In today's world, Xrafstar has become a topic of great relevance and interest to a wide spectrum of society. Since its emergence, Xrafstar has captured the attention of academics, experts, professionals and the general public, generating a debate in which multiple points of view are presented and different aspects related to this topic are analyzed. Over time, Xrafstar has evolved, adapting to the changes and challenges that arise in today's world, and its influence has extended to various spheres, from politics and economics, to culture and entertainment. In this article we will explore the most relevant aspects of Xrafstar, examining its impact on society and its role in the contemporary world.
Xrafstar or Khrafstra (Avestan: xrafstra-; Middle Persian: xrafstar) is a cover term in Zoroastrianism for the animals that are harmful or repulsive. These animals were not to be sacrificed or eaten. They were considered creations of the Evil Spirit Angra Mainyu and killing them was seen as meritorious.[1] In the Young Avesta and Middle Persian texts, the class of xrafstars includes frogs, reptiles, scorpions and insects like ants or wasps, whereas predators such as the wolf are not referred to as xrafstars, even though they too are considered to be creations of evil.[2]
Herodotus narrates about the practice of killing xrafstars among the Magi: "The Magi are a very peculiar race, different entirely from the Egyptian priests, and indeed from all other men whatsoever. The Egyptian priests make it a point of religion not to kill any live animals except those which they offer in sacrifice. The Magi, on the contrary, kill animals of all kinds with their own hands, excepting dogs and men. They even seem to take a delight in the employment, and kill, as readily as they do other animals, ants and snakes, and such like flying or creeping things".[3] However, it is noteworthy that Greek sources on Persian culture were often biased and slanderous, led by strong Greco-Persian rivalry. Herodotus in particular has gained a reputation for being untrustworthy by scholars, with ancient historian Paul Cartledge going so far as to declare his work "the very denial of official history."[4]