What Are Considered Clean And Unclean Animals In The Bible

CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS.

By: Emil Grand. Hirsch, Henry Hyvernat, Executive Committee of the Editorial Board., Louis Ginzberg

Table of Contents

Distinction Between "Clean" and "Unclean."
Biblical Data:
Theories of Distinction.
—Ethnological View:
Quadrupeds.
—In Rabbinical and Hellenistic Literature:
Birds.
Fishes.
Insects.
Reasons for Distinction.

Distinction Between "Clean" and "Unclean."

—Animals ceremonially pure and fit for nutrient, and such as are not.

Biblical Data:

The distinction between clean and unclean animals appears first in Gen. vii. 2-three, 8, where it is said that Noah took into the ark 7 and vii, male and female, of all kinds of make clean beasts and fowls, and ii and two, male and female, of all kinds of beasts and fowls that are not clean. Again, Gen. viii. 20 says that after the inundation Noah "took of every clean creature and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the chantry that he had built to the Lord." Information technology seems that in the mind of this writer the distinction between make clean and unclean animals was intended for sacrifices only; for in the following chapter he makes God say: "Everything that moveth shall exist food for you" (Gen. ix. 3). In Leviticus (xi. 1-47) and Deuteronomy (xiv. 1-20), however, the stardom betwixt "clean" and "unclean" is made the foundation of a food-law: "This is the law . . . to make a difference between the clean and the unclean, and betwixt the living thing that may exist eaten and the living matter that may not be eaten" (Lev. xi. 46-47). The permitted nutrient is called "clean," "pure" (, ṭahor): the forbidden food is not simply not make clean, but is positively unclean, polluted, impure (, ṭame), "an abominanation" (, sheḳeẓ). The terminology "clean and unclean" in the food-constabulary has to a certain extent a unlike implication from that borne by the same terms as used in the sacrificial law (encounter Sacrifice).

The make clean animals were:

(i) All quadrupeds that chew the cud and likewise divide the hoof (Lev. xi. three; Deut. xiv. half dozen); for instance, the ox, the sheep, the caprine animal (i.e., the sacrificial animals), the hart and the gazel, the roebuck, the wild goat, the pygarg, the antelope, and the chamois(Deut. 14. 4-5). Among other forbidden animals, the camel, the rock-badger (come across Coney), the hare, and the swine were excluded by name (Lev. xi. 4-7; Deut. 14. seven-viii), probably considering used as food or for cede by the neighboring tribes.
(2) Fish proper; i.east., "whatsoever hath fins and scales . . . in the seas and in the rivers" (Lev. xi. ix; compare Deut. fourteen. 9).
(3) Birds. Here the Police gain by way of elimination. From the rather lengthy listing of forbidden birds (Lev. 11. 13-xix; Deut. xiv. xi-18) it may be concluded that all the birds of prey and most of the water-fowl were considered unclean. The bat closes the listing.
(four) The winged creeping things "that go upon all four" which "have legs above their feet to jump nevertheless," of which four kinds of locusts are named (Lev. xi. 21-22). All the other creeping things (see Animals) are most emphatically and repeatedly forbidden and held up as the greatest abomination (Lev. xi. 20, 31-38, 42-43). A listing of creeping things to be avoided includes the weasel, the mouse, four kinds of lizards, and the chameleon (Lev. xi. 29-30).

Restrictions were also placed on the use of the mankind of make clean animals: it was forbidden to eat it when the beast had been torn in the field past a carnivorous animal (Ex. xxii. xxx), or when information technology had died a natural death, or had been carried off by affliction (Deut. xiv. 21). Although, even so, the use of such meats rendered people unclean, strictly speaking, their prohibition belongs to the constabulary apropos Blood.

Theories of Distinction. —Ethnological View:

For the distinction between make clean and unclean animals various origins have been suggested; though few of them seem to have fully satisfied any one just their own originators. Omitting the most ancient ones (Origen, "Contra Celsum," iv. 93; ed. Migne, xi., col. 1171; Theodoret, on Lev. ix. 1, ed. Migne, lxxx., col. 299, and others, analyzed in Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible," i. 615 et seq.), only the most pop ones in our own mean solar day demand be mentioned. According to Grotius, on Lev. xi. 3; Spencer, "De Leg. Hebr. Rit." i. 7, 2; S. D. Michaelis, "Mosaisches Recht," 4., § 220, etc., the distinction between make clean and unclean animals is based on hygiene: information technology is a germ-free law. According to others, the law was a national one, intended to separate Israel from the neighboring nations, Arabians, Canaanites, and Egyptians (Ewald, "Antiq. of Israel," pp. 144 et seq.), and partly a germ-free one (Rosenmüller, "Scholia in Vetus Testamentum"—Leviticus). According to Keil, "Handbuch der Biblischen Archäologie," pp. 492 et seq., the law is a religious ane, intended to deter men from the vices and sins of which certain animals are the symbols, which view is a mere variation of the allegorical interpretation proposed by Philo ("De Concupiscentia," v-10).

Of these explanations the starting time two have been refuted by Sommer in his "Biblische Abhandlungen," i. 187-193; Keil'due south opinion has been opposed past Nowack, "Lehrbuch der Biblischen Archäologie," i. 117, and others. The most pop theory at the present day is perhaps that offered by the late W. Robertson Smith, in his article "Animal Worship and Brute Tribes Amidst the Aboriginal Arabs" ("Periodical of Philology," 1880), co-ordinate to which the unclean animals were forbidden because they were totems of the primitive clans of Israel. This theory has been accepted past Cheyne ("Isaiah," i. 99; ii. 123-124, 303) and Stade ("Gesch. Israels," i. 408), but past Dillmann is either entirely and without discussion rejected ("Genesis," p. 382), or restricted to the prehistoric times of State of israel, as existence a survival of the old totem-worship and totem-clan organization, resembling in historic times the case of the horse in England, which anthropologists say is not eaten because information technology was once sacred to Odin, and thus tabooed (Joseph Jacobs in his "Studies in Biblical Archeol." p. 89, and similarly Salomon Reinach, "Les Interdictions Alimentaires et la Loi Mosaïque," in "Rev. Etudes Juives," xli. 144). See Blood; Food; and Totemism.

Bibliography:

Zapletal, Der Totemismus und die Religion Israels, in Jew. Quart. Rev.April. 1902;
idem, Der Totemismus, 1900;
Levy, Du Totémisme chez les Hebreux, in Rev. Et. Juives, lxxxix. 21-24;
Cheyne, The Prophecies of Isaiah, 1880-81.

Eastward. G. H. H. H.

Quadrupeds. —In Rabbinical and Hellenistic Literature:

The distinctions between clean and unclean animals, every bit described in the Scriptures, are more fully drawn in the Halakah. To chew the cud and to accept split hoofs (Lev. xi. 3) are the marks of the make clean tame quadruped ("behemah"), and the Talmudic traditions add together that an fauna without upper teeth always chews the cud and has divide hoofs (meet Aristotle, "Natural History," ix. l), the only exceptions being the hare and the rabbit, which, in spite of having upper teeth, chew the cud and take split hoofs, and the camel, which has, in place of upper teeth, an incisor on each side (). Fifty-fifty the meat of the clean and the unclean animals can be distinguished. The meat of the former below the hipbones tin exist torn lengthwise equally well as across, which, amongst unclean animals, is only possible with the mankind of the wild ass. These differences employ also to clean wild fauna () as confronting unclean wild animals (). In guild, even so, to distinguish clean wild from make clean tame animals attention must particularly exist paid to the horns. The horns of the former must be forked, or, if not forked, they must be articulate of splinters, notched with scales, and be ("round"), or, every bit others read, ("pointed"). Information technology is important to distinguish the make clean wild animals from the clean tame animals, considering the tallow of the former may exist used, while that of the latter is forbidden, and the claret of the clean wild animate being must exist covered up (Lev. xvii. 13), which is non the case with that of other animals (Ḥul. 59a, b).

Birds.

It was difficult for the rabbinical authorities to distinguish make clean from unclean birds, as the Scripture (Lev. xi. 13-nineteen) enumerates only the birds which shall not be eaten, without giving whatsoever of the marks which distinguish them from the make clean birds. This is all the more important as the names of some of the birds mentioned in the Scriptures are followed by the discussion "lemino" or "leminehu"—i.e., "afterward its kind"—and it is therefore necessary to recognize certain stock-still distinguishing characteristics. The following rules are stock-still by the Talmud, by which a clean bird may exist distinguished. It must not exist a bird of casualty; it must have a front toe, if that be the meaning of ; but according to most explanations the hind toe is meant. Although well-nigh birds of prey accept the hind toe, the toes of the make clean bird are so divided that the three front toes are on one side and the hind toes on the other, while the unclean bird spreads his toes so that two toes are on each side; or if it has five toes, 3 will be on one side and two on the other (compare Rashi to Ḥul. 59a, and Nissim b. Reuben on the Mishnah to this passage).

The clean birds, furthermore, have craws, and their stomachs accept a double peel which tin can easily be separated. They take hold of food thrown into the air, merely volition lay it upon the ground and tear it with their bills before eating it. If a morsel be thrown to an unclean bird it volition catch it in the air and swallow it, or it will concord it on the footing with 1 foot, while tearing off pieces with its bill (Ḥul. 59a, 61a, 63a). As this stardom is non found in Scripture, opinions differedgreatly during and since Talmudic times. According to the Talmud (Ḥul. 62a, 63b), only the twenty-four kinds of birds mentioned in Scripture are really forbidden. If sure birds are positively known as not belonging to these, no further investigation as to feature signs is necessary, and they may be eaten. The marks of distinction are laid down just for cases in which there is incertitude whether the species is make clean or unclean. Authorities, especially in Federal republic of germany, would just permit the eating of such kinds as have always been eaten (). Accordingly some birds are permitted to exist eaten in sure countries, but non in others. There are many controversies in the casuistic literature concerning this affair. Menahem Mendel Krochmal ("Ẓemaḥ Ẓedeḳ," No. 29), for instance, declares the wild goose forbidden, while Eybeschütz ("Kereti u-Peleti," § 82) permits it. When the turkey was brought to Europe Isaiah Horwitz forbade information technology to be eaten; and although his opinion did not prevail, his descendants refrain from eating it even to-twenty-four hour period.

Fishes.

In regard to clean and unclean fishes the authorities of the Talmud accept also made some additions to the regulations in the Scriptures. While information technology is stated in Lev. 11. nine that just those fishes are to be considered make clean which have scales and fins, the Mishnah (Niddah vi. 9) declares that all fishes with scales take, doubtless, fins also. Co-ordinate to this all fishes having scales but no fins may be eaten, every bit under that opinion it may be taken for granted that all scaly fishes have fins; apparent exceptions are accounted for by the supposition that sometimes fins are so pocket-size or rudimentary that they can non exist distinguished. On the other hand, a fish with fins may exist without scales and thus be unclean. The formation of the spinal cord and head also affords ways of distinction. The clean fishes ( ) take a perfect spinal column, and a head of a more than or less flat projection; the unclean fishes have no spinal bone, and their heads cease in a indicate ('Ab. Zarah 39b, 40a). There is a difference in the form of the bladder and roe in clean and unclean fishes. In make clean fishes the bladder is blunt at one cease and pointed at the other; while the unclean have the ends either both edgeless or both pointed. Whether these marks can be depended on when the scales and fins are absent-minded, or when the actual status can no longer exist positively ascertained, has been much discussed by sometime authorities (compare Jacob b. Asher, Ṭur Yoreh De'ah, 83). Every bit a "crusade célèbre" of mod times may be mentioned the controversy of Aaron Chorin with many Orthodox rabbis concerning the eating of sturgeon, which Chorin declared permissible, contrary to all former usage.

Insects.

Concerning the utilise of the iv kinds of locust permitted in the Scriptures (Lev. xi. 21-22) the Mishnah (Ḥul. iii. 8) says that a make clean locust must have four feet, ii of which are for jumping, and four wings, which must be long and broad enough to cover the whole body. But it is still field of study to the brake that, to be eaten, it must vest to the species , and in that location must be a reliable tradition recognizing it as eatable. Afterward authorities (compare Samuel b. David ha-Levi on Yoreh De'ah, 85) forbid its use entirely. Very rigorous are the rules set downward by the Rabbis concerning the eating of "creeping things which crawl upon the basis" (Lev. xi. 41). Co-ordinate to the Rabbis only such "worms" are permitted for food equally exercise non live in an isolated condition, only are found just in other substances; for instance, the maggots in meat, fruit, fish, drinkingwater, etc. Simply fifty-fifty in such cases the eating is forbidden if the worms accept been removed from the identify in which they originated, or if they have left that place and returned to it, thereby practically excluding all worm-eaten nutrient (Ḥul. 67a, b). The conditions concerning the enforcement of these rules are very complicated (compare Yoreh De'ah, 84), but it may suffice to bespeak out the following: Fruit and vegetables must be thoroughly examined before use to see whether they comprise worms, and Orthodox families pay strict attending to the fact that should the nutrient, later cooking, be shown to accept been worm-eaten, it is non fit for consumption (compare Danzig, "Ḥokmat Adam," pp. 35, 22).

Reasons for Distinction.

There was much speculation as to the reasons why sure species of animals should be allowed as food and others forbidden. In the Alphabetic character of Aristeas (lines 144-154) information technology is explained at length that "these laws have been given for justice' sake to awake pious thoughts and to class the character." It is especially emphasized that birds of prey have been forbidden, to teach that homo shall do justice; and not, depending upon his own strength, practice injury to others. The marks which distinguish the make clean animal are allegorically explained, as shown in the following instance: To have two feet and dissever hoofs signifies that all actions shall exist taken with consideration of the correct and incorrect (compare Emblematic Estimation). The martyr Eleazar, in IV Macc. v. 25, answers the king, who ridicules the laws forbidding unclean animals, "Whatever is fraternal to our soul He permits u.s.a. to swallow; the use of obnoxious meats He forbade u.s.." In this is evidently expressed the aforementioned idea which is stated later on by Ẓarẓa in the words: "All these things are forbidden, because they deprave the blood and make it susceptible to many diseases; they pollute the body and the soul" (Meḳor Ḥayyim, "Tazria'," starting time).

The prolix allegories of Philo concerning the clean and unclean animals (compare "De Agricultura Noe," xxv.-xxxi.) take been far surpassed by the Church Fathers (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," v. 8; Clemens Alexandrinus, "Pædagogus," three.; Origen, Hom. 7 in Lev.; and many others), and for this reason in many Jewish circles no exposition of the police whatever would be heard. One should non say "The meat of the hog is obnoxious to me," just "I would and could eat information technology had not my Heavenly Male parent forbidden it" (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, end). In Talmudic-Midrashic literature no attempt is made to bring these laws nearer to human understanding. It was feared that much defining would endanger the observance of them, and all were satisfied "that they are things the use of which the Torah forbids" (Tanḥuma, Lev. ed. Buber, Shemini, iii. 29), although they were not capable of explanation.Commencement with Saadia, the Jewish commentators started to explicate the Biblical laws either rationalistically or mystically. Information technology is remarkable that Saadia'south theory bears great resemblance to the modern theory of totemism. He asserts, namely, that some animals which were worshiped as divine were alleged eatable every bit a protest against that worship, and for the same reason others were declared unclean ("Kitab al-Amanat Wal-I'tiḳadat," 117, lesser; Hebrew translation, iii. 2; ed. Slucki, p. 61). Ibn Ezra is of the opinion that the flesh of unclean animals has been forbidden considering it is impure and obnoxious, and the substance swallowed and digested goes into the flesh and blood of those who accept eaten it (commentary to Lev. 11. 93; apropos other passages of lbn Ezra compare Ẓarẓa, fifty.c.).

Maimonides ("Moreh Nebukim," iii. 48) finds in these ordinances mainly germ-free, and partly esthetic, principles. Similar is the stance of the corking French exegete Samuel b. Meïr, in his commentary on Leviticus. Naḥmanides agrees but partly with these theories, and mentions only one sanitary reason concerning fishes. The make clean, he argues, go nearer the surface of the water, and therefore possess a degree of heat which drives away too much humidity; while the fishes without fins and scales, which stay in the deep h2o, and specially those in swampy water, possess a caste of cold and humidity which acts mortally. It is different with the birds, which, with exception of the "peres" and "'ozniyyah," 2 species of eagles, are all birds of casualty, the black and thick blood of which causes a marked inclination to cruelty. Concerning the quadrupeds, Naḥmanides wavers between ethical and sanitary reasons, and refers to not-Jewish physicians to maintain the objections to the flesh of the pig (commentary on Lev. ix. 13; compare his "Derasha," ed. Jellinek, p. 29). The explanations which Baḥya b. Asher (on Lev. xi.) gives apropos the forbidden animals are mainly taken from Naḥmanides. He adds the new explanation that this law is but an expansion of the rules of the cult of cede, so that many animals which can not be used for sacrifice shall not be eaten (idem, 163d. ed. Riva di Trento). Isaac Arama is especially opposed to sanitary reasons ("'Aḳedat Yiẓḥaḳ," part 60, ed. Pollak, iii. 33b), and acknowledges psychological and ethical motives only. "The unclean animals," says Arama, "cause coarseness and dulness of the soul." Arama, obviously referring to Abravanel, but without mentioning his proper name, gives other theories of Jewish scholars. In his remarkable polemic against the rationalistic explanation past Maimonides of the laws regulating food, Viterbo tries to show the untenableness of the sanitary grounds ("Ta'am Zeḳenim," ed. El. Ashkenazi, pp. 42-43).

Similar the Jewish religious philosophers, the mystics have stated their speculations apropos the grounds of these laws. Co-ordinate to the arcane theory which makes the negative Sefirot the cause of the existence of evil in the earth, the Zohar (Shemini, iii. 41b) explains that the unclean animals originate from some of these negative Sefirot, and therefore they are forbidden as food; simply equally with the inflow of the Messiah all will become purer and nobler, these animals will then be permitted as food (Yalḳ. Ḥadash, Liḳḳutim, 36, 79). In this way the mystics explained the idea, expressed in Midrash Tehillim to cxlvi., that in the future God will declare the unclean animals clean. This Midrash acquired Abravanel and other Jewish scholars much embarrassment (see Buber, ad loc.), then that several of them did not hesitate to declare information technology a Christian interpolation; but without reason, equally like opinions have been held and expressed in the remotest time (compare Antinomianism), and probably had their origin in pre-Christian times. Regarding the view taken by Reform rabbis and by modern Bible exegetes of clean and unclean animals, see Dietary Laws; Purity; Reform; Totemism.

Bibliography: