Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the halachic status of a pig that is nursing from a sheep. There is a twofold question: is this an offspring of this sheep and somehow just a mutation that it appears to be like a pig, in which case it would be permitted to eat? Secondly, if this was the offspring, then the next child does not have to be considered a firstborn, since this is already qualified. Or was this pig adopted by the sheep and is not its biological child?

The Gemara concludes that we must wait until Eliyahu the Prophet arrives in Messianic times to clarify unresolved Torah questions. The implication is that swine will be forbidden in Messianic times as well; otherwise, regarding the first question of whether it is permitted to eat the offspring, there would be no relevance, because even if it were a pig, it would be permitted.

This contradicts a Midrashic tradition that in the Messianic future, pig will be permitted to eat (see Ritva, Kiddushin 49b; Midrash Tehillim 146; Ohr HaChaim, Vayikra 11:7, seemingly based on Koheles Rabbah 1:9 and Vayikra Rabbah 1:3).

The Chasam Sofer (Parashas Re’eh) similarly raises an interesting question regarding this principle. If we say that pig will be permitted one day, why do we say a pig can be nullified in a mixture of 1/60? We have a halacha that something that will end up permitted, cannot be nullified. (This is only according to those who do not factor excessive time and/or expense into the equation and consider something which can be permitted after a long time or great effort to still be a davar she-yesh lo matirin, ve-afilu be-elef lo batel.)

He first says that in truth, the Midrash is really an allegory, hinting that in the future all nations will return to God, as Esav is compared to a swine. In Midrashic literature, the descendants of Esav are represented by the pig (see Rashi, Bereishis 26:34, and Bereishis Rabbah 65).

However, Chasam Sofer not satisfied with that answer, as he declares ein midrash yotzei mi-yedei peshuto — no Midrash is taken out of its simple meaning.

(This is difficult to understand, as true, Chazal specifically say ein mikra yotzei mi-yedei peshuto — the verse does not get taken out of its simple meaning. But Midrashim, by definition, are discussions meant specifically to go beyond the basic meaning. Many great authorities hold that Midrashim do not have to be taken literally; see the introductions in the printed edition of Ein Yaakov. However, I believe the Chasam Sofer is driving at the following idea. Even if the rabbis were using allegory, the literal words would not go against halachah, and still could be mined for wisdom of halachic significance. After all, even the idle words of the sages can be studied as Torah (Avodah Zarah 19b). Regardless, the Chasam Sofer felt compelled to answer this question in a different way.)

The Chasam Sofer quotes Toldos Yitzchak, who explains that the reason certain beasts are not kosher is because of their predatory and cruel quality, which is manifest by claws (instead of hooves) and not chewing the cud, which indicates a more delicate digestive system, i.e., a herbivore instead of a carnivore. Thus, the signs of non-kosher are not merely signs, but manifestations of a spiritually toxic nature. In the future, the animals will cease being predators (as we saw earlier from Yeshayahu 11), and thus the very nature of the animal will change and it will be kosher. Therefore, pig is not a davar she-yesh lo matirin, as any leftover pig meat in the Messianic era would still be unkosher. Only newly born pigs, with a different temperament and physiology, will be kosher.

If so, the question would still be important to resolve in a Messianic future, due to the leftover cured meat.. And furthermore, perhaps some pigs will have the old non-kosher physiology, and a different breed will come with the new physiology.

Let’s reflect on this idea that time in the future, even things that were considered less pure will enter into a stage where the world is elevated, and they will become more attached to God. Not incidentally, the theological significance of the purification of the pig in Messianic times hints at a healthy partnership between the descendants of Esav and Yaakov. A friend of mine calls President Trump “Good Esav,” that he fulfills a role in the world not by claiming moral high ground, but by claiming a vested, capitalistic interest in success and productivity in America and throughout the world. Death and war “are bad for business.” Even the heavily liberal-biased “fact checker .org,” which I like to call “fact-sheker.org,” agrees that President Trump “had a significant role in ending fighting in four conflicts: Israel–Iran, Thailand–Cambodia, Armenia–Azerbaijan, and India–Pakistan.” He may be responsible for saving more lives in a pragmatic sense than any other person alive today. This, aside from protecting Israel and the civilized world from a nuclear Armageddon desperately sought by the Iranian suicidal regime as part of a religious belief system, which is not easily subject to renegotiation.