Parashat Shimini

The Midrash Tanchuma explains the concept of Beheima Temei’ah through a mashal: A doctor visits two patients. To the first he says, “you may eat whatever you like,” and to the second he says, “such and such should you eat, and such and such should you not eat.” When they later ask the doctor why he gave such different orders, he explains, “I saw the first patient was going to die anyhow, so I figured he might as well eat what he likes. I saw the second patient had the opportunity to live, so I gave him a diet that would increase his chances of survival.”

The Midrash implies that there is a distinct difference between the properties of Beheimos Temei’os and Beheimos Taharos, more than just the fact that Hashem commanded us not to eat them; non-Kosher animals are harmful to us, and therefore we should stick to Kosher animals. However, a question arises in the next few pasukim when the Torah lists the four animals that bear only one Siman Tahara, the Gamal Shafan Arnevet and Chazir, and offers a peculiar reason for the prohibition of their consumption. “Do not eat [this animal], for it chews its cud, and it does not have split hooves, it is Tamei to you.” (except for the pig, which has split hooves but does not chew its cud) If the pasuk wants to tell us not to eat these animals, it should just inform us which Siman it lacks. Why mention both Simanim? Perhaps the pasuk is detailing our need to check for both Simanim, so it writes the prohibition in an investigative manner. “Let’s see… it chews its cud… oh, but it doesn’t have split hooves. So don’t eat it.” But then the pasuk should say “Ki Ma’aleh Geira Hu, Aval Parsah Lo Hifris;” by connecting the two Simanim through a Vav, the pasuk implies that the Kosher Siman is as important as the missing Siman regarding the animal’s Tumah.

The Kli Yakar explains: We can explain on this matter that the Tahor Siman adds to its Tumah, for these animals portray themselves to be Tahor, but after we look closer, we discover that they are really Tamei. This is why the gemara compares these four animals to the four oppressive kingdoms, Bavel Madai Yavan and Edom. These nations sometimes seemed to help the Jews, aid their learning of Torah or help them build the Beis HaMikdash, but in reality, each of them was evil. (See Rashi Beraishis 26:34).

The Kli Yakar therefore concludes that these animals are more Tamei than animals without any Kosher sign, than animals that at least don’t pretend to be Kosher. So these four animals still fall under the overall prohibition, they are still considered repulsive; in fact, the reason we go out of our way to list the Siman each possesses is to show how it is more repulsive to us. One would therefore speculate that these four animals carry a Tzad Chamur over all the other Beheimos Tamei’os of the world. The Sifra teaches us exactly the opposite.

“MiBisaram Lo Tocheilu. This refers to the violation of eating the Gamal Shafan Arnevet or Chazir, the only four animals with only one Siman Tahara. Hence, I would only think these are forbidden, but other animals with no Siman would not fall under this violation (this violation, as opposed to the one in pasuk 3, is a Lo Ta’aseih, and if only these four animals fall within the Lav, then one would only get Malkos for eating these four animals). But if these four animals that at least have one Siman Tahara are forbidden, then Kal ViChomeir animals that don’t even have one Siman are forbidden [by this pasuk, and so they are Malkos-worthy offenses as well].”
Rashi, VaYikra (11:8)

The Sifra somehow uses this Kal ViChomeir to include all animals in the violation of this Lo Ta’asei, thus meting out lashes for even the consumption of horse or dog. But didn’t we just show from these pasukim themselves that the Lav was specifically only meant for the most Tamei of animals, the one’s that pretend to be Tahor?! From where does the Sifra come up with this Kal ViChomeir?! We will surely need to reconsider our understanding of these pasukim and these statements from the Sifra and Tanchuma, but this time, we shall do so through the control of Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaria’s lesson:

Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaria said: From where do we know that a person should not say [to himself], ‘I am disgusted by pork,’ or ‘it’s simply impossible to wear Kila’im,’ that he should rather declare ‘I wish I could eat pork or wear Kila’im, but what can I do? My father in Heaven has commanded me not to.’? It states in the pasuk, VaAvdil Eschem Min Ha’Amim LeHiyos Li, that He has separated us for the sake of His name, and that we should stay away from sin with intention to be to be Mikabeil Ol Malchus Shamayim.”
Rashi, VaYikra (20:26)

Rabbi Elazar seems to stress the idea that a Mitzvah should be difficult, that the effort we put into their fulfillment is factored into our ultimate reward. But we wonder, is it truly so terrible to be repulsed by pork? Is it really necessary for one to wish he could eat it? When one recognizes the reasons he shouldn’t eat Beheimos Temei’os, like the Midrash Tanchuma explained, he will surely become repulsed by them and their damaging effects, and that will lessen the Schar he receives for fulfilling the Mitzvah?! At the heart of Rabbi Elazar’s lesson, it seems, is the order to like pork. It’s a strange encouragement; really, what if a person truly dislikes the smell of bacon? Should he try to like it, try to wish he could eat it, somehow irrationally convince himself that he loves the taste of bacon? What a strange lesson Rabbi Elazar would be teaching us then. Perhaps there is motivation to like pork, and perhaps it’s based on our parasha. Perhaps this whole concept of repulsion towards Beheimos Tamei’os wasn’t really the Midrash Tanchuma’s intended lesson.

There are two ways to approach the prohibition of Beheimos Tamei’os. Either all animals are considered Kosher except for those which lack the proper Simanim, and these lackings make them harmful for our well being, whether physical or spiritual. Or all animals are considered not-Kosher, except for those with beneficial aspects, those with the proper Simanim, and those Simanim are what are healthy for us to eat. In other words, we can either view the horse to have spiritual cholesterol and fats, or we can view the cow to have spiritual vitamins. And the Sifra’s Kal ViChomeir tells us exactly which of these two approaches is true. The Kal ViChomeir isn’t drawn from animals with one Siman Tuma to animals with two Simanei Tuma; there’s no such thing as a Siman Tuma! Rather, animals with one Siman Tahara provide a Kal ViComeir for animals with no Simanei Tahara; the prohibition of eating animals with some spiritual vitamins provide a Kal ViChomeir for animals with no spiritual vitamins.

The Midrash Tanchuma is therefore not comparing our case to a patient who wants to know why the doctor has restricted his diet and a doctor who answers it’s for the sake of the patient’s health that he stay away from harmful foods. Rather, the doctor is forcing the patient to take his vitamins, and to not waste his time on foods that do not contain the proper sustenance, and he explains to the patient why he didn’t bother making the other patient’s life miserable too. If we approach Simanei Tahara this way, then we can understand why Gamal or Shafan is not nearly as abominable as horse or dog; at least they contain some spiritual vitamins.

The Torah therefore goes out of its way to tell us that only one Siman Tahara is not enough to justify the consumption of pig or camel etc. While one Siman is better than none, we recognize that these animals actually have an added level of Tumah to them that counteracts their positive aspects, for they are like the most despicable nations of the world in that they embody the notion of being only half good, to permit the existence of a Jewish nation but deny our ability to learn Torah, like Malchus Edom did.

We eat Kosher animals because of the positive aspects to their consumption, so one might think he may eat pork for his personal well being; after all, it does have a Siman Tahara. Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaria therefore teaches us that one may not simply because Hashem commanded him not to. One may make a similar mistake by Sha’atneiz. One reason given for the prohibition of Levishas Kila’im is that the Egyptian priests used to wear Sha’atneiz clothing when doing their Avoda. One would perhaps think that for this very reason we should wear Kila’im, for the Mitzrim’s practice is a testament to the quality and value of the clothing. Hashem, however, tells us not to wear them, for they too embody the practice of another nation. The first step for us to be a nation of Hashem’s is to dissociate ourselves from these forbidden objects, these things that are only forbidden because of their uses in other cultures. And if we look closely at that Rashi in (20:26), we realize that Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaria’s lesson was in fact the continuation of this very point. The Rashi begins…

“VaAvdil Eschem... LiHiyos Li. If you stay separate from other [nations], then you will be My [nation]. But if not, then you will be Nevuchadnetzar’s. [And] Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaria said…”