|
 - Download
A
Clarification on the Knowledge of the Sages on Matters of Wild and
Domesticated Animals
In which it
will be clarified that Chazal
were not experts about
animals, as they testified in Tractate Hulin 57a:
"From the
words of Bribi it is clear he is not an expert on chickens."
An observant
person should not attribute to the sages knowledge they would not
have known in their era, for all who thus claim
attribute error to the
Holy Spirit and the Shechinah,
as our sages said in
Tractate Brachot 4a:
"Teach
your tongue to say 'I do not know,' lest you be proven a liar."
Kislev 5761
"These are the
animals that you may eat: the shor, the se kvasim, and
the se izim; the ayal, the tzvi, the yachmur,
the ako, the dishon, the tao, the zamer,
and any animal that has true hoofs which are cleft in two and brings
up the cud--such you may eat" (Deuteronomy 14:4).
From the plain meaning of the text
and from the words "and any animal that has true hoofs"
which the Scripture adds to the list of animals already specified, it
is clear that not only those specifically listed are the kosher
animals, but that there are more. It is also clear from the plain
text that if any of the additional animals have both signs of a
kosher animal, it would be permissible for eating. This is indeed the
opinion of Rav Acha the son of Jacob in Hulin 80a, "And maybe
the ayal and the tzvi are details, 'any other animal'
is the generalization. This is a detail and generalization, so we
follow the generalization, and there are many other additional
animals."
But the Gemara rejected his opinion
and determined the law based on R' Isaac's opinion: "The
Scripture detailed ten animals and no more." This is also
Rabbi's opinion in Hulin 63b: "Rabbi says, 'it is known to He
who spoke and the world came into being that there are more impure
beasts than pure beasts, and therefore the Scripture listed the pure
beasts." Pay attention, for R' Isaac's and Rabbi's words are
very important. You may learn from the words of Rabbi, the leader of
the Jewish people and the man who compiled the Mishnah, that in this
verse the Torah listed all the pure livestock and animals in the
world and that there are no other additional pure livestock or
animals. So we see that according to the Talmud there are no pure
livestock or animals other than those G-d listed in our Torah by
name.
Based on these things Maimonides
ruled, in the Laws of Forbidden Foods, chapter one, halacha eight,
"There are no livestock or animals (behemah or chayah)
in the world which one is permitted to eat other than the ten listed
in the Torah. There are three kinds of behemah, and they are
the shor [ox], the se [sheep], and the ez
[goat], and seven kinds of chayah: the ayal, the tzvi,
the yachmur, the ako, the dishon, the tao,
and the zamer. They and their kind, such as the wild ox and
the fatted ox, which are of the same kind as the ox."
The chevrotain (mouse deer) is a ruminant which has
split hooves and is not listed amongst the ten pure animals in the
Torah.
This is in contrast to the opinion of
Rabbeynu Tam on Hulin 59a, s.v. eylu hen: "For
there is a type of behema which is not found amongst us. It
has horns like an undomesticated animal." (The Tosfot rejected
his words.)
We come here to explain that our Sages and our rabbis did not know
and could not have known about livestock and animals which were found
after the discovery of new continents, like southern Africa, America,
and Australia. Before we say our piece, we will explain the way in
which the various livestock and animals are sorted into groups and we
see how this precise division reveals amazing things about the
livestock and animals listed in the Torah. The standard division is
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. The
domesticated and undomesticated animals with which we are dealing are
all Kingdom Animalia, Class Mammalia, Order Artiodactyla, Suborder
Ruminantia, and all are part of two of the nine families of this
suborder: the shor (ox), the keves (sheep), the ez
(goat), the tzvi (gazelle), the ako (mountain goat,
according to Onkelus), the dishon (ibex, according to
Onkelus), the tao (buffalo, according to Onkelus), and the
zamer (which seems to be the mountain sheep; only according to
Rabbi Saadiah Gaon is this last term to be translated as the giraffe,
but we have found no supporting opinions, nor have we ever heard that
anybody permitted eating the giraffe according to the law of the
Torah) -- all these are Family Bovidae. But there are many other
kosher animals in Family Bovidae. Family Bovidae is comprised of 45
genuses and some 110 species of animals. All of these also possess
both signs of kashrut.
Two of the animals listed in the
Torah, the deer and the roebuck, belong to Family Cervidae, which is
comprised of 17 genuses and 44 different species of animals. These,
too, have the signs of a kosher animal.
If so, based on Rabbi's view,
instead of ten types of pure behemah and chayah listed
in the Torah by He who spoke and the world came into being, there are
154 such species of domesticated and undomesticated animals in our
world!
The view of Maimonides, who wrote,
"they and their kind" is odd. The Torah did not use this
method, for had it followed Maimonides's method, it would not have
separately listed the ox and the buffalo (the translation of tao
according to the Gemara in Hulin 80a) nor the goat and mountain goat,
which are of the same subfamily; it would have relied on the term
"their kind" as learned from the Torah, and would have
written only ox and goat, to which we would add the buffalo and the
mountain goat.
The okapi is a pure
animal found in Africa and which is not listed in
the Torah as a pure animal. This is proof that the Torah only listed
those animals found in the area of Israel.
But even if we follow Maimonides's method and say that all these
additional livestock and animals are the "kinds" of the
ten, we will not find peace.
For there are three whole other families which are not listed in the
Scriptures: Family Tragulidae, Family Giraffidae, and Family
Antilocapridae. They include genuses and species which certainly were
not listed in the Torah, neither on their own or as the "kinds"
of the animals listed in the Torah. These animals, which are
definitely kosher, include the chevrotain (a deer the size of a cat,
a ruminant with split hooves which lives on the Indonesian islands
and the Phillipines) and the okapi, a split hoofed ruminant of the
giraffe family. No opinion claims these animals are included in the
list given in the Torah, from which they are as far as the
distance between east and west, yet according to the signs of purity
they are kosher.
And you who loves truth, see how
reality demolishes Rabbi's determination and even Maimonides's
extensions. There aren't ten pure animals in the world, there are
some 150, and even if we add to those listed in the Torah all genuses
and species similar to them, there will still be additional pure
animals which neither those who wrote down the Torah, nor the great
men of the Talmud, nor even the first Rishonim knew existed.
Know that all the animals listed
in the Torah are animals found in the land of Israel and
its surroundings during the period in which the Scriptures were
written. One who wished to delve into this topic should read the
book "HaChai B'Ymei HaMikrah, HaMishnah, V'HaTalmud" by the
zoologist Menachem Dor.
The Strange Division
Between Chayah and Behemah
We will move on to another topic and
look at the Scriptural division between chayah and behemah,
which has halachic implications.
Chazal made the following halachic
distinctions between behemah and chayah:
"The tallow of a behemah
is forbidden and of a chayah is permitted" (Shulchan
Aruch Yoreh Deah 64:1).
"Covering the blood is customary
for a chayah and is not customary for a behemah"
(Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 28).
"The Torah prohibition against
cooking meat with milk is practiced in regard to behemah and
not chayah" (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 87:2).
"The prohibition against
slaughtering a mother and offspring on the same day is practiced in
regards to behemah and not chayah" (Shulchan Aruch
Yoreh Deah 16:7).
"One brings a sacrifice of a
behemah and not of a chayah" (Zevachim 34a).
The sages were unsure whether Capra
Caucasica, which greatly resembles the mountain goat, is a chayah
or behemah, simply because of the addition of a name: "goat
of Karkuz."
But how do we know what is considered a behemah and what is
considered a chayah and what the differences are between them?
Chazal in Tractate Hulin 59b: "The
rabbis have taught that these are the signs of an chayah whose
tallow is permitted. Any animal which has horns…A goat has
horns and hooves and its tallow is forbidden…" The Gemara
concludes that if it has forked horns it is considered a chayah
and if the horns are not forked then they must be wrapped, ("layers
upon layers" like an ox's horns), notched and defective, and
sharp on top.
Since the commentaries on the signs of kashrut for animals have
multiplied so, we will not expand on this issue, but we will make one
point and say that according to any method, this division is quite
strange. Come and see: The goat is a behemah and the mountain
goat is a chayah, though they both are of the same sub-family
and amazingly resemble each other, and since the distinction between
behemah and chayah is not clear enough, Chazal in
Hulin 59b were divided on the matter of the "goat of [the place]
Karkuz." Shmuel said that is a chayah and Rav Acha said
it is a behemah. And Rashi explained: "This animal has
sharp and notched horns -- so should it be considered a chayah?
Or, perhaps, since it is called a goat, it should be considered a
behemah?" The question is odd. We find that an objective
examination of the form and structure of the animal is not the
determinant, but human language and what people call the animals is
that which determines the Torah's law about the division between
chayah and behemah. Similarly, in Tractate Hulin 80a,
the wild goat is said to be permissible for sacrifice (meaning that
it is a behemah), and Ameimar ruled that its tallow is
permissible (meaning that it is a sort of chayah)!
Know that the matter of names which
people made up caused Chazal to actually change the laws; see
Tractate Succah 13a, "A person fulfills his obligation on
Passover with marsh bitter herbs." They asked about this, for in
the Torah it is simply written "bitter herbs" and not
"marsh bitter herbs" and Rava explained, "Plain
'bitter herbs' is their name, and they are called 'marsh bitter
herbs' for they are common in the marsh." The Tosfot, s.v.
mishum d'shechichin wrote that this is the reason that
izei d'bala (wild goats) are permitted for sacrifice,
meaning that they are goats, only they dwell in the woods. (The
Tosfot disregarded the disagreement in the Gemara, Tractate Chulin
80a). This is also the case for the yonah (turtle-dove),
brought on the altar, Chulin 62b: "Rav Judah said: the
kuphshanei tzutzyanei are permissible on the altar, and
they are the turtle-doves of Rachba." And Rashi explained:
"kuphshanei is what turtle-doves are called in Aramaic,
and they are called tzutzyanei after their habitat." The
Gemara wanted to forbid their being brought on the altar because they
are not called simply yonah, but yonah tzutzyanei,
until Rava came and permitted them: "Rava said: the kuphshanei
tzutzyanei are simply called [turtle-doves] in their habitat."
So they are the same animal. Why were the Sages divided? Go out to
the field, look with your own eyes and see if it is the same plain
yonah of which the Torah wrote or not. The form and body
structure are those which determine, not the name it is called by
people.
See for yourself: The cow is a type of behemah from the family
of the ox, but the Gemara in Hulin 80a questioned whether the buffalo
is a chayah or behemah! We find that there are types of
bovines which might be chayah. But what about the cattle we
now have (see the Encyclopedia Hebraica, entry bakar) such as
the Friesian cattle which come from Holland and which are raised in
Israel? What about the Africander and Brahman and their like,
crossbreeds of other cattle varieties? You should know that the cow
we have in Israel is the crossbreed of the Friesian with the Arabian,
Lebanese, and Damacus cows, and in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah,
section 80, subsection 6, "A crossbreed of a kosher behemah
with a kosher chayah is called kvi. Its tallow is
forbidden and one should not cover its blood." The Rama, in
section 28, subsection 4, wrote: "There is a doubt whether
the buffalo -- the wild ox -- is a chayah, and therefore it is
best to cover its blood without a blessing." What the rule
for our cattle is, is unknown. They are all crossbreeds and might be
considered chayahs or might be considered kvi which may
be chayah and may be behemah, so we can not find our
way and we must fear they are all chayahs and cover their
blood and prohibit their tallow. And it is very puzzling that our
rabbis do not warn the observant public about this grave matter. Go
see the puzzlement of the Magid Mishneh on Maimonides, The Laws of
Forbidden Foods, chapter one, halacha eight, who counted the wild ox
with the behemah and yet it is the tao -- so that would
make four behemah and six chayah, and not as Maimonides
wrote, three behemah and seven chayah. There is no end
to confusion and embarrassment.
The Shach on Yoreh Deah section 80,
subsection 1, wrote: "And since we do not know now [the signs of
chayah] except for what we have received by tradition -- as
written below in section 82 concerning the signs of birds' purity --
I have abridged." The Pri Megadim wrote: "Since the
interpretations have multiplied, one should not eat tallow except in
accordance with tradition, for we are not expert on notched horns and
the other signs." From these words we see that about today's
cows, which are new breeds, we have no tradition; who can tell us
their status? The Chazon Ish on Yoreh Deah, The Laws of a
Behemah and Chayah, section 11, forbade us all the
chayahs and allowed us only sheep and cattle: "One should
not breach the customs of Israel and we have no need for that; it is
enough for us the sheep and the cattle on which we have tradition."
(And we have clearly shown that even concerning cattle we have no
tradition.)
The buffalo (bison) is
of the Bovidae family. Why is it doubtful if it is a hayah
whose blood must be covered while the ox, also of the Bovidae family,
is a behemah whose blood does not need covering?
And to conclude this issue we will show some of the confusion that
our rabbis experience on the whole topic of identifying the chayahs.
The Gemara in Hulin 59b: "The tzvi's [deer's] horns are
not split." About this Rashi wrote, "I do not know why they
wrote this; of course they are split and it seems to me that we call
a 'deer' they did not call a 'tzvi,' but they were referring
to a Steinbock [ibex in German], who has horns which are not
split." On Tractate Rosh Hashanah 26b Rashi wrote, "Yael
-- Steinbock." The Tosfot there brought in the name of
the Aruch that the yael is a small sheep. This fits perfectly:
according to Rashi the tzvi, the yael, and the
Steinbock are a single animal. But in the mishnah they are
referred to as separate animals with different names! In Mishnah
Shabbat chapter seven, mishnah two: "One who hunts the tzvi,"
while in Mishnah Rosh Hashana chapter three, mishnah three, "The
Rosh Hashanah shofar is made of the horn of a yael."
If they are the same animal, why are their names different? When is
it a tzvi and when a yael? Maybe in Tractate Avot
Yehuda the son of Teima actually meant, "Be bold as a leopard,
light as an eagle, swift as a yael." This requires study.
And the Taz wrote in Orach Chaim,
section 586, "The yachmur are the yaels [this is
contrary to what the Targum says, which translates the ako as
yaela!]…yachmor is one of the goats, as its name
-- Steinbock -- testifies about it, as Rashi commented. They
are like the goats whose males are called Bock. Why were they
called steinbok? Because they live amongst the rocks, which are
Stein." From his words it is clear that the Taz was
expert neither in the Talmud and the poskim nor in reality.
He went and made the yachmur into "a yael which is
a goat," and meanwhile forgot that the yachmor is a type
of chayah and the goat is a behemah. (And if you read
his words you will see that he even mixed up ayal, the buck,
and ayil, the ram, as Chacham Tzvi noted in his Responsa,
section 34.)
And if the Torah really makes a
distinction between chayah and behemah, it seems most
likely to be what Ibn Ezra said on Psalms 148:10, "The chayah
does not live with people, and all behemahs live with people,"
that is, behemahs are domesticated animals and chayahs
are undomesticated animals. There is a hint about this in Midrash
Vayikra Rabbah, parasha 27: "The Holy One, blessed
be He, said: I gave you ten animals. Three are in your possession and
seven are not in your possession. The three in your possession are
the ox, the sheep, and the goat; the seven that are not in your
possession are the ayal, the tzvi and the yachmur,
the ako and the dishon and the tao and the
zamer. I did not make it burdensome on you and I did not tell
you to go up to the hills and weary yourselves in the fields to bring
before Me a sacrifice which is not in your possession, but only from
what is in your possession, from that which grows in your mangers, an
ox or a sheep or a goat."
Now we will deal with
the impure animals which have a single sign of purity.
"But the following, which bring
up the cud or have true hoofs that are cleft through, you may not
eat: the camel, the hare, and the hyrax -- for although they bring up
the cud, they have no true hoofs -- they are unclean for you; also
the swine -- for although it has true hoofs, it does not bring up the
cud -- is unclean for you. You shall not eat of their flesh"
(Deuteronomy 14).
According to this count, there are
only four animals; Chazal added a fifth, the shesuah. "Rav
Chanan the son of Rava said: The shesuah is a distinct
creature which has two backs and two spinal columns. But was Moses a
hunter or trapper? This is a response to the one that says the Torah
is not from Heaven" (Hulin 60b).
On the matter of the shesuah,
an animal which never did exist, it is enough to mention the words of
Rav in Niddah 24a, "Rav said, 'there never was such a creature'"
and the halachic ruling of the Shach in Yoreh Deah, section 13,
subsection 21: "Since G-d taught Moses that the shesuah
is forbidden, it must mean a shesuah in its mother's womb, for
it would survive but an hour after it comes out to the light of the
world."
That is, the shesuah is not a
certain animal species, but it is the term which denotes a rare
defect which would cause the death of a newborn animal; there is
no proof from this that the Torah is from the Heavens, only an
imaginary situation to captivate fools. (Though there is a great
deal more that can be said on this issue, we will leave it at this so
that you may see how Chazal took the Scripture out of its plain
context and distorted it, invented the shesuah and made it
into an animal unto itself, and even used this as proof that the
Torah is from the Heavens. What is the point of this? They create
animals with their words, bring them as proofs about the Divine
origin of the Torah and then contradict that.)
Now we will look at the issues
involved with the other four animals: (about the hyrax and the
hare, which are not ruminants, we have already written extensively in
Pamphlet
3, and there we proved that the error did not originate with the
Shechinah which dictated the Torah, but with the transcriber). We
will begin with the camel:
"The camel, for it chews its cud and does not have true split
hoofs, is impure for you." Rashi on Leviticus 11:26: "'Which
split the hoof but is not cloven-footed' -- such as a camel, the hoof
of which is parted above but below it is joined." Rashi's words
are puzzling, for the camel's split hooves are parted above and below
(the camel is counted among the cloven-footed by zoological
classification). See the Daat Zekenim, one of the
authors of the Tosfot, on Leviticus 11:3, "Rashi maintains that
the camel's hooves are split above and joined below, and this
requires study, for if so, he should have removed the camel from the
class of the cloven hoofed and written 'its hooves are not cloven'"
(which the Torah did not write about the camel; it only wrote, 'and
does not have true split hoofs'), just as we said.
We find that according to Rashi
the camel is kosher, for it splits its hooves and has cloven hooves
above and below, and chews its cud. Therefore you should say that
the Torah did not call the camel "split hoofed" since it
walks on the pads of its feet and not on the edge of the split like
the goat and the sheep. But the factual truth is that the camel is
truly cloven hoofed.
One of the ways to identify
a ruminant is the lack of teeth in the upper jaw (we will preface our
remarks and state that there are four types of teeth: incisors,
canines, premolars, and molars. Most animals have these in their
upper and lower jaws, but most ruminants do not have incisors and do
not have canines in their upper jaws). Therefore Chazal determined a
rule in Hulin 59a, "If it has no teeth above, it is known to be
pure; otherwise it is known to be impure."
But Chazal, who noticed the difference with the camel, asked, "But
a camel is a ruminant and has no upper teeth, yet it is impure? The
camel has canines." Rashi explains: "Canines--it has two
teeth in its upper jaw, one on this side and one on that." We
learn from his words that the camel's upper jaw has two canines and
no incisors at all. It is clear that Rashi never saw a camel, for
he is in error. The camel has two incisors and two canines in the
upper jaw, for a total of four teeth. Another thing you should know
is that bucks generally have incisors in their upper jaw and they are
ruminants and have cloven hooves; they are kosher and pure. So
Chazal erred even in the matter of teeth, and their rule is no rule
at all.
Dental formulae for behemahs
and chayahs:
On that same matter the Gemara (59a) rules, "One who walks in a
desert and finds an animal whose hooves are cut should look at its
mouth: if it has incisors in its upper jaw – it is clear that
the animal is pure, and if they does not – it is clear that the
animal is impure, provided that one is familiar with the camel. But
does the camel have incisors? As long as he recognizes a young camel.
Yet is it possible that there is the young camel and there is also
another species which is like a young camel? No, this is implausible,
as R' Ishmael said: 'And the camel, for it is ruminant' (Leviticus
11:4) -- He who rules His world knows that there is no ruminant which
is impure aside from the camel."
One who walks and sees a
young llama or guanaco whose legs are cut off would permit it, for it
does not resemble a young camel. It seems that Chazal meant "one
who walks in the area of Israel."
Come see how many difficulties and mistakes are in this one short
passage. First, if one found a buck (and did not recognize it) and
saw it has teeth in the upper jaw, he would render it impure for no
reason, for it is pure.
Second, the camel is not unique in His world. There are other animals
which are ruminants and have teeth as does the camel: the llama, the
guanaco, the alpaca, and the vicuna. Therefore one must recognize the
young of these animals as well (and know that these animals do not
look, externally, like the camel).
One who is walking and
finds an aardvark whose legs are cut off would permit it, for it has
no teeth in its upper jaw. We see that He who rules His world only
knows the animals in the area of Israel.
Third, there are animals which do not have teeth in their upper jaws
and they are impure, like the aardvark which has cloven hooves and
has no incisors or canines at all. So a person walking in southern
Africa and seeing an aardvark with its hooves cut off would check the
upper jaw and see that there were no incisors or canines and would
permit it and eat what is forbidden.
From all of this you can learn something important: Chazal did
not check and did not understand at all that rumination stems from
the unique build of the animals' digestive system. Ruminants have
several stomachs. Cattle and sheep have four stomachs (the rumen,
reticulum, omasum and abomasum) and the camel has three (missing the
omasum). This is the absolute sign which characterizes all ruminants.
Since Chazal did not check the digestive tract, we see that they did
not know that there is a connection between the two, for according to
this sign we would not permit the ardvark nor forbid the buck.
Therefore we cannot rely on the signs which our Sages gave us
-- just as we find on the issue of signs of fish in the Tosfot on
Avodah Zara 40, s.v. amar Rabba, we should not rely on
signs about fish roe given by Chazal (that one side of the grain of
roe is round and the other pointed), and they even brought a passage
from the Yerushalmi that one should not rely upon this sign: "Nathan
the son of Rabba said before Samuel, 'I know to tell the difference
between the fetuses of impure fish and the fetuses of pure fish. The
fetuses of impure fish are round and the fetuses of pure fish are
long.' He showed him a fetus of a pure fish and asked 'What is this?'
He answered, 'impure.' He told him, 'It is bad enough you have called
something pure impure, but in the end you will call something impure
pure'."
This is proof that Chazal themselves
felt one should not rely upon the signs they gave, and the same holds
true for us, who are expert about many animals and animal anatomy and
who find many contradictions in the words of Chazal. Therefore we
should not rely upon the signs, and the whole issue of one who is
walking in the desert falls by the wayside in any case. We have
already cited the words of the Chazon Ish on Yoreh Deah, "One
should not breach the customs of Israel and we have no need for that;
it is enough for us the sheep and the cattle on which we have a
tradition." When the system of signs falls by the wayside it is
best to take shelter in the small amount of certainty which is left.
About the pig:
"And the swine -- although it has true hoofs, with the hoofs
cleft through, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you"
(Leviticus 11:7).
The Gemara in Hulin 59a: "Rav
Hisda said: 'One who walks in a desert and finds an animal whose
mouth is damaged [so it is impossible to check whether it has upper
incisors and/or canines, which is the way to verify whether it brings
up its cud], should look at its hooves: if the hooves are split –
it is clear that the animal is pure, and if they are not – it
is clear that the animal is impure, provided that one is familiar
with the pig [whose hooves are split, yet it is impure]. Yet is it
possible that there is the pig and there is also another species
which is like the pig? No, this is implausible, as R' Ishmael said:
'And the swine--although it has true hoofs, with the hoofs cleft
through'
The warthog, Infraorder
Suina, has split hooves and doesn't look like a pig at all. So Chazal
cause the downfall of one who walks and finds a warthog with a
damaged mouth, for he would permit it.
-- He who rules His world knows that
no other animal has cloven hooves and is impure aside from the pig,
and therefore the Scripture specifies 'it'." Know that the
Gemara was right to claim that there are other species of animals
which have cloven hooves and are not ruminants. In Infraorder Suina
there are many species which do not resemble pigs (just as the sheep
is a member of the bovine family and does not resemble a cow at all)
such as the peccary, the babirussa, the warthog and others. Here is a
picture of a warthog; you will see that it doesn't resemble a pig at
all. If one can recognize an ordinary pig, and he walks in a desert
and sees a warthog with a damaged mouth, he would deem it kosher.
(One who wishes to expand on this issue should read a book on
zoology, and see with intellectual honesty whether He who rules His
world really revealed the secrets of the animals to R' Ishmael).
And on matters of purity and
impurity come see something else strange: the sages say in the
Mishnah, in Tractate Bechorot 5b, "A pure animal which birthed a
sort of impure animal -- [the impure animal] is permissible for
eating," and on page 24a, "Rabbah the son of Bar Hana said
in the name of R' Judah: if you see a pig following a ewe, it is
exempt from the rituals of the first-born and forbidden for eating."
(It seems strange that Chazal considered that the ewe birthed the pig
(!) and so the ewe is exempt further from the rituals of the
first-born. On the question of whether the pig-born-of-a-ewe is
permissible for eating, they ruled according to the more stringent
line.)
Similarly, Maimonides ruled in the
Laws of Forbidden Foods, chapter one, halacha four: "A pure
animal who birthed a kind of impure animal, even if the latter does
not have cloven hooves and is not a ruminant but is just a sort of
horse or donkey, it is permissible for eating. This is said of a
situation where one witnessed the [pure] animal giving birth [to the
"kind of impure"], but if one leaves a pregnant cow in his
flock and then finds a kind of pig following it, even if it nurses
from the cow, it is a matter of doubt, and therefore [the newborn
"kind of pig"] is forbidden for eating, for perhaps it was
born of an impure mother [i.e. of a real pig] and just follows the
pure."
You see that Chazal did not check
reality at all, but went after their own imagination, that a cow
could become pregnant and give birth to an animal which resembles a
pig--one without even the digestive system of a ruminant--and it
would be permissible for eating. It is puzzling, for this animal
wouldn't be kosher at all, born without omasum and abomasum, and it
should be considered in the class of animals missing the omasum and
abomasum, as brought in the Tosfot on Hulin 42a, s.v. nikev.
And know that the Sages were divided on something which can and
should be checked using simple empiric checks, but this is their way,
to rule without checking. In Bechorot 7a we find: "R' Joshua the
son of Levi said: never is a pure animal impregnated by an impure
animal, nor an impure animal by a pure one; neither a large animal
[is impregnated] by a small, nor a small one by a large; neither a
domesticated animal by a wild one, nor a wild one by a domesticated,
aside from R' Eliezer and his school who said that a wild animal can
impregnate a domesticated animal." [R' Joshua the son of Levi
also erred on this matter, for a domesticated goat can be impregnated
by a wild mountain goat.] If truth in the Halacha were important to
them, why did they not try to breed a goat with a mountain goat to
see if it would be impregnated or not? They would have seen with
their own eyes that it can be impregnated. This is what we repeatedly
say, that our Sages did not take their information from facts but
from their imagination.
But if you want to know how far the
absurdity in the words of the Sages and rabbis about animals reaches,
merely go to the book Magen Avot by the Rashbatz on
Tractate Avot, chapter five, mishnah 23 (on the phrase "be bold
as a tiger"): "The tiger is bold because it is a bastard
like the mule [!], for it [the tiger] is a cross between a forest pig
and a lioness. When a lioness goes into heat she sticks her head into
the forest underbrush and growls and calls the male. The pig hears
her and mates her…and since he is a bastard he is bold."
What else can we say about this sort
of nonsense and what more is left to be spoken? It is obvious that
these people dictated laws and commandments, restrictions and orders,
both positive and negative, based on a lack of knowledge about nature
and the real world; and not only that, but they were also not
embarrassed to hang their rulings on the Divine Spirit which
supposedly rested upon them. But we know that the Divine Spirit
does not rest on nonsense, and therefore all that they said was based
only on their own knowledge. For one who seeks the truth, reality
will come and prove that.
True
Knowledge.
|
|
