1) The Chizkuni (Devorim 14:15) tells us that the yaanah’s meat was inedible, therefore, the Torah had no need to prohibit eating its meat; however, the meat of the young “baas hayaanah” was edible, therefore, the Torah needed to tell us that it’s forbidden.
2) The pasuk says: לא תנסו את ה' – “One should not test Hashem” (Devorim 6:16). The Torah Temimah (Devorim 14:22) on the pasuk עשר תעשר quotes the Gemara (Ta’anis 9a), עשר בשביל שתתעשר – “that one should give tzedokah in order to increase one’s wealth.” The Torah Temimah continues to comment by saying that this pasuk proves that one cannot test Hashem, except in the area of giving tzedokah in order to increase one’s wealth and cites as proof the Gemara (Kesubos 66b) which quotes Nakdimon ben Gurion’s daughter who says that using your money for acts of “chesed” – “kindness” i.e. charity, will salt and preserve your wealth. Therefore, giving tzedoka can affect your mazal.
Rav Shlomah Levenstein writes in his sefer Umatok Ha’or that if you take the letters of the words תעשר and take 10% of each letter, you will be left with מזלך - “your mazal”. The ת (400) becomes a מ (40); the ע (70) becomes a ז (7); the ש (300) becomes ל (30); and the ר (200) becomes a ך (20), spelling the word מזלך. (Torah IQ)
3) One answer given is that there is a statement attributed to Chazal that: עתיד הקב״ה שראליל להחזירו – “in the future, Hashem will return it to us by rendering it kosher”, since in the future it will become kosher, it is known as a chazir.
The obvious difficulty with this explanation is that one of the Rambam’s 13 principles of Jewish belief is that no part of the Torah will ever be changed. Thus, the Y’fei Toar (Vayikra Rabbah 13:3) and S’dei Chemed (Vol. 3 pg. 350) maintain that there is no actual source in Chazal for this purported statement, and the Pri Megadim suggests that the reason the Gemara euphemistically refers to swine as אחר דבר - that other thing - is to avoid using the term חזיר that could mistakenly cause people to think that they will eventually become permissible.
Rabbeinu Bechaye (Vayikra 11:7) and the Ritva (Kiddushin 49b) suggest that the Medrash is not to be taken literally, but is allegorically referring to the nation of Edom, which is likened to a chazir (Tehillim 80:14). The Medrash is saying that in the future, Edom will change its nature and help us build the third Beis HaMikdosh.
On the other hand, the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh (Vayikra 11:7) takes this statement literally and says that chazeirim will one day be kosher. He explains that Hashem will change their nature and cause them to chew their cud, in which case they will possess the necessary traits that render animals kosher. The Torah alludes to this by stating (Devorim 14:8), “[You shall not eat the chazir], for it does not chew its cud,” implying that if its nature changes and it begins to chew its cud, it may be eaten. As a source for this concept.
The Medrash Lekech Tov (Shemini) says, a chazir has no neck and when it wants to turn around it must turn its entire body around. It can’t just turn its neck like other animals, as it doesn’t have one. For this reason, it is called a chazir, which means to turn around, as when a chazir wants to turn around, it must turn its entire body.
4) An incident occurred in the shul of Rav Meir Michel Rabinowitz in Vilna, where a wealthy man who had been accustomed to be honored every Shabbos with the sixth aliyah, for which he gave generous contributions to the shul, suffered a financial setback and was no longer able to do so. Because the shul needed large sums of money to cover its expenses, some suggested that the honor be given to other wealthy members. Rav Rabinowitz ruled that they must continue to honor the formerly wealthy man due to the requirement to provide him with the level of honor to which he was accustomed. As proof, he cited the Gemara (Kesubos 67b) which records that on behalf of a pauper who had grown up wealthy, Hillel procured a horse on which he could ride and a servant to walk in front of him. On one occasion when he was unable to find a servant, Hillel himself walked in front of the man for almost two miles. While the horse was necessary because the man was unaccustomed to traveling by foot, Hillel’s inclusion of the servant demonstrates that we must give the poor person not only the physical possessions to which he was accustomed, but the level of respect as well.
However, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv maintains that this principle only applies to somebody who has actually become poor, in which case we must provide him not only the basics, but also the level of comfort to which he was accustomed, but in a case where he is simply not as well off as before and is only lacking luxuries, there is no such obligation. (Lulei Soras’cha, Derech Sicha)
