(Devarim 14:6) "And every beast that has split hooves": Because we find that Scripture construed "treifah" ("torn" [in Shemoth 22:30 "and flesh in the field treifah you shall not eat"]) as "treifoth" (i.e., varieties of treifah that are forbidden to all [even non-priests]), I will also construe "pasul" (unfit) as "p'sulim" (i.e., unfit for eating for all), e.g., one's plowing with an ox and an ass (together), or with (animals dedicated as) offerings. It is, therefore, written (to include these as permitted to be eaten) "the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats shall you eat."
I would then add the above (as included), but I would not add (an animal that) had sodomized or that had been sodomized, or one that had been set aside (for idolatry) or worshipped, or one that had been the hire (of a prostitute) or the exchange (of a dog), or a hybrid, or one born by Caesarian section. It is, therefore, written "the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats shall you eat."
I would then include these, but I would not include one through which a "transgression" had been committed (e.g., an ox which had killed a man) by testimony of a single witness or by testimony of the owner, (in which instance it is not killed). It is, therefore, written "the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats shall you eat."
I would then add the above, but I still would not include one through which a transgression had been committed by testimony of two witnesses, and upon which judgment had not yet been pronounced. It is, therefore, written "the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats shall you eat."
I would then include these, which grew up in cleanliness; but I would not include the offspring of a treifah which was nursed by a kosher animal. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "in the beast … shall you eat."
I would then include the offspring of a treifah which was nursed by a kosher animal; but I still would not include one which was nursed by a kosher animal along with a treifah. It is, therefore, written "in the beast."
7
בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹּאכֵלוּ, לְרַבּוֹת שִׁלְיָה.
"Every beast … in the beast shall you eat": to include an embryo (as permitted by the shechitah of its mother).
I might think, even if it had stuck out its head; it is, therefore, written (7) "but" (connoting an exception). "it shall you eat": It may be eaten, but not an unclean animal.
This tells me only (that one who eats an unclean animal) transgresses a positive commandment [(note: a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment (as in the above) is a positive commandment)] Where do I derive that he also transgresses a negative commandment? From (7) "… the camel, the hare, and the coney … (8) and the swine … from their flesh you shall not eat."
This tells me only of these alone. Whence do I derive (the same for) the other unclean animals? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If these (the aforementioned), which have signs of cleanliness, are forbidden by negative commandment, then the other unclean beasts, which have no signs of cleanliness — how much more so should eating them be forbidden by negative commandment! In sum: Camel, hare, coney, and swine are forbidden by Scripture, and the other unclean beasts, a fortiori. Their positive commandment is Scripture; their negative commandment, a fortiori.
(דברים יד ו) וְכָל בְּהֵמָה מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה, לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁרִבָּה טְרֵפָה כְּעֵין טְרֵפוֹת, אַף אֲנִי אֲרַבֶּה אֶת הַפָּסוּל כְּעֵין הַפְּסוּלִים. וְאֵיזֶה זֶה? זֶה הַחוֹרֵשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר, וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁים! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שׁוֹר שֵׁה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים״ תֹּאכֵלוּ.
(Devarim 14:6) "And every beast that has split hooves": Because we find that Scripture construed "treifah" ("torn" [in Shemoth 22:30 "and flesh in the field treifah you shall not eat"]) as "treifoth" (i.e., varieties of treifah that are forbidden to all [even non-priests]), I will also construe "pasul" (unfit) as "p'sulim" (i.e., unfit for eating for all), e.g., one's plowing with an ox and an ass (together), or with (animals dedicated as) offerings. It is, therefore, written (to include these as permitted to be eaten) "the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats shall you eat."
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת הָרוֹבֵעַ וְאֶת הַנִּרְבָּע, מוּקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד, וְאֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר, וְכִלְאַיִם וּטְרֵפָה וְיוֹצֵא דוֹפֶן (תמורה פ״ו מ״א)? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שׁוֹר שֵׁה כְשָׂבִים וְגוֹ׳.
I would then add the above (as included), but I would not add (an animal that) had sodomized or that had been sodomized, or one that had been set aside (for idolatry) or worshipped, or one that had been the hire (of a prostitute) or the exchange (of a dog), or a hybrid, or one born by Caesarian section. It is, therefore, written "the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats shall you eat."
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵרָה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שׁוֹר שֵׁה כְשָׂבִים.
I would then include these, but I would not include one through which a "transgression" had been committed (e.g., an ox which had killed a man) by testimony of a single witness or by testimony of the owner, (in which instance it is not killed). It is, therefore, written "the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats shall you eat."
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵרָה עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שׁוֹר שֵׁה כְשָׂבִים תֹּאכֵלוּ,
I would then add the above, but I still would not include one through which a transgression had been committed by testimony of two witnesses, and upon which judgment had not yet been pronounced. It is, therefore, written "the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats shall you eat."
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁגָּדְלוּ בְּטָהֳרָה, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת וְלַד כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִן הַטְּרֵפָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בַּבְּהֵמָה,
I would then include these, which grew up in cleanliness; but I would not include the offspring of a treifah which was nursed by a kosher animal. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "in the beast … shall you eat."
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת וְלַד כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִן הַטְּרֵפָה, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת וְלַד טְרֵפָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִבְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בַּבְּהֵמָה כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה.
I would then include the offspring of a treifah which was nursed by a kosher animal; but I still would not include one which was nursed by a kosher animal along with a treifah. It is, therefore, written "in the beast."
בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹּאכֵלוּ, לְרַבּוֹת שִׁלְיָה.
"Every beast … in the beast shall you eat": to include an embryo (as permitted by the shechitah of its mother).
יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ יָצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אוֹתָהּ.
I might think, even if it had stuck out its head; it is, therefore, written (7) "but" (connoting an exception). "it shall you eat": It may be eaten, but not an unclean animal.
אוֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ, אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲכִילָה וְאֵין בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בַּאֲכִילָה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּעֲשֵׂה; מִנַּיִן אַף בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יד ז-ח): הַגָּמָל וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת וְהַשָּׁפָן וְהַחֲזִיר.
This tells me only (that one who eats an unclean animal) transgresses a positive commandment [(note: a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment (as in the above) is a positive commandment)] Where do I derive that he also transgresses a negative commandment? From (7) "… the camel, the hare, and the coney … (8) and the swine … from their flesh you shall not eat."
מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֶת אֵלּוּ בִּלְבַד, שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִנַּיִן? דִּין הוּא: וּמָה אֵלּוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם סִימָנֵי טָהֳרָה הֲרֵי הֵם בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם סִימָנֵי טָהֳרָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהוּ בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָם? נִמְצְאוּ הַגָּמָל וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת וְהַשָּׁפָן וְהַחֲזִיר מִן הַכָּתוּב, וּשְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. נִמְצֵאת מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלָּהֶם מִן הַכָּתוּב וּמִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.
This tells me only of these alone. Whence do I derive (the same for) the other unclean animals? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If these (the aforementioned), which have signs of cleanliness, are forbidden by negative commandment, then the other unclean beasts, which have no signs of cleanliness — how much more so should eating them be forbidden by negative commandment! In sum: Camel, hare, coney, and swine are forbidden by Scripture, and the other unclean beasts, a fortiori. Their positive commandment is Scripture; their negative commandment, a fortiori.