דברים, פרק י״ד, פסוק ז׳

Establishing the dietary boundaries for land animals involves examining the edge cases of nature. Creatures that possess only one sign of purity highlight the firm principle that partial purity is insufficient; the absence of even a single required trait completely disqualifies an animal from being eaten. The camel, the hare, and the hyrax are grouped together because they share an identical biological and legal status, as they chew the cud but lack a split hoof [ביאור יש״ר, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Regarding the hare and the hyrax, even if they do not actually regurgitate their food from their stomachs like other livestock, their continuous chewing motions appear to an observer exactly like chewing the cud [ביאור שטיינזלץ]. The Hebrew name for the hyrax is derived from its natural tendency to jump and skip rapidly from place to place [נתינה לגר].

Directly following the prohibition of these specific animals is the restriction against the pig, and this close proximity teaches a broader prohibition against raising pigs altogether [בעל הטורים]. However, the most intriguing focus of these dietary laws centers on a unique classification that divides commentators into two primary approaches.

The first approach understands this classification literally, describing the physical structure of a hoof that is completely split at both the top and the bottom [העמק דבר, נתינה לגר]. According to this understanding, the detail is included to emphasize that even if an animal possesses a perfectly split hoof, it remains entirely impure as long as it does not also chew the cud [ביאור יש״ר].

Conversely, the primary approach among classical commentators is that this term does not describe a hoof at all. Instead, it is the name of a unique, extraordinary creature born with two backs and two spines [רש״י, רבינו בחיי, מזרחי, אדרת אליהו]. Because previous dietary laws used a similar expression to describe a split hoof, the appearance of the word in an unusual form points to the existence of a new, independent animal [גור אריה]. A fascinating debate developed around whether such a creature actually exists in nature. Some maintain that such an animal cannot survive in the world, explaining that the text refers to a deformed fetus found within the womb of a pure animal, which is forbidden to be eaten [מזרחי, אדרת אליהו]. The very fact that Moses knew to prohibit such a rare anomaly, despite not being a hunter or a naturalist familiar with all wildlife, serves as decisive proof that the Torah was given directly by God [תורה תמימה]. Other commentators argue that it is indeed a living animal. In later generations, observers noted sightings of creatures, such as certain species of wild pig or a specific animal from Brazil, that feature a deep, wide cleft in their backs, creating the optical illusion of two separate spines [הכתב והקבלה, תורה תמימה, ברכת אשר על התורה].

This extraordinary creature also explains a broader structural question regarding why the dietary laws, already detailed extensively in the book of Leviticus, are repeated here. The prevailing view is that the entire section was reviewed specifically to introduce the prohibition of this unique creature, along with a specific bird, which were not mentioned previously [רש״י, רבינו בחיי, ברכת אשר על התורה]. Furthermore, the choice to explicitly list the names of the impure animals stems from the fact that pure species vastly outnumber the impure ones. By listing the shorter group, the Torah imparts a timeless educational principle to humanity: one should always strive to teach in a short and concise manner [רבינו בחיי].