Комментарий к Вайикра 11:3

מפרסת — Explain this as the Targum does: that is split.

WHATSOEVER PARTETH THE HOOF, AND IS WHOLLY CLOVEN-FOOTED, AND CHEWETH THE CUD, AMONG THE BEASTS; THAT MAY YE EAT. The meaning of this verse is that every animal which has these two signs, you may eat, but you may not eat it if it has only one sign. Now it would have been proper if He would merely state the law in this general way. However, He singled out the camel, the rock-badger, and the hare¹⁵²Verses 4-6. as having only the one sign of chewing the cud, and the swine as having the one sign of a parted hoof,¹⁵³Verse 7. because there are no other animals in the world that have only one sign. He then repeated [as a general rule applying to those with no sign at all, and those with only one sign], Of their flesh ye shall not eat,¹⁵⁴Verse 8. This is Ramban’s concluding opinion, that the verse applies to both — those animals having no sign at all, and the four mentioned as having only one sign. Ramban proceeds to show that from Rashi’s text it would appear that this verse applies only to the four mentioned animals, while the prohibition against those having no sign at all is derived from another source. This explanation Ramban differs from in the text which follows. which denotes a negative commandment.
Now Rashi wrote: “From this verse I know only about these [four animals mentioned]. Whence do I know that other unclean animals that have no signs of purity, may not be eaten? You derive it by the rule of kal vachomer.¹⁵⁵I.e., a conclusion drawn from minor to major. See in Exodus, Seder Bo, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation. How is it with these four animals mentioned, that have some of the signs of purity? They are forbidden! [It follows all the more so that those which have none of the signs, are surely forbidden to be eaten!]” In the words of the Sifra:¹⁵⁶Torath Kohanim, Shemini 3:2. “What is the law concerning those animals that have some of the signs of purity? They are forbidden to be eaten by a negative commandment. Is it not logical that other unclean animals which have none of the characteristics of purity, should be forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment! Thus we find that the camel, the rock-badger, the hare and the swine are explicitly forbidden by Scripture, whilst the other impure animals are forbidden on the strnegth of a kal vachomer.¹⁵⁵I.e., a conclusion drawn from minor to major. See in Exodus, Seder Bo, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation. It is also established that the positive commandment [regarding unclean animals] is Scriptural,¹⁵⁷These ye may eat (Verse 2). From this we deduce the converse, negative commandment, that any animal which does not have these two characteristics of a permissible animal, is not allowed as food; and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment has the force of a positive commandment. Hence one who eats an impure animal violates both a positive commandment [these ye may eat, as explained above], and negative commandment [of their flesh ye shall not eat], See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 167-168). while the negative commandment regarding them is derived from a kal vachomer.” Thus far is the text of the Beraitha.¹⁵⁶Torath Kohanim, Shemini 3:2.
But in my opinion this is not in accordance with the conclusion of the discussions in the Talmud. For if so, one would not be liable to whipping for eating of all the other unclean animals [which have none of the characteristics of purity], and which are forbidden only on the strength of a kal vachomer, for a law derived from logical argument is not one for which punishment can be administered.¹⁵⁸Makkoth 5 b. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim¹⁵⁹Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 10:10-11. with respect to [having intercourse with] one’s sister, which Scripture prohibited if she is the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother,¹⁶⁰Further, 18:9. that it was necessary to find a Scriptural reference prohibiting one’s sister if she be the daughter of both one’s father and mother,¹⁶¹This was found in the redundant expression, he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness (ibid., 20:17). even though that prohibition might have been derived from a kal vachomer[for if the Torah prohibited a sister who is the daughter of either one’s father or one’s mother, surely she is prohibited] if she be the daughter of both one’s father and mother! [But the special Scriptural reference was necessary to teach us the principle] that a law derived from logical argument is not one for which punishment can be administered, as is stated in Tractate Yebamoth, Chapter Keitzad.¹⁶²Literally: “How come …” Yebamoth 22 b. — See above, at end of Note 142. But this Beraitha [quoted by Rashi] may either be in accordance with the opinion of the Sages who say that a law derived from a logical argument is one for which punishment can be administered, as stated in Tractate Sanhedrin,¹⁶³The name of the Sage is Rabbi Shimon (Sanhedrin 86 a). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 54. or it cannot be satisfactorily explained.
Now the reason why whipping is [in fact] incurred for eating unclean beasts [which have none of the characteristics of purity, since they are only derived through a kal vachomer], is because Scripture states in connection with the rock-badger that it is prohibited because it parteth not the hoof,¹⁶⁴Verse 5. Thus, Scripture having stated the reason why the rock-badger is forbidden as food, it follows that any animal to which the same reason applies, is likewise forbidden on the strength of that verse, and not because of some other logical reasoning. and in connection with the swine, because it cheweth not the cud.¹⁵³Verse 7. This being the case, any animal that does not chew the cud or have a parted hoof is included in the terms of this prohibition, and there is no need at all to derive them from a kal vachomer.¹⁵⁵I.e., a conclusion drawn from minor to major. See in Exodus, Seder Bo, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation.

כל מפרסת פרסה, Whatsoever parts the hoof; Chulin 59 explains that any beast which has cleft hooves also ruminates except for the pig. If the Torah nonetheless says "every animal with cleft hooves…is chewing the cud," and subsequently mentions the pig as being the exception to this rule, there is a deeper reason. Rabbeynu Bachyah, quoting a Midrash Tanchuma, states that even the pig will conform to the pattern of chewing the cud in the idyllic future foreshadowed by our prophets. The very word חזיר from the root חזר, to return, i.e. to reverse oneself, alludes to that future in an ideal world when even the pig will revert to being a pure animal fit for consumption by Jews. When viewed in this light, the fact that the Torah commences with the words כל מפרסת פרסה is quite appropriate as it does not exclude anything in the long run.

מפרסת פרסה, a nail similar to a shoe; the word, though it sounds like it does not mean “two or more separate nails,” such as are found on the toes of rabbits, etc.

“Split.” I.e., this is not translated as “hoof,” but rather as “split.” And the word פרסה means plante in Old French, or kaput (hoof) in German. The Targum’s proof is that it is written (v. 5): “The rabbit, for it chews its cud but does not have a cloven hoof (ופרסה לא יפריס),” but in fact, all ruminants have hooves with which they walk upon the earth. Perforce, מפרסת is translated as “split.”

מעלת גרה, “chewing the cud;” the word גרה is derived from גרון, “throat,” as is also גרגרותיך in Proverbs 3,3, which means: “(around) your throat.” The meaning of the term is that after having already eaten the food, these animals regurgitate it once more up to their throats. An alternate explanation (Karney Or); the word is similar to the word מוגרים in Michah 1,4: מים מוגרים, “cascading waters,” i.e. that it describes the mixing of what the animal ate and drank, before the mixture descends to its intestines.,

פרסה — plante in O. F.; English= hoof.

THESE MAY YE EAT. “But not an unclean animal. Has it not already been forbidden by means of a negative commandment? But [this verse is stated] so that [if he eats of it] he transgresses both a positive and a negative commandment.” This is Rashi’s language, and so it is found in the Torath Kohanim.¹⁶⁵Torath Kohanim, Shemini 3:1.
Now Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] said¹⁶⁶Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’acholoth Asuroth 2:3. that this verse is in order to forbid human flesh – “these may ye eat, but not human flesh. Thus the flesh and the milk are forbidden by means of a positive commandment.” But we have not found such an interpretation by our Rabbis. Perhaps he [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] thought this to be the case because of that which we have learned there in the Torath Kohanim:¹⁶⁷Torath Kohanim, Shemini 4:4. “I might think that the flesh of those that walk on two legs and the milk of those that walk on two legs should also be forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment? Therefore Scripture says: These ye shall not eat — these are forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment, but the flesh of those that walk on two legs and the milk of those that walk on two legs are not forbidden to be eaten by means of a negative commandment.” From this text the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] may have deduced that they are not forbidden by means of a negative commandment, but are forbidden by means of a positive commandment, and he derived it from the verse: these may ye eat.
But the matter is not so. For our Rabbis have clearly said in connection with the blood of those that walk on two legs¹⁶⁸Kerithoth 21 b. Hence if one’s teeth are bleeding he may suck the blood and not be afraid of having committed a sin. and the milk of those that walk on two legs¹⁶⁹Such as milk of the human breast (ibid., 22 a). that there is not even a commandment to abstain from eating them by Rabbinical enactment. If the flesh thereof would be prohibited [by Scriptural law], then [the blood and milk thereof would also be prohibited in accordance with the general rule]: “anything that comes out of that which is impure, is also impure.”¹⁷⁰Bechoroth 5 b. The blood of crawling reptiles and that of human beings the Sages have excluded from the prohibition against blood, and they have said:¹⁷¹Kethuboth 60 a. “The blood of the crawling reptile is like its flesh, and one incurs whipping for eating a crawling reptile,” meaning that it is not forbidden as blood [for the wanton violation of which one incurs excision]; thus they made it like flesh [but we find no such statement in connection with human blood]. Rather, when they said that there is no negative commandment against eating them, they meant to say that you cannot exclude them on the basis of it [i.e., on the basis of a specific Scriptural verse], and they are thus permitted. According to my opinion, however, this only applies to flesh [or blood] of a live person [which can not be prohibited on the basis of a definitive verse and hence if a person’s teeth are bleeding he may suck the blood thereof and not be afraid of having committed a sin].¹⁷²However, if blood appears on the bread which he is eating he must first remove the blood stains from the bread before continuing to eat it in order to avoid the semblance of wrong-doing, since people might think that it is from the blood of an animal (ibid.). However, the Rabbis have learned in connection with a corpse by means of an analogous use of words found when speaking of it and of the heifer whose neck is broken¹⁷³Deuteronomy 21:4. that it is forbidden to have any benefit from it.¹⁷⁴Abodah Zarah 29 b. Thus Ramban agrees with Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) that the matters under discussion are forbidden, the difference of opinion among them being only as to which law is violated. It is a rule in the administration of punishment that the violator of the law must have been pre-warned by witnesses of the specific prohibition entailed and the punishment to which the violator would be subject to by the hand of the court. Ramban and Rambam thus differ as to the nature of the prohibition the violator must be reminded of, in order that he be punishable by the court.

ושסעת שסע, the hoof being completely split into two parts, unlike the hoof of a horse or donkey which is all in one piece. According to the plain meaning of the text and the opinion of the heretics all the domesticated beasts, free roaming beasts, birds and fish and certain types of locusts and other creeping creatures that G’d has outlawed for consumption by Jews is due to the fact that they cause excessive heat in our bodies when eaten, affecting our health detrimentally, and therefore they are called טמאים, impure. There is support for this theory also among physicians. Even in the Talmud (Shabbat 86) the opinion is offered that gentiles who do consume these creeping creatures damage their bodies thereby.

Extraneous. [Rashi knows this] because it is already written (v. 2): “that you may eat from among all the animals.” Rather, [it must be that] this is an [apparently] extraneous word... It is as if it is written, “You may eat the animal that is inside an animal,” which refers to the embryo found within an animal, for the phrase “that you shall eat from among all the animals” refers to the entire section.

ושסעת שסע AND HATH CLOVEN FEET — which are divided above and below into two nails (The hoof must be cloven over the entire height, so that from top to bottom they are split, and the hoofs are covered therefore not by one nail but by two); as the Targum has it: which has nails (plural). For there are animals whose hoofs are cleft on top but are not cleft and separated entirely, because they are joined below (cf. Rashi on v. 26).

מעלה גרה; regurgitating the food into the foodpipe before finally digesting it.

A positive commandment. [It is a positive commandment] because a negative command that is derived from a positive command is considered a positive commandment. The negative commandment is written clearly nearby (v. 4): “However, these in particular you may not eat...” However, it does not come to teach the plain meaning — that it is permitted to eat — for it already says (v. 2): “That you may eat from among all the animals.”

מעלת גרה WHICH CHEWETH THE CUD — which brings up and spues up the food from its entrails and returns it into its mouth to pound it small and to grind it thin.

גרה THE CUD — This is its name (that of the food thus returned to the mouth); and it seems likely that it is of the same derivation as the word we find in (II Samuel 14:14) “water which is drawn towards (הנגרים) the earth”, and it (the cud) is so called because it is drawn towards the mouth. The translation of the Targum,however, is פשרא which denotes something dissolved, for through the rumination the food is dissolved and becomes pulpy (cf. Bava Kamma 28b).

בבהמה AMONGST (lit., in) THE BEAST — This is a redundant word and therefore may be used for an Halachic derivation — to permit the embryo found within the dam (בבהמה — within the beast) to be used as food without itself being slaughtered (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 1; Chullin 69a).

אתה תאכלו THAT YE MAY EAT, and not an unclean animal. But is not this implied in the prohibition in the following verse? But what is here expressed in a positive form is there stated as a negative command, so that now, one who eats such food transgresses thereby a positive and a negative command (because a prohibition that is not plainly expressed, but can only be drawn by inference from a positive command, is itself regarded only as a positive command — לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 2).