for one to receive benefit, for it is written: לא תאכלם, we can explain where it is written, למינה למינו למינהו, even if they do not resemble each other, either in appearance or name, they are of one species. However, if those that were written in the Torah explicitly were forbidden for one to receive benefit, because it is written: לא יאכל, we would then explain that where it is written למינה למינו למינהו it does not teach they are actually one species, but rather those that resemble each other in appearance and name are prohibited [also for one to receive benefit] as these which are written explicitly. However, those that do not resemble them, either in appearance or name, are not the same species, and are not as stringent as the ones written explicitly in the Torah in that they are not forbidden for one to receive benefit; they are only prohibited to be eaten. But now that we say even those that are written in the Torah explicitly do not have a prohibition for one to receive benefit, if so, we cannot say those that are written explicitly are more stringent. Perforce, it comes to teach that they are of one species.