What is the meaning of "Mafreses Parsah?
Rashi, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It means that its sole (hoof) is split into two.
Rashbam: It means that its hoof consists of one nail like a shoe and is not divided into nailed claws like the sole of a hare and a rabbit. 1
See Oznayim la'Torah, DH 'Mafreses Parsash', who discusses the explanations of Rashi and the Rashbam and queries the latter's explanation.
What is the meaning of "Shosa'as Shesa?
Rashi, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It means that it is completely split from top to bottom. 1
Rashbam: It means that its hoof is divided into two. 2
Why does the Torah add the word "Ma'alas Geirah ba'Beheimah"?
Rashi: To permit a fetus that one finds inside a Shechted animal.
What is the meaning of "Ma'alas Geirah"?
Rashi: It means that the animal sucks up its food (cud) from the stomach into its mouth. 1
Rashi: Presumably cud is called "Geirah", because it is 'drawn' into its mouth (as in Shmuel 2, 14:14). Moshav Zekenim, citing R. Eliezer of Garmaiza - the Simanim allude to Yisrael."Perasos" hints to two Perasos (rewards), in this world and the world to come. Chewing the cud hints to after eating Peros [of Mitzvos] in this world, the principal is intact for the world to come. Nations are compared to the pig. "Geirah Yo Yigar" (Pasuk 7) - they eat in this world, and have no share in the world to come.
Why does the Torah add the (otherwise superfluous) words "Ma'alas Geirah ba'Beheimah Osah Tocheilu"?
Rashi and Ramban #1 (citing the Sifra): It comes to add an Asei to the Lo Sa'aseh against eating animals that do not possess the two above-mentioned Simanim.
Ramban #2 (citing the Rambam): It comes to prohibit human flesh. 1
"Osah Tocheilu", 've'Lo Adam' (See Ramban, who disagrees with the Rambam and who elaborates at length). Refer also to 11:4:3.1:2 and note.
The Torah wrote an explicit La'av for animals with one Siman Taharah. What is the source for a La'av for animals with no Siman Taharah?
Ramban: The Torah wrote a La'av for the rabbit and the hare 'because it does not have split hooves', and for the Chazir 'because it does not chew the cud.' Animals that have neither are automatically included in the La'av. It is not a Kal va'Chomer 1 (which is not subject to Malkos).
Sifra (2:3:2): There is a La'av for animals with only one Siman Taharah, and Kal va'Chomer for animals with no Siman Taharah! 2
For each of the four species, the Torah mentions the Siman it has and the Siman it lacks. Perhaps the Sifra (refer to 11:3:151:1) holds that animals with no Siman are not included! If not for a Kal va'Chomer, the La'av would apply only when it has a Siman Tum'ah and a Siman Taharah! According to the Ramban, why are other animals not subject to two sets of Malkos ? for an animal without split hooves, and for an animal that does not chew its cud? (PF).
Ramban: We do not give Malkos based on a Kal va'Chomer! Either this Sifra is a misprint, or it is like the opinion that holds 'Onshin min ha'Din' (we punish based on a Kal va'Chomer). (According to one opinion in Sanhedrin 54a, R. Yehudah holds like this. A S'tam Sifra is assumed to be R. Yehudah - Shabbos 137a. - PF) Afarkasta de'Anya (1:121 DH 'u've'Sefer Asiris) ? Asiris ha'Eifah on Sifra says that usually, Ein Onshin Min ha'Din, for we do not rely on our reasoning. Here, the Torah taught the reason - even though it has a Siman Taharah, it is forbidden due to the Siman Tum'ah. Here, all agree that Onshin Min ha'Din! See ha'Torah ve'ha'Mitzvah, Siman 69.
