Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
ARTICLES
Other impure animals, which have no sign of purity, from where do I derive their prohibition? You can say a kal vachomer [that is, an a fortiori argument] to derive their prohibition [from the prohibition in the Written Law of animals with one sign of purity].
--Rashi1
This kal va-chomer, however, is [merely used] to reveal the existing [Oral] [L]aw.
--Maimonides2
[A]ny animal [with no sign of purity] is covered by this prohibition [in the Written Law of animals with one sign of purity], and there is no need for a kal vachomer derivation [or for ascribing it to the Oral Law] at all.
--Nahmanides3
INTRODUCTION
This article discusses the answers given to a question of kashrut, or Jewish dietary law, by three medieval Jewish sages: Rashi, Maimonides, and Nahmanides. In doing so, it sheds light on the influence exercised on these sages by Muslim and Christian philosophers. The question of kashrut is why eating horse meat--and, more generally, the meat of any mammal that neither has split hooves nor chews its cud--subjects Jews to corporal punishment. The Torah expressly allows the consumption of mammals that have hooves that are completely split in two halves from front to back and that also regurgitate partially digested food from their stomachs into their mouths for further breakdown via chewing, such as cattle, sheep, or goats. It also expressly forbids the consumption of mammals that have split hooves but do not chew their cud, such as pigs, or that chew their cud but do not have split hooves, such as camels. However, the Torah does not appear to expressly forbid the consumption of mammals that lack both of these signs of purity, such as horses. Why, then, does eating horse meat subject Jews to punishment?
The problem may initially seem to be a trivial one: If the consumption of mammals that lack only one sign of purity subjects Jews to punishment, all the more should the consumption of mammals that lack both signs of purity subject Jews to punishment. This is, in essence, the ḳal ṿahomer logic--or a fortiori argument--employed first by sages of the Talmudic era and later by Rashi (the name...