2,283. A Prohibition Inferred From an Obligation

Maachalos Assuros 2:1

Since Deuteronomy 14:6 says “Any animal that has split hooves divided into two and chews the cud,” we can infer that any animal that doesn’t chew its cud and have split hoofs is prohibited. A prohibition inferred from an obligation is considered a positive mitzvah. As far as the camel, the pig, the hare and the rock badger, Leviticus 11:4 tells us, “These you may not eat from those that chew the cud and have split hooves.” These are prohibited by a negative mitzvah even though they have one sign of kosher animals. This surely applies to other non-kosher domesticated and wild animals, which have none of the signs of kosher animals. Eating them involves both a negative mitzvah and the aforementioned positive mitzvah inferred from "This may you eat."

Maachalos Assuros 2:2

Pursuant to the previous halacha, one who eats an olive-sized piece of meat from a non-kosher domesticated or wild animal is liable to lashes under Biblical law. This same is true if he ate fat because the Torah didn’t differentiate between the meat and fat of non-kosher animals.