Torah, Food & Bugs: Which Kosher Insects Would You Be Comfortable Eating?

[visionary]

Never did understand the liquor with the worm in it. To me, I always wondered if it was done for the purposes of style or if it really made things taste better somehow.

Tequila .. probably was an accident, then made a trade mark.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Tequila .. probably was an accident, then made a trade mark.

Would not be surprised if that was the case.

This is what I found from one person's take:

There's no worm in tequila, or at least there isn't supposed to be. Purists (hah!) say the worm belongs only in a related product, mescal. Strictly speaking, mescal is a generic term meaning any distillate of the many species of agave (or maguey) plant, tequila included. Today, however, mescal is popularly understood to mean a product bottled in the region around the city of Oaxaca. For years this stuff was basically home-brewed firewater consumed by the locals, but in 1950, Mexico City entrepreneur Jacobo Lozano Paez hit on the idea of putting a worm in each bottle as a marketing gimmick. Stroke of genius, eh? I don't get it either, but that's what separates us from the visionaries.

The critter in question is the agave worm, which is actually a butterfly larva. The worms bore into the agave plant's pineapplelike heart, and quite a few get cooked up in the brew used to make mescal. Far from being grossed out, Jacobo concluded that the worm was an essential component of the liquor's flavor and color. He may also have figured, Hey, mescal is about as palatable as paint remover, and the only people who are going to drink this stuff are macho lunatics, so why not take it to the max? In fairness, the worms were also said to have aphrodisiac properties, and worms and bugs are sometimes consumed in Mexico as a delicacy. (Supposedly this dates back to the Aztecs.) At any rate, the ploy worked and the worm in the bottle is now a firmly established tradition.

The genuine agave worm is a bright coral color, which fades to pink in the bottle. Some bottlers substitute a species of white worm that lives in the leaves of the agave plant. Connoisseurs complain that the white worm isn't as tasty as the red one, which to me is like complaining that your soup contains the wrong species of fly. To me the whole thing seems pretty silly. I've had a sip or three of mescal in my day, and my feeling is, if you want to get sick, who needs a worm?
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Bad enough to know you are eating them, but having to see them too.....yuck.

It is definately a trip..

 

[ChavaK]

It is definately a trip..

It's kind of like passing around a fish head at Rosh Hashana....I always
hand it off to the next person. Not very appetizing.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It's kind of like passing around a fish head at Rosh Hashana....I always
hand it off to the next person. Not very appetizing.

I hope I'd not be wrong in saying that the imagery of such is humorous. The celebration aspect is understandable, but you feel like the fish may start talking to you--or you may get a feeling of grief knowing that the fish died. I'd be good eating it but not looking at it in a face.

However, in Jamaica, we actually have the fish cooked with the head in tact (eye balls and everything)---and eating it, there were times I was thinking "Is this right? It keeps looking at me"

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This pod filled with seed is related to what we today know as Carob, a substitute for chocolate.

There is even a variety of this Locust tree, that is called St. Johns tree.
.

If you have any info on Locust Farms in the U.S.A (in light of the Locust Trees in Israel) and growing your own, let me know...as I'd love to be able to get ahold of some Locust Fruit due to how I've heard it's very tasty Just realized that we actually have locust fruit in the West Indies and came across it before, although it was was under a different name called "Stinking Toe" tree

 

[Patricio]

WOW! I never seen a Locust Fruit in my entire life...

Thanks for posting this!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

WOW! I never seen a Locust Fruit in my entire life...

Thanks for posting this!

Not a problem Shalom

 

[Patricio]

Not a problem Shalom

Shalom! Shalom!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Shalom! Shalom!

 

[Lulav]

According to perdue U, the word 'locust' was used first for the tree and later for the grasshopper stage. Carob, of the locust pod of this tree, Ceratonia siliqua, was mainly known by commoners as 'St. John's bread'.

Seeds of the carob came to America from Israel as early as 1859. In the Mediterranean region, peasants have virtually lived on the pods in times of famine, but the tree is valued mostly as providing great amounts of pods as feed for livestock.

The carob tree still thrives in Israel today.

Here is Bibi (Netanyahu) planting one himself with others

This is what the pods look like

they are sold in the market places all around Israel still today. It is greatly loved as this article from the Jerusalem post reports:

The carob tree—one of the most familiar and beloved trees with which the land of Israel has been blessed—deserves its own festival, too, and indeed, on September 28, in Tel Hadid in Ben Shemen Forest, KKL-JNF organized a special event in honor of the sweet fruit, attended by hundreds of people from nearby communities

 

[visionary]

Carob is healthier for you than chocolate and can replace it in any recipe.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Carob is healthier for you than chocolate and can replace it in any recipe.

It's a very dynamic fruit

 

[Gxg (G²)]

According to perdue U, the word 'locust' was used first for the tree and later for the grasshopper stage. Carob, of the locust pod of this tree, Ceratonia siliqua, was mainly known by commoners as 'St. John's bread'.

Seeds of the carob came to America from Israel as early as 1859. In the Mediterranean region, peasants have virtually lived on the pods in times of famine, but the tree is valued mostly as providing great amounts of pods as feed for livestock.

The carob tree still thrives in Israel today.

Here is Bibi (Netanyahu) planting one himself with others

This is what the pods look like

they are sold in the market places all around Israel still today. It is greatly loved as this article from the Jerusalem post reports:

The carob tree—one of the most familiar and beloved trees with which the land of Israel has been blessed—deserves its own festival, too, and indeed, on September 28, in Tel Hadid in Ben Shemen Forest, KKL-JNF organized a special event in honor of the sweet fruit, attended by hundreds of people from nearby communities
​

Although there are are a lot of things that others have considered when it comes to debating whether or not the word 'locust' was used first for the tree and later for the grasshopper stage (as others are of the mind that it was the other way around), it is interesting seeing the ways the trees itself have been helpful

 

[Lulav]

The thing is, a locust is not an insect, it is just a stage of the grasshopper, or size more precisely.

Upon checking the LXX I found that the word translated into English as locust is ἱέρακαs, and this means a hawk or falcon. It is not the same as the word in Greek found in the NT>

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The thing is, a locust is not an insect, it is just a stage of the grasshopper, or size more precisely.

Upon checking the LXX I found that the word translated into English as locust is ἱέρακαs, and this means a hawk or falcon. It is not the same as the word in Greek found in the NT>
__________________

Biologically, locusts are the swarming phase of certain species of short-horned grasshoppers in the family Acrididae. It wouldn't matter whether or not they're grasshoppers since calling an animals species locusts entails that one understands what they are...and the same thing entails when it comes to saying that one can eat locusts, which are a type of grasshopper. It's like someone arguing that a chick isn't the same as the bird known as chicken simply because it's a smaller version of something before it has grown up. Both the chick and chicken are in the same family/species---and are both raised for the purposes of eating. The same with locusts, which are grasshoppers useful for food.

As said before, locusts were a common reality in the scriptures and something Israel was very familar with, be it in the land of Israel or in the wildernesses surrounding it ( 1 Kings 8:36-38 , Joel 1:3-5, Amos 4:8-10, Amos 7:1-3 , Psalm 78:45-47 and Psalm 105:33-35 )...and they were well respected. Logically, if going by the LXX rather than the context historically, one would say that the Lord somehow sent a plauge of hawks and falcons to take out Egypt/eat all the vegetation---or that hawks/falcons swarm

As said best elsewhere:

Locust

(From International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
lo'-kust: The translation of a large number of Hebrew and Greek words: ​

1. Names:
(1) 'arbeh from the root rabhah, "to increase" (compare Arabic raba', "to increase"). (2) sal'am, from obsolete [?] cal'am, "to swallow down," "to consume." (3) chargol (compare Arabic charjal, "to run to the right or left," charjalat, "a company of horses" or "a swarm of locusts," charjawan, a kind of locust). (4) chaghabh (compare Arabic chajab, "to hide," "to cover"). (5) gazam (compare Arabic jazum, " to cut off") (6) yeleq, from the root laqaq "to lick" (compare Arabic laqlaq, "to dart out the tongue" (used of a serpent)). (7) chacil, from the root chacal, "to devour" (compare Arabic chaucal, "crop" (of a bird)). (8) gobh, from the obsolete root gabhah (compare Arabic jabi, "locust," from the root jaba', "to come out of a hole"). (9) gebh, from same root. (10) tselatsal from [?] tsalal (onomatopoetic), "to tinkle," "to ring" (compare Arabic call, "to give a ringing sound" (used of a horse's bit); compare also Arabic Tann, used of the sound of a drum or piece of metal, also of the humming of flies). (11) akris (genitive akridos; diminutive akridion, whence Acridium, a genus of locusts). ​

2. Identifications:
(1), (2), (3) and (4) constitute the list of clean insects in Leviticus 11:21 f., characterized as "winged creeping things that go upon all fours, which have legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth." This manifestly refers to jumping insects of the order Orthoptera, such as locusts, grasshoppers and crickets, and is in contrast to the unclean "winged creeping things that go upon all fours," which may be taken to denote running Orthoptera, such as cockroaches, mole-crickets and ear-wigs, as well as insects of other orders.
'Arbeh (1) is uniformly translated "locust" in the Revised Version (British and American). the King James Version has usually "locust," but "grasshopper" in Judges 6:5; Judges 7:12; Job 39:20; Jeremiah 46:23. Septuagint has usually akris, "locust"; but has brouchos, "wingless locust," in Leviticus 11:22; I Kings 8:37 (akris in the parallel passage, II Chronicles 6:28); Nahum 3:15; and attelebos, "wingless locust," in Nahum 3:17. 'Arbeh occurs (Exo. 10:4-19) in the account of the plague of locusts; in the phrase "as locusts for multitude" (Judges 6:5; Judges 7:12); "more than the locusts .... innumerable" (Jeremiah 46:23);
"The locusts have no king,
Yet go they forth all of them by bands" (Proverbs 30:27). ​

'Arbeh is referred to as a plague in Deuteronomy 28:38; I Kings 8:37; II Chronicles 6:28; Psalms 78:46; in Joel and in Nahum. These references, together with the fact that it is the most used word, occurring 24 times, warrant us in assuming it to be one of the swarming species, i.e. Pachtylus migratorius or Schistocerca peregrina, which from time to time devastate large regions in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean.
Cal'am (2), English Versions of the Bible "bald locust," occurs only in Leviticus 11:22. According to Tristram, NBH, the name "bald locust" was given because it is said in the Talmud to have a smooth head. It has been thought to be one of the genus Tryxalis (T. unguiculata or T. nasuta), in which the head is greatly elongated. ​

Chargol (3), the King James Version "beetle," the Revised Version (British and American) "cricket," being one of the leaping insects, cannot be a beetle. It might be a cricket, but comparison with the Arabic (see supra) favors a locust of some sort. The word occurs only in Leviticus 11:22. ​

See BEETLE.
Haghabh (4) is one of the clean leaping insects of Leviticus 11:22 (English Versions of the Bible "grasshopper"). The word occurs in four other places, nowhere coupled with the name of another insect. In the report of the spies (Numbers 13:33), we have the expression, "We were in our own sight as grasshoppers"; in Ecclesiastes 12:5, "The grasshopper shall be a burden"; in Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers." These three passages distinctly favor the rendering "grasshopper" of the English Versions of the Bible. In the remaining passage (II Chronicles 7:13), ".... if I command the locust (English Versions) to devour the land," the migratory locust seems to be referred to. Doubtless this as well as other words was loosely used. In English there is no sharp distinction between the words "grasshopper" and "locust." ​

The migratory locusts belong to the family Acridiidae, distinguished by short, thick antennae, and by having the organs of hearing at the base of the abdomen. The insects of the family Locustidae are commonly called "grasshoppers," but the same name is applied to those Acridiidae which are not found in swarms. The Locustidae have long, thin antennae, organs of hearing on the tibiae of the front legs, and the females have long ovipositors. It may be noted that the insect known in America as the seventeen-year locust, which occasionally does extensive damage to trees by laying its eggs in the twigs, is a totally different insect, being a Cicada of the order Rhynchota. Species of Cicada are found in Palestine, but are not considered harmful. ​

The Book of Joel is largely occupied with the description of a plague of locusts. Commentators differ as to whether it should be interpreted literally or allegorically (see JOEL). Four names 'arbeh (1), gazam (5), yeleq (6) and chacil (7), are found in Joel 1:4 and again in Joel 2:25. ​

Gobh (8) is found in the difficult passage (Amos 7:1), ".... He formed locusts (the King James Version "grasshoppers," the King James Version margin "green worms," Septuagint akris) in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth"; and (Nahum 3:17) in ".... thy marshals (are) as the swarms of grasshoppers (Hebrew gobh gobhay; the King James Version "great grasshoppers"), which encamp in the hedges in the cold day, but when the sun ariseth they flee away, and their place is not known where they are." The related gebh (9) occurs but once, in Isaiah 33:4, also a disputed passage, "And your spoil shall be gathered as the caterpillar (chacil) gathereth: as locusts (gebhim) leap shall men leap upon it." It is impossible to determine what species is meant, but some kind of locust or grasshopper fits any of these passages.
In Deuteronomy 28:42, "All thy trees and the fruit of thy ground shall the locust (English Versions of the Bible) possess," we have (10) tselatsal, Septuagint erusibe). The same word is translated in II Samuel 6:5 and Psalms 150:5 bis "cymbals," in Job 41:7 "fish-spears," and in Isaiah 18:1 "rustling." As stated in 1, above, it is an onomatopoetic word, and in Deuteronomy 28:42 may well refer to the noise of the wings of a flight of locusts. In the New Testament we have (11) akris, "locust," the food of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6); the same word is used figuratively in Revelation 9:3, Revelation 9:1; and also in the Apocrypha (Judith 2:20; The Wisdom of Solomon 16:9; and see 2 Esdras 4:24).​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

just a stage of the grasshopper, or size more precisely.

Always interesting to consider desert life, as the Arabs prepare for food the thorax of the locust, which contains the great wing muscles. They pull off the head, which as it comes away brings with it a mass of the viscera, and they remove the abdomen (or "tail"), the legs and the wings. The thoraxes, if not at once eaten, are dried and put away as a store of food for a lean season. The idea of feeding upon locusts when prepared in this way should not be so repellent as the thought of eating the whole insect..and in the light of this it is not incredible that the food of John the Baptist should have been "locusts and wild honey" (Matthew 3:4).

​

Really enjoyed what Barnes notes said in addition to others:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
These constituted the food of the common people. Among the Greeks the vilest of the people used to eat them; and the fact that John made his food of them is significant of his great poverty and humble life. The Jews were allowed to eat them, Leviticus 11:22. Locusts are flying insects, and are of various kinds. The green locusts are about 2 inches in length and about the thickness of a man's finger. The common brown locust is about 3 inches long. The general form and appearance of the locust is not unlike the grasshopper. They were one of the plagues of Egypt Exodus 10. In Eastern countries they are very numerous. They appear in such quantities as to darken the sky, and devour in a short time every green thing. The whole earth is sometimes covered with them for many leagues, Joel 1:4; Isaiah 33:4-5. "Some species of the locust are eaten until this day in Eastern countries, and are even esteemed as a delicacy when properly cooked. After tearing off the legs and wings, and taking out the entrails, they stick them in long rows upon wooden spits, roast them at the fire, and then proceed to devour them with great zest. There are also other ways of preparing them. For example: they cook them and dress them in oil; or, having dried them, they pulverize them, and, when other food is scarce, make bread of the meal. The Bedouins pack them with salt in close masses, which they carry in their leather sacks. From these they cut slices as they may need them. It is singular that even learned men have suffered themselves to hesitate about understanding these passages of the literal locust, when the fact that these are eaten by the Orientals is so abundantly proved by the concurrent testimony of travelers.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
His meat was locusts - Ακριδες. Ακρις may either signify the insect called the locust, which still makes a part of the food in the land of Judea; or the top of a plant. Many eminent commentators are of the latter opinion; but the first is the most likely. The Saxon translator has grasshoppers.'

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And his meat was locusts and wild honey; by the "locusts" some have thought are meant a sort of fish called "crabs", which John found upon the banks of Jordan, and lived upon; others, that a sort of wild fruit, or the tops of trees and plants he found in the wilderness and fed on, are designed; but the truth is, these were a sort of creatures "called locusts", and which by the ceremonial law were lawful to be eaten, see Leviticus 11:22. The Misnic doctors (c) describe such as are fit to be eaten after this manner; "all that have four feet and four wings, and whose thighs and wings cover the greatest part of their body, and whose name is "a locust."''
For it seems they must not only have these marks and signs, but must be so called, or by a word in any other language which answers to it, as the commentators (d) on this passage observe; and very frequently do these writers speak (e) of locusts that are clean, and may be eaten. Maimonides (f) reckons up "eight" sorts of them, which might be eaten according to the law. Besides, these were eaten by people of other nations, particularly the Ethiopians (g), Parthians (h), and Lybians (i).
​

 

[Nekoda]

OP Title: None, at first. It's not in my cultural upbringing, so I'd have to get through that barrier.

I'd start with locusts or grasshoppers, properly cooked - and decapitated, as it doesn't sound appealing to eat the heads.

Maybe with a little mustard and/or salsa. That could work. Hmm..

 

[sevengreenbeans]

I definately think that there are some animals that were specifically designed by the Lord to not be eaten due to the damages that they'd bring because of their digestive systems/eating habits...and thus, the Lord in His Wisdom ensured others did not eat certain things. I've shared my own views elsewhere on Kosher and what ceremonial laws on foods were about (seen in #52 , #88 ,#89 , #91, #92 and here )--with being more so about seperation as well as keeping certain things in order with the ecosystem. And Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum had an excellent review over the issue in his “Messianic Bible Study” material (seen here ). With studying certain animals forbidden (Deut 14) and why that occurred, there was a discussion by Dr.Michael Brown that raised some very interesting points on the issue. As one commentator said on the radio show:

Is it possible that God chose certain species to be spared from being eaten because they were uniquely necessary in the natural balance for earth’s sustenance? For example, the fruit bat is very important for the pollination of fruit trees. Certain rodents (especially for example, the prairie dog) are recognized to be keystone species upon which other species depend, and who are markers for the ecological health of a bioregion.

If they were considered “edible” their numbers might have shrunk so dramatically as to produce a tipping point in future food production.

As a parent, God would have found it maybe wiser (and forgive me brothers and sisters, I’m just conjecturing here) to call them ‘clean and unclean’ or approved and forbidden for ceremonial and eating purposes than to risk our fetishizing them over their larger importance. His inspired word lauds the ant, and we’ve come to appreciate how important the ant is for the life of the soil, for instance. If He would have lauded the various animals for their roles, might we have, in earlier ages, elevated these and possibly worshipped them as elemental spirits? Certain animals can be raised for food without impacting the larger animal world negatively; whereas other fish, birds, and animals play such a key role in planetary sustainability that they are best left wild.

Such some “wild” thoughts
​

Nonetheless, there are animals in the clean list that eat things which are not clean---and that is where the issue lies for many. This is why it was brought up earlier on the Kosher Locusts that were listed. I remember a scene from the film "Hildago" when Frank Hopinks ate some leftover locusts after being told it would help with survival....and he said it tasted good once you got past the crunchy part.

Hidalgo Scene: "A Gift from above, not a plague" ​

Part of me actually thought "If I could handle Lobster or Crab Legs (basically sea insects) back in the day, eating locusts should be fine

"...and seeing how often it was said that locusts were Kosher insects according to Torah, it was all good.

The Yemen Jews who eat locusts all the time have no issue with that diet..and I yet still wonder how it is that insects such as Locusts would be deemed as Kosher.

For to my knowledge, feces/animal waste is something that's unclean....and yet, it's on the grass that locusts eat. And Locusts are not at all fussy about their food and will eat almost any leafy vegetation and a whole lot more besides. As often as I've heard others say that eating shrimp (or crab) is "unclean" due to how they're seen as bottom feeders that eat waste and garbage, I don't see how it'd be different for locusts whenever they swarm in great numbers and eat all of the grass available...including that which has dung on it.

I don't really see how it can be said by many that shrimp (which are sea-bugs) and other creatures were not really considered "Kosher" due to hygiene purposes and instead were considered non-Kosher for other reasons....and yet with animals listed to be clean, they are deemed to be good even though they eat waste.

Same thing goes with Bovines, Fowl, and Ungulates which graze on plants contaminated with waste, or eat waste directly off the ground.

Some have sought to explain this by saying that Under the LOM (Law of Moses) that which could NOT Be LAWFULLY eaten by Am Yisroel was a matter of Divine Declaration NOT Intrinsic "Ickiness" -- and they also note that the same was true of that which could NOT Be LAWFULLY made a sacrificial offering to G-d by the People of Israel having ZERO to do with "Unhygienic Eating"..

But that is still something in question when it comes to the diets that animals had. This is also said in regards to eating things from animals that were contaminated, such as honey (which is essentially throw-up from bees and often touching dead bee larve).

Perhaps it does have much to do with the difference in digestive systems, which can be complex and intricate, which He designed for the clean and unclean, which affects us positively or negatively upon consumption.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

EasyG:
the honey product will still be coming from the mouth of an unclean animal...in the prescence of dead bee larve when one chooses to grab it.

Interesting, as I was reading this portion of one of your posts, I was thinking of the picture of humanity.

Humans - unclean animals on the food list - can have "honey" come from their mouths (Torah is often analagous to honey... as words which nourish, edify, teach, etc.), and those who pour forth this "honey" from their lips are found in the world - or "hive" - and at times speak this "honey" in the presence of "dead bees", but that does not make the "honey" unclean.

As for the OP... I would definitely remove the head with the viscera and lower tail part, since I think I could handle crunchy and chewy much better than I could squishy and slimey!!!