Explanations and Sources
It appears that the source of this matter is what is stated in Vayikra Rabbah (Parashat Shemini, end of chapter 13) concerning the four kingdoms that subjugated Israel: “‘And the pig’—this is Edom; ‘although it does not chew the cud’—for it does not draw another kingdom after it. Why is its name called chazir? Because it returns the crown to its owner, as it is written: ‘Saviors shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esav, and the kingdom shall be Hashem’s.’” And in Kohelet Rabbah (chapter 1, on the verse “What has been will be”) there is an account of a kingdom that sent to our Rabbis and said: Send us one of your philosophers. They said, etc., it appears that they seek only one who is radiant in halachah. They sent them Rabbi Meir, and they would ask him and he would answer; they would ask him and he would answer. Finally, they asked him why its name is called chazir, and he told them that it will in the future return the kingdom to its owners. Thus far. It is clear that this does not discuss permitting pork itself in the future.
Rabbeinu Bachya (Vayikra 11:7) cites that Midrash Tanchuma (Parashat Shemini, siman 14) states: Why was this kingdom compared to a pig? Because HaKadosh Baruch Hu will in the future bring the attribute of judgment back upon them. He adds that some versions read: “It will return the crown to its former state.” He explains that the two Temples were built by Israel—the First Temple was built by Shlomo, who was from the tribe of Yehudah, and the Second Temple was built by Zerubavel, who was likewise from Yehudah—but this nation will build the Third Temple. This is the meaning of “it will return the crown to its former state,” because it destroyed it. Finally, he writes that some versions read, “HaKadosh Baruch Hu will return it to us,” and the masses understand this to mean that the pig will become pure for Israel. However, the explanation concerns its power, which oppresses Israel, and in the future it will return, together with all other powers, to assist and support Israel, etc.
Thus, although he found versions of the Midrash referring to the pig returning to Israel, he nevertheless rejected the understanding that this was said concerning its becoming kosher and permitted for consumption in the future. Rather, he explains that the aspect of the pig, which now stands opposed to Israel, will in the future aid Israel. See also Meiri on Ta’anit (21b, s.v. makah), who mentions this derashah concerning the wicked kingdom, called chazir, which HaKadosh Baruch Hu will return to us; his precise intention is not entirely clear. Ritva, too, in Kiddushin (49b, s.v. tish’ah natlu chazirim), cites those who explained that the “pigs” mentioned there in the Gemara refer to Edom, regarding which the Haggadah says: Why is its name called chazir? Because HaKadosh Baruch Hu will return it to Israel in the future. See there. It appears that both Ritva and Meiri do not explain this as referring to an actual pig, but only as a metaphor for the kingdom of Edom, which will return and become an aid to Israel. See also Recanati (Vayikra here, verse 2, s.v. u’kvar), who cites the Midrash and appears to explain it as an allusion, not that pork will actually be permitted for consumption.
[In Responsa Radbaz (cited below), he writes that according to sod, there is above a prince named Chazri’el, who prosecutes against Israel, and HaKadosh Baruch Hu will in the future return him to Israel to become their advocate. See Shelah HaKadosh (Toldot Adam, Beit David Kamma), who explains the secret of the statement, “Why is its name called chazir? Because it will return”: at present, one may not make use of the yetzer hara other than for a matter of mitzvah, because by its nature, if part of it is hot, all of it is hot. Therefore, at present this pig is forbidden, one may not draw close to it—“Do not come near the entrance of her house.” But in the future, when it will be sweetened, it will be permitted. This is the pig that will return to its root, the place of holy gevurot. This is the meaning of “I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh,” for it is the nature of a stone that if part of it is hot, all of it is hot; so too is this yetzer hara, which is similar to it. “I will remove it from within you, and I will give you a heart of flesh”: the side upon the fire is roasted, while the other side is cold—this is “a heart of flesh.” As they explained in the Zohar (I, 137b), “a heart of flesh” means a heart to make flesh; that is, the yetzer hara will not spread beyond its boundary, but only at the time of union between a man and his wife will a person be aroused to create flesh alone, not for any other purpose. See there.]
Nevertheless, we find Torah commentators who cite this derashah literally. See Rabbeinu Or HaChaim HaKadosh (Vayikra 11:3), on “every animal with a split hoof… that brings up its cud.” He explains based on the statement (Chullin 59a): Every animal that has a split hoof brings up its cud, except for the pig. That is, every animal with a split hoof is known to bring up its cud, and afterward the pig was excluded from the rule. He then writes that perhaps the fact that the pig was not excluded immediately after stating the rule hints that even the pig is included, in line with the statement: Why is its name called chazir? Because it will in the future return to being permitted. See there. Similarly, the great Chatam Sofer, in his Torat Moshe (here, verse 2), writes that the pig’s prohibition remains pending until the world is perfected under the sovereignty of Shaddai, for the Midrash states: Why is its name called chazir? Because it will return to being permitted in the future—that is, its signs will change and it will bring up its cud.
From the words of the Chatam Sofer we also see a resolution to the question of how the pig will be permitted in the future, when one of the Thirteen Principles is that “this Torah shall not be replaced or changed forever.” According to the above, under the laws of the Torah, the pig’s future state will be permitted, since it will possess all the signs of purity. This point was already preceded by Rema MiPano in his Asarah Ma’amarot (Ma’amar Chikur HaDin, part 4, end of chapter 13). There he discusses the rectification of sinners after they repent, and writes that they must be purified like the purification of the pig, whose creation HaKadosh Baruch Hu will in the future renew with two signs: now it has only a split hoof, while in the future it will bring up its cud. See there.
I later found that Rabbeinu the Ben Ish Chai writes likewise in Ben Yehoyada (Nazir 23a): “Know that what Chazal said—why is its name called chazir? Because it will return—means that it will become pure and permitted. Although mitzvot will not be annulled in the future, this means that Hashem will bring about something new: all pigs born from pigs will be born with two signs of purity, their hooves split and bringing up their cud. After these are born with the two signs of purity, the original pigs will die, and thus the pig found in the world will be pure and permitted, for it has two signs of purity.” Regarding the matter itself of mitzvot being annulled in the future, see Lev Chaim Palaggi (II, siman 32), Sdei Chemed (Kuntres Divrei Soferim, siman 53), Kovetz Shiurim (II, siman 29), and Toldot Noach (Kuntres “Vayera Menuchah,” siman 10, letters 11–12).
I have seen it noted that the work Peninim MiShulchan Gavoha relates that the holy Kohen Gadol, the Chafetz Chaim of Radin, derived from here that the signs stated by the Torah are the cause of kosher status, not merely signs. Otherwise, what would it help if the signs changed? It would still be an unclean species. This may be challenged: indeed, if the signs of a single individual of the species changed, this would not help, because it would remain an unclean species. But here, since the entire species from then onward is born this way, it is necessarily a sign that it has become a kosher species. See Chavatzelet HaSharon (Vayikra I, p. 852ff.), who discusses this and elaborates greatly on the question of the Acharonim: What would it help if the pig had signs of purity? It should in any event be prohibited because of the law that “that which emerges from the unclean is unclean” (Bechorot 5b). He proposes several approaches to resolve the matter; some were anticipated in Responsa Beit She’arim, Yoreh De’ah, siman 142. See there, where he explains it and resolves it.
My eyes have also seen the words of the leading Acharon, Radbaz (Responsa II, siman 828), who was asked about the statement that it is called chazir because HaKadosh Baruch Hu will return it to Israel. He writes that according to peshat, it may be explained—as stated above regarding what is found in Midrashim that all festivals will be annulled—that Israel will eat rich foods as though pork had been permitted to them, not that pork itself will be permitted to them, Heaven forbid. Thus, although he understood the Midrash as relating to eating, it was nevertheless obvious to him that it does not mean that the pig itself will be permitted for consumption. I have seen it noted that Or Yekarot (Parashat Shemini, year 5491) and Responsa Ginzei Yosef Schwartz (siman 47, in the name of Sefer Livyat Chen) offer another explanation based on Chullin (109b): Everything Hashem prohibited to us, He permitted to us in a comparable form. He prohibited pork but permitted the brain of the shibuta fish. That fish has disappeared from us (see Yerushalmi Ta’anit 4, end of halachah 5, and the end of Petichta DeChachimei to Eichah Rabbah), and in the future it will return and be revealed to us. Thus, we have another interpretation that concerns eating, but does not mean an actual pig. Examine this carefully.
We therefore learn that among the Rishonim, none who cited the Midrash explained it literally, apart from three great and highly perceptive Acharonim: Rema MiPano, Or HaChaim, and Chatam Sofer. Indeed, see Torah Temimah (Vayikra here, note 21), who cites the Or HaChaim’s statement that in the future the pig will bring up its cud and return to being permitted, and writes that his words are most perplexing and astonishing: from where did he derive a source for this extraordinary novel idea? Nor do we find anywhere that in the future the natures of animals will change, and why specifically the pig more than the other unclean species? He continues: “I do recall that I heard an aggadah stating that it is called chazir because it will return to its original permission, and apparently the author of Or HaChaim understood that aggadah in this way. But in truth, no Midrash or aggadah exists at all with this wording or intent; rather, it appears in different wording and with a different subject in Midrash Rabbah, Parashat Shemini, and in Kohelet, as cited above: Why is its name called chazir? Because it returns the crown to its owner, etc. This means that through this nation the restoration of the crown to Israel will be brought about. Thus it is clear that the entire aggadah is a metaphorical expression for a different idea, and it is a grave error to take the statement as referring to pork being permitted in the future.” Thus far.
Many have cited Maharash Yaffe (in Yefe To’ar on Vayikra Rabbah here), who wrote that this Midrash “never was and never existed.” The author of Seder HaDorot likewise wrote in his Arkei HaKinuyim (letter chet, chazir) that this statement never was and never existed; his words are cited in Me’at Tzori (entry: chazir). Sefer HaMetzaref (siman 74) also writes that the assertion that HaKadosh Baruch Hu will permit the pig in the future, and that it is therefore called chazir because He will return it to them, is not found in any Midrash of Chazal. His words are cited in Taharat HaMayim (ma’arechet chet, letter 20), and also mentioned in Sdei Chemed, cited below. Sha’ar Bat Rabbim (Parashat Shemini) likewise writes that this statement is not found anywhere. The holy gaon of Dinov, in Bnei Yissaschar (Ma’amarei Chodesh Adar, ma’amar 7, letter 2), writes that the assertion that the pig will become pure in the future is common on people’s lips, yet is not found in the Midrashim of Chazal before us. All this was gathered by the distinguished compiler, the gaon, author of Responsa Ateret Paz (Yoreh De’ah, siman 6, s.v. hen emet), shlit”a.
It follows that although we find several important Acharonim who cited this derashah—the three great authorities mentioned above, as well as Mabit, in his commentary on Perek Shirah (s.v. venatnenu), who cites it simply, and see below regarding Ya’avetz, as well as other Acharonim—the source texts in the Midrashim of Chazal discuss only the kingdom of Edom. Likewise, even where Rishonim cite such wording, they explain that it refers to the aspect or power of the pig, not to permission to eat it. I saw in Ateret Paz (there, s.v. vehineh bilshono) that someone objected to Torah Temimah’s use of an unbefitting expression concerning Rabbeinu the holy Or HaChaim, asking whether he had not heard of his great holiness and righteousness, that the spirit of the Shechinah spoke from his throat. See there. Yet I say: “It is not in Heaven,” and the Torah is written as truth. Since he did not write disparagingly but only forcefully in order to establish the clarity of the matter, no blame rests upon him. This is not comparable to the warning of Or HaChaim in the introduction to Yefe To’ar concerning the phrase “I shall sting him.” Examine this carefully, for this is not the place to elaborate.
[It should be noted that we find other places where Or HaChaim cites statements in the name of Chazal from memory that are not found there. One interesting example is what he writes in Parashat Balak on the verse (Bamidbar 23:24), “Behold, a people rises like a lioness and raises itself like a lion.” He explains it in line with the statement of Chazal: There are three whose strength increases as they age—the lion, etc. This is the meaning of “raises itself,” that it rises and is elevated in its strength; even though it undergoes many wars, it does not thereby weaken but continues to grow stronger. Thus far. Yet one who examines the source in Shabbat (77b) will see that it says: There are three whose strength increases as they age—fish, snake, and pig. It does not mention a lion. Books write that Or HaChaim was composed with ruach hakodesh, and this was discussed even in responsa concerning halachic rulings; see Responsa Divrei Chaim of Sanz (Yoreh De’ah II, siman 105), Beit Shlomo (Orach Chaim, siman 112), אפרקסתא דעניא (IV, siman 364), Minchat Yitzchak (III, Kuntres Divrei Chefetz), and Mishneh Halachot (V, siman 168). One must consider whether even with ruach hakodesh one may fail to see the complete picture—as Chizkiyahu did not see that his son Menashe would repent; see Berachot 10a, and compare Sanhedrin 101b and 102b—or, Heaven forbid, whether one should not say this, but rather that ruach hakodesh has different aspects and gradations, so that it is possible through ruach hakodesh to see what is not in the Talmud. This requires further study. See Maran Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky ztz”l in Orchot Yosher (entry: ruach hakodesh), and Responsa Vayashav HaYam (II, siman 14, which is Sefer Gevurat HaAri); here the reed stands firm.]
Midrash Shocher Tov on Tehillim (Psalm 146, verse 7) states concerning the verse “Hashem releases the bound”: What does “releases the bound” mean? Some say that every animal rendered unclean in this world, HaKadosh Baruch Hu will purify in the future. Thus it says (Kohelet 1:9), “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done.” What has been done: they were originally pure for Noach, as it says to them (Bereishit 9:3), “Like the green vegetation, I have given you everything.” Just as I gave the green vegetation to all, so too the beasts and animals were initially given to all. Why did He prohibit them? To see who accepts His words and who does not accept them. In the future, He will permit everything that He prohibited. Others say that He will not permit them in the future, as it says (Yeshayahu 66:17), “Those who eat the flesh of the pig, the abomination, and the mouse shall perish together.” If He cuts off and destroys one who ate them, all the more so the unclean animal itself. What then is meant by “releases the bound”? There is no prohibition greater than niddah: a woman sees blood, and HaKadosh Baruch Hu prohibits her to her husband; in the future, He will permit her. Thus far.
The gaon Maharach Palaggi, in Nefesh Chaim (ma’arechet chet, letter 5), writes that he was asked where the statement cited by commentators is found: “Why is its name called chazir? Because HaKadosh Baruch Hu will return it to Israel.” In reply, he showed them the above Midrash Shocher Tov, which makes clear that according to the first view the pig and all similar animals will be permitted in the future. Yet Chazal do not state explicitly that the pig will return to Israel. He then cites the above words of Rema MiPano, who maintained that HaKadosh Baruch Hu will purify the pig and renew its creation with two signs of purity. He explains that according to the cited Midrash, this is how all animals will be permitted: their signs of purity will be renewed in the future. See there for the many Rishonim and Acharonim cited above, which he brings in his broad erudition. See also the words of the Chacham, author of Sdei Chemed (Pe’at HaSadeh, Kelalim, ma’arechet chet, klal 8), who cites this and discusses somewhat the above Rishonim and Acharonim. See there.
My eyes then beheld the words of the gaon Ya’avetz in his siddur Beit Yaakov, in Perek Shirah (19b, in Zimrat HaAretz). He writes there that all animals, even those that are not pure, have a corresponding counterpart, root, and hold in holiness, and endure through the strengthening of chasadim that sweeten their judgments. The well-known example is the face of a lion and the face of an eagle in the Merkavah; from these, infer the rest. Even regarding the “pig,” Chazal said that HaKadosh Baruch Hu will in the future return it to us and permit it. However, because of the magnitude of its impurity and filth, it has no rectification at present, until the future, when HaKadosh Baruch Hu will remove the spirit of impurity from the earth. Naturalists have said that it cannot look toward Heaven, due to its descent into the depths of the kelipot and the intensity of its judgments; therefore it is not mentioned in this Perek Shirah. Thus far. It is clear that he takes the matter literally, that the pig will become pure in the future. However, examine carefully that he presents it as part of a comprehensive approach, in which all animals will be connected to holiness. He does not explicitly write that they will all become pure in the future. Perhaps their connection to holiness in this world suffices for them, whereas the pig’s entire connection will be in the future, when it will be fully rectified. Examine this carefully.
Since we are discussing the view of Ya’avetz, in his famous work Mor U’Ketziah (siman 14, s.v. ve’od), he writes that no proof may be brought from aggadot. Do we not say (Niddah 61b) that mitzvot will be annulled in the future? Although we see in the aggadah of Rabbah bar bar Chanah (Bava Batra 74a) that they will make tzitzit for them in the future, the Midrash says that HaKadosh Baruch Hu will give a new Torah and permit certain prohibitions. Thus one may not rule based on aggadah, and Chazal therefore said (Yerushalmi Peah 2:4), “Halachah is not derived from aggadah.” See there. Thus, in practical terms, he calls all this aggadah rejected and maintains that it is not halachah. See there in the editor’s note, which cites the question raised concerning this future permission: “This Torah shall not be replaced.” He writes that this may be addressed according to Ya’avetz’s own words in Migdal Oz (Otzar HaTov, Mosad Hashem, letter 6), but this requires further study and is not the place to elaborate.
While searching freely, I found in the derashot of Rabbi Yehudah ibn Shuaib (end of Parashat Matot-Masei, s.v. venesayem) that he writes that he saw in a Midrash of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that all things in the creation of the world were pure, and there was no impurity in the world, neither in man nor in animals. This is what the verse says (Bereishit 1:31), “And behold, it was very good.” The snake cast contamination into the world and its creatures, and all became defiled. In the future, all will become purified when the contamination ceases, as they said concerning the pig, that it will return to Israel. Thus far. In his words we have a genuine finding, for until now we had found no Rishon who straightforwardly cites this derashah that the pig will return to being pure. However, he writes it as part of a general statement that the contamination of all animals will be removed in the future. Moreover, he does not explicitly write that it will return to being permitted for consumption, only that it will return to Israel. Nevertheless, it would seem necessary that if it becomes pure, it will be permitted for consumption. Consider this.
To conclude, Pesikta Zutrata (Parashat Shemini, 11:7) writes that the reason it is called chazir is that when it wishes to look behind itself, it cannot turn only its neck, but must turn its entire body. Sefer Moshav Zekenim (there) writes that it is called chazir because it returns and eats human excrement. See there, where it cites the Gemara in Kiddushin (49b), that ten kav of afflictions descended to the world and pigs took nine of them. In Sefer Shoham Ve’Achlamah, by Rabbi Rafael Mamo, on Kiddushin there, it is explained that all is one matter: because it eats excrement, which is part of evil and filth, it is therefore entirely afflicted. The verse in Mishlei (11:22) should be mentioned here: “A golden ring in a pig’s snout is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion.” In Perek Kinyan Torah (Avot 6:2), Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi expounded this concerning one who does not engage in Torah study (see Or LeTzion, Chochmah U’Mussar, p. 21).
We conclude regarding the name of the pig that we find in the writings of Chazal that they did not wish to mention its name, and therefore referred to it as “davar acher,” “another matter.” See Shabbat 110b and 129b, Pesachim 76b, Ketubot 61b, and Kiddushin 39b. Examine carefully that in some places it is mentioned concerning tzara’at. [See Tosafot Sanhedrin (26b), s.v. ochlei davar, who write that this cannot mean eaters of pork, for if so, how could the Gemara distinguish between private and public conduct? Is this worse than one who eats neveilot out of appetite, who is disqualified from testimony in every case (there, 27a)? Rather, as Rashi explains, it refers to those who receive charity from gentiles. One must consider why they are called by the name of a pig. Perhaps, just as it will return to Israel, so they return the money from the gentiles to Israel.] Sefer HaTishbi (entry: davar) writes that they avoided calling it by name lest people come to eat it. In this connection, one should consider why Elisha ben Avuyah, after he became corrupt and departed from the path of Torah, was called “Elisha Acher”—that is, they still called him by his name but added the title “Acher.” Did they intend to compare him to a pig, or to say that he was no longer the Elisha he had been before? This requires further study.
Afterward, I saw in the precious work Pardes Yosef (Shemot 4:2, letter 87), which lists a number of popular sayings and provides sources for them in Chazal. At the end, he addresses our matter, that it is called chazir because HaKadosh Baruch Hu will in the future return it to its original permission. In his immense erudition, he provides many references. To omit nothing essential, I shall cite his words, but will not repeat what has already been brought above: this statement is cited in Midrash Talpiyot (branch: chazir); see Sefer Metzudat David (Ta’amei HaMitzvot) by Radbaz (mitzvah 185), Sefer HaIkkarim (ma’amar 3, chapter 16), Shelah (Beit Yisrael, 15b, s.v. beit) in the name of Galanti, Rosh Amanah—apparently referring to Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel’s work, end of chapter 13—Ya’avetz’s commentary on Perek Shirah (end of chapter 4), Pa’ane’ach Raza (Parashat Re’eh, 14:8), Arkei HaKinuyim, Zera Baruch (Parashat Tazria), Ritva (Kiddushin 49b, s.v. tish’ah), Yalkut Chadash (Likkutim, siman 36), Sefer Notarikon by the author of Pri Megadim (line 10, 33d), Sdei Chemed (ma’arechet gimmel, letter 76), Yeriot Shlomo on the Haggadah of Pesach (247, s.v. bechol dor vador), and the Jerusalem journal HaMe’asef, edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Ankonina (year 18, siman 80, letter 2). See there for many further references.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
