Shemini: How Heretics Explain Kosher Species

What is the rationale for kashrut, in particular avoiding certain non-kosher species? We might say that it a chok, a decree of the King, such that we don’t know the reason. There might be deep spiritual / kabbalistic meanings which I don’t know. The specific species might be arbitrary, as a gezeirat hamelech, where it reinforces separation from surrounding culture and people, and reinforces self-control. Regardless, that’s not the purpose of this post.

Rather, I want to understand the Rashbam, and whether Eliyahu Munk’s translation is accurate.

In parashat Shemini, Vayikra 11:3 reads:

כֹּ֣ל ׀ מַפְרֶ֣סֶת פַּרְסָ֗ה וְשֹׁסַ֤עַת שֶׁ֙סַע֙ פְּרָסֹ֔ת מַעֲלַ֥ת גֵּרָ֖ה בַּבְּהֵמָ֑ה אֹתָ֖הּ תֹּאכֵֽלוּ׃

any animal that has true hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and that chews the cud—such you may eat.

Rashbam writes:

ושסעת שסע - מובדלת הפרסה לשנים ולא פרסה אחת שלימה כסוס וחמור. ולפי פשוטו של מקרא ותשובת המינים: כל הבהמות והחיות והעופות הדגים ומיני ארבה ושרצים שאמר הקב"ה לישראל מאוסים הם ומקלקלים ומחממים את הגוף ולפיכך נקראו טמאים. ואף רופאים מובהקים אומרים כן. ואף בתלמוד עכו"ם שאוכלים שקצים ורמשים חבול גופייהו.

And Eliyahu Munk’s translation is:

ושסעת שסע, the hoof being completely split into two parts, unlike the hoof of a horse or donkey which is all in one piece. According to the plain meaning of the text and the opinion of the heretics all the domesticated beasts, free roaming beasts, birds and fish and certain types of locusts and other creeping creatures that G’d has outlawed for consumption by Jews is due to the fact that they cause excessive heat in our bodies when eaten, affecting our health detrimentally, and therefore they are called טמאים, impure. There is support for this theory also among physicians. Even in the Talmud (Shabbat 86) the opinion is offered that gentiles who do consume these creeping creatures damage their bodies thereby.

I would translate slightly differently, starting with the words ולפי פשוטו של מקרא:

And according to the simple meaning, and as a refutation to the heretics: all the domesticated and wild animals, birds and fish, and species of locust and creeping creatures which Hashem detailed to Israel are disgusting and harmful, and heat up the body; and therefore they are called “impure”. And even the expert doctors say so. And even in the Talmud, the idolators who eat various creeping creates thereby increase their body temperature (Shabbat 86b).

For the “body temperature”, I just followed Rashi ad loc., as well as Soncino and Steinsaltz. This makes sense because in Avodah Zarah 31b, it is the חֲבִיל גּוּפַיְיהוּ that counteracts snake venom. We could debate whether this is how Rashbam understands it. I think Munk’s rendition is better in context, matching harm rather than heat.

On to the more central question: Does תשובת המינים mean “the opinion of the heretics,” as Eliyahu Munk rendered it, or a “refutation to the heretics”, as I wrote it? It classically means a refutation, as we see in Bava Batra 91a, that we can tell heretics that Jewish tradition indeed knows the name of these women — indeed, Rashbam himself there explains it as a refutation; or Rashi on Bereishit 1:26, where the heretics claim naaseh adam means a plural God but the refutation of the heretics is at it’s side. Similarly, Rashi to Bereishit 6:6, in order to refute heretics / teshuvat hamimin, quotes Bereishit Rabba about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha’s refutation. Other meforshim use it similarly. I haven’t really seen it have any other meaning.

I would guess that some of Eliyahu Munk’s love-hate relationship with Rashbam is at play. He sees value in the work, but as we’ve seen, he still considers a lot of it kefira / heresy and in need of censorship or fixing. This is particularly when it comes to Rashbam’s brand of radical peshat.

Thus, the phrase ולפי פשוטו של מקרא ותשובת המינים rolls off Eliyahu Monk’s pen as “According to the plain meaning of the text and the opinion of the heretics”, because this peshat is quite often, in his view, the opinion of the heretics.

Note that Rashbam on Torah uses this term teshuvat haminim elsewhere, in Devarim, about shiluach haken and its relationship to lo tevashel gedi. Thus, on Devarim 22:6, Rashbam writes (with Eliyahu Munk’s translation):

לא תקח האם על הבנים - לפי דרך ארץ ולתשובת המינים כבר פירשתי בלא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו. וכן: באותו ואת בנו, שדומה לאכזריות ורעבתנות לקחת ולשחוט ולבשל ולאכול אם ובנים יחד.

לא תקח האם על הבנים, I have already elaborated on this verse in connection with the prohibition to boil the young in the milk of its mother (Exodus 23,19) Similar considerations are valid in connection with the prohibition of אותו ואת בנו. The practices, if carried out, look as if the person carrying it out is insensitive, cruel by nature, and is so anxious to satisfy his palate that all considerations of feelings of others are of no concern to him.

Note that Eliyahu Munk was likely perplexed about how to render the phrase “according to derech eretz and teshuvat haminim” in that instance, and so leaves it untranslated. Lo Tevashel appears famously three times, but if Shemot 23:19 is indeed the place Rashbam discussed it, then he wrote:

לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו - דרך העזים ללדת שני גדיים יחד. ורגילים היו לשחוט אחד מהם ומתוך שרוב חלב בעזים. כדכתיב: ודי חלב עזים ללחמך וגו', היו רגילים לבשלו בחלב האם ולפי ההווה דבר הכתוב. וגנאי הוא הדבר ובליעה ורעבתנות לאכול חלב האם עם הבנים. ודוגמא זו: באותו ואת בנו ושילוח הקן. ללמדך דרך תרבות צוה הכתוב ולפי שברגל היו אוכלים בהמות הרבה, הזהיר בפרשת רגלים שלא לבשל ולא לאכול גדי בחלב אמו. והוא הדין לכל בשר בחלב כמו שפירשו רבותינו בשחיטת חולין.

לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, it is usual for goats to give birth to two kids at the same time, and it was customary for people to slaughter one of them right away. Seeing that mother goats have an abundance of milk (expecting to nurse at least two young kids) they used the excess milk to boil the young kid in after it had been slaughtered. (Proverbs 27,27 “the goat’s milk will suffice for your food, the food of your household and the maintenance of your maids.”) It is something distasteful, revolting, something akin to gluttony, to consume the mother’s milk together with the young animal that this milk was intended to nourish. We find a parallel in the legislation not to slaughter mother animal and her young on the same day, as well as the prohibition not to take the young chicks while the mother bird is present. (Leviticus 22,25 and Deuteronomy 22,6-7) The Torah teaches you these matters as a matter of elementary culture, i.e. respecting life. Seeing that on the festivals many animals are consumed, the Torah included this legislation in the paragraph dealing with other aspects of these festivals. If the consuming of these animals is prohibited under such circumstances, how much more so are mixture of milk and meat prohibited as discussed in Chulin 113.

I’ve discussed that particular Rashbam about lo tevashel and Eliyahu Munk’s translation in the past. In particular, he frums it up by introducing a kal vachomer which Rashbam never made; indeed, a kal vachomer that doesn’t make sense.

Regardless, we’d have to think what makes Rashbam categorize this as teshuvat haminim, as opposed to the words of the heretics themselves. Further, we should see if there is a kinship to his teshuvat haminim in our local text in Shemini. I can see in both a reading of the novel peshat idea into something Chazal said, either in Chullin or Shabbat. Thus, perhaps there’s the idea, like the names of non-named Biblical characters, that they knew this. In both, there is a non-mystical, rational reason which is for people’s benefit, either in the realm of the physical or spiritual / personality traits.

My strong guess is that the heretics in question don’t advance the same explanation that Rashbam does. For each instance, we should try to figure out what the heretics said and how its character differs from Rashbam’s explanation, even as Rashbam is giving a naturalistic explanation.

So, for lo tevashel, I think we know the heretics’ alternative. As Ibn Ezra describes it, the Karaites felt that lo tevashel meant ripening and it referred to fruit, not to animals. Anything animal related was metaphorical. If so, an animal-based explanation close approximates the halacha and derasha, and is a refutation of the heretics.

I am not sure what the heretics, especially those Rashbam was exposed to, would say about the list of kosher and non-kosher species. If I had to guess, how about that these are arbitrary cultural taboos, rather than grounded in spirituality or actual physical or emotional health. People in a specific region were accustomed to eating specific domesticated animals, but icky things like lizards or cockroaches are disgusting. And then, the religion took those taboos and made them God’s command. In contrast, Rashbam says that there is actual benefit to these choices, and that they were commanded with aforethought to accomplish those aims. That would be a good teshuvat haminim.