Did rabbits chew the cud?

[tonychanyt]

NIV, Le 11:

6 The hare, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

According to modern science, neither hares nor rabbits chew the cud. Moses wasn't a scientist, but it appeared to him that hares chew cud probably because of the way their jaws move.

Is it possible that certain cud-chewing species of rabbit are now extinct?

I doubt it.

Or, did the writer of Leviticus inadvertently mistake the rabbit for a cud-chewing animal?

I think so, but I would not put it quite that way. He did not intend to create a scientific taxonomy. He wanted to distinguish what were clean and unclean animals for religious purposes. For his point, it was fine to say that hares chewed cud. It was his religious definition, though not a scientific one.

Did rabbits chew the cud?

Yes, according to Moses' religious definition of chewing the cud. No, according to our modern definition.

 

[KevinT]

I love all the rabbit holes (pun intended) that you send me down! I just did some reading on rabbit digestive systems here. It appears that while they don't chew the cud (a process of bring food from the stomach back up to the mouth for further mastication), rabbits do re-consume some of their feces, called cecotrophs. Other "hard-feces" are not re-consumed. So I guess it is kind of like chewing the cud, in that the food goes through the system more than once. Still, pretty gross to consider.



KT

 

[public hermit]

For his point, it was fine to say that hares chewed cud. It was his religious definition, though not a scientific one

Is it a mistake on the author's part? Did the author think the rabbit chewed its cud? If so, it's an error. Of course, we can't get into the mind of Moses or anyone else to see.

How do we determine if it's a mistake? It depends on the Hebrew, I would think. If the word for cud-chewing animal is specific to that act, and not used otherwise except in the case of the hare, then it's likely a mistake and not simply a definition for religious purposes.

 

[public hermit]

Is it a mistake on the author's part? Did the author think the rabbit chewed its cud? If so, it's an error. Of course, we can't get into the mind of Moses or anyone else to see.

How do we determine if it's a mistake? It depends on the Hebrew, I would think. If the word for cud-chewing animal is specific to that act, and not used otherwise except in the case of the hare, then it's likely a mistake and not simply a definition for religious purposes.

The Hebrew verb (hiphil) from the qal alah coupeled with gerah- "to bring up cud." I think that's right. That tells me it's probably pretty specific to the act.