Parshas Shemini (Kosher Pig / Teshuva)

Question (1):
This parsha states the criteria for kosher animals, they need to chew their cud and have completely split hoofs. The Torah lists four animals that only have one criterion: the camel, hyrax, hare and the pig. Regarding the pig, the Torah says:


"The pig: it (hu) has split hoofs, and they are completely separated,
And it (v'hu), the cud it will not chew (gay-rah lo yi-gar).– It is impure to you. (11:7)"

The second v'hu seems to be extra. The pasuk could have been written more concise as:


"The pig: it (hu) has split hoofs, and they are completely separated,
And the cud it will not chew (gay-rah lo yi-gar). – It is impure to you."


Why does the Torah need to include the second v'hu ?


Question (2):
Targum Onkelos changes the tense in the translation of this pasuk. He translates "the cud, it will not chew (gay-rah lo yi-gar)" as "the cud, it did not chew (pish-ra law paw-shawr)." Targum Onkelos changes the tense of the pasuk from future tense to past tense.

Why does the Targum Onkalus change tenses?

Background (I):
The medrish Yalkut Reuveni quotes the RaMa MiPano's sefer Asarah Maamaros (Ma'amar Chikur Ha-Din 2:17, 4:13) who points out that Targum Onkalus alludes to the chazal mentioned by Rabeynu Bachaye on this pasuk (as well as by the Ritva on Kiddushin 49b):


"Why is its (the pig) name called chazir (return)? Because the Holy Name Blessed Be He will return it to the Jews (i.e. it will become kosher when Mashiach comes).


RaMa MiPano explains that since in the future the pig will be kosher, the Targum Onkelos viewed the text of the Torah as if he were in the future. Therefore, he was looking back and explained that "it did not" chew its cud when the Torah was given (but of course it's kosher nowadays since the Mashiach has come).

Question (3):
If Rama MiPano's explanation is in fact correct, why then does the Torah use a future tense in explaining why the pig is not kosher. If in the future the pig will become kosher then Torah should have used a past tense or present tense phrase but not a future tense phrase. Why did the Torah say, "it will not chew" as opposed to "it did not chew" or "it does not chew"?


Background (II):
The Or HaChaim Hakadosh comments on this pasuk that the Torah is declaring a conditional statement here. The pig, since it currently does not meet all the conditions of a kosher animal, is not kosher. However, in the future it will in fact undergo a physical metamorphous and chew its cut – and it will then become kosher.

Apparently, in the future the pig will actually evolve to a different species. The pig of today will not be the same as the pig of the future. Today's pig is a non-kosher species but the pig of the future will be a kosher species.

This is similar to what the RaMBaM writes in Hilchos Teshuva (2:4):


"The ways of penitence should be that the penitent continually cries before Hashem in tears with supplications. He gives charity according to his ability. He greatly distances himself from that which caused him to sin. And he changes his name. This means that he says, ˜I am someone else. I am not the same person who did those [evil] actions.' He changes all his actions for the good and towards the right direction."


Therefore, here too regarding the pig, its physical attributes have evolved in order to turn it into a completely different species. Its non-kosher attributes have in fact evolved into kosher attributes. It is no longer the same species at all.

Answers to the questions:
1. Why does the Torah need to include the second v'hu ? That which the Torah says: And it (v'hu), the cud it will not chew (gay-rah lo yi-gar). The words "And it (v'hu)" were specifically used to tell us that "it (v'hu)" - this particular species of pig is not kosher, even in the future it will not be kosher as long as it retains these non-kosher characteristics. However, if it undergoes a physical change and becomes a new species, like the penitent, it will be kosher.

2. Why does the Targum Onkelos change tenses? Onkelos viewed the text of the Torah as if he were in the future. Therefore, he was looking back and explained that "it did not" chew its cud when the Torah was given (but of course it's kosher nowadays since the Mashiach has come).

3. Why did the Torah say, "it will not chew" as opposed to "it did not chew" or "it does not chew"? The Torah says it will not chew (gay-rah lo yi-gar) using the future tense. It wants to tell us that even in the future it will not be kosher as long at it maintains its current physical state. In contrast to Targum Onkolus who translates this pasuk using past tense since nevertheless; the pig will in fact change. It will be different. Therefore, the Targum Onkelos chose to translate from the future vantage point.


Our Conclusion:
The Divrei Yoel knows that a pig is an item that repulses the Torah sensitive Jew. A pig is used as the epitome of non-kosher. Something that is definitely 100% non-kosher is commonly referred to as chazer treif – "as non-kosher as a pig". However, after all is said and done, the pig will ultimately become an accepted delicacy in the kosher home.

The Divrei Yoel wants us to beware of the distinction between an individual before and after teshuva. Before teshuva this person's deeds are as repulsive as a pig to the Torah sensitive Jew. Nothing is worse than a Jew not living up to his mission in life by not observing the mitzvos of the Torah. However, an individual who repents and turns their life around has expunged the repulsiveness from himself. He indeed has progressed in a spiritual sense to the extent that he should be fully accepted as a most worthy individual.

Furthermore, we should be aware that the massive effort in transforming a non-kosher pig into a kosher pig is much greater than transforming a sinner into a penitent. If a pig could transform – then surely we can transform as well.

These thoughts have been based on page 265 of the Divrie Yoel parshas Shemini.

This drasha can also be viewed on-line at http://divreiyoel.blogspot.com/

For additional insight to the kosher pig chazal see:
http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/5765/shemini.html http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/03/eternity-of-torah-vi.html

B"H
Dovid,

When speaking about the exegesis on the pig by Rabbi Menachem Azariah of Pano, where he expounded upon the words of Onkelos in his Aramaic translation of the Torah, you seemed to find shortcomings in his exegesis.

We have an expression, "ain maksheem al ha-darshan." We cannot always rectify biblical exegesis with other commentaries on the same biblical verse, or even what we, ourselves, might find as contradictory to that exegesis, simply because exegesis is on a different plane altogether, and does not always represent the plain sense of the text.

I noticed that you used twice the expression: "...Therefore, he was looking back and explained that 'it did not' chew its cud when the Torah was given (but of course it's kosher nowadays since the Moshiach has come)."

Are you saying here that someone held the view that the Moshiach has already come? Or are you just speaking in a future situation when the Moshiach would have already come?

David

Reb David.

You commented:

quote:

When speaking about the exegesis on the pig by Rabbi Menachem Azariah of Pano, where he expounded upon the words of Onkelos in his Aramaic translation of the Torah, you seemed to find shortcomings in his exegesis.

We have an expression, "ain maksheem al ha-darshan." We cannot always rectify biblical exegesis with other commentaries on the same biblical verse, or even what we, ourselves, might find as contradictory to that exegesis, simply because exegesis is on a different plane altogether, and does not always represent the plain sense of the text.

Thank you for commenting on this drasha which is purely my understanding of one of the great darshanim of the last century, the Satmar Rav - Rav Yoel Teitlebaum, whose drashos have been published as the Divrei Yoel.

The initial question he asked is why did the targum use the past tense when the Torah uses future tense. My understanding is that the Rama MiPano explains that the targum is standing on the timeline of history at a date after the mashiach has come. The targum is looking back as a historian or zoologist and is describing the pig of the past (prior the advent of the mashiach). Once we have the Rama MiPano's answer, then the next obvious question which the Divrei Yoel asked was what is the message which the Torah wants to convey by using the future tense...

Of course WE say, "ain maksheem al ha-darshan." However, it is not uncommon for accepted darshanim that are tzadikim and talmidei chachamim such as the Divrei Yoel to utilize a drasha from great darshanim of eras of the past (such as from Rama M'Pano who lived in Italy 450 years ago)in order to help convey the message of the drasha.

I am not too familiar with Rama M'Pano who passed away in 1620, however, I do know that he was a 1st class darshan who had a reputation of having a positive and optimistic perspective towards Klal Yisroel possibly in a way similar to the Berdichaver Rebbe, Rav Levi Yitzchak - the Kedushas Levi - of a later generation. This fact possibly encourages later darshanim to scrutinize and to utilize his drashos. (He was also known as the top Italian posek of his time and as a mkubal. He was very wealthy and was very instrumental in the publishing of the Kesef Mishna on the Rambam and sefarim of the RaMaK.)

quote:

I noticed that you used twice the expression: "...Therefore, he was looking back and explained that 'it did not' chew its cud when the Torah was given (but of course it's kosher nowadays since the Moshiach has come)."

Are you saying here that someone held the view that the Moshiach has already come? Or are you just speaking in a future situation when the Moshiach would have already come?

The Targum is just speaking in a future situation when the Moshiach would have already come. (Bim-hayra Bi-yamenu).

Dovid

Regarding kosher pigs from a halachic perspective.
I heard years ago that they discovered in the jungles of SE Asia an animal in the pig family that not only has split hooves but also chews its cud. The question was raised "is it kosher?" A second question to ponder is why don't we eat giraffe which both chews its cud and has split hooves?
The Shach YD 80:1 writes that he refrains from mentioning the signs listed in Beis Yosef because today we do not rely on signs, only on tradition, as we find with birds. The Shulchan Aruch 82 says that despite the fact that the gemora enumerates signs to differentiate between kosher birds and non-kosher varieties, such as the number of toes, we do not rely on these signs and only eat birds that we have an unbroken tradition to eat.
The Chochmas Adam explains the aforementioned Shach, that today we do not rely on split hooves and cud chewing to permit animals that have no tradition. According to this explanation we can understand why the giraffe is forbidden (MiDerabannan), and furthermore this cud chewing variety of pig would not be permitted. The Chazon Ish paskened like the Chochmas Adam, and based on his opinion forbade American Bison as being a new species that has no tradition. Now since all this is only MiDerabannan I still have no explanation for why children's sheets on the parsha inevitably show Noach bringing only 2 giraffes into the Ark.
However, the Pri Megadim disagrees with this explanation of the Shach based on its location in siman 80 and not 79 where split hooves and chewing cuds are discussed. Siman 80 is discussing the difference between a "chaya" and a "behaimah" regarding covering the blood and eating the forbidden fats. Therefore the Pri Megadim writes that any animal which chews its cud and has split hooves is permitted, but we only permit the chelev of an animal that we have a tradition to be a "chaya" not a "behaimah". Only this fine difference is unreliable without a tradition like we find be birds, but anyone can easily tell is an animal chews its cud and has split hooves. According to him this type of pig is permitted. The Aruch HaShulchan and many others concur with the Pri Megadim.

One problem I was unable to resolve is that the Pri Megadim 79:1 brings a Kenesses HaGedola that the pig does not truly have a split hoof, but only a partially split one. Therefore when the Torah writes in Parshas Re'ei that the pig is forbidden because he does not chew his cud despite having a split hoof it is not "davka", because technically speaking his hoof is not split either "shosas shesa". He even uses this for a halacha. the gemora says that the only animal with split hooves that does not chew his cud is the pig, therefore if one finds a slaughtered animal with split hooves but no head to determine if it chews its cud one may eat it provided he recognizes a pig an this is not a pig. The Pri Megadim writes that it is not necessary to actually know what a pig looks like, as long as the hoof is fully split it is permitted because it cannot be a pig.
However, the Mizrachi clearly writes that the pigs hoof is fully split, and from what I could find on the internet it seems like a pig's hoof is no different than that of a goat.

I would greatly appreciate anyone who can help me resolve the Pri Megadim and Kenesses HaGedola.

quote:

Originally posted by Peretz Moncharsh:
A second question to ponder is why don't we eat giraffe which both chews its cud and has split hooves?
The Shach YD 80:1 writes that he refrains from mentioning the signs listed in Beis Yosef because today we do not rely on signs, only on tradition, as we find with birds. The Shulchan Aruch 82 says that despite the fact that the gemora enumerates signs to differentiate between kosher birds and non-kosher varieties, such as the number of toes, we do not rely on these signs and only eat birds that we have an unbroken tradition to eat.
The Chochmas Adam explains the aforementioned Shach, that today we do not rely on split hooves and cud chewing to permit animals that have no tradition. According to this explanation we can understand why the giraffe is forbidden (MiDerabannan), and furthermore this cud chewing variety of pig would not be permitted. The Chazon Ish paskened like the Chochmas Adam, and based on his opinion forbade American Bison as being a new species that has no tradition. Now since all this is only MiDerabannan I still have no explanation for why children's sheets on the parsha inevitably show Noach bringing only 2 giraffes into the Ark.
However, the Pri Megadim disagrees with this explanation of the Shach based on its location in siman 80 and not 79 where split hooves and chewing cuds are discussed. Siman 80 is discussing the difference between a "chaya" and a "behaimah" regarding covering the blood and eating the forbidden fats. Therefore the Pri Megadim writes that any animal which chews its cud and has split hooves is permitted, but we only permit the chelev of an animal that we have a tradition to be a "chaya" not a "behaimah". Only this fine difference is unreliable without a tradition like we find be birds, but anyone can easily tell is an animal chews its cud and has split hooves. According to him this type of pig is permitted. The Aruch HaShulchan and many others concur with the Pri Megadim.

Rebbe Peretz,

We've actually discussed this issue before on the Global Yeshiva, i.e. concerning the kashrut of the giraffe. I am pasting for you the question, with one of the responses:


QUESTION:
The kashrut of birds requires a Mesora (tradition) in order for it to be considered kosher even with all the kosher characteristics. This follows the decision of the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Iserlisch) and which only applies to Ashkenazi Jews, since he was the first to suggest that one needs a Mesora (tradition) for eating birds. Is it the same for split-hoof ruminants even the ones for which Jews don't have a Mesora, such as the giraffe, or bison, elk, caribou and reindeer? It would seem that the Chazon Ish (based on his interpetation of hints in certain latter authorities) felt that one also needs a Mesora for ruminants.

ANSWER:
Actually, the Talmud (Hullin 63.b) brings down a teaching in the name of Rav Yitzhaq that we require a Mesora before eating birds. The same teaching was taken up by Rashi, as we learn in the Arba'ah Turim of Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, (Yoreh De'ah, section # 82).
Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon, in his Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch known as "Tifsir," translates the Hebrew word "Zamer," (in Deuteronomy 14:5) as "Giraffe," meaning that it is one of the ruminants that the Torah clearly says can be eaten by Jews! So, why haven't we seen it eaten as Kosher food? I posed this question to Rabbi Yoseph Qafih z"l who said to me simply that this animal was not found in areas settled by Jews. When asked if it were permitted for us to have it ritually slaughtered and eaten, he replied to me with a definite "Yes," saying that as far as a Mesora is concerned, it is sufficient to rely upon the expertise of Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon who said that it was a Kosher animal, and that obviously anyone could see that it had the clear signs of a Kosher animal. In this regard, it is no different from a Yemenite Jew who today eats "Turkey," although this fowl was not native to Yemen or to Asia, but rather native to North-America. Yet, since we rely upon the expertise of others that the bird is Kosher (viz., that it has a crop, gizzard, and a fourth toe, and it does not pounce upon its prey with its talons), we eat it!

As for "not knowing the place of slaughter," this is a common fallacy. Maimonides writes in his Halachot Shehita that "the entire neck is valid for ritual slaughter."

As for the Halakhic ruling of the Chazon Ish, someone pointed out to me and I will use his words: "this was a big chidush (novelty) and was strongly objected to." He went on to say that he didn't know of any American Rabbanim who accepted it. "Rab Wozner [of Benei Baraq]," he said, "was also less than enthusiastic. What really upset people was his ruling that the zebu, or Indian cow, has no Mesora while the European cow does." So far his words.

This is what we have to say about this subject.

I would just add that I have heard that native Africans also o not eat giraffe meat, it is too tough. That may be a simple reason why we have no tradition on it.
I agree that the ruling of the Chazon Ish is a chddush, but it is the Chochmas Adam's chidush, not his.
The zebu is truly a puzzling topic.

I just posted this on a different thread:

Zebu - Zebu is Tibetan for cow. To differentiate the Asian cow which has a hump from the new European breeds without a hump. The Asian Cow is called Zebu. The Chazon Ish wrote that one needs a tradition to eat a mammal (a big chidush in itself, based on the Chaf HaChaim) and that we have no tradition to eat zebu. This issue was dormant for many years but a about four years ago, a wave of hysteria typical of the Cheredim struck as the result of a newspaper article and people stop eating meat and the Mir yeshiva koshered all of its utensils. Since then the Litaim are makpid (very careful) about eating cows with humps. I tried to make it clear to the Rav (he asked me) that the Jews of Eretz Yisrael have been eating zebu and only zebu for four thousand years (we have pictures) and that what we don't have a tradition for is the European cow but I failed once agin.

I have discussed the kosher pig or peccary in one of my brilliant obscure articles. Briefly, the torah temimah doesn't exclude the posibility that it is kosher, but probably not as the teeth are not correct and from the gemara mentioned above, you would have to have the right dentation as well.
So I tell my friends who are in danger of starvation in Brazil (actually two died), that if given a choice between snake and peccary, take the peccary.

Aryeh Shore

I thought the possibly kosher pig is the Indonesian/Vietnamese babirusa not the peccary. I understand that the babirusa which seemed to chew its cud and seems to have horns does not actually chew its cud and its horns are really inverted teeth. See http://www.zootorah.com/Content/identification.html)

Kosher pigs
Although the barbarusa has been discussed in recent times, the peccary is the one discussed by the Torah Temimah and the Malbim since that what was in the newspaper in 1880's. The basic approach is not different. Interestingly, Nisson argues against partsof the Malbim's shitah.
From similar discussions from that time, I would think the newspaper is Shomer Zion Neeman which is what the Shaarei Teshuva and Taamei Hamitvot quote which was like the first Cheredi newspaper in Hebrew. It is found in our National Library in Jerusalem. I really liked the editorial in the first edition praising the election of Abraham Lincoln as President and that it would be good for the Jews.

Aryeh Shore

Actually, some talmidei hakhamim are involved in this question. At a dinner last year they served such kosher delicacies as giraffe.

Just now they have successfully received a hekhsher on buffalo meat (known in Israel as Jamusi) form the Rishon Lezion, Harav Amar, the Chief Rabbi of Israel.

Nobody has had diner with giraffe meat. As I wrote before, I ordered the meat but they moved to diner to NYC so I cancelled the order.
I beleive R. Amar said that giraffe is kosher also based on Ari Zivitofsky's dissections.

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
Kosher pigs
Although the barbarusa has been discussed in recent times, the peccary is the one discussed by the Torah Temimah and the Malbim since that what was in the newspaper in 1880's. The basic approach is not different. Interestingly, Nisson argues against partsof the Malbim's shitah.
From similar discussions from that time, I would think the newspaper is Shomer Zion Neeman which is what the Shaarei Teshuva and Taamei Hamitvot quote which was like the first Cheredi newspaper in Hebrew. It is found in our National Library in Jerusalem. I really liked the editorial in the first edition praising the election of Abraham Lincoln as President and that it would be good for the Jews.

Aryeh Shore

This is coming from a bunch of guys who subdue women who risk death every time we give life.

There is NO SUCH THING as a kosher pig!!@!!!
Pigs are NOT kosher to eat, period.
Source: Torah.

Hawke, can you please be so kind as to define the work you call 'Torah'?

The Torah I know is one that has been cared for, analyzed and preserved throughout the generation, from Moshe until today, by a certain group of men who did the following for women:

1) Made sure a widowed women is cared for in the best possible manner.
2) Made just how clear how utterly dispicable rape in marriage is thousands of years before our enlightened, civilized western culture even considered it. (England and America only outlawed it in the past 50 years)
3) Respected the fact that women are special people, with special intuitions.
4) Acknowledged the tremendous rewards women get when letting men do their work, i.e. learn Torah.
5) Make known that the house is the women's domain, knowing in their wisdom that G-d created women specially for work such as that, which needs sensitive people who are properly emotionally tuned.
6) And on, and on, and on.........

These selfsame people 'made up' the custom to wear skullcaps, (refering to a post in 'wigs and things') which, if certain women want to wear are welcome to. They'll only be looked upon as... a bit strange, by those following the true traditions of their fathers' for hundreds of generations.

Unfortunately, the true extent of what I would like to say cannot be said here, because one cannot translate a whole viewpoint in life onto one (or even many) post(s).

With respect for the truth,
Dovi

quote:

This is coming from a bunch of guys who subdue women who risk death every time we give life. There is NO SUCH THING as a kosher pig!!@!!! Pigs are NOT kosher to eat, period.
Source: Torah.

Not sure what you are talking about or whether it deserves a reply but
The Torah, to say the least, does not use the same system of classifying animals as we do today (which before DNA was pretty arbitrary). The question is are there animals which today we classify as the pig family (because they look like pigs) which could be kosher. Since the question is dealt with by many torah scholars (who happen on this topic to be all males) who presumably can read the torah as well as yourself.