Which Animals Chew The Cud And Have Split Hooves?

Animals that comply with Jewish regulations for consumption

Kosher animals are animals that comply with the regulations of kashrut and are considered kosher foods. These dietary laws ultimately derive from various passages in the Torah with various modifications, additions and clarifications added to these rules by halakha. Various other animal-related rules are contained in the 613 commandments.

A 15th-century depiction of shechita

Land animals [edit]

Leviticus 11:3-8 and Deuteronomy xiv:4-8 both give the same full general set of rules for identifying which land animals (Hebrew: בהמות Behemoth) are ritually clean. Co-ordinate to these, anything that "chews the cud" and has a completely split hoof is ritually make clean, but those animals that merely chew the cud or just accept cloven hooves are unclean.

Both documents explicitly listing 4 animals as beingness ritually impure:

• The camel, for chewing the cud without its hooves beingness divided.^{[1] [two]}
• The hyrax, for chewing the cud without having cloven hooves.^{[2] [three]} (The Hebrew term for this animal—שפן shapan —has been translated past older English versions of the bible equally coney; the existence of the hyrax wasn't known to early on English language translators.

The coney was an exclusively European animal, not present in Canaan, while the shapan was described by the Book of Proverbs every bit living on rocks^[4] like the hyrax, just unlike the coney.)

• The hare, for chewing the cud without having cloven hooves.^{[two] [v]}
• The pig, for having cloven hooves without chewing the cud.^{[vi] [7]}

While camels are actually non true ruminants they chew cud, and do in fact take cloven hooves. Some argue that they are not 'proper hooves'.

Although hares and coneys do non ruminate at all, they do usually re-ingest soft cecal pellets made of chewed plant material right subsequently excretion for farther bacterial digestion in their stomach and this serves the same purpose as rumination.

Although not ruminants, hyraxes have complex, multichambered stomachs that allow symbiotic bacteria to break down tough found materials, though they exercise non regurgitate.^[8] Further clarification of this classification has been attempted by various authors, most recently by Rabbi Natan Slifkin, in a volume, entitled The Camel, the Hare, and the Hyrax.^[9]

Different Leviticus 11:3-viii, Deuteronomy 14:4-8 also explicitly names 10 animals considered ritually make clean:

• The ox^[10]
• The sheep^[10]
• The caprine animal^[10]
• The deer^[11]
• The gazelle^[11]
• The yahmur;^[11] this term, straight taken from the Masoretic Text, is ambiguously used by Arabs to refer to roe deer and to oryx^[12]
• The the'o;^[xi] this term, directly taken from the Masoretic Text, has traditionally been translated ambiguously.

In Deuteronomy, it has traditionally been translated as wild goat, only in the same translations is called a wild ox where it occurs in Deutero-Isaiah;^[13] the bubal hartebeest lies somewhere between these creatures in appearance and has been regarded as a likely fit for the'o.

• The pygarg;^[11] the identity of this animal is uncertain, and pygarg is merely the Septuagint's rendering.

The Masoretic Text calls information technology a dishon, meaning springing; it has thus usually been interpreted every bit some form of antelope or ibex.

• The antelope^[11]
• The camelopardalis;^[11] the identity of this animate being is uncertain, and camelopardalis, is merely the Septuagint's wording.^[14]

The Masoretic Text calls it a zamer, but camelopardalis means camel-leopard and refers to the giraffe (giraffe is derived, via Italian, from the Arabic term ziraafa meaning "assembled [from multiple parts]").

The traditional translation has been chamois, merely the chamois has never naturally existed in Canaan; neither is the giraffe naturally found in Canaan, and consequently the mouflon is considered the best remaining identification.

The Deuteronomic passages mention no further land beasts as existence make clean or unclean, seemingly suggesting that the condition of the remaining country beasts can exist extrapolated from the given rules.

By contrast, the Levitical rules after go on to add that all quadrupeds with paws should be considered ritually unclean,^[fifteen] something non explicitly stated past the Deuteronomic passages; the simply quadrupeds with paws are the carnivorans (dogs, wolves, cats, lions, hyenas, bears, etc.), and all carnivorans fall nether this description.

The Leviticus passages thus cover all the big land animals that naturally live in Canaan, except for primates, and equids (horses, zebras, etc.), which are not mentioned in Leviticus as being either ritually clean or unclean, despite their importance in warfare and society, and their mention elsewhere in Leviticus.

In an endeavor to help identify animals of ambiguous appearance, the Talmud, in a similar manner to Aristotle'due south before Historia Animalium,^[16] argued that animals without upper teeth would ever chew the cud and have split up hoofs (thus being ritually make clean), and that no animal with upper teeth would do so; the Talmud makes an exception for the example of the camel (which, like the other ruminant fifty-fifty-toed ungulates, is apparently 'without upper teeth' though some citations^[17]), even though the skulls clearly have both front and rear upper teeth. The Talmud also argues that the meat from the legs of clean animals can exist torn lengthwise as well every bit across, unlike that of unclean animals,^{[ unreliable source? ]} thus aiding to identify the condition of meat from uncertain origin.^[17]

Origin [edit]

Many Biblical scholars believe that the classification of animals was created to explain pre-existing taboos.^[xviii] Starting time with the Saadia Gaon, several Jewish commentators started to explicate these taboos rationalistically; Saadia himself expresses an statement similar to that of totemism, that the unclean animals were declared so because they were worshipped by other cultures.^[19] Due to comparatively recent discoveries well-nigh the cultures adjacent to the Israelites, it has get possible to investigate whether such principles could underlie some of the nutrient laws.

Egyptian priests would but consume the meat of even-toed ungulates (swine, camelids, and ruminants), and rhino.^[twenty] Like the Egyptian priests, Vedic India (and presumably the Persians likewise) allowed the meat of rhinoceros and ruminants, although cattle were excluded from this, since they were seemingly taboo in Vedic India;^{[21] [22] [23]} in a particular parallel with the Israelite list, Vedic Republic of india explicitly forbade the consumption of camelids and domestic pigs (merely non boar).^{[21] [22] [23]} Notwithstanding, different the biblical rules, Vedic Bharat did allow the consumption of hare and porcupine,^{[21] [22] [23]} but Harran did non, and was even more than similar to the Israelite regulations, allowing all ruminants, but non other country beasts, and expressly forbidding the meat of camels.^{[17] [24]}

It is also possible to detect an ecological explanation for these rules. If one believes that religious community are at to the lowest degree partly explained by the ecological atmospheric condition in which a religion evolves, then this too could account for the origin of these rules.^[25]

Modern practices [edit]

In addition to meeting the restrictions as defined by the Torah, there is also the result of masorah (tradition). In general, animals are eaten only if at that place is a masorah that has been passed downwards from generations ago that clearly indicates that these animals are adequate. For case, at that place was considerable debate as to the kosher status of zebu and bison among the rabbinical authorities when they showtime became known and available for consumption; the Orthodox Matrimony permits bison,^[26] as can be attested to by the menus of some of the more upscale kosher restaurants in New York Urban center.

Water creatures [edit]

Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy fourteen:9-10 both state that anything residing in "the waters" (which Leviticus specifies as existence the seas and rivers) is ritually clean if information technology has both fins and scales,^{[27] [28]} in contrast to anything residing in the waters with neither fins nor scales.^{[29] [30]} The latter grade of animals is described as ritually impure past Deuteronomy,^[30] Leviticus describes them every bit an "abomination" KJV Leviticus 11:10. Abomination is also sometimes used to interpret iggul and toebah .

Although the Erstwhile Testament does not farther specify, the Talmud makes the claim that all fish that have scales too have fins,^[31] and then practically speaking, we demand to only identify organisms that have scales and tin ignore the portion of the rule most fins. Nachmanides comments that the scales of a kosher fish must be able to exist removed either past hand or by pocketknife, only that the underlying skin does not become damaged with removal of the scales,^[32] and this opinion had been universally accustomed past all halachic government at the time.^[33]

Scientifically, at that place are v dissimilar types of fish scales: placoid, cosmoid, ganoid, ctenoid and cycloid. The majority of kosher fish exhibit the latter two forms, ctenoid or cycloid, but the bowfin (Amia calva) is an example of a fish with ganoid scales that is deemed kosher. As such, kosher status cannot be said to follow the rules of modern-day classification, and qualified experts on kosher fish must be consulted to determine the status of a item fish or scale type.^[34]

These rules restrict permissible seafood to stereotypical fish, prohibiting the unusual forms such as the eel, lamprey, hagfish, and lancelet. In addition, they exclude not-fish marine creatures, such as crustaceans (lobster, crab, prawn, shrimp, barnacle, etc.), molluscs (squid, octopus, oyster, periwinkle, etc.), bounding main cucumbers, and jellyfish.

Other creatures living in the ocean and rivers that would be prohibited by the rules include the cetaceans (dolphin, whale, etc.), crocodilians (alligator, crocodile etc.), ocean turtles, sea snakes, and all amphibians.

Sharks are considered to be ritually unclean according to these regulations, every bit their scales can only be removed by dissentious the peel. A minor controversy arises from the fact that the appearance of the scales of swordfish is heavily affected by the ageing procedure—their young satisfy Nachmanides' dominion, but when they reach machismo they do not.

Traditionally "fins" has been interpreted as referring to translucent fins. The Mishnah claims that all fish with scales volition also accept fins, but that the contrary is not always true.^[35] For the latter case, the Talmud argues that ritually clean fish have a singled-out spinal column and flattish face, while ritually unclean fish don't have spinal columns and have pointy heads,^[36] which would define the shark and sturgeon (and related fish) as ritually unclean.

Nevertheless, Aaron Chorin, a prominent 19th-century rabbi and reformer, alleged that the sturgeon was actually ritually pure, and hence permissible to eat.^[17] Many Conservative rabbis at present view these particular fish as beingness kosher,^[37] but most Orthodox rabbis do non.^[33]

The question for sturgeon is particularly significant equally most caviar consists of sturgeon eggs, and therefore cannot be kosher if the sturgeon itself is non. Sturgeon-derived caviar is not eaten past some Kosher-observant Jews because sturgeon possess ganoid scales instead of the usual ctenoid and cycloid scales. There is a kosher caviar.^[38] Atlantic salmon roe is also kosher.^[39]

Origin [edit]

Nachmanides believed that the restrictions against certain fish also addressed wellness concerns, arguing that fish with fins and scales (and hence ritually clean) typically live in shallower waters than those without fins or scales (i.e., those that were ritually impure), and consequently the latter were much colder and more humid, qualities he believed made their flesh toxic.^[xl]

The bookish perception is that natural repugnance from "weird-looking" fish is a meaning gene in the origin of the restrictions.^{[41] [42] [43] [44] [45]} Vedic India (and presumably the Persians besides) exhibit such repugnance, mostly assuasive fish, but forbidding "weird looking" fish and exclusively carnivorous fish;^{[21] [22] [23]} in Arab republic of egypt, some other significant and influential culture nigh to the Israelites, the priests avoided all fish completely.^[20]

Birds [edit]

With regard to birds, no general dominion is given, instead Leviticus xi:13-19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-18 explicitly listing prohibited birds. In the Shulchan Aruch, 3 signs are given to kosher birds: the presence of a crop, an extra finger, and a gizzard that tin exist peeled. The bird must also not be a bird of prey. The Masoretic Text lists the birds as:

• nesher ^{[46] [47]}—"that which sheds its feathers"
• peres ^{[46] [47]}—"bone breaker"
• ozniyah ^{[46] [47]}—feminine form of oz , meaning "strong"
• ra'ah ^[48]/ da'ah ^[49]—that which darts, in the sense of "rapid"
• ayyah ^{[48] [49]}
• orev ^{[fifty] [51]}
• bat yaanah ^{[52] [53]}—daughter of howling
• tahmas ^{[52] [53]}—one who scratches the face up
• shahaf ^{[52] [53]}—i which atrophies
• netz ^{[52] [53]}
• kos ^{[54] [55]}—"cup"
• shalak ^{[54] [56]}—"plunger"
• yanshuf ^{[54] [55]}—"twilight"
• tinshemet ^{[55] [57]}—"blower"/"breather"
• qa'at ^{[56] [57]}—"vomiting"
• racham ^{[56] [57]}—"tenderness"/"amore"
• hasidah ^{[58] [59]}—"devoted"
• anafah ^{[58] [59]}—"1 which sniffs sharply", in the sense of 'anger'
• dukifat ^{[58] [59]}
• atalef ^{[58] [59]}

The list in Deuteronomy has an additional bird, the dayyah ,^[48] which seems to be a combination of 'da'ah' and 'ayyah' , and may exist a scribal error; the Talmud regards information technology as a duplication of ayyah .^[60] This, and the other terms, are vague and difficult to translate, but there are a few further descriptions, of some of these birds, elsewhere in the Bible:

• The ayyah is mentioned again in the Book of Task, where information technology is used to describe a bird distinguished past its particularly good sight.^[61]
• The bat yaanah is described by the Book of Isaiah as living in desolate places,^[62] and the Volume of Micah states that it emits a mournful cry.^[63]
• The qa'at appears in the Book of Zephaniah, where it is portrayed as nesting on the columns of a ruined city;^[64] the Book of Isaiah identifies information technology every bit possessing a marshy and desolate kingdom.^[65]

The Septuagint versions of the lists are more helpful, as in almost all cases the bird is conspicuously identifiable:

• aeton ^{[66] [67]}—eagle
• grypa ^{[66] [67]}—ossifrage
• haliaetos ^{[66] [67]}—sea eagle
• gyps ^{[68] [69]}—vulture
• ictinia ^{[68] [69]}—kite
• corax ^{[70] [71]}—raven
• stouthios ^{[72] [73]}—ostrich
• glaux ^{[72] [73]}—owl
• laros ^{[72] [73]}—gull
• hierax ^{[72] [74]}—hawk
• nycticorax ^{[74] [75]}—night raven
• cataractes ^{[74] [75]}—cormorant
• porphyrion ^{[76] [77]}—swamphen
• cycnos ^{[76] [78]}—swan
• Ibis^{[75] [78]}
• Pelican^{[76] [77]}
• charadrios ^{[77] [79]}—plover
• herodios ^{[78] [79]}—heron
• epops ^{[74] [79]}—hoopoe
• nycturia ^{[77] [79]}—bat
• meleagris ^{[79] [80]}—guineafowl

Although the first 10 birds identified past the Septuagint seem to fit the descriptions of the Masoretic Text, the ossifrage (Latin for "os billow") being a good example, the correspondence is less clear for about of the remaining birds.

It is likewise obvious that the list in Leviticus, or the list in Deuteronomy, or both, are in a different lodge in the Septuagint, compared to the Masoretic Text.^[a]

Attempting to make up one's mind the correspondence is problematic; for example, "pelican" may correspond to qa'at ("airsickness"), in reference to the pelican's characteristic behaviour, merely it may also correspond to kos ("cup"), as a reference to the pelican'south jaw pouch.

An additional complexity arises from the fact that the porphyrion has not yet been identified, and classical Greek literature merely identifies a number of species that are not the porphyrion , including the peacock, bickering, and robin, and implies that the porphyrion is the cousin of the kingfisher. From these meager clarifications, the porphyrion can simply be identified as anything from the lilac-breasted roller, Indian roller, or northern carmine bee-eater, to the flamingo. A likely candidate is the purple swamphen.

During the Middle Ages, classical descriptions of the hoopoe were mistaken for descriptions of the lapwing, on business relationship of the lapwing's prominent crest, and the hoopoe'southward rarity in England, resulting in "lapwing" being listed in sure bible translations instead of "hoopoe".

Similarly, the bounding main eagle has historically been confused with the osprey, and translations have ofttimes used the latter bird in identify of the sometime. Because strouthos (ostrich) was also used in Greek for the sparrow, a few translations accept placed the sparrow among the list.

In Standard arabic, the Egyptian vulture is often referred to as rachami ,^[81] and therefore a number of translations return 'racham' as "gier eagle", the former name for the Egyptian vulture.

Variations arise when translations follow other ancient versions of the Bible, rather than the Septuagint, where they differ. Rather than vulture ( gyps ), the Vulgate has "milvus" , meaning "crimson kite", which historically has been called the "glede", on account of its gliding flying; similarly, the Syriac Peshitta has "owl" rather than "ibis".

Other variations arise from attempting to base translations primarily on the Masoretic Text; these translations generally interpret some of the more cryptic birds every bit beingness diverse unlike kinds of vulture and owl. All of these variations hateful that well-nigh translations arrive at a listing of 20 birds from among the following:

• Bat
• Black kite
• Black vulture
• Cormorant
• Cuckoo
• Desert owl
• Eagle
• Eagle owl
• Egyptian vulture
• Falcon
• Flamingo
• Glede
• Great owl
• Gull
• Hawk
• Heron
• Hoopoe
• Ibis
• Indian roller
• Kingfisher
• Kite
• Lapwing
• Lilac-breasted roller
• Little owl
• Nighthawk
• Nighttime raven
• Northern carmine bee-eater
• Osprey
• Ossifrage
• Ostrich
• Owl
• Peacock
• Pelican
• Plover
• Porphyrion (untranslated)
• Raven
• Red Kite
• Screech owl
• Sea eagle
• Sparrow
• Stork
• Swan
• Vulture
• White owl

Despite being listed among the birds by the Bible, bats are non birds, and are in fact mammals (because the Hebrew Bible distinguishes animals into iv general categories—beasts of the country, flying animals, creatures which clamber upon the ground, and animals which dwell in water—not co-ordinate to modernistic scientific classification).

Most of the remaining animals on the listing are either birds of prey or birds living on water, and the majority of the latter in the list besides eat fish or other seafood.

The Septuagint's version of the list comprehensively lists near of the birds of Canaan that autumn into these categories. The conclusion of modern scholars is that, generally, ritually unclean birds were those clearly observed to eat other animals.^[82]

Although it does regard all birds of prey as being forbidden, the Talmud is uncertain of in that location existence a general rule, and instead gives detailed descriptions of the features that distinguish a bird as being ritually clean.

The Talmud argues that make clean birds would take craws, an easily separated 'double-skin', and would swallow food past placing it on the ground (rather than holding it on the ground) and violent it with their bills earlier eating it;^{[83] [84] [85]} however, the Talmud also argues that simply the birds in the biblical listing are really forbidden—these distinguishing features were just for cases when there was any dubiousness in the bird'south identity.^[85]

Origin [edit]

The earliest rationalistic explanations of the laws against eating certain birds focused on symbolic interpretations. The starting time indication of this view can be found in the 1st century BC Letter of Aristeas, which argues that this prohibition is a lesson to teach justice, and is likewise almost not injuring others.^[86]

Such allegorical explanations were abandoned by most Jewish and Christian theologians afterwards a few centuries, and later writers instead sought to find medical explanations for the rules; Nachmanides, for example, claimed that the black and thickened claret of birds of prey would cause psychological damage, making people much more inclined to cruelty.^[xl]

Nonetheless, other cultures treated the meat of sure cannibal birds equally having medical benefits, the Romans viewing owl meat every bit beingness able to ease the hurting of insect bites.

Conversely, modern scientific studies have discovered very toxic birds such as the pitohui, which are neither birds of prey nor water birds, and therefore the biblical regulations permit them to be eaten.

Laws against eating whatever carnivorous birds besides existed in Vedic India^{[21] [22] [23]} and Harran,^{[17] [24]} and the Egyptian priests also refused to eat cannibal birds.^[20]

Modern practical considerations [edit]

Due to the difficulty of identification, religious regime accept restricted consumption to specific birds for which Jews have passed down a tradition of permissibility from generation to generation. Birds for which there has been a tradition of their beingness kosher include:

• Chicken
• Chukar partridge^[87]
• Common pheasant^[88]
• Mutual quail^{[87] [89]}
• Grayness partridge^[87]
• Firm sparrow^[87]
• Rock partridge^[87]
• Japanese quail^{[87] [89]}
• Rock dove^{[87] [90] [91]}
• Turtle dove^{[91] [92] [90]}

As a general principle, scavenging birds such as vultures and birds of prey such equally hawks and eagles (which opportunistically eat carrion) are unclean.

The turkey^[88] does not have a tradition, but because and so many Orthodox Jews have come up to consume information technology and it possesses the simanim (signs) required to render it a kosher bird, an exception is made, just with all other birds a masorah is required.

Songbirds, which are consumed as delicacies in many societies, may be kosher in theory, but are not eaten in kosher homes every bit in that location is no tradition of them beingness eaten as such. Pigeons and doves are known to be kosher^[90] based on their permissible status every bit sacrificial offerings in the Temple of Jerusalem.

The Orthodox Union of America considers that neither the peafowl nor the guineafowl to be kosher birds^[87] since information technology has not obtained testimony from experts about the permissibility of either of these birds. In the case of the swans, at that place is no articulate tradition of eating them.^[93]

Rabbi Chaim Loike is currently the Orthodox Union's specialist on kosher bird species.^[94]

Predator birds [edit]

Unlike with land creatures and fish, the Torah does not requite signs for determining kosher birds, and instead gives a listing of non-kosher birds.

The Talmud also offers signs for determining whether a bird is kosher or not.

If a bird kills other animals to get its food, eats meat, or is a dangerous bird, and then is not kosher, a predatory bird is unfit to eat, raptors like the eagles, hawks, owls and other hunting birds are not kosher, vultures and other carrion-eating birds are not kosher either.^[95]

Crows and members of the crow family such every bit jackdaws, magpies and ravens are non kosher.^{[ citation needed ]} Storks, kingfishers, penguins and other fish-eating birds are not kosher.^[95]

Flying insects [edit]

Deuteronomy 14:xix specifies that all "flying creeping things" were to be considered ritually unclean^[96] and Leviticus eleven:twenty goes farther, describing all flying creeping things as filth, Hebrew sheqets .^[97] Leviticus goes on to list 4 exceptions, which Deuteronomy does non.

All these exceptions are described by the Levitical passages as "going upon all four legs" and as having "legs above their feet" for the purpose of leaping.^[98] The identity of the 4 creatures the Levitical rules list are named in the Masoretic Text using words of uncertain meaning:

• arbeh ^[99]—the Hebrew word literally means "[1 which] increases". The Septuagint calls information technology a brouchos , referring to a wingless locust, and older English translations render this as grasshopper in nearly parts of the Bible, but inconsistently translate it every bit locust in Leviticus.^[100]

In the Book of Nahum, the arbeh is poetically described as camping ground in hedges in cold days, but flying off into the far distance when the lord's day arises;^[101] for this reason, a number of scholars have suggested that the arbeh must really be the migratory locust.^[14]

• sol'am ^[99]—the Hebrew term literally means "swallower". The Septuagint calls it an attacos , the meaning of which is currently uncertain. The Talmud describes it as having a long head that is bald in forepart,^{[102] [103]} for which reason a number of English translations call information technology a bald locust (an cryptic term); many modern scholars believe that the Acrida (previously called Tryxalis) is meant, as it is distinguished past its very elongated head.
• hargol ^[99]—the Hebrew term literally means strafer (one that runs to the correct or to the left). The Septuagint calls it an ophiomachos, literally meaning "snake fighter"; the Talmud describes it as having a tail.^[104] The Talmud also states that it has large eggs, which were turned into amulets.^[105] This has historically been translated every bit beetle, merely since the 19th century, cricket has been deemed more than likely to fit.
• hagab ^[99]—the word literally ways "hider". The Book of Numbers implies that they were peculiarly minor.^[106] The Septuagint calls it an akrida , and it has usually been translated as grasshopper.

The Mishnah argues that the ritually make clean locusts could be distinguished as they would all accept four anxiety, jumping with two of them, and have four wings which are of sufficient size to encompass the entire locust's torso.^[107] The Mishnah also goes on to state that any species of locust could but be considered as clean if there was a reliable tradition that it was so.

The only Jewish group that continue to preserve such a tradition are the Jews of Yemen, who use the term "kosher locust" to describe the specific species of locusts they believe to be kosher, all of which are native to the Arabian Peninsula.

Due to the difficulties in establishing the validity of such traditions, afterward rabbinical authorities forbade contact with all types of locust^[108] to ensure that the ritually unclean locusts were avoided.^[109]

Small land creatures [edit]

Leviticus eleven:42-43 specifies that whatsoever "goes on its abdomen, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, any swarming thing that swarms on the footing, you shall not consume, for they are detestable." (Hebrew: sheqets ). Earlier stating this, it singles out eight item "creeping things" as specifically being ritually unclean in Leviticus xi:29-30.^[110]

Like many of the other biblical lists of animals, the exact identity of the creatures in the list is uncertain; medieval philosopher and Rabbi, Saadia Gaon, for example, gives a somewhat different explanation for each of the eight "creeping things." The Masoretic Text names them as follows:

• holed ^[111]—the Talmud describes information technology equally a predatory beast^[112] that bores underground.^{[113] [114] [115]}
• akhbar ^[111]—in Standard arabic, the cognate give-and-take, akhbar, refers to the jerboa
• tzab ^[116]—the Talmud describes it as existence similar to a salamander^[117]
• anaqah ^[111]—this Hebrew term literally means "groaner", and consequently a number of scholars believe it refers to a gecko, which makes a distinctive husky sound.
• ko'ah ^[116]
• leta'ah ^[116]—the Talmud describes it as beingness paralyzed by heat only revived with water, and states that its tail moves when cut off ^[118]
• homet ^[116]
• tinshemet ^[116]—this term literally means "blower/breather", and also appears in the list of birds

The Septuagint version of the list does not appear to directly parallel the Masoretic, and is thought to be listed in a different club. It lists the viii as:

• galei —a general term including the weasel, ferret, and the stoat, all of which are predatory animals noticeably attracted to holes in the footing.
• mus —the mouse.
• krokodelos-chersaios —the "country crocodile", which is idea to refer to the monitor lizard, a large lizard of somewhat crocodilian appearance.
• mygale —the shrew.
• chamaileon —the chameleon, which puffs itself up and opens its mouth wide when threatened
• chalabotes —a term derived from chala meaning "rock/claw", and therefore probably the wall lizard^{[ citation needed ]}
• saura —the lizard in general, perchance here intended to exist the skink, since information technology is the other remaining major group of lizards.
• aspalax —the mole-rat, although some older English translations, not being aware of the mole-rat'south existence, take instead translated this as mole.
• The earthworm, the ophidian, the scorpion, the protrude, the centipede, and all the creatures that crawl on the footing are not kosher.^{[119] [120]}
• Worms, snails and most invertebrate animals are not kosher.^{[121] [120]}
• All reptiles, all amphibians and insects with the exception of four types of locust are not kosher.^[121]

See also [edit]

• Kashrut
• Kosher foods

Notes [edit]

1. ^ In the Masoretic Text, the lists are nearly the aforementioned betwixt Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but in the Septuagint Leviticus is clearly in a different gild to Deuteronomy

References [edit]

1. ^ Leviticus 11:iv
2. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy fourteen:7
3. ^ Leviticus 11:5
4. ^ Proverbs 30:24-26
5. ^ Leviticus 11:6
6. ^ Leviticus xi:7
7. ^ Deuteronomy 14:8
8. ^ von Engelhardt, W; Wolter, South; Lawrenz, H; Hemsley, J.A. (1978). "Product of methane in 2 not-ruminant herbivores". Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A. 60 (3): 309–11. doi:ten.1016/0300-9629(78)90254-2.
9. ^ Rabbi Natan Sliftkin. "The Camel, the Hare, and the Hyrax". Yashar Books. Retrieved 2008-04-13 .
10. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:four
11. ^ ^{a b c d e f yard} Deuteronomy 14:v
12. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia, Animals
13. ^ Isaiah 52:twenty
14. ^ ^{a b} Cosmic Encyclopedia, animals
15. ^ Leviticus 11:27
16. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia
17. ^ ^{a b c d e} Jewish Encyclopedia, Dietary Laws
18. ^ Peake's commentary on the Bible
19. ^ Saadia Gaon, Kitab al-Amanat Wal-l'tikadat, 117
20. ^ ^{a b c} Porphyry, De Abstinentia 4:7
21. ^ ^{a b c d e} "Laws of Apastamba" 1:5, 1:29-39, 2:64
22. ^ ^{a b c d e} Laws of Vasishta, 14:38-48, 14:74
23. ^ ^{a b c d eastward} Laws of Bandhayuna, i:v, ane:12, 14:184
24. ^ ^{a b} Daniel Chwolson, Dice Szabier und der Szabismus, 2:vii
25. ^ Meet "Why mammals with split hooves?" https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-mammals-with-split-hooves/
26. ^ "thekosherexpress.com". thekosherexpress.com.
27. ^ Leviticus eleven:9
28. ^ Deuteronomy 14:9
29. ^ Leviticus eleven:10
30. ^ ^{a b} Deuteronomy 14:ten
31. ^ Bavli Niddah 59a, expounded in Bavli Chullin 66b
32. ^ Nachmanides, commentary to Leviticus 11:9
33. ^ ^{a b} Kosher Fish at kashrut.com. Retrieved 22 April 2007.
34. ^ OU Kosher.org An Analysis of Kaskeses: Past and Present, June thirteen, 2013
35. ^ Niddah 6:ix
36. ^ 'Abodah Zarah 39b-40a
37. ^ A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice. Isaac Klein. The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. New York and Jerusalem. 1979. p. 305 (in 1992 reprint).
38. ^ "Kelp Caviar Receives OU Kosher Certification". OU Kosher Certification. 11 February 2013. Retrieved 17 April 2019.
39. ^ "Caviar Kosher". Ohr Somayach.
40. ^ ^{a b} Nachmanides, Bi'ur on Leviticus
41. ^ Cheyne and Black, Encyclopedia Biblica
42. ^ Peake's commentary on the BIble
43. ^ W. Robertson Smith, "Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia"
44. ^ Jacobs, "Studies in Biblical Archæology
45. ^ Baentsch, "Exodus and Leviticus
46. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus 11:13
47. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy fourteen:12
48. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:thirteen
49. ^ ^{a b} Leviticus 11:14
50. ^ Leviticus 11:15
51. ^ Deuteronomy 14:14
52. ^ ^{a b c d} Leviticus 11:16
53. ^ ^{a b c d} Deuteronomy 14:fifteen
54. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus 11:17
55. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy fourteen:16
56. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:17
57. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus 11:18
58. ^ ^{a b c d} Leviticus 11:19
59. ^ ^{a b c d} Deuteronomy 14:18
60. ^ Hullin 63b
61. ^ Job 28:7
62. ^ Isaiah 34:13
63. ^ Micah 1:viii
64. ^ Zephaniah two:14
65. ^ Isaiah 34:xi
66. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus 11:xiii, LXX
67. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy fourteen:12, Seventy
68. ^ ^{a b} Leviticus 11:14, LXX
69. ^ ^{a b} Deuteronomy 14:13, 70
70. ^ Leviticus xi:xv, Seventy
71. ^ Deuteronomy 14:14, LXX
72. ^ ^{a b c d} Leviticus 11:sixteen, Lxx
73. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:fifteen, LXX
74. ^ ^{a b c d} Deuteronomy 14:17, LXX
75. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus 11:17, LXX
76. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus xi:18, Seventy
77. ^ ^{a b c d} Deuteronomy 14:18, 70
78. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy xiv:16, LXX
79. ^ ^{a b c d e} Leviticus xi:nineteen, Lxx
80. ^ Deuteronomy fourteen:19, Seventy
81. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia, Vulture
82. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia, dietary laws
83. ^ Hullin 59a
84. ^ Hullin 61a
85. ^ ^{a b} Hullin 63a
86. ^ Alphabetic character of Aristeas, 145-154
87. ^ ^{a b c d due east f g h} "Archived re-create". Archived from the original on 2010-07-29. Retrieved 2010-x-11 . {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as championship (link)
88. ^ ^{a b} "What Is Kosher? | Kosher Definition | KLBD Kosher Certification". Archived from the original on 2012-07-20.
89. ^ ^{a b} "How exercise I know whether a item bird is kosher or not? - miscellaneous animals/pets mitzvot kosher kosher creatures". www.askmoses.com.
90. ^ ^{a b c} "Leviticus 1:14 If, instead, one's offering to the LORD is a burnt offer of birds, he is to offer a turtledove or a immature pigeon". biblehub.com.
91. ^ ^{a b} Leviticus 1:14
92. ^ 61a-b – Determining the kosher status of birds
93. ^ "What is Kosher Food, Kosher Rules, Products, Definition, What Does Kosher Mean". www.koshercertification.org.uk.
94. ^ "Bioethics" (PDF). world wide web.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2020-03-29 .
95. ^ ^{a b} "What are kosher animals? - miscellaneous animals/pets mitzvot kosher kosher creatures". world wide web.askmoses.com.
96. ^ Deuteronomy 14:19
97. ^ Leviticus 11:20
98. ^ Leviticus 11:21
99. ^ ^{a b c d} Leviticus 11:22
100. ^ The King James Version for case, translates brouchos / arbeh every bit grasshopper in the Book of Judges, Volume of Chore, and Book of Jeremiah, merely as locust in Leviticus
101. ^ Nahum 3:17
102. ^ Hullin 65b
103. ^ 'Abodah Zarah 37a
104. ^ Hullin 65a
105. ^ Shabbat half-dozen:10
106. ^ Numbers thirteen:33
107. ^ Hullin 3:8
108. ^ Joseph Caro,Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah:85
109. ^ "Ofttimes asked questions". world wide web.star-k.org.
110. ^ Leviticus eleven:29–30
111. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus xi:29
112. ^ Hullin 52b
113. ^ Baba Kama 80a
114. ^ Baba Batra 19b
115. ^ Hullin 20b
116. ^ ^{a b c d due east} Leviticus 11:thirty
117. ^ Hullin 127a
118. ^ Oholot i:6
119. ^ "OU Life - Everyday Jewish Living". OU Life.
120. ^ ^{a b} Leviticus eleven:41
121. ^ ^{a b} "Which Animals Are Kosher? - Kosher Animals". www.chabad.org.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_animals

Posted by: gurleygracts1948.blogspot.com

Share this post