Chapter 11
MSB note says chapters 11-16:34 are prescriptions for uncleanness. God is teaching people what is clean - that is, acceptable to God - and contrasting that with the unclean. Further, it makes mention of the possibility, via Abel's offering of meat, that meat was eaten post-fall/pre-flood. We know that after the flood, God allowed men to eat meat. These sections codify what meat should and shouldn't be eaten. MSB says that one of the reasons, and in fact the primary reason for these rules was first to show the people what was holy, and second, to make it difficult or impossible for them to eat with pagans who worshiped other gods. These dietary rules formed a sort of social barrier between those who feared God and all others. Others would need to be converted, not courted, to avoid violating God's laws. Even our relationships with outsiders must be based on, and grounded in, our worship of our God.
2023 - Note vs 1, where "The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them..." Now that Aaron has been consecrated as high priest, God speaks to him also, rather than to Moses only. Don't think I'd ever noticed this before.
2023 - Vss 4, can't eat camels, they don't "part the hoof". If you look at a photo, it is more like they have toenails. They have sort of a "separate hoof" on each toe. Note in the diagram below that there are entirely separate bones that go down to each toe of the camel. They might be said to have two hooves on each foot, rather than that they have one hoof which is parted...or cloven. This is likely what cloven means. But...of the pig, in vs 7, it is said that it parts the hoof AND is cloven-footed. Note how the two "toe bones" in the pig stay close together after they separate, where the camels splay completely out.
Looking at this "live" picture of pigs though, I am not sure I understand the difference. No...I'm sure I don't understand the difference...and I'm pretty sure I really don't need to understand it.
We see a little more of this in vs 26, which implies that cloven-footed and parting the hoof are entirely different things.
But I found this "Bible definition" of a cloven foot at https://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-3.htm : the hoofs must be completely cloven or divided above as well as below, or, as the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 14:6 has it, “and cleaveth the cleft into two claws.” Such is the case in the foot of the ox, the sheep, and the goat, where the hoof is wholly divided below as much as above. The foot of the dog, the cat, and the lion, though exhibiting a division into several distinct toes or claws, is contrary to the regulation here laid down, inasmuch as the division is simply on the upper side, the lower side being united by a membrane, and hence the hoof is not “entirely separated.” Based on this, both camel and pig "part the hoof", but the camel is not cloven footed. The halves must be attached by a membrane. I'm thinking of the way Annabelle's toes were entirely webbed. I am thinking that since bulls could be sacrificed, that cattle hooves are entirely cloven above and below. So. That's all cleared up now.
Unclean animals not to be eaten or touched.
Fish with both fins and scales okay to eat.
Birds of prey unclean, and I think a few others. Bats unclean.
These verses:
20 "All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. 21 Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. 22 Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. 23 But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you. [Lev 11:20-23 ESV]
Some would make much of the four legged insects. I find it very interesting that MSB does not mention this at all. But it doesn't say they only have four, it says they have wings but they walk around on four legs. It says "all fours". I expect there is some simple explanation because I have never seen this used as proof the Bible has errors. The wording seems to distinguish between "regular" legs and legs designed specifically for jumping. If it jumped, then it might be an exception. But if all the legs were alike, then it was not to be eaten. Jewish Study Bible doesn't address this either.
Grasshoppers and crickets ok, but all other winged insects unclean.
2023 - I did find this at https://www.unchangingword.com/four-legged-insects/ :
This is a simple misunderstanding related to translation. First, the locusts listed all have four normal legs plus two very different large hind legs used for jumping—in ancient times these must not have been counted among the walking legs, and thus they are described as “four-legged.” Furthermore, the term “walk on all fours” is an expression which includes any creature walking on four or more legs—insects, millipedes and centipedes.
It may be asked how any “insect” could be described as four-legged, since an insect is by definition six-footed (in English). The answer is simple—the Hebrew term translated ‘insect’ is שׁרץ (sherets) which means simply “tiny swarming creeping creature,” rather like our colloquial term ‘bug.’ Our modern classification of “insect” as six-legged relates to the modern technical English category, not the colloquial Hebrew term.
Eating or touching these things made one unclean until evening. Not a long term unclean, but time had to separate you from the unclean thing. Clothes had to be washed if they touched these things.
This restriction:
27 And all that walk on their paws, among the animals that go on all fours, are unclean to you. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening, [Lev 11:27 ESV]
Lions, tigers, cats, dogs...not to be eaten. All these are meat eaters also.
2023 -We stopped and stared when insects went on all fours, but now we see that this designation also applies to animals. There are no animals with six legs, nor any with only two legs. This would imply that the phrase "goes on four legs" is not about how many legs they have, but how those legs are used - whether for walking or for some other specialized purpose. Like a grasshoppers hind legs. Not there for walking, but for jumping. Makes you wonder if Moses' time still had some "dinosaur-like" lizards that had big hind legs for walking and used the front legs only for grasping. Not saying they were still around, but perhaps they were known to have existed?
Among swarming things, mole rats, mice, and lizards and their like unclean. I don't know what is meant by swarming. Didn't think any lizards did that.
2023 - Wow. Found this at https://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-29.htm: Verses 29, 30. - The creeping things that creep upon the earth. This class contains things that go on their belly, but have no wings, like the previous class of creeping things (verses 20-23). By the words translated tortoise, ferret, chameleon, lizard, snail, mole, different varieties of the lizard are probably meant. The mouse is joined by Isaiah with "eating swine's flesh and the abomination" (Isaiah 66:17). Leviticus 11:29
So, first, Biblehub is an outstanding source of explanatory information on these "ceremonial distinctions" of animals that are pretty remote in time and obscure to those of us who aren't starving. These old commentaries in Biblehub seem to have divided the animal world up into "classes", based on how they were perceived by the ancients. This is not our modern taxonomical classification, but is nevertheless an "organization" of life into several different classes. Note that these classes are based on physical appearance, rather than on their "evolutionary ancestors". Perhaps a very important distinction.
2023 - A further definition from a different commentary on the same page referenced above: These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth,.... As distinguished from those creeping things that fly, these having no wings as they; and which were equally unclean, neither to be eaten nor touched, neither their blood, their skin, nor their flesh, as the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it: and the Misnic doctors say (d) that the blood of a creeping thing and its flesh are joined together: and Maimonides (e) observes, that this is a fundamental thing with them, that the blood of a creeping thing is like its flesh; which in Siphre (an ancient book of theirs) is gathered from what is said in Leviticus 11:29 "these shall be unclean", &c. hence the wise men say, the blood of a creeping thing pollutes as its flesh:. So...creeping things have no circulatory system?
2023 - This page has a LOT more information about each animal named. The information about why mice are included in this group is especially informative. You could spend all day on this stuff! I just have to make one more comment...one of the reasons that they believe mice were unclean is because they will eat dung. So will my Chihuahua's. I believe any dog will do so when hungry. So...I am guessing that plain old dogs were in fact unclean, and maybe that means Jews are not particularly big on pets of any kind....But that's me extrapolating, I didn't read that here.
Anything that touches the dead bodies of unclean things is also unclean. This uncleanness in general lasts until that evening. However, some things, like clay pots that something unclean touches, were to be broken, and not used again. Even clay ovens - which took considerable time and labor to make, were to be broken if they became unclean. There is also a restriction for things in pots that had water introduced being made unclean. But if there were no water, not unclean. As in this verse:
37 And if any part of their carcass falls upon any seed grain that is to be sown, it is clean, 38 but if water is put on the seed and any part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you. [Lev 11:37-38 ESV]
Clean animals that died would make you unclean if you touched them.
MSB says the purpose of the dietary laws was to set Israel apart from the nations around them. The instructions here end with Be ye holy, for I am Holy. MSB says vs. 44 is the first time this phrase is used, but it is used 50 more times after this in Leviticus. Not only the dietary laws, but in the sacrifices, the clothing, and so on - in everything they do - God is setting them apart externally from other peoples to show that internally they are God's and are a different sort of people than all others. They were to understand that holiness sets one apart in everything about one's life, not just in going to church on Sunday instead of golfing.
2021 - Interesting that all these unclean animals could make you unclean - whether you ate them or only touched their carcass - and yet Jesus is absolutely clear in the NT that what goes into your mouth does not defile the body. How is that to be resolved? Because in the OT, we are talking about being ceremonially unclean. We are talking about being unpresentable to the God behind the veil. Even to approach, one had to be ceremonially clean. Jesus is talking about spiritual cleanliness, not bodily cleanliness. His point is that you can be as ceremonially clean as you care to be, but if you are not submissive to God, you are still unclean. And if your heart is right, then the rest doesn't really matter. Leviticus is talking about how to be clean on the outside, Jesus is talking about how to be clean on the inside. And this ties right in with the dietary laws being about social barriers.