Q&A: A Contradiction in Maimonides Regarding Creeping Creatures Born in Vessels
A Contradiction in Maimonides Regarding Creeping Creatures Born in Vessels
Question
Have a good week, Rabbi,
In Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Foods, chapter 2, halakhah 12, it says:
“One who eats an olive’s bulk of a water-creature receives lashes by Torah law, as it says: ‘Do not make yourselves detestable through any swarming creature that swarms, and do not defile yourselves through them.’ This prohibition includes land-creatures, flying creatures, and water-creatures. What is a water-creature? These are the small creatures such as worms and leeches that are in the water, and the larger creatures as well, which are the sea animals. In short: anything that does not have the form of fish—whether an impure fish or a pure fish—such as a water-dog, a dolphin, a frog, and the like.”
And in chapter 2, halakhah 17, it says:
“If water in vessels produced creeping creatures, those creatures are permitted to be drunk together with the water, as it says: ‘Whatever has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the rivers—those may you eat.’ Meaning: in the waters, seas, and rivers, you may eat that which has them, and you may not eat that which does not have them; but in vessels, whether it has them or whether it does not have them, it is permitted.”
In the second halakhah, he is talking about the scope of a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. Maimonides limits its scope so that it applies only to creeping creatures in seas and rivers. But even so, beyond that prohibition derived from a positive commandment, there is also the ordinary prohibition, which is not limited only to seas and rivers. So maybe there aren’t two violations here, but there is still at least one violation—so how can he say that it is permitted to eat a water-creature that developed in vessels?
Best regards,
Answer
It seems to me that the instruction “those may you eat” comes to teach that one may eat them, meaning that there is no prohibition here at all. As I think about it now, it is possible that this depends on the dispute between Maimonides and Nachmanides in the ninth root regarding a prohibition derived from a positive commandment whose content overlaps with an ordinary prohibition. They disagree whether both are to be counted (as with a prohibition and a positive commandment in the sixth root) or not (as with two identical prohibitions). If both overlap and are considered one prohibition, then perhaps it is easier to say that the permission overrides both. I wrote this off the cuff; I have not checked it.
It is also possible to understand that the derivation teaches us that these creatures are not included in the category of water-creatures at all, and therefore any prohibition that applies to a water-creature does not apply to them.
Discussion on Answer
Even aside from whether this depends on the dispute between Maimonides and Nachmanides—that was only a side remark—it seems to me that the two possibilities I suggested are still both on the table.
I looked at this again and noticed something that may resolve the contradiction:
Laws of Forbidden Foods, chapter 2, halakhah 13:
“These species that come into being in refuse heaps and in animal carcasses, such as maggots and worms and the like, which do not come into being from male and female but from putrid matter and the like—these are what are called things that creep on the earth. One who eats an olive’s bulk of them receives lashes, as it says: ‘Do not defile yourselves through any creature that creeps on the earth.’ Even though they do not reproduce, the phrase ‘the swarming creature that swarms on the earth’ refers to that which reproduces from male and female.”
That is, Maimonides distinguishes between a creeping thing and a swarming creature. A creeping thing is like a swarming creature except that it came into being through a process that did not involve reproduction (perhaps today one could compare this to flesh of creeping creatures grown in laboratory conditions, which would then be permitted). The entire negative prohibition stated in halakhah 12 applies only to swarming creatures, not to creeping things. A creeping thing becomes forbidden by a negative commandment only once it creeps on the earth, but as long as it is in vessels, that negative commandment does not apply to it. The positive commandment also does not apply, because it is limited to seas and rivers. Therefore it is entirely permitted.
Maybe that is also a possibility. But it seems to me that what I wrote is possible as well.
As I understand it, the words “those may you eat” are meant to indicate that specifically those are permitted to be eaten, and not other things. Something similar appears in Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Foods, chapter 2, halakhah 1:
“From the fact that it says, ‘Every animal that parts the hoof, has split hoofs, and chews the cud’—I would infer that anything that does not chew the cud and part the hoof is forbidden; and a prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the force of a positive commandment. But regarding the camel, pig, hare, and hyrax it says, ‘These you shall not eat from among those that chew the cud and from among those that part the hoof,’ etc. So you learn that they are under a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign. All the more so are other impure domesticated animals and impure wild animals, which have no sign at all, forbidden by a negative commandment in addition to the positive commandment derived from ‘that you may eat.’”
In that halakhah above, you can see that impure domesticated and wild animals are forbidden both by a negative commandment and by a positive commandment. Seemingly, I would expect water-creatures too to be forbidden both by a negative commandment and by a positive commandment. And water-creatures in vessels would be forbidden only by the negative commandment, since the positive commandment applies only to seas and rivers. In other words, at least according to Maimonides’ own view, he does not seem consistent with himself.