Is There Any Animals That Eat Snakes?

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 fauna-related rules are contained in the 613 commandments.

A 15th-century depiction of shechita

Land animals [edit]

Leviticus 11:three-viii and Deuteronomy 14:4-8 both requite the same general set of rules for identifying which state animals (Hebrew: בהמות Behemoth) are ritually clean. According to these, annihilation that "chews the cud" and has a completely dissever hoof is ritually clean, but those animals that only chew the cud or just have cloven hooves are unclean.

Both documents explicitly list four animals equally being ritually impure:

• The camel, for chewing the cud without its hooves beingness divided.^{[one] [2]}
• The hyrax, for chewing the cud without having cloven hooves.^{[2] [3]} (The Hebrew term for this animal—שפן shapan —has been translated by older English versions of the bible as coney; the being 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 Volume of Proverbs every bit living on rocks^[4] like the hyrax, but unlike the coney.)

• The hare, for chewing the cud without having cloven hooves.^{[2] [5]}
• The pig, for having cloven hooves without chewing the cud.^{[half-dozen] [7]}

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

Although hares and coneys do not ruminate at all, they do usually re-ingest soft cecal pellets made of chewed plant textile correct afterwards excretion for further bacterial digestion in their stomach and this serves the aforementioned purpose as rumination.

Although not ruminants, hyraxes have complex, multichambered stomachs that allow symbiotic bacteria to pause down tough plant materials, though they do not regurgitate.^[8] Farther description of this classification has been attempted by various authors, most recently past Rabbi Natan Slifkin, in a book, entitled The Camel, the Hare, and the Hyrax.^[9]

Unlike Leviticus xi:3-8, Deuteronomy xiv:4-viii also explicitly names 10 animals considered ritually make clean:

• The ox^[10]
• The sheep^[10]
• The goat^[10]
• The deer^[11]
• The gazelle^[11]
• The yahmur;^[11] this term, directly 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, straight taken from the Masoretic Text, has traditionally been translated ambiguously.

In Deuteronomy, information technology has traditionally been translated as wild goat, but 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 probable 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 it a dishon, pregnant springing; it has thus usually been interpreted as some form of antelope or ibex.

• The antelope^[11]
• The camelopardalis;^[11] the identity of this animal 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, but 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 farther country beasts as being make clean or unclean, seemingly suggesting that the status of the remaining country beasts can be extrapolated from the given rules.

Past contrast, the Levitical rules afterward go on to add together that all quadrupeds with paws should exist considered ritually unclean,^[15] something not explicitly stated past the Deuteronomic passages; the only quadrupeds with paws are the carnivorans (dogs, wolves, cats, lions, hyenas, bears, etc.), and all carnivorans autumn under this description.

The Leviticus passages thus encompass all the large 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 make clean or unclean, despite their importance in warfare and lodge, and their mention elsewhere in Leviticus.

In an endeavour to assist identify animals of cryptic appearance, the Talmud, in a similar manner to Aristotle'due south earlier Historia Animalium,^[sixteen] argued that animals without upper teeth would always chew the cud and take separate hoofs (thus being ritually make clean), and that no creature with upper teeth would do and so; the Talmud makes an exception for the case of the camel (which, similar the other ruminant even-toed ungulates, is patently 'without upper teeth' though some citations^[17]), even though the skulls conspicuously have both front and rear upper teeth. The Talmud also argues that the meat from the legs of clean animals can exist torn lengthwise also as across, unlike that of unclean animals,^{[ unreliable source? ]} thus aiding to place the status of meat from uncertain origin.^[17]

Origin [edit]

Many Biblical scholars believe that the nomenclature of animals was created to explain pre-existing taboos.^[xviii] Beginning with the Saadia Gaon, several Jewish commentators started to explain these taboos rationalistically; Saadia himself expresses an statement similar to that of totemism, that the unclean animals were alleged and so because they were worshipped by other cultures.^[19] Due to comparatively contempo discoveries about the cultures next to the Israelites, it has become possible to investigate whether such principles could underlie some of the nutrient laws.

Egyptian priests would but eat the meat of even-toed ungulates (swine, camelids, and ruminants), and rhino.^[20] Similar 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 (just not boar).^{[21] [22] [23]} However, unlike the biblical rules, Vedic India did allow the consumption of hare and porcupine,^{[21] [22] [23]} merely Harran did not, and was even more similar to the Israelite regulations, allowing all ruminants, but not other land beasts, and expressly forbidding the meat of camels.^{[17] [24]}

It is also possible to find an ecological caption for these rules. If one believes that religious customs are at least partly explained by the ecological conditions in which a religion evolves, and then this too could account for the origin of these rules.^[25]

Modernistic practices [edit]

In addition to coming together the restrictions as divers by the Torah, at that place is also the issue of masorah (tradition). In general, animals are eaten just if at that place is a masorah that has been passed down from generations ago that clearly indicates that these animals are acceptable. For instance, there was considerable contend as to the kosher status of zebu and bison among the rabbinical authorities when they first became known and bachelor for consumption; the Orthodox Union permits bison,^[26] equally can be attested to past the menus of some of the more upscale kosher restaurants in New York Metropolis.

Water creatures [edit]

Leviticus 11:ix-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10 both country that anything residing in "the waters" (which Leviticus specifies as being the seas and rivers) is ritually make 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] [xxx]} The latter class of animals is described as ritually impure past Deuteronomy,^[30] Leviticus describes them as an "abomination" KJV Leviticus 11:ten. Anathema is also sometimes used to interpret iggul and toebah .

Although the Quondam Attestation does not further specify, the Talmud makes the claim that all fish that have scales also have fins,^[31] and then practically speaking, nosotros need to merely identify organisms that take scales and can ignore the portion of the rule about fins. Nachmanides comments that the scales of a kosher fish must exist able to be removed either by hand or by knife, simply that the underlying peel does not go damaged with removal of the scales,^[32] and this opinion had been universally accepted by all halachic government at the time.^[33]

Scientifically, at that place are v unlike types of fish scales: placoid, cosmoid, ganoid, ctenoid and cycloid. The majority of kosher fish exhibit the latter 2 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 exist said to follow the rules of mod-day nomenclature, and qualified experts on kosher fish must be consulted to determine the status of a particular fish or scale type.^[34]

These rules restrict permissible seafood to stereotypical fish, prohibiting the unusual forms such every bit the eel, lamprey, hagfish, and lancelet. In addition, they exclude non-fish marine creatures, such equally crustaceans (lobster, crab, prawn, shrimp, barnacle, etc.), molluscs (squid, octopus, oyster, periwinkle, etc.), sea cucumbers, and jellyfish.

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

Sharks are considered to exist ritually unclean according to these regulations, every bit their scales tin can simply be removed by damaging the skin. A small controversy arises from the fact that the advent of the scales of swordfish is heavily affected past the ageing process—their young satisfy Nachmanides' rule, but when they reach adulthood they do not.

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

Nevertheless, Aaron Chorin, a prominent 19th-century rabbi and reformer, declared that the sturgeon was really ritually pure, and hence permissible to eat.^[17] Many Bourgeois rabbis at present view these particular fish as being kosher,^[37] but nearly Orthodox rabbis do not.^[33]

The question for sturgeon is especially significant as well-nigh caviar consists of sturgeon eggs, and therefore cannot exist kosher if the sturgeon itself is not. Sturgeon-derived caviar is not eaten by 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 too kosher.^[39]

Origin [edit]

Nachmanides believed that the restrictions against certain fish besides 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.^[40]

The bookish perception is that natural repugnance from "weird-looking" fish is a significant cistron in the origin of the restrictions.^{[41] [42] [43] [44] [45]} Vedic India (and presumably the Persians also) exhibit such repugnance, generally allowing fish, but forbidding "weird looking" fish and exclusively carnivorous fish;^{[21] [22] [23]} in Egypt, another significant and influential culture near to the Israelites, the priests avoided all fish completely.^[20]

Birds [edit]

With regard to birds, no full general rule is given, instead Leviticus 11:13-19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-18 explicitly list prohibited birds. In the Shulchan Aruch, iii signs are given to kosher birds: the presence of a crop, an actress finger, and a gizzard that can be peeled. The bird must also not be a bird of casualty. 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 ^{[50] [51]}
• bat yaanah ^{[52] [53]}—daughter of howling
• tahmas ^{[52] [53]}—one who scratches the face
• shahaf ^{[52] [53]}—one which atrophies
• netz ^{[52] [53]}
• kos ^{[54] [55]}—"cup"
• shalak ^{[54] [56]}—"plunger"
• yanshuf ^{[54] [55]}—"twilight"
• tinshemet ^{[55] [57]}—"blower"/"sabbatical"
• qa'at ^{[56] [57]}—"airsickness"
• racham ^{[56] [57]}—"tenderness"/"affection"
• hasidah ^{[58] [59]}—"devoted"
• anafah ^{[58] [59]}—"one 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 exist a combination of 'da'ah' and 'ayyah' , and may be a scribal error; the Talmud regards it as a duplication of ayyah .^[60] This, and the other terms, are vague and difficult to translate, only there are a few further descriptions, of some of these birds, elsewhere in the Bible:

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

The Septuagint versions of the lists are more helpful, as in well-nigh all cases the bird is clearly 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]}—nighttime 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 by the Septuagint seem to fit the descriptions of the Masoretic Text, the ossifrage (Latin for "bone breaker") being a good instance, the correspondence is less clear for about of the remaining birds.

It is also obvious that the list in Leviticus, or the list in Deuteronomy, or both, are in a dissimilar order in the Septuagint, compared to the Masoretic Text.^[a]

Attempting to determine the correspondence is problematic; for example, "pelican" may correspond to qa'at ("vomiting"), in reference to the pelican's characteristic behaviour, just it may besides correspond to kos ("cup"), as a reference to the pelican's jaw pouch.

An additional complexity arises from the fact that the porphyrion has non nevertheless been identified, and classical Greek literature merely identifies a number of species that are non the porphyrion , including the peacock, grouse, and robin, and implies that the porphyrion is the cousin of the kingfisher. From these meager clarifications, the porphyrion can only exist identified as annihilation from the lilac-breasted roller, Indian roller, or northern ruby 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 account of the lapwing'due south prominent crest, and the hoopoe'southward rarity in England, resulting in "lapwing" being listed in certain bible translations instead of "hoopoe".

Similarly, the body of water hawkeye has historically been confused with the osprey, and translations have often used the latter bird in place of the former. Because strouthos (ostrich) was too used in Greek for the sparrow, a few translations take placed the sparrow amongst the listing.

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 old 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" , significant "red kite", which historically has been called the "glede", on account of its gliding flight; similarly, the Syriac Peshitta has "owl" rather than "ibis".

Other variations arise from attempting to base of operations translations primarily on the Masoretic Text; these translations more often than not interpret some of the more than ambiguous birds equally being various different kinds of vulture and owl. All of these variations mean that most translations arrive at a list 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
• Piffling owl
• Nighthawk
• Night raven
• Northern cherry bee-eater
• Osprey
• Ossifrage
• Ostrich
• Owl
• Peacock
• Pelican
• Plover
• Porphyrion (untranslated)
• Raven
• Cherry Kite
• Screech owl
• Body of water hawkeye
• 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 4 general categories—beasts of the state, flight animals, creatures which clamber upon the footing, and animals which dwell in water—not according to mod scientific classification).

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

The Septuagint'due south version of the listing comprehensively lists most of the birds of Canaan that fall into these categories. The conclusion of modern scholars is that, mostly, 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 at that place beingness a general rule, and instead gives detailed descriptions of the features that distinguish a bird every bit existence ritually clean.

The Talmud argues that make clean birds would have craws, an easily separated 'double-skin', and would swallow food by placing information technology on the ground (rather than holding it on the ground) and tearing it with their bills before eating it;^{[83] [84] [85]} however, the Talmud likewise argues that but the birds in the biblical list are actually forbidden—these distinguishing features were just for cases when in that location was whatsoever uncertainty in the bird's identity.^[85]

Origin [edit]

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

Such allegorical explanations were abandoned by most Jewish and Christian theologians after 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 casualty would cause psychological impairment, making people much more inclined to cruelty.^[40]

However, other cultures treated the meat of certain carnivorous birds equally having medical benefits, the Romans viewing owl meat equally being able to ease the pain of insect bites.

Conversely, mod 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 let them to exist eaten.

Laws confronting eating any carnivorous birds likewise existed in Vedic India^{[21] [22] [23]} and Harran,^{[17] [24]} and the Egyptian priests also refused to swallow carnivorous birds.^[20]

Modern practical considerations [edit]

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

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

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

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

Songbirds, which are consumed as delicacies in many societies, may exist kosher in theory, merely are non eaten in kosher homes equally there is no tradition of them being eaten as such. Pigeons and doves are known to be kosher^[90] based on their permissible condition as 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 it has not obtained testimony from experts about the permissibility of either of these birds. In the case of the swans, there is no clear tradition of eating them.^[93]

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

Predator birds [edit]

Unlike with land creatures and fish, the Torah does non give signs for determining kosher birds, and instead gives a list of not-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, 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 feces-eating birds are not kosher either.^[95]

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

Flying insects [edit]

Deuteronomy 14:19 specifies that all "flying creeping things" were to be considered ritually unclean^[96] and Leviticus 11:20 goes further, describing all flying creeping things as filth, Hebrew sheqets .^[97] Leviticus goes on to list four exceptions, which Deuteronomy does not.

All these exceptions are described past 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 four creatures the Levitical rules list are named in the Masoretic Text using words of uncertain meaning:

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

In the Volume of Nahum, the arbeh is poetically described equally camping in hedges in cold days, only flying off into the far altitude when the sunday arises;^[101] for this reason, a number of scholars have suggested that the arbeh must actually be the migratory locust.^[xiv]

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

The Mishnah argues that the ritually clean locusts could be distinguished every bit they would all accept 4 feet, jumping with 2 of them, and have four wings which are of sufficient size to embrace the entire locust'south body.^[107] The Mishnah also goes on to country that any species of locust could just be considered as make clean if there was a reliable tradition that it was so.

The but Jewish group that continue to preserve such a tradition are the Jews of Yemen, who employ 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, later on rabbinical regime forbade contact with all types of locust^[108] to ensure that the ritually unclean locusts were avoided.^[109]

Pocket-size land creatures [edit]

Leviticus 11:42-43 specifies that whatever "goes on its belly, and any goes on all fours, or whatever has many anxiety, any swarming affair that swarms on the ground, you shall not eat, for they are detestable." (Hebrew: sheqets ). Before stating this, it singles out viii particular "creeping things" every bit specifically being ritually unclean in Leviticus 11:29-thirty.^[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 instance, gives a somewhat different explanation for each of the eight "creeping things." The Masoretic Text names them every bit follows:

• holed ^[111]—the Talmud describes it equally a predatory animal^[112] that bores underground.^{[113] [114] [115]}
• akhbar ^[111]—in Arabic, the cognate word, akhbar, refers to the jerboa
• tzab ^[116]—the Talmud describes it as being 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 oestrus but revived with water, and states that its tail moves when cut off ^[118]
• homet ^[116]
• tinshemet ^[116]—this term literally means "blower/sabbatical", and also appears in the listing of birds

The Septuagint version of the list does not appear to directly parallel the Masoretic, and is thought to exist listed in a different order. It lists the eight equally:

• galei —a general term including the weasel, ferret, and the stoat, all of which are predatory animals noticeably attracted to holes in the ground.
• mus —the mouse.
• krokodelos-chersaios —the "country crocodile", which is thought to refer to the monitor cadger, a big cadger of somewhat crocodilian appearance.
• mygale —the shrew.
• chamaileon —the chameleon, which puffs itself up and opens its oral fissure wide when threatened
• chalabotes —a term derived from chala meaning "rock/claw", and therefore probably the wall cadger^{[ citation needed ]}
• saura —the lizard in full general, possibly here intended to be 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's existence, have instead translated this as mole.
• The earthworm, the serpent, the scorpion, the beetle, the centipede, and all the creatures that clamber on the footing are not kosher.^{[119] [120]}
• Worms, snails and most invertebrate animals are non kosher.^{[121] [120]}
• All reptiles, all amphibians and insects with the exception of iv types of locust are not kosher.^[121]

See as well [edit]

• Kashrut
• Kosher foods

Notes [edit]

1. ^ In the Masoretic Text, the lists are nearly the same betwixt Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but in the Septuagint Leviticus is clearly in a dissimilar society to Deuteronomy

References [edit]

1. ^ Leviticus eleven:4
2. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:7
3. ^ Leviticus 11:5
4. ^ Proverbs xxx:24-26
5. ^ Leviticus xi:6
6. ^ Leviticus 11:7
7. ^ Deuteronomy 14:8
8. ^ von Engelhardt, W; Wolter, Due south; Lawrenz, H; Hemsley, J.A. (1978). "Product of methane in two non-ruminant herbivores". Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A. threescore (iii): 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:iv
11. ^ ^{a b c d e f grand} Deuteronomy fourteen:5
12. ^ Cosmic Encyclopedia, Animals
13. ^ Isaiah 52:20
14. ^ ^{a b} Cosmic Encyclopedia, animals
15. ^ Leviticus eleven: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, ane:29-39, 2:64
22. ^ ^{a b c d east} Laws of Vasishta, 14:38-48, 14:74
23. ^ ^{a b c d due east} Laws of Bandhayuna, one:v, 1:12, xiv:184
24. ^ ^{a b} Daniel Chwolson, Dice Szabier und der Szabismus, 2:7
25. ^ Run across "Why mammals with dissever hooves?" https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-mammals-with-split up-hooves/
26. ^ "thekosherexpress.com". thekosherexpress.com.
27. ^ Leviticus eleven:9
28. ^ Deuteronomy 14:ix
29. ^ Leviticus xi: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: By and Present, June thirteen, 2013
35. ^ Niddah half dozen:9
36. ^ 'Abodah Zarah 39b-40a
37. ^ A Guide to Jewish Religious Exercise. 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. ^ West. Robertson Smith, "Kinship and Union in Early Arabia"
44. ^ Jacobs, "Studies in Biblical Archæology
45. ^ Baentsch, "Exodus and Leviticus
46. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus 11:thirteen
47. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:12
48. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:13
49. ^ ^{a b} Leviticus 11:fourteen
50. ^ Leviticus 11:15
51. ^ Deuteronomy xiv:14
52. ^ ^{a b c d} Leviticus 11:xvi
53. ^ ^{a b c d} Deuteronomy 14:15
54. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus eleven:17
55. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:xvi
56. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:17
57. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus 11:18
58. ^ ^{a b c d} Leviticus xi:19
59. ^ ^{a b c d} Deuteronomy 14:18
60. ^ Hullin 63b
61. ^ Chore 28:vii
62. ^ Isaiah 34:13
63. ^ Micah 1:8
64. ^ Zephaniah 2:14
65. ^ Isaiah 34:xi
66. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus 11:13, Lxx
67. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:12, LXX
68. ^ ^{a b} Leviticus xi:14, 70
69. ^ ^{a b} Deuteronomy xiv:13, Seventy
70. ^ Leviticus eleven:15, LXX
71. ^ Deuteronomy xiv:xiv, Lxx
72. ^ ^{a b c d} Leviticus 11:16, LXX
73. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy xiv:15, LXX
74. ^ ^{a b c d} Deuteronomy fourteen:17, 70
75. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus xi:17, LXX
76. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus 11:eighteen, 70
77. ^ ^{a b c d} Deuteronomy 14:eighteen, 70
78. ^ ^{a b c} Deuteronomy 14:xvi, LXX
79. ^ ^{a b c d e} Leviticus xi:19, Lxx
80. ^ Deuteronomy 14:nineteen, 70
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 east f g h} "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-07-29. Retrieved 2010-10-eleven . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
88. ^ ^{a b} "What Is Kosher? | Kosher Definition | KLBD Kosher Certification". Archived from the original on 2012-07-20.
89. ^ ^{a b} "How do I know whether a particular bird is kosher or not? - miscellaneous animals/pets mitzvot kosher kosher creatures". www.askmoses.com.
90. ^ ^{a b c} "Leviticus ane:14 If, instead, 1's offering to the LORD is a burnt offer of birds, he is to offering a turtledove or a young pigeon". biblehub.com.
91. ^ ^{a b} Leviticus 1:14
92. ^ 61a-b – Determining the kosher status of birds
93. ^ "What is Kosher Nutrient, Kosher Rules, Products, Definition, What Does Kosher Hateful". www.koshercertification.org.great britain.
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 fourteen:19
97. ^ Leviticus 11:20
98. ^ Leviticus 11:21
99. ^ ^{a b c d} Leviticus eleven:22
100. ^ The King James Version for example, translates brouchos / arbeh as grasshopper in the Book of Judges, Book of Job, and Book of Jeremiah, but equally locust in Leviticus
101. ^ Nahum 3:17
102. ^ Hullin 65b
103. ^ 'Abodah Zarah 37a
104. ^ Hullin 65a
105. ^ Shabbat half-dozen:x
106. ^ Numbers 13:33
107. ^ Hullin three:8
108. ^ Joseph Caro,Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah:85
109. ^ "Ofttimes asked questions". www.star-yard.org.
110. ^ Leviticus 11:29–30
111. ^ ^{a b c} Leviticus 11:29
112. ^ Hullin 52b
113. ^ Baba Kama 80a
114. ^ Baba Batra 19b
115. ^ Hullin 20b
116. ^ ^{a b c d e} Leviticus eleven:30
117. ^ Hullin 127a
118. ^ Oholot 1:vi
119. ^ "OU Life - Everyday Jewish Living". OU Life.
120. ^ ^{a b} Leviticus 11:41
121. ^ ^{a b} "Which Animals Are Kosher? - Kosher Animals". world wide web.chabad.org.

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

Posted by: hornupout1979.blogspot.com

Share this post