1. These laws appear in several places earlier in the Torah and are presented here in a single place (see Deut. 12:16, 21, 23-25, Lev. 11).
2. Identity of some animals is uncertain and some translations are educated guesses (as noted in JPS).
3. Limitations on diet are fundamental to human way of life dating back to Eden.
4. Dietary practices as imitatio dei. Purpose of dietary code is to achieve holiness; "...G-d created order in the world by establishing distinctions, and that Israel emulates His acts as creator by by respecting the distinctions He established between the pure and the impure" (Tigay 137).
5. The claim that certain animals are banned due to hygienic reasons is groundless (other cultures eat them and are healthy).
6. Holiness is maintained by adhering not to human standards of consumption, but divine standards (138).
7. Dietary laws curb Israel's freedom of action and therefore are understood as expression of submission to G-d's authority.
(ג) לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל כׇּל־תּוֹעֵבָֽה׃
וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה (בראשית כו, לד), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים פ, יד): יְכַרְסְמֶנָּה חֲזִיר מִיָּעַר, רַבִּי פִּינְחָס בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי סִימוֹן, מִכָּל הַנְּבִיאִים לֹא פִּרְסְמוּהָ אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם, משֶׁה וְאָסָף. משֶׁה אָמַר (דברים יד, ח): וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר כִּי מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא. אָסָף אָמַר, יְכַרְסְמֶנָּה חֲזִיר מִיָּעַר. לָמָּה הוּא מוֹשְׁלָהּ בַּחֲזִיר, אֶלָּא מָה חֲזִיר הַזֶּה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא רוֹבֵץ הוּא מְפַשֵׁט אֶת טְלָפָיו כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאֲנִי טָהוֹר, כָּךְ מַלְכוּת הַזֹּאת הָרְשָׁעָה גּוֹזֶלֶת וְחוֹמֶסֶת נִרְאֵת כְּאִלּוּ מַצַּעַת אֶת הַבִּימָה.
“Esau was forty years old, and he took as a wife Yehudit, daughter of Be'eri the Hitite, and Basmat, daughter of Elon the Hitite” (Genesis 26:34).
“Esau was forty years old” – that is what is written: “The swine from the forest gnaws at it” (Psalms 80:14). Rabbi Pinḥas in the name of Rabbi Simon: Of all the prophets, only two of them publicized it – Moses and Asaf. Moses said: “The pig because it has a split hoof” (Deuteronomy 14:8). Asaf said: “The swine from the forest gnaws at it.” Why does he analogize it to a pig? Just as this pig, when it lies, it extends its hooves, saying: ‘I am pure,’ so, this evil empire [i.e. Rome] robs and takes forcibly, [yet] it appears as though it is arranging the courtroom.
"Virtually all the forbidden winged creatures are birds of prey or scavengers. Halakhic exegesis identified four characteristics as common to them all: they lack crops, they lack an extra toe on the back of the foot, the sac in their gizzards cannot be peeled off, and they tear their prey" (Tigay 139).
כל עוף תאכלו ALL CLEAN FOWLS, YOU MAY EAT — but not (as is implied by these words) the unclean. Scripture intends, by this statement, to attach to the negative command which forbids unclean fowls (v. 12), a positive one which implicitly contains a prohibition. And similarly, when in the case of clean cattle it states, (v. 6) “that you may eat”, it implies: not, however, the unclean ones. Now a prohibition which is not plainly expressed but can only be drawn by inference from a positive command, is itself regarded only as a positive command, so that one who eats such food transgresses thereby not two negative commands, but a positive and a negative command (Sifrei Devarim 101:10; and cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:3).
Whenever a person cooks an olive-sized portion of the two substances together, he is worthy of lashes, as [Exodus 23:19] states: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Similarly, a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat and milk that were cooked together is worthy of lashes even though he was not the one who cooked them.