Symbolism of the Kosher Signs

In this week’s Torah portion, the Torah details the signs of kosher animals: they must have split hooves and chew their cud. If an animal lacks one of these traits, it is forbidden even if it as the other. The Torah singles out four such animals: the camel, hare, and hyrax, which chew their cud but do not have split hooves, and the pig (chazir), which has split hooves but does not chew its cud.

Rabbi Shimshon Pinkus writes that the commentaries explain that these distinctions hint at deeper spiritual lessons about the relationship between external observance and inner belief. Chewing the cud symbolizes internal spirituality and connection to God and intention in Mitzvot —while split hooves represent external Mitzvah observance. The camel, for example, which chews the cud but lacks split hooves, represents a person with deep belief but no practical observance. Such a person may feel spiritual or connected to Judaism but does not translate those feelings into action. The pig, on the other hand, has split hooves but does not chew its cud, symbolizing someone who performs Mitzvot externally but lacks sincerity and inner conviction. Both forms of behaviour are considered ‘non-kosher’ because belief and action are both essential to serving God.

However, Rabbi Pinkus cites an astonishing Rabbinic source¹ that stresses a key difference between the pig and the other non-kosher animal. The hebrew name for pig is chazir coming from the root meaning ‘return’. Chazal teach that this alludes to the fact in the future the pig will return to us and be permitted to eat.² The Midrash emphasizes that only the pig will become kosher, implying that the other non-kosher animals will remain forbidden. What is the difference between the pig and the other nonkosher animals?

The answer lies in the transformative power of Mitzvah observance. The Sefer HaChinuch teaches that the heart follows the actions. A person who performs Mitzvot, even without deep intent, has the potential to develop true connection over time. By contrast, one who believes in God but does not act on that belief, has no foundation upon which to build. This is why the pig, which at least demonstrates external righteousness, has the capacity for eventual spiritual repair, whereas the camel’s flaw—belief without practice—is much harder to correct.³

This idea is fundamental to the Torah belief that that true spirituality requires action, not just belief. This is in stark contrast to some other religions that emphasize belief as the key to success, Judaism insists that faith alone is insufficient—one must act on it.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch emphasizes the problem of belief without action in his commentary on the Chumash.⁴ The Torah forbids setting up a pillar (matseivah) as a way to worship God. Instead, one should use an altar (mizbayach) for offerings. The problem arises that the Patriarchs themselves used to use pillars in their Divine service⁵, so why now does the Torah forbid it? Rashi explains that at the time the Torah was written, it was common for idol worshippers to use a pillar in their idol worship, whereas at the time of the Patriarchs, this was not a common practice.

Rabbi Hirsch offers a different explanation. He begins by elucidating the differences between a pillar and an altar. A pillar is one stone in its natural form which is a symbol of God’s control over nature. In contrast, an altar comprises of a number of stones that a human assembles into an orderly structure. This symbolizes the idea that man’s purpose is not just to see God in nature, but to subjugate man to God through man’s actions. With this introduction, Rabbi Hirsch explains that in the time of the Patriarchs, before the Torah was given, the main purpose of man was to recognize God in the world through nature, but there was no requirement to direct one’s actions to Mitzva observance because the Torah had not yet been given⁶. God loved these pillars because they achieved what was required at that time. However, after the Torah was given, it was insufficient to simply recognize God in nature without also living one’s life in the way require by the Torah. Accordingly, the altar became the optimal means with which to serve God, because it symbolized man’s active submission to God. Moreover, the pillar was now transformed from being beloved to God to being hated by Him, because only recognizing God in the world, without an accompanying commitment to live according to the Torah, is considered a sin in God’s eyes.

A person who recognizes God in nature, and even believes in Divine Providence, fulfils two of the three foundations of belief that the Sefer HaIkrim outlines, but the third is that God gave us the Torah to fulfil it. If he does not follow that third foundation, even if he believes in the other two, then he is fundamentally flawed, because man’s purpose is to take his recognition of God and Divine Providence and live his life according to God’s instructions, as outlined in the Torah.

We have seen how the lack of belief without action is even greater than action without inner conviction⁷, as one who keeps Mitzvot is more likely to come to fix his inner world, than vice versa. However, Rabbi Pinkus stresses that both modes of behavior are considered ‘non-kosher’ by the Torah. And for people who grow up doing Mitzvot, the flaw of the pig is more likely to be present than the flaw of the camel.⁸ Thus, it is essential for a person to work on his Emunah, and understanding of why he should learn Torah and observe Mitzvot, because without an active effort, it is very likely that his inner world will be inconsonant with his outer behavior.

May we all merit to have both signs of being ‘kosher’.

1. Quoted by Rabbeinu Bechaye, Vayikra, 11:4; Ritva, Kiddushin, 49b; Teshuvat HaRadbaz, Chelek 2, Simun 828.
2. This is the simple interpretation of the Midrash – see the commentaries above for various explanations of the Midrash.
3. See Tiferet Shimshon, pp.101, where he offers an answer in a similar vein but with slight differences.
4. Peirush Al Hatorah, Devarim, 16:22.
5. Bereishit, 28:18.
6. It is true that the Patriarchs observed the Torah before It was given, but this was not out of strict obligation.
7. One who does not have any Emunah and yet observes Mitzvot for some reason, would seem to not be included in the category of ‘chazir’ that will return to observance. Rather, we are focusing on someone who believes in God but does not practice Mitzvot for the right reason or with inner conviction.
8. Many Jews who grow up secular or traditionally are more likely to espouse belief in God and perhaps even the Torah, but not translate that belief into action. Of course, in truth, as the Sefer HaIkrim cited above, points out, this indicates a severe lacking in one’s Emunah as true Emunah leads to action.

The post Symbolism of the Kosher Signs appeared first on Aish.com.