Parshat Shmini 5759

“When Pigs Fly”

Rabbi Ari Kahn

O
ne of the most paradigmatic aspects of Jewish practice has
been the prohibition against non-kosher food in general
and pig in particular. The pig has never enjoyed a positive
reputation in Jewish tradition. The Talmud in one place
labels the pig a “walking privy (toilet)”.1 It was considered a
particularly abominable beast.2 At times when making reference to
the pig the Talmud was loath to even use the term, replacing the
word pig or swine with “something else”.3

While some of the laws of Kashrut had been introduced in previous

sections,4 the prohibition against pig is found in this week’s Parsha:

And the Lord spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying to them: ‘Speak to the
People of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which you shall eat among all
the beasts that are on the earth. What ever parts the hoof, and is cloven-
footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that shall you eat. Nevertheless
these shall you not eat, of those that chew the cud, or of those that divide the
hoof; the camel, because it chews the cud, but its hoof is not parted; it is
unclean to you. And the coney, because it chews the cud, but its hoof is not
parted; it is unclean to you. And the hare, because it chews the cud, but its
hoof is not parted; it is unclean to you. And the swine, though its hoof is
parted, and is cloven-footed, yet it chews not the cud; it is unclean to you. Of
their flesh shall you not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are
unclean to you. (Vayikra 11:1-8)5

In order for an animal to be kosher it needs both to chew its cud and
have split hooves. The Torah tell us that there are a few animals
which have only one of the two signs; these animals are deemed
unkosher. Only the pig-swine has split hooves but does not chew its
cud, and is consequently not kosher. The Talmud therefore deduces
that if an animal that is not a pig and has split hooves is ever
discovered, it may be eaten.

1
Jerusalem Talmud Brachot, Bavli Brachot 25a.
2
In two places Yishayahu called the pig an abomination: 65:4, 66:17 “Who sit on the graves, and
spend the night in vaults, who eat swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their utensils.”
“They who sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one in the midst, eating
swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, says the Lord.”
3
Pesachim 76b “Fat meat of a [ritually] slaughtered [animal] which was roasted together with lean
meat of nevela is forbidden. What is the reason? They fatten each other. But Levi maintained: Even
lean meat of a [ritually] slaughtered [animal] which was roasted together with fat meat of nevela is
permitted. What is the reason? It is a mere smell, and smell is nothing. Levi gave a practical decision
at the house of the Resh Galutha in the case of a goat and ‘something else.’
4
Particularly milk and meat, Shmot 23:19, 34:26,chelev and blood Vayikra 7:22-27.
5
The prohibition of pig is repeated in D’varim 14:1-8

1
 R. Hisda further said: If a man was walking in the desert and found an animal
with its mouth mutilated, he should examine its hoofs; if they are parted he
may be certain that it is clean, but if not he may be certain that it is unclean;
provided, however, he recognizes the swine. You admit then that there is the
swine [which is the exception to the rule]. But there might well be other
species similar to the swine? — That should not enter your mind. For a Tanna
of the school of R. Ishmael taught: It is written: And the swine because it
parteth the hoof. The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast
that parts the hoof and is unclean except the swine; therefore the verse
particularly stated ‘it’. (Chullin 59a)

It is interesting that the pig is the only animal that has these unique
traits – outwardly acceptable, but the inner analysis reveals the
deficiency. The pig therefore became synonymous with hypocrisy.6
The image of the swine presenting its split hooves as evidence of its
purity was a powerful image. Various personalities in the Bible who
were deemed by the Rabbis as hypocritical were thus described:

“And Cain went out…” Whence did he go out? R. Aibu said: It means that he
threw the words behind him and went out, like one who would deceive the
Almighty. R. Berekiah said in R. Eleazar's name: He went forth like one who
shows the cloven hoof, like one who deceives his Creator. (Midrash Rabbah
Bereishit 22:13)

Paroh7, Vashti8, and other denigrated characters were labeled as

acting or actually being like pigs. However, the major personality
who was associated with the pig was Esav9 in particular, and,
eventually, Rome in general.

…and they called his name Esav (25:25) It is for naught (shav) that I created
him in My universe. R. Isaac said: [God declared]: ' You have given a name to
your swine [Esav]; then I too will name My firstborn, as it says, ‘Thus says
the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn’ (Shmot 4, 22) (Midrash Rabbah -
Bereishit 63:8)

And when Esav was forty years old, he took for a wife Judith the daughter of
Be’eri the Hittite, and Basemat the daughter of Elon, etc. (26:34). It is written,
6
See Sefer Sha’arei Tzedek, (second gate) which associates the pig with the Tree of Knowledge of
good and evil, because it possesses traits of kosher and unkosher.
7
Paroh - Midrash Rabbah –Shmot 20:1.‘This may be compared to a swineherd, who found a ewe-lamb,
and kept it among his swine. When its owner demanded its restoration, he replied: 'I have no ewe-
lamb…’
8
Midrash Rabbah -Esther 4:5 “What shall we do... according to law” (1, 15). R. Isaac said: [To think
that] that swine is treated according to law, and a holy nation not according to law, but with barbarity!
“unto the QueenVashti.” And how much more with a queen who is not Vashti!
Rav Yonason Eibshitz explained the analogy between Vashti and the pig. Just like the pig is “kosher” in
terms of its feet, Vashti was “kosher” in her feet –in her refusal to join the depraved party. Nonetheless
she was certainly not righteous on the inside [she refused to go for the wrong reasons]. Rav Yonason
proceeds to lament the morality of the [Jewish] women and girls in his own day. Yaarot Dvash Volume
2 Drush 8.
9
The Meshech Chochma associates Esav’s personality with Rivka’s arrival on the camel. See his
comments on Bereishit 32:6

2
 ‘The swine out of the wood does ravage it, that which moves in the field feeds
on it (Tehilim 80, 14). Why does he compare it [the Roman State] to a swine?
For this reason: when the swine is Iying down it puts out its hoofs, as if to say,
'I am clean’; so does this wicked State rob and oppress, yet pretend to be
executing justice. So for forty years Esav used to ensnare married women and
violate them, yet when he attained forty years he compared himself to his
father, saying, 'As my father was forty years old when he married, so I will
marry at the age of forty.’ Hence it is written, ‘and when Esav was forty years
old, he took for a wife, etc. (Midrash Rabbah – Bereishit 65:1)

The superficiality of Esav, manifested by his “positive”, ostentatious

outward behavior, was contradicted by his spiritually barren inner
self. But it is interesting that the Midrash went a step further and
insisted that Esav was the prototype for the entire hated Roman
Empire.10

The Midrash in fact associates the various exiles with the 4 unclean
animals enumerated in our Parsha:

Moshe foresaw the empires engaged in their [subsequent] activities. [Among

the unclean animals] the camel (gamal) (11, 4) alludes to Babylon, of whom is
said, ‘O daughter of Babylon, that art to be destroyed; happy be he that
repayeth thee thy retributions (gemul) as thou hast dealt (gamalt) with us
(Tehillim 137, 8). The rock badger alludes to Media. The Rabbis and R. Judah
b. Simon gave different explanations. The Rabbis said: Just as the rock-badger
possesses marks of uncleanness and marks of cleanness, so too did Media
produce a righteous man as well as a wicked man. R. Judah b. R. Simon said:
The last Darius was the son of Esther, clean from his mother [‘s side] and
unclean from his father [‘s side]. The hare alludes to Greece; the name of the
mother of Ptolemy was [Lagos, the Greek equivalent of] hare. The swine
alludes to Seir [Edom, i.e. Rome]. Moshe mentioned [the first] three of them
in one verse, but the last [by itself] in another verse. R. Johanan and R.
Simeon b. Lakish gave explanations. R. Johanan said: Because it [i.e. the
swine] is on a par with the three others put together. R. Simeon b. Lakish said:
It is even more than that… Moshe said: And the swine (hazir) because it parts
the hoof, and is cloven footed, but chews not the cud, he is unclean to you (11,
7). Why is it [i.e. Edom or Rome] compared to a ’hazir’ [swine or boar]? To
tell you this: Just as the swine, when reclining, puts forth its hooves as if to
say: See that I am clean, so too does the empire of Edom [Rome] boast as it
commits violence and robbery, under the guise of establishing a judicial
tribunal. This may be compared to a governor who put to death the thieves,
adulterers, and sorcerers. He leaned over to an advisor and said: ‘I myself did
these three things in one night.’ (Midrash Rabbah – Vayikra 13:5)

The comparison of the various animals to different empires is

intriguing. On the one hand, the relative length of the Roman exile
would justify the separate verse.11 On the other hand this
10
The pig was one of the symbols used by the Romans themselves to represent their empire.
11
There was an incredible amount of enmity directed toward the Roman Empire, under whose rule
most of the Talmudic authorities lived. This is especially true due to the Hadryonic persecutions and

3
association can help explain a fascinating tradition. Various
authorities have mentioned a teaching that in the messianic age the
pig will become kosher. The ultimate symbol of treif becoming
acceptable would surely be a sign that the eschatological age has
begun.12

The source of the tradition is related to the etymology of the word

pig- the Hebrew is chazir, which has the root chet zayin resh. This
root implies return, as if to say that one day the pig will return.

Another interpretation: ‘The camel’ is an allusion to Babylon; ‘which is

ma’aleh gerah’, i.e. which brought in its train (garar) another empire to
follow it. The hare is an allusion to Media; ‘which is ma’aleh gerah’, i. e.
which brought in its train (garar) another empire to follow it. ‘The rock-
badger’ is an allusion to Greece; ‘which is ma’aleh gerah’, i.e. which brought
in its train (garar) another empire to follow it. ‘The swine is an allusion to
Edom [Rome]; ‘which is not ma’aleh gerah,’ i.e. which will not bring in its
train (garar) another empire to follow it. And why is the last-named called
’hazir’ [i.e. swine or boar]? Because it will yet restore (hazar) the crown to
its [rightful] owner. This is indicated by what is written, ‘And saviors shall
come up on Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esav; and the kingdom shall be
the Lord's (Ovadia 21).13

executions: Midrash Rabbah - Vayikra 13:5 The swine alludes to Edom [Rome]. It treats not a
stranger with the treatment due to a stranger [a play on the word gera, meaning cud, here implying
stranger from the same root- ger], in that it does not exalt righteous men, and is not content with not
exalting them, but slays them. This is alluded to in what is written, ‘I was wroth with My people, I
profaned My inheritance, and gave them into your hand; you did show them no mercy; upon the aged
you very heavily laid thy yoke (Yishayahu 47, 6).-- This refers to R. Akiba and his colleagues.
12
Sefer Sha’arei Tzedek, (second gate), Rav Tzadok Hakohen, Machshavot Charutz chapter 11.
13
A similar idea is conveyed in another Midrash: Midrash Rabbah - Kohelet I:28
“Tthat which has been is that which shall be” (I, 9) Once [the Roman] government dispatched a
message to our Rabbis, saying, ' Send us one of your torches.’ They said, ‘They possess ever so many
torches and they want one torch from us! (What multitudes of torches they have; what abundance of
precious stones and pearls!) It seems to us that they want of us nothing else than somebody who
enlightens faces with legal decisions.’
They sent R. Meir to them, and they asked him many questions, all of which he answered. Finally they
asked him why the pig is called [in Hebrew] ‘hazir’, and he replied, ‘Because it is destined to restore
(lehahazir) the sovereignty to its owners.’ R. Meir continued to sit and expound: A time will come when
the wolf will have a fleece of fine wool and the dog a coat of ermine. They said to him, ‘Enough R.
Meir! There is nothing new under the sun.’
The Rabbis say: In the Hereafter the Holy One, blessed be He, will send forth a herald to announce,
Whoever has not partaken of swine's flesh in his lifetime, let him come and take his reward’; and many
who belonged to the Gentile peoples who never partook of swine's flesh will come to receive their
reward. At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, will declare, ' These wish to be rewarded in both
worlds. Not enough for them that they enjoyed their world [upon earth], but they also seek to enjoy the
world of My children!’ At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, will send forth a herald a second time
to announce, 'Whoever has not partaken of the flesh of animals not ritually slaughtered or of animals
disqualified for food or of the animals and reptiles prohibited by the Torah, [let him come and receive
his reward.’ But there were none, apart from Israel, because] if [a Gentile] had not partaken of the
flesh of such animals which belonged to himself he did so of animals which belonged to another.
Hence, why is the pig called ‘hazir’? Because it is destined to restore greatness and sovereignty to
those to whom they are due.
It is particularly interesting that Rav Meir was the one who was sent: The Talmud tells us that he
possessed the ability to argue why the “unclean was clean”. (Eruvin 13b)

4
Babylon, Persia, and Greece all followed one after the other.
Immediately following the Greek domination of Israel the Roman
domination and exile followed. The Romans, synonymous with the
Christian world, have not been replaced. The Midrash, though,
stresses that the word chazir implies return. This Midrash predicts
the return of the Land of Israel to its rightful owner after a long
exile. What the Midrash does not say, is that the pig itself, the very
symbol of that exile, would itself return. Rather, Esav the ultimate
wayward son,14 and his outwardly righteous spiritual descendants,
will one-day return. Perhaps this is all the Midrash wished to convey,
yet the return itself is predicated on the word chazir.

The problem with the pig becoming kosher, is the basic tenet of
Judaism that the Torah is unchanging, and no person, even a
Prophet, has the right to add or subtract from the Torah. While the
messianic age does possess some degree of mystery, it seems
difficult to disregard the Torah. Many medieval sages, particularly
Rav Sa’adya Gaon and the Rambam, were adamant on this issue.15

There is another way to reconcile the two seemingly opposing

positions, of the immutability of Torah and the pig becoming kosher
in the messianic age: The pig can change. A number of authorities,
including Rav Menachim Azarya DeFano, Rav Chaim Ibn Attar,16 and
the Chatam Sofer, suggested that the pig will undergo what may be
called an evolutionary process and develop a cud, rendering it
kosher!17

If the pig can change and become kosher, and cease to be a symbol
of hypocrisy and evil, certainly the peoples who have been
compared to the pig can undergo a fundamental change and return
to the inherent good with which G-d endowed every man.

R. Aha b. Hanina said: It is revealed and known before Him Who spoke and the world came into
existence, that in the generation of R. Meir there was none equal to him; then why was not the
halachah fixed in agreement with his views? Because his colleagues could not fathom the depths of his
mind, for he would declare the ritually unclean to be clean and supply plausible proof, and the ritually
clean to be unclean and also supply plausible proof.
14
See Kiddushin 18a.
15
It is interesting that to various degrees Christianity, Shabbatism, and the Frankists all abrogated
commandments in the belief that the messianic age had begun. Yet the position that the Torah will lose
its validity is elusive. There are sources that speak of various holidays losing their meaning or
significance, yet the disappearance of all commandments is not found. There are Midrashim that speak
of the Messiah teaching new commandments, and other Midrashim which have G-d explaining the
Torah, not replacing it-- specifically referring to the prohibition of pig. Otzar Midrashim Eisenstien
page 84. This tradition is recorded in Seder Rav Amram Gaon (on the section of Kaddish).
16
Or HaChaim HaKadosh Vayikra 11:7. Rav Kasher, in Torah Shleymah on the verse, brings more
sources, which may be found in Avraham Korman’s HaParsha L’doroteha 264-267.
17
See Responsa of the Radvaz volume 2 #828, where he speaks of an angel named “Chazriel”. See
Mal’achei Elyon by Reuven Margoliot page 231 for more on this “Angel”.

5
© Rabbi Ari Kahn 1999