Do not eat a carcass
Included in this is the prohibition against [eating] a newborn animal before the eighth (8th) night.
Verse: לא תאכלו כל נבלה
Command: Do not eat a non-properly-slaughtered animal
Devarim 14:21
Type: Negative
SMG Mitzva # 133
Cross-Ref: {link}
SMG
One who eats an olive’s worth of a domesticated animal that died [without being slaughtered properly] [α], or a wild animal that died [without being slaughtered properly] or a bird that died [without being slaughtered properly] is lashed, as it says in the verse[i] לא תאכלו כל נבלה – do not eat any carcass. And anything which was not slaughtered properly is a נבילה – a carcass. And in the laws of slaughtering [positive Mitzva 63] it will be explained how to slaughter properly and what type of slaughtering is improperly. The prohibition against [eating] a carcass applies only to Tahor species, because they are fit to be slaughtered[1]. However, Tamay species, for which slaughtering does not help [make them Kosher] whether they are slaughtered, or whether they died naturally, or whether a piece of the animal was cut off while it was still alive – and [in any of those instances] one who eats from that is not lashed neither for violating this Mitzva [by eating] a carcass or a mauled animal. Rather [he is lashed for violating the prohibition against] eating the flesh of a non-Kosher animal [see negative Mitzva 127]. One who eats an olive’s worth of the flesh of a stillborn from a Kosher animal, is lashed for [violating this negative Mitzva of eating a carcass. And it is forbidden to eat from an animal which has been born until the eighth night[2] as was taught in the Gemara[ii] – that any animal who has not [been allowed to] wait [before being slaughtered] prior to the eighth day is like a stillborn. The Gemara there permits [the animal to be slaughtered] on its eighth (8th) night[3]. And if it was known that the animal had ‘completed its months’ [meaning: had gestated fully] while in the womb and then was born – which [gestation period is] nine months for a gross animal and five months for a refined animal[4], then it is permitted from the day it was born.
[1] This actually provides us with a general rule which can theoretically be extended to lab-grown meat, which was never slaughtered. Nor does it need to be, as the obligation to slaughter only applies to Tahor animals, and lab-grown materials are not animals.
[2] Of its life. Meaning it can’t be slaughtered prior to then.
[3] Meaning, the night preceding the eighth day.
[4] A gross animal is a cow or types of buffalo – all of which gestate for about 283 days, which is just over nine months, depending on when the count starts – typically, Rabbinic sources generally begin the count from insemination, and not from ovulation.
A refined animal is a sheep or goat – both of which gestate for about 150 days, which is just over five months.
[i] Devarim 14:21
[ii] Gem. Shabbos 136a
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] There the eighth night is permitted, which is not the case when it comes to sacrifices*, as I have explained previously.
Discussion by SMS on Amuday Shlomo
* Presumably Maharshal is referring to the verse[i] ומיום השמיני והלאה – granted, it applies to sacrifices, but at the time, the Jews only ate sacrificial meat.[ii] It was only when they entered into Israel that slaughtering an animal and not bringing it as a sacrifice was permitted because כי ירחק ממך המקום – the location of the Mishkan and Mikdash was far away[iii]. Therefore, the verse ומיום השמיני והלאה might also serve to teach us that slaughtering an animal prior to its eighth day renders it not-Kosher.
There are a couple of possible answers as to why the SMG doesn’t mention this:
- Because of the caveat that a fully gestated animal may be slaughtered immediately (which the SMG does not source). Furthermore, the verse states that this applies to כי יולד – when it will be born, from which Rashi notes an exclusion to an animal birthed by cesarean process. The birth process though has no bearing on the laws of slaughtering – so long as the animal is born, it must be slaughtered to be rendered Kosher.
- Because the laws of slaughtering, as related to the Jewish people in the wilderness, were not fully developed[1]. Therefore, their permissions or prohibitions cannot be used to derive our current Halaĉa. And since this verse currently only applies to sacrifices, therefore, it is not the source for our laws of slaughtering.
This is not fully clear.
See initial location where Maharshal discusses this idea.
[1] According to Rabbi Yishmael, the animals still had to be slaughtered properly in the wilderness, but the animal had to be offered as a שלמים in order to be rendered Kosher.
Rabbi Akiva though holds that the entire command of slaughtering animals for consumption only took affect when the Jewish people entered the land of Israel, and prior to that they could kill an animal, using any humane method of doing so [the Gemara uses the term stabbing – but probably that is only to contrast this to the process of slaughtering which requires drawing the knife – and a stabbing motion would render the animal not-Kosher under the laws of שחיטה], and eat it, just like a Noaĉide.
[i] Vayikra 22:27
[ii] See Gem. Ĉulin 16b – 17a
[iii] See Vayikra 17:5 and Devarim 12:20-21
RASHI
Rashi provides the following commentary on the remainder of the verse:
- לגר אשר בשעריך – a citizen convert, one who has accepted upon himself not to serve idolatry[1].
- כי עם קדוש אתה לה’ – ‘Sanctify yourself with that which is permitted to you.’ Things which are permitted, that others treat as forbidden, do not permit them in front of them.[2]
[1] It is interesting why Rashi decides to define a גר תושב here – perhaps because there are differing opinions as to what such a person must accept upon himself in order to be considered for citizenship in the land of Israel.
If so, that would mean that Rashi’s deliberate choice here, to define a גר תושב as one who refuses to serve a false religion, could mean that the obligation to provide the meat that has been rendered non-Kosher to a גר תושב, as specified in the verse, could be 1) an actual obligation – meaning that is their gift for having chosen to become a גר תושב; they receive for free all the non-Kosher meat, or 2) it could be that being a גר תושב is a matter of spectrum, and that to be given the non-Kosher meat, this bare minimum status – refusing to serve a false religion – is all that is needed in order to become eligible for the non-Kosher meat giveaway.
[2] Meaning, even if something is technically permitted, but others treat it as if it was forbidden, the one who does not treat it that way should not ignore their stringency. Rather, he must respect their stringency, and while in their company treat the item as forbidden.
A classic example of this is rice on Pesaĉ. This is not Biblically forbidden, according to Sephardic authorities. And even Ashkenazi authorities agree that it is not in the same category as wheat products. Nevertheless, a Sephardi, who is eating with an Ashkenazi on Pesaĉ, may not eat / serve rice – based on this teaching of Rashi [presumably from the Sifri].
Discussion by SMS
Why doesn’t the SMG mention the verse[i] נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה, אני ה’. Rashi explains that the verse is talking about the prohibition of eating such items from the perspective of Tum’ah. That a person who does so, renders himself Tamay as a result, and cannot partake of sacrificial offerings. He further clarifies that the juxtaposition of the word טרפה in this verse serves to exclude creatures for which the term טרפה does not apply – which are non-Kosher birds. Thus, the verse only prohibits a person who eats of the carcass of an animal from participating in sacrificial meat, and not from the carcass of a bird.
Incidentally, this explains why the Torah has to provide a separate prohibition against the consumption of טרפה animals, since, had the verse included the word טרפה in our prohibitive verse against eating a נבלה we would come to the same conclusion as we do from the verse נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה, that the word טרפה is only there to exclude birds, when in fact, birds are to be included in the prohibition against eating a נבלה.
The Gemara[ii] though learns this in reverse:
Rabbi Yehuda said, you might think that the carcass of a non-Kosher bird renders the clothing of the one who is eating it Tamay as soon as the food enters the mouth. Therefore, the Torah states נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה. This includes only that which is prohibited based on the prohibition of eating a נבלה – which excludes that which is prohibited due to eating something not-Kosher, namely a non-Kosher bird.
Meaning[1] that the Torah ‘first’ establishes that non-Kosher birds are different from animals in that they are not included in the prohibition of נבלה – by having a separate verse prohibiting נבלה. And then the Torah extends that logic to the issued of Tum’ah when a person eats a carcass to tell us that such Tum’ah only applies when eating the carcass of an animal, and not that of a non-Kosher bird. [See positive Mitzva 246 for a determination of whether the carcass of a non-Kosher bird renders a person Tamay.]
If correct, this could mean that eating the carcass of a non-Kosher bird does not violate this particular prohibition. See discussion on negative Mitzva 128.
[1] Assuming of course that the Halaĉa follows Rabbi Yehuda, which I am unqualified to determine.
[i] Vayikra 22:8
[ii] Gem. Ĉulin 100b. See also Gem. Zevaĉim 69b-70a
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
- נבילה – carcass, something senselessly allowed to fade away into uselessness, as the animal could have been slaughtered and rendered Kosher. Also, the opposite of יבול – produce, as an animal allowed to die without being slaughtered stops being productive. This is why a stillborn animal is included in this category, because it never achieves life, and thus was always useless.
Accordingly, we can also apply this meaning to the other instances of this word in which the Torah obviously does not refer to the carcass of an animal.
- הבה נרדה ונבלה שם שפתם – this verse[i], which talks about the change from a single language to multiple languages used by the peoples of the world can now be understood with different nuance, it is a rendering of a useless and senseless degradation of the language for the sole purpose of ensuring people cannot understand each other.
- כי נבלה עשה בישראל לשכב את בת יעקב – this verse[ii] talks about the rape of Dina by Sh’ĉem. At the time, Dina was less than eight (8) years old. As a seven-year-old, sex with her was senseless and useless, as she had not reached the age of maturity. Furthermore, this aligns with the Midrashic teaching that Dina was raped anally, which is also senseless and useless. And finally, the remainder of the verse וכן לא יעשה – takes on new meaning in light of this translation: it is not ok to engage in senseless and useless sex with a minor, even if married. And it is not ok to engage in rape of a woman, even if it is done anally and there is no possibility of impregnation.
- וכי עשה נבלה בישראל – this verse[iii] refers to the spoils captured by the Jewish army, which they should not have kept but should have been burnt and destroyed. One person kept the taboo items, which caused G-d to prevent their next victory until the useless and senseless theft was found, the thief punished, and the items destroyed. This was useless and senseless because there was no benefit to keeping the items. They and the thief were destroyed.
- טריפה – mauled – an animal which was attacked by a predator, and as a result will not be able to live out its natural life-span. The word literally means torn. Since the animal cannot live further on its own, even if it was slaughtered immediately thereafter, it is not Kosher.
[i] Beraishis 11:7
[ii] Beraishis 34:7
[iii] Yehoshua 7:15