Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah

Ramban on Leviticus 11:3/רמב"ן על ויקרא י״א:ג׳

אכֹּל מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע פְּרָסֹת מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה - טַעַם הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה שֶׁכָּל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בָּהּ שְׁנֵי הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ תֹּאכְלוּ, אֲבָל לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם. וְהָיָה רָאוּי שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֵּן בְּדֶרֶךְ כְּלָל, אֶלָּא שֶׁפֵּרַט הַגָּמָל וְהַשָּׁפָן וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת בַּגֵּרָה וְהַחֲזִיר בַּפַּרְסָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים בָּעוֹלָם בַּסִּימָן הָאֶחָד לְבַדּוֹ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר (ויקרא י"א:ח') "מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" לְלָאו. וְכָתַב רַשִׁ"י: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ, שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שׁוּם סִימָן טָהֳרָה מִנַּיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחֹמֶר: מַה אֵלּוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם קְצָת סִימָנֵי טָהֳרָה אֲסוּרוֹת וְכוּ'. וּלְשׁוֹן סִפְרָא (פרק ג ב): מַה אֵלּוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם סִימָנֵי טָהֳרָה הֲרֵי הֵם בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָם, שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן טָהֳרָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָהּ? נִמְצְאוּ הַגָּמָל וְהַשָּׁפָן וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת וְהַחֲזִיר מִן הַכָּתוּב, וּשְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר. נִמְצֵאת מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלָּהֶן מִן הַכָּתוּב, מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר. עַד כָּאן הַבָּרַיְתָא. אֲבָל לְפִי דַּעְתִּי אֵינָהּ עוֹלָה כַּהֹגֶן לְפִי סוּגְיוֹת הַתַּלְמוּד, שֶׁאִם כֵּן לֹא יְהֵא לוֹקֶה עַל שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִדִּין קַל וָחֹמֶר, שֶׁאֵין מַזְהִירִין מִן הַדִּין. וְכָךְ אָמְרוּ בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁאָסַר הַכָּתוּב אֲחֹתוֹ בַּת אָבִיו אוֹ בַת אִמּוֹ (ויקרא כ':י"ז), וְהֻצְרַךְ לְרַבּוֹת בַּכָּתוּב אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא בַּת אָבִיו וּבַת אִמּוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּאָה בְּקַל וָחֹמֶר וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ שֵׁם שְׁתֵּיהֶן, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מַזְהִירִין מִן הַדִּין, כִּדְאִיתָא בִּיבָמוֹת בְּפֶרֶק כֵּיצַד (כב). אֲבָל הַבָּרַיְתָא הַזּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִיא שְׁנוּיָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין בְּמַסֶּכֶת סַנְהֶדְרִין (סנהדרין נ"ד), אוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְתָרַצְתָּא. וְהַטַּעַם בְּמַלְקוּת שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב בְּאִסּוּר הַשָּׁפָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה, וּבַחֲזִיר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה. אִם כֵּן, כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה וּמַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא בְּשֵׁם הָאִסּוּר הַזֶּה, אֵין צֹרֶךְ לְקַל וָחֹמֶר כְּלָל.

1WHATSOEVER 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 hare¹⁵² as having only the one sign of chewing the cud, and the swine as having the one sign of a parted hoof,¹⁵³ 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,¹⁵⁴ 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.¹⁵⁵, 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:¹⁵⁶ 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.¹⁵⁵, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation. It is also established that the positive commandment [regarding unclean animals] is Scriptural,¹⁵⁷ (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.¹⁵⁶ 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.¹⁵⁸ Thus the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim¹⁵⁹ 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,¹⁶⁰ 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,¹⁶¹ (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.¹⁶² 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,¹⁶³ 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,¹⁶⁴ 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.¹⁵³ 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.¹⁵⁵, p. 133, Note 208, for further explanation.

באוֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ - וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וַהֲלֹא בְּאַזְהָרָה הִיא? אֶלָּא לַעֲבֹר עָלֶיהָ בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא י"א:ג'). וְכָךְ הִיא בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרק ג א). וְהָרַב רַבִּי מֹשֶׁה אָמַר (הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק ב' הלכה ג') שֶׁהוּא לְמַעֵט בְּשַׂר הָאָדָם: "אוֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ" וְלֹא אָדָם, וּבְשָׂרוֹ וַחֲלָבוֹ בַּעֲשֵׂה. וְלֹא מָצִינוּ שֶׁיִּדָּרֵשׁ כֵּן לְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ. וְשֶׁמָּא חָשַׁב זֶה מִמַּה שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ שָׁם בְּת"כ (פרק ד ד): יָכוֹל אַף בְּשַׂר מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם וַחֲלֵב מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם יִהְיוּ בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ" - זֶה בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ, וְאֵין בְּשַׂר מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם וַחֲלֵב מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָן. וְיָדוּן הָרַב מִזֶּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה אֲבָל הוּא בַּעֲשֵׂה, וּדְרָשׁוֹ מִן הַכָּתוּב "אוֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ". וְאֵין הַדָּבָר כֵּן, שֶׁבְּפֵרוּשׁ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים (כריתות כא) בְּדַם מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם וַחֲלֵב מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ מִצְוַת פְּרֹשׁ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אֵין בּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה בְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר, כָּל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּמֵא טָמֵא (בכורות ה). וְדַם הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְדַם הָאָדָם מִעֲטוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים מֵאִסּוּר דָּם, וְאָמְרוּ (שם): דַּם הַשֶּׁרֶץ כִּבְשָׂרוֹ, וְלוֹקֶה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם דָּם, וַעֲשָׂאוּהוּ כַּבָּשָׂר. אֲבָל מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁאֵינָן בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָן, לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא נִמְנְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְהֵן מֻתָּרִין. אֲבָל לְפִי דַּעְתִּי יִהְיֶה זֶה בְּבָשָׂר מִן הַחַי, אֲבָל הַמֵּת לָמְדוּ בּוֹ (עבודה זרה כט) מִגְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה מֵעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שֶׁאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

2THESE 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.¹⁶⁵ 3:1.Now Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] said¹⁶⁶ 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:¹⁶⁷ 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 legs¹⁶⁸ and the milk of those that walk on two legs¹⁶⁹, 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.”¹⁷⁰ The blood of crawling reptiles and that of human beings the Sages have excluded from the prohibition against blood, and they have said:¹⁷¹ “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].¹⁷²). 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 broken¹⁷³ that it is forbidden to have any benefit from it.¹⁷⁴ 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.