האם בשר חזיר באמת יהיה כשר?

00:00 So the topic is about asur chazir litur, which is a, a Maamar Chazal, which like a lot of Maamar Chazal, we don't actually have the source of it, but it's brought down in, in seferim Rishonim already. The Rabbi's been saying the Litva and the Shala and many others bring it down in the name of Chazal, some in the name of Chazal, others not. Um, yeah, like as I s-- like there's a lot of things like that. Many Chazal, we don't have them, but we know from very reliable sources that they do come from Chazal. So this is one of them. Asur chazir litur. When Mashiach comes, a chazir is gonna be permissible. You'll be able to eat it. And the way it's brought down in some places is that lama nikra shemo chazir? Why was it called chazir? So the Midrash teaches, It's like chazar, melashon return, meaning to say l'chayeh that when before Mount Torah was permissible and Torah made it asur, but it's, it's gonna come a time when the Yid is gonna once again let us-- let it, uh, make it mutar to eat. So but to be fair, there are, there are, um, there are the people that deny this Maamar, Maamar Chazal. There are the Yefei Toar, for example, says, "L'havdil nivra," it's made up. There is no such Maamar Chazal, and a lot of people were uncomfortable with it because, like as you can imagine, it's, you know, it's-- it goes against seemingly, we're gonna-- we'll speak later how

01:34 it's not a stira, but it seems like it's a stira to the fact that Torah doesn't change. Um, so a lot of people took issue with it, or there's a-- someone asked the Radbaz, "What is the meaning of it?" And the Radbaz said it means beruchnius, it means allegorically. Different people, people have different ways of teaching it. Um, but yeah, the Rabbi is actually the Rebbe where he brings down the Yefei Toar that says, "L'havdil nivra." And the Rebbe is mitzayan to all the different places where it, it does bring down. And the Rebbe says that after you see all these, all these great people that bring it down, then it's actually-- it's a question, how can you say that it's, uh, made up? So what is tachas the pshat? How is it not a stira to, um, nitzchis hateira? Um, uh, before we get to that, I just wanna mention one more thing, that the Prim God has a sefer called Sefer Ha'nutrikon, which is a sefer on words. It takes different words in Lashon Hakodesh and explains its etymology, and it brings different pirushim, other chadrush and other chamusar to explain the different words. So, um, he brings-- he says that-- he says there that the reason why we refer to a chazir as a dover acheir, in Gemara it's ichli dover acheir. Until today, people use dover acheir as a chazir. Why? He says, "Why do we call like that?" So there are simple reasons, 'cause it's so repulsive, we don't even

02:53 wanna say its name. Like other things, we don't even-- we, you know, use euphemisms. But the Prim God there says a different pshat. He says that because the word chazir, people s-s-know this pshat of the Midrash, that it's melashon chazara, that it's gonna come a time when it's gonna be mutar. We're afraid that people will get the wrong idea, and they think, "Oh, it's anyway gonna be mutar one day, so I could already now, you know, have bacon and eggs for breakfast," 'cause it's anyway one day gonna be mutar. So we wanted to avoid that, and therefore we call dover acheir in order to avoid, uh, you know, people making that mistake. Um, he says like similar to the fact that we don't say the word chametz on Pesach. I don't-- I never knew there's such a thing, that some people, they don't say the word chametz on Pesach. I do remember reading somewhere that someone said the reason we don't use vinegar for karpas is 'cause vinegar is chemet. Chemet sounds like chametz. But anyway, he says that, so that's the Prim God in the Sefer Ha'nutrikon. Um, so again, he's from the naysayers, the ones that are saying that, "No, this Maamar Chazal is not actually kipshute." It's not, uh... Um, but, but the-- all the, the many gedolei Yisrael meforshim that do say that it, it's a true Maamar Chazal, and it tachas means what it says, that when Mashiach comes, the chazir will become mutar to eat. How does that fit

04:08 with one of the tenets of our faith, that Torah and Halakha doesn't change? Um, it's in the sefer Yishmael, "Ve'es hachazir. Yimalel ir hachazir." So it's actually interesting, um, and Yehoshua Weinberg asked the Rebbe this question. Um, he used to give shiur on Tanya, and in perek nun there, the author speaks about when Mashiach comes, the klanim are gonna become levim, are gonna become kohanim. And he asked the Rebbe, "How does that fit with the fact that Torah never changes?" The Rebbe explained over there, and then once he was on the topic, he asked like a bunch of things that we see that when Mashiach comes, certain halakhas are gonna change. How does that fit with the fact that Torah doesn't change? So the Rebbe answered each one. So when it came-- So he asked him about, um, asur chazir litur, the Rebbe said, "The Chasam Sofer already answered the question." Chasam Sofer has a Sefer Torah of Moshe. Halsha also has a Sefer Torah of Moshe, and Chasam Sofer has one on Chumash. Um, and he writes there, he says the-- he says as follows. He says, "The Torah is not gonna change. The chazir is gonna change. When Mashiach comes," he says, "The Yid is gonna make a shinui in the tevel chazir, that he's gonna start to have both simanim of ma'aleh gever, ma'apris parsas, it's gonna chew its cud, it-- and it's gonna have split hooves. And therefore, it's not a contradiction to Torah. Torah says you're not allowed to eat

05:25 a chazir, and the Torah explains why, because it has-- it doesn't chew its cud. But when Mashiach comes, it will, and therefore it's gonna be mutar." That's how the Chasam Sofer explains it, and the Ohr HaChaim, Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh says the same thing. He teaches in the pasuk, "Ki maleh gever," meaning to say it's a tnai. You can't eat a chazir now because it's, um, ki, um, gever lo yigar. But when Mashiach comes, it will become permissible. And the Chasam Sofer, he s-- based on this, he says-- he answers a question, um, that was asked. He even says in the name of Rabbi Avraham Avuch. So I love Rabbi Avraham Avuch, who was a Rebbe in, in Frankfurt. Um, there was a whole controversy in the Ghetto of Kliva, so he was, uh, there's a-- he was, he was very involved in that. So he brings from him a, a brilliant question. He says, on this chazar, that asat chazar nitar. Um, we have a klal that in halacha that a דבר שיש לו מתירים אינו בטל. Meaning to say, if something, some-something which is treif gets mixed in something which is kosher, many times it can become בטל. If there's enough kosher, usually sixty, כנגד the איסר, it's נס בטל. But the, the exception to that is if it's a דבר שיש לו מתירים, meaning to say right now it's אסר, but eventually if we wait a little bit, it will become מותר, then we say it doesn't become בטל. Just wait till it

06:52 becomes מותר. Better to eat it when it's inherently מותר than to eat it through nullification, through ביטול. So Rabbi Avraham, this Rabbi Avraham asks like this, if it's true that the חזר, when Mashiach comes, the חזר is gonna become מותר. So then the halacha should be that if חזר gets mixed into, into kosher food, it should've become בטל because it's a דבר שיש לו מתירים. When Mashiach comes it become מותר. So from here us-- it's a big question on this maamar Chazal. We don't find anywhere in halacha in Shulchan Aruch that a חזר is considered דבר שיש לו מתירים. The din is that if it gets mixed in, it's בטל, like the same way if an avail or any other treif meat gets mixed in. But לחיידר it should be different. It should be a דבר שיש לו מתירים. So some sefer says that based on this pshat, that m- the reason why חזר is going to become מותר laslov is because the nature of the חזר is gonna change, how the Haibish is gonna change the simanim. So it's answered. Because what's gonna change? The חזירים that are alive when Mashiach comes, the Haibish is gonna make a mess, and he's gonna change their nature, and from then on, they're gonna become מותר. But something that was shechted before Mashiach came that gets mixed in before a חזר becomes מותר, it will always be אסר. It's not gonna become מותר when Mashiach comes. Only something which is gonna be born after then or then

08:03 will-- so that's how he uses-- he answers this question based on this, this yesod. So now the question is why take from all the treif animals, what's gonna become מותר when Mashiach comes a חזר? I'm saying usually people, people-- you would think intuitively that a חזר should be the last thing to become kosher. Right? The חזר is considered the archetypical treif animal. Midrash says that, um-- it says the three-- there's four animals that says one siman, one kosher siman and one non-kosher siman. It says the שכם, פדום with the ארנבת, and the separate pasuk that says the חזר. And the Midrash says 'cause it's שכל כנגד כולם, and there's another opinion that says no, he's even worse than all them. So why is the חזר the one that's dach can become tahor when Mashiach comes? Um, so the Yanis actually says that it doesn't mean dach ke chazar. It means even the chazar. Everything is gonna become tahor, but e-- and even the chazar. But the Rebbe in the letter doesn't learn like that. The Rebbe says that, yes, all ch-- that when the Chazal say asat chazar tahor, they're specifically talking about a chazar. Brings different proofs that chazar is the one that's gonna become when Mashiach comes, is gonna become tahor. The other animals, at a later stage, the Haibish there, סדורה חטובה ורמינה ארץ. Yes, at a later stage, there will no longer be any treif. But even before then, the chazar, specifically the chazar is gonna become kosher. So the question

09:29 is why? If anything, it's the last to become kosher. So the Rebbe has an explanation, and it's interesting that it's very-- it's exactly the opposite of a different pshat from the Kli Yakar. Um, the Kli Yakar in Parashat Shemini says a very gevaldige vart. He says the pasuk says that, "Ve'et ha'chazir," you're not allowed to eat the chazir, "ki mafris parsahu ve'ger lo yigar." You can't eat a chazar because it has split hooves, doesn't chew its cud. So asks Kli Yakar, wait a second. The reason why a chazar is treif is not because it has split hooves, it's because of the second thing, because he doesn't chew its cud. So the pasuk should say, "Ve'et ha'chazir ki male gerahu." Just get to the point. Say it's not kosher, or it should say that even though male gerahu, but ki ger lo yigar, therefore it's not kosher. How is it that the pasuk says that the reason you shouldn't eat a chazar is because ki ma-ki mafris parsahu, because it has split hooves and it doesn't chew its cud? The first half is, if anything, is the reason why it should be able to be eaten. So the simple answer is that ki can also sometimes mean even though, right? Ki, Chazal say is a משמש בדרגות השונות. It can mean different things, but the simple translation of the word ki is because. So how, how do you understand the pasuk? So the Kli Yakar says like this. The fact that the chazar has split hooves

11:04 is part of the reason why it's treif. Why? So he says he brings the Midrash that the chazar is like, is like Eisav, that he, he's ma-- he, he sticks out his mareh tlalafov, he sticks out his kosher signs and he says, "Look, ru'u sha ani tar." He says, "Look, I'm, I'm kosher." But really he's not. So says the Kli Yakar, the fact that he's using his kosher simanim to convince people that he's, that he's a kosher animal, that is, that is part of the reason why you can't eat him. Because he has this, this tunna of being a, um, a faker and a manipulator, this is-- it's not-- it, it makes him even worse, he says, than the other animals. They just have-- they're not kosher. It's very obvious what they are. The chazar, it's not just he's not kosher, but he makes as if he is, so he's even on the lower madrega. So taka, he says, "Ki mafris parsahu." Part of the reason that he's treif is because he has split hooves and he doesn't really-- but he's really ger lo yigar. He's not really kosher. So that's how the Kli Yakar sees it. So he says he's the lowest of the low Um, that's actually another pshat why some people say, uh, why they call a chazer a dever acher, because he's not really what he is. He's dever acher. He's something else. He's not what he makes himself to be. Like the Chazal say, the tzvu'im, the, the, the people

12:29 that are two-faced. So that's one take on the fact that the chazer has a split hooves. But there's a sicha of the Rebbe where actually the Rebbe puts a positive spin, or not a spin, the emes. Why-- And the fact that the chazer-- And the Rebbe says no. There is something positive about the fact that the chazer has a kosher siman. And not just not a kosher siman, but he has the kosher siman on his hooves as opposed to the other animals that they have the other way around. They don't have split hooves, but they do chew their cud. So the Rebbe says like this. Basically, the geder lo yigar, that's the, the pnimius. That's in the inside. That's in the stomach. That's in the, the inside of the animal. And the split hooves is the outside, the chitsonius. So the Rebbe says that when a person is good on the outside, meaning when it comes to maaseh b'poel, he does what he needs to do, and he keeps what he needs to keep, and he's doing-- Even if in the inside he's corrupt, even if the inside he doesn't have the right intentions, and he's doing it for the wrong reasons, their person-- such a person at a certain point he'll, he'll, he'll be redeemed. Ma she'en ken, the Rebbe says, the other way around it's not so simple because if-- even if inside is okay, but if it's-- if you're not doing what you need to do, so even at a later point,

13:48 what, what-- you, you, you missed out on everything that you were supposed to do. If a person did a mitzvah and he did it for the wrong intentions, at a certain point he'll do teshuvah and he'll come to a better place. Even the mitzvahs that he did in the past will be uplifted together. But if he missed out on doing the mitzvah, then you missed out. There's nothing to do about it. So that's what the Rebbe says, that asid chazer litor. Why? 'Cause the chazer has the chitsonius, the simanim by him are good. He has the poel mamash. Obviously, it's an issue. It's not enough. You need to also work on your inside. So take it, but when Mashiach comes, it's gonna become a kosher animal. So that's what the Rebbe-- It's interesting. Like, the fact that the chazer has the tre-- the, the siman itat, the Kli Yakar says that makes it worse than all the other ones. The Rebbe's saying no. There's actually-- That is the redeeming quality that a chazer has which makes him davka it's the one that's gonna come with the last of as opposed to the other animals. So it's obviously not a stira, right? The Kli Yakar is speaking about when the chazer is using the chitsonius not as a, as a, as a-- not just f- not for the right reasons, but as, uh, using it to manipulate and as a force for evil. The Rebbe's speaking not in, not m- not, not on that-- based on

14:52 that midrash of mareh tlafot. He's saying just the, the, the fact of the matter that it has the chitsonius, it has a kosher siman. But it's still interesting to see, like, the different focus that the ch-- the two extremes. On the one hand, it, it's the lowest, and, you know, that's why a chazer has this bad rap. You know, people have sacha, right? It's the-- It's-- There's a reason why it ha-- why people refer to it as, you know, because it does have this very, um, repulsive nature. But on the other hand, there is also a po-- a, a more positive way of looking at it. So in the midrash it says that the four animals that the, the pasuk explicitly mentions that are treif are keneged the four goyim. The shofan, the arneves, the gamal, and the chazir are keneged Bavel, Paras, Madai, and Edom. So chazir is keneged Edom. And the reason why it's called chazir, one-- another explanation in the midrash is because the, the Edom, the gulus Edom is the one which we're gonna-- the Aibishter is gonna return us and redeem us from. Um, and the, the-- So it's explained that the, the connection between Edom and a, a chazir, chazir sy-symbolizes Edom because they ha-- the midrash explains actually that they have the same thing. The same way the chazir is mareh tlafot bachutz, and he makes as if he's kosher. So he says the, the, the midrash says Edom is the same way. They make as if they

16:21 do justice, but really they're, they're gezlim v'chairim. So really they plunder and they steal. They don't really-- They're-- It's not-- They're really in the inside, they're corrupt. Um, and because-- And they get this from their-- from the-- from Esav because Edom, right, comes from Esav, and Esav was the same way. Esav, on the outside, he, you know, he made himself like he's a big tzadik. When he came to Yaakov, he asked him all his questions in halacha and, you know, he-- when he turned forty, he said, "I wanna-- It's time for me to get married." In the meantime, right, he was up to already no good. Um, so but actually in Sefat Emet it's explained a beautiful pshat that where is it taka that Edom and the chazir, they have this siman tara. They do have on their-- on the, on the f- on the, the, the-- It has split hooves, hooves. Where does it-- where does this come from? So in the Halichas Sefat Emet it's explained that, that who's the le'umaza of Esav? Yaakov, right? Yaakov is titen emes l'Yaakov, truth. Yaakov is all about truth and which is the le'umaza of this, uh, of the klipa of Esav, which is mirma and lying like the chazer. So it says in the pasuk that Yaakov yodea, uh,ichezes ba'akeiv Esav. That Yaakov was grabbing onto the feet of Esav. So it says in Sefat Emet that from that grabbing on to the feet of Esav, from there is neshtal the siman that in the

17:45 feet of the chazer it has split ho-hooves. It does have a kosher. It does have this redeeming quality about it that at least on the outside they're trying to do justice. Um, that's where they get it from. So this is in line with what the Rebbe's saying, that it is actually something positive about it. Even if it's taka fake, and even if it's-- they don't have the right intentions, but at least there's something l'maaseh, they're doing something good. Um, th-this theme you have it in other places, um, in the Rebbe's Torah. You also have it as a sicha where the Rebbe explains that, uh, b'nega- The Gemara says, the Gemara compares a person that's misvade, that he expresses, he does teshuvah and he expresses remorse for his averas. And he doesn't mean, he doesn't mean it. He doesn't actually intend on changing his life. It's ketovel v'sheretz b'yadei. So the Pashta is coming to say that it's worthless. But there's a sich word. The Rebbe says that, you know, it doesn't say he's not being tovel. He's tovel, but there's still something making him tamei. Meaning to say, and the Rebbe says because lamaiso when a Yid goes and he expresses the fact that he's sorry and he says, I'm not going to do it again, even if he doesn't really mean it. But, you know, he's saying it and he feels guilty about it that he doesn't mean it. There's something to be said about that. And therefore, he's taka being tovel. So he

19:04 still has to get rid of the sheretz that he's holding. But you can't say it's nothing. There's something to that. And I saw a beautiful vortz from Reb Tzadik HaKohen from Lublin that he explains on the Gemara. There's a Gemara that says it was a Talmud of Rav Meir that was able to be metair a sheretz bekufnon taimim. With 150 reasons, he was able to come up to say that a sheretz doesn't make you ritually impure. So Toises and everyone already asks, like, what's the point of making up stupid papulum that are against Torah? So Reb Tzadik says, you know which sheretz this Talmud was metair? He was metair the sheretz of a tevel v'sheretz v'yodei. That this Yid that comes and he does teshuva and he's not fully sincere. So and this Chazal says, ketovel v'sheretz v'yodei. This Talmud was able to say that, you know what? There is something about that sheretz. Ultimately, taka, he doesn't mean it right now 100%, but he's already, he's doing something about it. And eventually, it's going to become Torah. Eventually, he's going to come to the right place. Also, Chazal Litor. Eventually, if you continue doing the right thing, you'll also have the right intentions. There will come a time where you'll have the right intentions also. And everything you did will also become pure and holy. Two things about what we said before that I wanted to mention. Just number one, we mentioned that the Radbaz has an allegorical explanation for this Midrash. So he

20:30 teaches that there's this malach lamala called Chazriel. And it's usually melamit kateger. It's usually a prosecutor against the Jewish people. When Mashiach comes, they're just going to change it. It's going to become a saneger. It's going to become melamit choson the Jewish people. That's just one point that I forgot to mention. Another point is that the answer we said of the Chasam Sofer that the simonim of the Chazar is going to change. There's still a question, a halakhic question that there's a halakha that hayetzem et tamei tamei. Anything that was born from something which is tamei, even if it itself looks like it's tahar, there's a gezera sakasa that if it comes from a tamei, it's still tamei. So it's still a question we're not going to get into, but it's still a halakhic discussion how exactly it's going to work. I just want to end off with an interest. It's interesting. You know, the Rebbe said about always looking in the world and seeing signs of Mashiach's coming. There's a whole controversy these days about kosher bacon that people through stem cells, they're able to take the cells and make things which have all the DNA and properties of Chazar. And there's a good chance. It's, you know, it's a big discussion by Rabbonim, Maras Ayin. I think the OU gave a hechsher, didn't want to give a hechsher. But there's a big discussion. Is it possible to have mamish, you know, lab-grown pork with a hechsher? So I can't help from thinking that

22:04 this is somehow a beginning of the kium of this Chazal of asud chazar litar. Obviously, you know, still the discussion amongst Rabbonim, we're not taking any. So the fact that it's even a consideration that all of a sudden the whole history, we were never, there was never this concept. Like there is a Gemara that the Yalta, the wife of Rav Nachman, she said that everything that the Eibesher made asur, he made something mutar, which is similar to that. So she said, I want to taste pork. I want to taste psar chazar. So they told her that if you eat the moyach of a shibutah, there's this fish called a shibutah. It's a big question what exactly, which fish it is exactly. But they said that the brain of that fish tastes like psar chazar. So that was the closest you can get. It's interesting, actually, there's a chida. Someone asked them a question that it says that the mon, whatever time they wanted a taste in the mon, that's the taste that they experienced. So someone asked them, what if a person wanted to taste pork? He wanted a taste that the meat should taste like. What would it turn into that flavor? So the chida said, yeah, based on this Gemara. We see in this Gemara that Yalta, she wanted something that has the same taste and flavor as psar chazar, and they gave her, you know, a way of tasting it. So we see from here that it's not the, the taste is

23:29 not the issue. It's the physical animal, you know, when Torah says it's asur. But there's no issue with the taste. Torah doesn't have a problem with the taste. So that could be applied also to these lab-grown chazar that even though it tastes like chazar and it looks like chazar, but if halakha doesn't consider it chazar, it might be considered mutar. And, you know, maybe this is some sort of me'ein of when Mashiach comes, when the, when based on the Chasam Sofer, when the Eibesher is going to make it mutar, it's, we already have a certain element of that being a sky now. So taka we should be zecha to Mashiach coming and when we live in a world where everything is holy and pure. B'mehera b'yameinu mamash.