Do not eat a non-kosher animal

---

SMG

Since the Torah states [see positive Mitzva 59] [the details as to what constitutes a Kosher animal] מפרסת פרסה ושוסעת שסע – split hooves, and מעלת גרה – chews it cud: I hear that anything which does not chew its cud and [does not] have split hooves may not be eaten. And a prohibition derived from a positive command is a positive command. And, when it comes to the camel, the hare, the hyrax and the pig, it says in the verse[i] [אך] את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה etc. – which teaches us that there is a negative prohibition against eating these animals, even though they do have one of the signs.[ii] And certainly, those which have none of the signs [α] are prohibited from being eaten by this negative Mitzva which prohibition is in addition to that which is derived from the positive Mitzva. The measurement of how much is eaten at which point punishment is assessed is that of an olive’s worth. As for a human, even though the verse[iii] states ויהי האדם לנפש חיה – and mankind became a living creature is not included in types of animals with hooves[1] and therefore, one who eats from its flesh [one who eats human flesh] whether the person is still alive or dead, is not lashed [for violating this Mitzva]. But it is forbidden as a component of the positive Mitzva, since the Torah explicitly identifies seven (7) different types of living animals, about which the verse[iv] states זאת החיה אשר תאכלו – these are the animals which you may eat. But anything which is not included in those [in that listing] may not be eaten. And a negative prohibition derived from a positive Mitzva is a positive Mitzva.

Accordingly,[v] what we learnt in Toras Kohanim [β] from the phrase used in the Torah טמא הוא – it is Tamay, and not the blood, milk, or meat of those who walk on two legs – as they are Tahor… That is not a single categorization. As the milk [of a human] has been explained in the Gemara[vi] that there is no command to even separate from it [δ]. Similarly, blood and milk are not part of the same category as the Gemara states there that the opposite applies to blood – which, when found on bread[2], it must be ground off [of the bread – it may not be eaten]. [On the other hand, blood] in between the teeth can be swallowed.

---

[1] Meaning, the presence of split hooves only serves as a marker for those creatures which include both those with hooves and those without. Since humans do not have hooves at all – whether split or otherwise – therefore, they are not part of the category for which there is a requirement to have split hooves before they can be deemed Kosher.

[2] Presumably from a cut on the baker’s hand.

---

[i] Devarim 14:7

[ii] See Gem. Makos 18b where Rava questions this.

[iii] Beraishis 2:7

[iv] Vayikra 11:2

[v] See Tosefos יכול Gem. Kesuvos 60a

[vi] Gem. Kesuvos 60a

---

AMUDAY SHLOMO

[α] There is a bit of a question here, this is obvious and need not be stated.

Answer: One might think that the provision of these signs was not there to identify which animals are kosher, but rather to provide a rule: if an animal has split hooves, then it must also chew its cud. And the same with the opposite [if it chews its cud, it must also have split hooves.] But if neither sign was present, then it would be kosher – like a horse, which has neither sign. Therefore, this had to be stated.

[β] Not that it says this in Toras Kohanim, rather that we should[1] in fact say that meat and milk of Kosher species [are permitted] from the term in the verse זה, and not from the term הוא. The Gemara[i] derives from the word הוא and excludes blood and milk but not flesh. It is rather Tosefos who explain that the term הוא etc. derives from a single verse, and that is why he [presumably the SMG] is not careful about which word is the source of the derivation. Therefore, the SMG changes the phrasing of Toras Kohanim in explaining our Gemara, which derives from the word הוא and not from the word זה. However, he mentions there meat [as being also derived] which is not mentioned in our Gemara. Therefore, the book [the SMG] states “ולפי זה הא דאמרינן בתורת כהנים – and based on this, that which we said in Toras Kohanim.” And then he [the SMG] equates all three [blood and milk with flesh].[2]

[γ] וכאן פסקתי שיש איסור עשה – [I am unsure whether Maharshal is quoting this or whether he is explaining something or whether he is issuing a ruling]

[δ] Accordingly, there is a question[3]. Therefore, he [the SMG] concludes that nevertheless, this is not so strange, because regardless, blood and milk are not similar [to each other or to flesh].

---

[1] Amuday Shlomo has an unusual phrase here – אלא כן נאמר. There might be a scriveners’ error, or this might be an unedited version of Maharshal’s notes. I translated as best I could.

[2] Meaning, the introductive term ולפי זה is otherwise out of place by the SMG in starting his quote from Toras Kohanim. According to Maharshal, it is being added here to indicate that the SMG is paraphrasing Toras Kohanim, and extending Tosefos’ conclusion that flesh is also included, even though not explicitly stated – and he is extending the derivation to the term הוא even though the Gemara might derive this from the term זה.

I wonder, if in fact the derivation is from both terms – הוא providing one inclusion, and זה another, with no distinction being made as to what material is included by which term.

And since these terms are inclusive, that could be why the SMG avoids discussing the start of the verse, which uses the word אך which is an exclusionary prefix.

[3] Presumably, the question being, if they are naturally to be included, why are they specifically derived as included. The answer being, you might think they are different.

---

[i] Gem. Ibid

---

RASHI

Rashi does not comment on this verse.

---

Discussion by SMS

The SMG carefully ignores the start of the verse, the word אך which consistently points to something being excluded from the implied content of the verse that follows. What is being excluded, and why would the SMG ignore this.

I do not know the answer.

---