Weekly Torah Study: Shemini 2025/5785

after the Israelites had divested themselves of their spiritual jewelry which they had acquired at Mount Sinai when receiving the Torah, something which if they had been able to retain it, would have given them direct access to the Shechinah without the need for an intermediary, as stated by G’d in the wordsבכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבא אליך וברכתיך, “in any place where I hear My name mentioned I will come to you and bless you, (Exodus 20,24) a change had now occurred due to the people’s sin at the golden calf. G’d stated that the purpose of the Tabernacle was for Him to take up residence therein so that His essence should not feel disgust at the Jewish people. (Leviticus 26,11). Unfortunately, the golden calf episode had brought about a cardinal change in G’d’s relationship with the people so that He would not allow His Presence to dwell among them even briefly, refused to accompany them on their journey (Exodus 33,3) By means of his lengthy prayers Moses accomplished some improvement in this relationship of G’d to the Israelites by means of the Tabernacle and its furnishings, the priests performing service there, etc. Finally, the people attained the state of grace described as וירא כבוד יהוה אל כל העם, “the glory of the Lord appeared to the whole people.” (Leviticus 9,23.) This manifestation of the “glory of the Lord” was the descent of fire from heaven to devour the offerings of the people in the Tabernacle. A way had now been found to refine the character of the people in attitudes and by application of their intelligence so that they would qualify for eternal life (life after death of the body). The method chosen for this was the refinement of the foods eaten by the people. G’d forbade consumption of the kinds of foodstuffs which exert –over a period of time- a negative influence on the people’s character and their intelligence. This is spelled out by the Torah in verse 43 of our chapter where the rationale of the legislation is אל תשקצו בנפשותיכם, another way of saying “do not contaminate your souls.” This is only the effect of observing the negative commandment not to eat forbidden things. There is a positive aspect to this legislation also called והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים “if you will sanctify yourselves you will remain holy.” (Leviticus 15,31). - Sforno

the first Adam was not commanded, because it was revealed to the Holy One, blessed be He, that he could not remain obedient to many commandments; as behold, he was commanded [only] one commandment, and he did not persevere with it. But in the case of Israel, when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them many commandments, they observed them. He therefore expanded the Torah and commandments for them, and said to them (in Lev. 11:2-7), “These are the creatures that you may eat…. These, however, you may not eat…: the camel […]; the rock badger […]; the hare […]; and the pig.” (Midrash Tanchuma Shmini 8:3)

**Here the Midrash explains the reason for the food commandments -- more opportunities to serve God, to keep the covenant

“all that has fins and scales, it you may eat.” The reason why these distinguishing features make fish “pure” is that fish which possess these features always make their habitat in the upper parts of the sea or rivers. The waters there are clear and absorb a certain amount of daylight and sunshine. This influences their growth and development. The scales are for fish what hair and wool are for mammals, helping them retain warmth. Fish which lack these features make their habitat in lower layers of the water being exposed to the darkness prevailing there and the murkiness of the waters. They have no protection against these negative influences prevailing in their habitat. (based on the writings of Nachmanides). [The reader is aware of the speculative nature of these comments, especially at a time when the authors did not know of such phenomena as the gulf-stream and other “streams” some warm some cold, which are present in different parts of the oceans. Ed.] - Rabbenu Bahya

**Bahya 'speculates' about why fins & scales are the qualities for permitted aquatic life

The Letter of Aristeas: Allegorizing the Laws in the Hellenistic Period

The Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates, can be found in the Pseudepigrapha (ancient Jewish writings not included in the Tanach or the Catholic Old Testament). The author of the letter claims to be Aristeas, a servant in the court of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 BCE). He writes to his brother, Philocrates, about the legend of the Septuagint, the first Greek translation of the Torah.

According to Aristeas, Ptolemy II wished to have a Greek version of the Torah in the library at Alexandria, so he sent an embassy to Jerusalem to secure 72 able translators from the High Priest, Eleazar. Upon arriving in Alexandria, the 72 translators finished in 72 days and produced a translation so excellent that it was deemed by the Jews of Alexandria to have been made “rightly and reverently, and in every respect accurately.”[1] It was accepted without revision and a curse was placed upon anyone who would ever alter it.

Despite its claim, the letter is generally considered pseudepigraphic. The actual author was probably an Alexandrian Jew of the mid- to late-2nd century conveying a legend meant to legitimate the Greek translation of the Torah which was already current in Egypt. As such, it is a valuable resource for determining what Alexandrian Jews of the 2nd century thought about the Torah, in particular, their apprehension over the apparent arbitrariness of their dietary laws. This anxiety finds expression in the lengthy digression at the heart of the story.

The Embassy Questions the Torah’s Laws

Before escorting the translators from Jerusalem to Alexandria, the visiting embassy poses questions to Eleazar regarding peculiarities in the Torah’s laws. Among the questions is

Why, since there is one creation only, some things are considered unclean for eating, others for touching (Aristeas 129).

In other words, the embassy asks why, if God created the animals and all such creatures were deemed “good” (Gen. 1:25), God later chose to make one species fit for eating but another not? Is God capricious? Or, as the embassy elsewhere appears to intimate (Aristeas, 144), does God suffer from “an excessive preoccupation with mice and weasels or suchlike creatures?”[2] No, our Jewish author has the High Priest respond, God is neither capricious nor neurotic. God’s distinctions among the species are rational and instructive provided one appreciates them as allegories. -- Professor Rabbi Joshua Garroway, https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-earliest-explanation-for-kosher

The Adoption of Allegory in the Laws of Kashrut

Well-educated Jews in Egypt followed suit. Faced with an apparently arbitrary God who inexplicably preferred cows to pigs, pigeons to eagles, and grasshoppers to caterpillars, Jews like the author of the Letter of Aristeas explained that the dietary distinctions, when construed allegorically, could be seen as divine instructions for upright living. Thus, the High Priest responds to the embassy’s questions with a protracted discourse on the symbolic meaning of the dietary laws in Shemini:

Do not take the contemptible view that Moses enacted this legislation because of an excessive preoccupation with mice and weasels or suchlike creatures. The fact is that everything has been solemnly set in order for unblemished investigation and amendment of life for the sake of righteousness. The birds which we use are all domesticated and of exceptional cleanliness, their food consisting of wheat and pulse—such birds as pigeons, turtledoves, locusts, partridges, and, in addition, geese and others of the same kind.

As to the birds which are forbidden, you will find wild and carnivorous kinds, and the rest which dominate by their own strength, and who find their food at the expense of the aforementioned domesticated birds—which is an injustice; and not only that, they also seize lambs and kids and outrage human beings dead or alive. By calling them impure, he has thereby indicated that it is the solemn binding duty of those for whom the legislation has been established to practice righteousness and not to lord it over anyone in reliance upon their own strength, nor to deprive him of anything, but to govern their lives righteously, in the manner of the gentle creatures among the aforementioned birds which feed on those plants which grow on the ground and do not exercise a domination leading to the destruction of their fellow creatures. . . .

Thus the cloven hoof, that is the separation of the claws of the hoof, is a sign of setting apart each of our actions for good, because the strength of the whole body with its action rests upon the shoulders and the legs. The symbolism conveyed by these things compels us to make a distinction in the performance of all our acts, with righteousness as our aim. . . .

Rumination is nothing but the recalling of (the creature’s) life and constitution, life being usually constituted by nourishment. So we are exhorted through scripture also by the one who says thus, “Thou shalt remember the Lord, who did great and wonderful deeds in thee.”. . .

The species of weasel is unique: Apart from the aforementioned characteristic, it has another polluting feature, that of conceiving through its ears and producing its young through its mouth. So for this reason any similar feature in men is unclean; men who hear anything and give physical expression to it by word of mouth, thus embroiling other people in evil, commit no ordinary act of uncleanliness, and are themselves completely defiled with the taint of impiety.[5]