English translation — ראה ג

1.

On the verse¹

"You shall not eat any abomination" Rashi explains: any abomination — anything that I have made abhorrent to you, such as piercing the ear of a firstborn in order to slaughter it in the provinces, behold it is a thing that I have made abhorrent to you; any blemish shall not be in it²

And it comes to teach here that one should not slaughter and eat on account of that blemish

(And afterwards Rashi brings a second example of

"cooking meat in milk",

as below p. __).

That is,

that the meaning of "You shall not eat any abomination" is — that if an action was done to an item which "I have made abhorrent to you",

which the Torah has forbidden to do — then "you shall not eat",

the item becomes forbidden for eating³.

And the reason why Rashi does not learn that the verse "Lo s'khal kol toeivah" is a general introduction to the section of forbidden foods<sup>4</sup>

and "kol toeivah" refers to the forbidden foods,

that they are "abhorrent to the pure soul"<sup>5</sup>

— is<sup>6</sup>

Because,

as discussed several times<sup>7</sup>,

that wherever possible,

one must teach that the Torah intends to state a new command and law

(and not to say,

that the command comes only to add another prohibition and warning to an explicit command<sup>8</sup>),

And therefore Rashi learns that "Lo s'khal kol toeivah" is <b>innovating</b> <b>a</b> <b>new</b> type of prohibition of eating

(which is not known from previous verses)

— "Whatever I have abhorred to you" is forbidden in eating,

and as Rashi infers in the continuation of his commentary — "And it comes and teaches here that one should not slaughter and eat."

2.

One must however understand the example that Rashi gives of "he tore the ear of a firstborn [animal]":

Since the "matter that I abhorred for you" in our case is the abomination of "any blemish shall not be in it",

which does not speak only about a firstborn,

but about every "peace-offering" — why does Rashi bring the example specifically from "he tore the ear of a firstborn"

(and especially since this is not a common and usual thing⁹)?

— Rashi could have said in a general way¹⁰

: such as one who places a blemish on consecrated animals¹¹.

The question is even greater: the source of Rashi is in the Sifri on the verse¹,

but there two opinions are brought: "Rabbi Eliezer says: From where [do we derive] that one who cuts the ear of a firstborn [animal] and eats from it transgresses a negative commandment? The verse states: 'You shall not eat any abomination,'

Others say: The verse speaks of disqualified consecrated animals."

Commentators¹²

explain,

that according to the view of "Others," "cutting the ear of a firstborn" is not included in the category of "You shall not eat any abomination" — since a firstborn with a blemish is permitted for eating without redemption,

therefore it is not an abominable thing; rather, specifically disqualified consecrated animals that first require redemption to permit them for eating,

are they in the category of "abomination" and are therefore forbidden for eating.

It is not understood: Why does Rashi bring the example of "he tore the ear of a firstborn"

(and thereby decides — according to the plain meaning of Scripture<sup>13</sup>

— in accordance with the opinion of R. Eliezer<sup>14</sup>),

and does not say the simpler and more general example of "disqualified consecrated animals"

(or bring only the second example "cooking meat in milk"<sup>15</sup>)?

3.

Also one must understand the lengthiness of Rashi's language in the example,

for ostensibly Rashi could have said briefly<sup>16</sup>

"such as he tore the ear of a firstborn, behold a thing that I have forbidden to you, any blemish shall not be in it, and it came and taught here that it shall not be eaten."

Why does Rashi add:

a)

"in order to slaughter it in the province"¹⁷

— what is the practical difference that the intention of the person at the time of cutting the ear of the firstborn was "in order to slaughter it in the province"?

Even when one did not intend "to slaughter it in the province," one nevertheless performed a "matter that I have abhorred for you" — "any blemish shall not be in it"¹⁸.

b)

(And come and learn in)

"that he should not slaughter and eat" — why does Rashi need to add the word "yishchat"¹⁹?

c)

From Rashi's conclusion "on that same blemish" it is implied,

that Rashi intends to be precise,

that specifically "on that same blemish" he should not slaughter,

but "if another blemish developed in it — he may slaughter on account of it"²⁰.

It is not understood:

(a)

What is the necessity in the plain meaning of Scripture that a second blemish removes the prohibition of eating that had been placed upon the firstborn by virtue of "Do not eat any abominable thing"²¹?

Or because a blemish was newly born in the animal, another blemish,

is thereby nullified the "abomination" that had been created in it through the infliction of the blemish in a prohibited manner?

(b)

Even if one will find an explanation in this — it is still not understood: what is the practical difference in the plain sense of Scripture whether the prohibition of eating remains forever,

or only until "another blemish was born in it"?

Rashi's commentary is not a book of halachic rulings that needs to inform how the matter is according to law.

d.

Further Rashi gives a second example of "a thing that I abhorred to you" — "cooking meat in milk, behold a thing that I abhorred to you and He warned here about its eating."

is perplexing

(as the commentators²²

ask)

: Rashi already

(twice²³)

explained that "in three places it is written in the Torah²⁴

(the commandment of "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk")

one for prohibition of eating and one for prohibition of benefit and one for prohibition of cooking" — why does one need a separate negative commandment for the prohibition of eating it,

when it is also forbidden by virtue of the negative commandment of "You shall not eat any abomination"?

The source of this Rashi's commentary

("cooking meat in milk etc.")

is in the Gemara²⁵

— "From where is meat in milk that it is forbidden in eating? It is said: 'You shall not eat any abomination'" — but there are two opinions there

(one opinion derives it from "You shall not eat any abomination",

and a second opinion²⁶

from that which "You shall not cook etc." is stated three times)

— how then does Rashi adopt both teachings and opinions?

Commentators²⁷

answer,

that the prohibition of "You shall not eat any abomination" does not obligate lashes,

because it is a general prohibition for which one is not lashed; therefore one needs the specific prohibition of "You shall not cook" regarding eating meat and milk.

However,

the answer is appropriate²⁸

in the study according to the halachah,

but it is difficult to explain in this way the intent of Rashi in his commentary on the Torah²⁹

- one does not find that Rashi brings in his commentary on the Torah the principle that one is not lashed for a general prohibition.

5.

Seemingly, one could answer that this is in the manner that Rashi says in several places³⁰

that the Torah adds a prohibition in order "to transgress upon it with two prohibitions"

(and similar)

— and along these lines in our case,

that regarding eating meat and milk one transgresses two prohibitions.

— Based on this, one could also explain the change in Rashi's language: In the first example Rashi says "And it came and taught here that he should not slaughter and eat,"

whereas regarding "cooking meat in milk" he changes and says "and it warned here about its eating"

(not — "and taught here that it is forbidden in eating" and the like),

Because by "the firstborn of an ass" the prohibition of eating is learned from here

("Come and learn here that he should not slaughter and eat")

; but not so with meat in milk where the prohibition of its eating we already know from earlier

(from that which it says three times "you shall not cook"),

and here it is only that which comes to a warning—"and he warned here about its eating".

But this is not a sufficient excuse,

because³¹

א)

Finally, Rashi indeed emphasizes "and he warned here about its eating,"

and from this it is implied that the warning is "here" — not that another warning was added here.

ב)

And furthermore, and mainly: Rashi's intention in his commentary on "You shall not eat any abomination" is

(as above section a)

to bring out that the verse comes to teach a novelty,

a new law and prohibition that does not appear elsewhere — it is fitting to bring on it an example of a prohibition in which the verse here does not [teach] any novel law,

but it merely adds a second negative commandment,

"to transgress upon it with two negative commandments"?

6.

And it can be said the explanation in all this:

Rashi comes to warn a wonder in the words "You shall not eat any abomination" by themselves: Since here it speaks about matters which the verse itself describes as ,

"abomination"

(not specifying which they are)

— that is,

that it is a known thing

(from another place)

that they are a matter of abomination³²

— is not clear what the verse does with the warning "You shall not eat any abomination": Since they are "abomination" it is understood that they must be "abhorred" — one may not eat them?

One must say,

that the verse means a special type in "abomination",

without the command "You shall not eat etc." one would not know that it is forbidden to eat,

and specifically from the warning "You shall not eat any abomination" — every manner of "abomination" — one learns that also such an "abomination" is forbidden to eat.

And this is what Rashi innovates immediately at the beginning of his commentary "Any abomination — anything that I have made abominable to you",

that the emphasis in this is the word "

(I have made abominable)

to you": the abomination is not in the thing — but in relation to the person,

"I have made abominable to you".

That is: this does not mean the verse simply forbidden foods which are abominable things in themselves

(and that they are forbidden only for Jews and not for Bnei Noach,

is because also an abominable thing<sup>33</sup>

the Torah did not forbid to a Ben Noach<sup>32</sup>)

Rather here the verse establishes a new definition — that there are things which "I have abhorred to you": the "abhorrence" is only "to you" — in relation to the "person",

but not that the thing itself is an abominable thing.

Also these things — although they are not abominable things — are "you shall not eat".

the Torah continues "you shall not eat any abomination" — "anything that I have abhorred for you",

that the abomination is only from the aspect of the superiority of Israel,

as "a holy people ..

to the Lord your God etc."].

7.

On this Rashi brings the first example — "such as tearing the ear of a firstborn" — and does not simply say "causing a blemish in consecrated animals" —

Because specifically by a firstborn it is emphasized that from the "thing" itself there is no abomination³⁵

(and the abomination is only from the person)

By all holy things,

where a blemish disqualifies the animal for the altar,

the animal nevertheless remains holy until one redeems it.

The existence of disqualified holy things

(before redemption)

is a forbidden thing

("abominable")

from the perspective of the object itself

(specifically through redemption does it become permitted for eating).

However, a firstborn with a blemish,

since it is permitted for eating

(without redemption),

it turns out

that in its existence there is no abominable thing.

The deficiency

("abomination")

here is only from the perspective of the person,

who has

(through inflicting the blemish)

removed from the firstborn the sanctity of being fit for the altar³⁶

(but even afterward the firstborn with a blemish is not an abominable thing).

And only from this side,

that placing a blemish on the firstborn is "a thing that I have abhorred to you" — it becomes forbidden to eat*³⁶.

And with this one will also understand why Rashi:

a)

He specifically uses the example of "boring the ear of the firstborn" — and not another blemish — because with this Rashi emphasizes that there was not created here

(through the infliction of the blemish)

any abominable thing in the firstborn,

even not in a physical sense literally.

Because boring the ear is not a blemish that damages in any way whatsoever the animal and its functions,

And on the contrary: the matter of boring the ear is a thing that is customary and common even among human beings³⁷.

b)

Rashi adds "in order to slaughter it in the country" — with this Rashi rejects further,

that even the pain of,

and if the animal has from the boring of the ear cannot be considered as an undesirable thing,

because he does it "in order to slaughter it": if because of human consumption one does not take into account the pain of the animal in its slaughter,

then all the more so that there is no place to take into account the minimal pain of boring the ear,

if through this the animal will be able to be used for human consumption.

8.

Based on this, the conclusion of Rashi's language will also be correct: "And it came here to teach that he should not slaughter and eat [it] on account of that blemish."

Since in the animal there is no "abomination" — it is only that "I have abhorred you,"

the Torah prohibited the man to do this, and therefore "you shall not eat" — so the prohibition "you shall not eat"

(according to the simple explanation)

is only upon the man who transgressed that "I have abhorred you."

But not so regarding others,

where by them the forbidden action was not present — and the thing itself is not an abominable thing — there is no prohibition of eating.

And this Rashi is precise:

a)

"And it came and taught here that he should not slaughter and eat" — not that the firstborn became forbidden to eat,

but it is only a prohibition on the person who "tore the ear of the firstborn in order to slaughter it",

that "

(he)

should not slaughter

(as he wanted)

and eat".

b)

"on that blemish" — why the firstborn did not become forbidden for eating and it is not an abominable thing,

it is only that on the one who slit the ear of the firstborn there is a prohibition to slaughter it,

due to his forbidden action — so that his thought "he slit the ear etc. in order to slaughter it" should be fulfilled

(which only due to this is it "I have abhorred it for you")

— it is therefore understandable,

that if another blemish was born in it,

and from the animal the sanctity of the firstborn has been voided in any case

(for the altar/ there is no place for the prohibition due to "all that I have abhorred for you",

since that even without his forbidden action the animal is fit for eating.

9.

Based on all this, the second example of Rashi is simply explained — "cooking meat in milk etc.":

Rashi is precise in his language "cooked meat in milk etc." — not like the language of the Gemara "From where [do we derive] that meat in milk is forbidden in eating" — because according to Rashi's method

(in his commentary on the Torah,

the plain meaning of the verse)

the entire prohibition of "You shall not eat any abomination" is only a matter related to the person who transgressed and performed a forbidden action

(even when in the object there is no matter of abomination)

And likewise in our matter: the prohibition of eating meat in milk which is derived from "You shall not eat any abomination" is not connected to the substance of the food,

but with the person who transgressed and cooked the meat in milk,

that because of his forbidden action the food became prohibited to him with an additional prohibition in its eating

("You shall not eat any abomination"³⁸).

But not so other Jews,

who did not transgress the prohibition of "cooking meat in milk",

are not prohibited in this from the aspect of "You shall not eat any abomination",

but only from the aspect that three times it is written in the Torah "You shall not cook a kid".

And this is what Rashi precisely notes: "cooking meat in milk ..

and it warned here about its eating" — from this verse we derive a special warning

("and it warned here")

to that which "cooked meat in milk",

since he did a "thing that I abhor to you".

What this brings out

(as above)

even more the virtue of Jews,

that they are "a holy nation to the Lord" and in them "the Lord has chosen to be His treasured people from among all the nations that are upon the earth."

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5744)