In this week’s parsha (22:30) we learn the prohibition of eating meat which is “treifa.” In everyday language the word “treif” means any food forbidden by Halacha. However in the Halachic literature “treifa” has a rather specific definition.

The Torah uses two words to describe dead animals: “treifa” which is used in our parsha, and “neveila” (Devarim 14:20). “Neveila” implies a natural death (see Shmot 18:18). “Treifa” implies a violent death (see Breishit 37:33).

The Torah forbids both treifot and neveilot. The Rambam treats these types of animals as separate prohibitions. The prohibition of neveila is simple- the Torah forbids eating any dead animal (which wasn’t slaughtered according to the Halacha). This is what the Rambam writes in Sefer Hamitzvot (prohibition 180) and in Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot (4:1). Treifa now becomes difficult to define. The Rambam asks, once the Torah prohibited all carcasses as neveila, what need was there for a prohibition applying only to animals killed by beasts of prey? So the Rambam (Ma’achalot Asurot, 4:6-9) explains that “treifa” refers to any animal that was attacked fatally but did not yet die. By extension the word “treifa” is understood to refer to any animal that is dying.

This concept exists of course in the Gemara but it took a master of the Rambam’s ability to explain this concept so clearly and with such brevity. The fact that an animal can be a treifa while walking around is strange at first glance. But this truth lies at the heart of the Halachot of treifot. The chapter in Chullin titled “Eilu Treifot” describes all the conditions which exist in animal and render it “treifa.”

I wrote above, that “by extension” the word treifa means any animal that is dying. The Rambam distinguishes between an animal killed by a beast of prey and animal which was found, following shechita, to possess one of the signs of a treifa. The former animal could be viewed as a “literal” treifa while the latter animal is a treifa by virtue of Rabbinic interpretation. The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot (prohibition 181) writes that eating from the second form of treifa is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Similarly (at least in my humble opinion it seems to be similar) the Rambam distinguishes between the types of treifot in Hilchot Shechita. There is a well-known rule for arriving at Halachic decisions. When we are in doubt about a matter of Torah-law we rule strictly, but if the question relates to Rabbinic-law we rule leniently. The Halacha classifies treifot into eight categories. The Rambam writes in Hilchot Shechita (5:3) that when doubts arise about an animal having one out of seven types of treifot we may, on occasion rule leniently. Only the eighth form of treifa (called drusa), requires us to rule strictly. The Rambam writes that only the drusa (drusa means “pounced upon”) is referred to explicitly in the Torah, so it is the only form of treifa which falls under the rule of safek d’Oraita l’chumra.

The Rambam’s distinction between the two broad classes of treifot is striking and drew almost immediate criticism. The Ramban, for one, attacked this view in his comments to the Sefer Hamitzvot (page 46 in the Mossad HaRav Kook/ Rabbi Chaim Chavell edition of Sefer Hamitzvot). The question of how the Rambam viewed laws derived by the Rabbis from Biblical verses is well known to all yeshiva students. It may be that the question of how the Rambam viewed the seven treifot is linked to the question of how the Rambam viewed kiddushei kessef. Be that as it may, Rav Kaffach zt”l in his edition of Sefer Hamitzvot (prohibition 181, note 19) says that the Rambam’s view is supported by the Talmud Yerushalmi to masechet Beitza. The Yerushalmi compares the laws of treifot to the laws of d’mai which is a Rabbinic -level prohibition. The Gr”a to Yoreh Deah chap.39 (note 2) explains the Yerushalmi and allows it to mesh with the conventional view which places all treifot in the category of Torah prohibitions. Rav Kaffach zt”l said that we can take the Yerushalmi at its plain meaning and that it provides the basis for the Rambam’s view.