Inquiry:
Leviticus 11:6 reads, “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, he is unclean to you.” Rabbits do not chew the cud!
“Gerah” means to chew cud or also perhaps grain, or berries. It does NOT mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated “chew the cud” in the KJV is more exactly “bring up the cud”. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again.
The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.
Response:
The Hebrew word which has been translated “hare” is “arnebeth.” Strong comments, “…probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown…” Rather than providing a transliteration of the Hebrew, and admitting that we do not know for certain what this creature is/was, translators have rendered it “hare” or “rabbit.”
Having said this, even if we accept the translation of “hare,” there is not a problem. Interestingly, Moses was not the only ancient writer to include a “hare” as being common with those that chew the cud. Aristotle did the same.
A cow is an example of a cud chewer. The cow eats vegetation and swallows it. With the multi-chambered stomach of a cow, more easily digestible nutrients are absorbed while others more fibrous material is stored in the stomach and then regurgitated. The material is re-chewed and re-swallowed to facilitate digestion.
The digestive system of a hare does not parallel that of a cow. They do not have a chambered stomach, neither do they regurgitate their food, however, they do perform a function named cecotrophy. The process is different than regurgitation, but the end result is the same. Rabbits (and other animals) eat their own feces, redigesting it and absorbing nutrients in the process. The only difference between cud chewing and cecotropy is the point at which the food is expelled and placed back in the mouth again.
The Scriptures use accommodative language on occasion (ie. speaking of sunrises / sunsets, listing a bat among birds, see June 3, 2001). if indeed it is correct to translate “arnebeth” as “hare,” we have come across another case of accommodative language. Upon a casual observation of the hare, one is likely to conclude that it does indeed chew the cud.
There is no contradiction.
This article is a response to Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, but original article is no longer listed
Links: YouVersion | GROW magazine
Return to the article archive
