Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 11:4

Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: [as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.

4. The camel’s hoof is parted above but the lower part is not divided. The Egyptians did not eat the flesh of the camel, but both the flesh and the milk are considered as lawful food by the Arabs.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Divideth not the hoof – The toes of the camel are divided above, but they are united below in a sort of cushion or pad resting upon the hard bottom of the foot, which is like the sole of a shoe. The Moslems eat the flesh of the camel, but it is said not to be wholesome.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

The camel was a usual food in Arabia, but yielding bad nourishment, as Galen notes.

Divideth not the hoof, to wit, so as to have his foot cloven in two, which being expressed Lev 11:3, is here to be understood; otherwise the camels hoof is divided, but it is but a small and imperfect division, as Aristotle and Pliny observe, and observation shows.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

4. the camelIt does to acertain extent divide the hoof, for the foot consists of two largeparts, but the division is not complete; the toes rest upon anelastic pad on which the animal goes; as a beast of burden its fleshis tough. An additional reason for its prohibition might be to keepthe Israelites apart from the descendants of Ishmael.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat,…. To whom one of these descriptive characters may agree but not the other:

of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: there being some that chewed the cud but did not divide the hoof; others that divided the hoof but did not chew the cud, of which instances are given as follow:

[as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you; and not to be eaten, whether male or female; or rather, “though he cheweth the cud”; and this account agrees with what naturalists give of it; so Aristotle z says it has not both rows of teeth, but wants its upper teeth, and chews as horned cattle do, and has bellies like theirs; for they have more bellies than one, as the sheep, and goat, and hart, and others; since the service of the mouth is not sufficient to grind the food for want of teeth, this is supplied by the bellies, which receive the food one after another; in the first it is undigested, in the second somewhat more digested, in the third more fully, in the fourth completely: and so many bellies the camel has, as a very learned searcher a into these things observes; the first is the biggest, the second very small, the third much greater than the second, and the fourth equal to the second; in the second belly between the tunics, he says, seem to be the hydrophylacia, in which the water they drink is kept, very commodious for these animals passing through sandy deserts, so that they can long bear thirst: Pliny b says four days: Leo Africanus c relates a method used by travellers in the deserts of Lybia, who being in extreme want of water kill one of their camels, out of whose intestines they press out water; this they drink, this they carry about till they find a well, or must die with thirst: and the account also which is given of the feet of these creatures agrees; it parts the hoof, but not thoroughly, it is not cleft quite through, and so comes not up to Moses’s descriptive character of clean creatures; its hoof is divided in two, but so divided, as Aristotle d observes, that it is but little divided on the back part unto the second joint of the toes; the fore part is very little divided, to the first joint of the toes, and there is something between the parts, as in the feet of geese: and so Pliny says e it has two hoofs, but the lower part of the foot is but very little divided, so that it is not thoroughly cleft: but though the flesh of these creatures was forbidden the Jews, it was eaten by people of other nations; both Aristotle f and Pliny g commend the milk of camels; and by the former the flesh of them is said to be exceeding sweet; and Diodorus Siculus relates h, that what with their milk and their flesh, which is eaten, as well as on account of their carrying burdens, they are very profitable unto men; and Strabo i says, the Nomades eat the flesh and milk of camels; and so the Africans, according to Leo Africanus k; and a countryman of ours l, who lived some time in Arabia, relates, that when a camel falls they kill it, and the poorer sort of the company eat it; and he says that he himself ate of camel’s flesh, and that it was very sweet and nourishing: these creatures, in the mystic sense, may be an emblem of such persons, that carry their heads high, are proud and haughty, that boast of their riches, or trust in their righteousness.

z De Part. Animal. l. 3. c. 14. a Scheuchzer. ib. p. 280. b Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 18. c Descriptio Africae, l. 1. p. 75. d Hist. Animal. l. 2. c. 1. e L. 11. c. 45. f Hist. Animal. l. 6. c. 26. g Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 41. h Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 137. i Geograph. l. 16. p. 535. k Descriptio Africae, l. 1. p. 48. l. 6. 617, 620. Arab. Geogr. Clim. 1. par. 1. 3. l Pitts’s Account of the Mahometans, c. 8. p. 106. Vid. Hieron, adv. Jovinian. l. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of. He more clearly expresses what he had previously glanced at, viz., that an animal, although it may ruminate, shall not be clean unless it also cleaves the hoof; and, on the other hand, that the cloven hoof will not be sufficient unless combined with rumination. In these words Moses taught that partial and imperfect purity must not be obtruded upon God. If any choose to think that rumination is the symbol of internal purity, and the cloven hoof of external, his opinion will be a probable one. Since this distinction has occurred to my mind, although I have no taste for subtle speculations, I have thought it well to mention it, yet leaving it free for any one to accept it or not. Meanwhile we must hold it as certain, as I have lately said, that God demands perfect cleanliness, undefiled by any admixture. But the prohibition was most onerous to the Jews with respect to swine’s flesh, because it is very well adapted for food, not only as being a pleasant accompaniment of other meats, but because the working-classes are fed upon it at a smaller cost. In this point, therefore, the religion of the Jewish people was especially proved. For, when the soldiers of Antiochus desired to force the people to an entire renunciation of the Law, they only urged them to eat swine’s flesh (42) And hence the famous witticism of Augustus, “I would rather be Herod’s pig than his son;” (43) because, whilst he abstained from pork, he was the murderer of his children. But, in order that the Jews might observe this prohibition more strictly, the very touch was also forbidden them; so that it was not only wicked to taste swine’s flesh, but even to touch it with their hands after the animal was killed. The same rule did not apply to beef or mutton; for it is necessary to handle the meat which is appointed for our food.

(42) There is allusion to this in 1Ma 1:47. “Howbeit, many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves, not to eat any unclean thing; wherefore they chose rather to die, that they might not be defiled with meats, and that they might not profane the holy covenant, so then they died.”

(43) Macrob., Saturnalia, 2 4.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(4) Nevertheless these shall ye not eat.As there are some quadrupeds which comply with only one of the two above-named conditionsi.e., which ruminate but have not their hoofs perfectly parted in two, or, vice vers, are bisulcous and not ruminantit is here declared that such animals must not be eaten.

As the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not . . . Better, though he cheweth the cud, yet he divideth not, as the same phrase is properly rendered in the Authorised Version in Lev. 11:7. The first animal adduced to illustrate this fact is the indispensable camel, or the ship of the desert, as it is aptly called. Though cloven-footed above, the toes of the camel are united below in a large elastic pad on which the camel treads, and which is like the sole of a shoe. Hence it does not come within the category of those animals which are thoroughly bisulcate. The Egyptians, the Zebii, and the Hindus, too, did not eat camels flesh, because they supposed it to be heating, and to engender cruelty and revenge; whilst the Persians, the ancient Arabians, and the Moslems feasted upon its milk and flesh.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

4. The camel Some think that this beast is not to be eaten because of his extraordinary usefulness as “the ship of the desert.” But Jehovah pronounces him unclean, and for this reason commands his people to abstain from his flesh, a food much esteemed by the Arabs. Many attempts have been made to explain the grounds of this interdict of camel flesh, none of which is satisfactory.

Divideth not the hoof He does not fully divide the hoof into two equal parts, the front part only being cleft; he was excluded by the very terms of the definition. Since the number of camels in the East is immense, and their flesh is very palatable according to Tristram’s taste less savoury than horse flesh their prohibition was a great privation. The Jews, no doubt, ate camels’ milk, which is excellent. Jacob presented Esau with thirty milch camels. Gen 32:15.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Lev 11:4-8. These shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, &c. Some few creatures (which were deficient in one or other of the marks above given, either not having, or not dividing the hoof, or not chewing the cud; see Houbigant’s note) are excepted in these following verses from those allowed by the general rule in the 3rd verse; and of which, as other nations have commonly eaten, it may seem probable that they are forbidden only to mark the separation of the Jewish people: which is the more likely, as the camel, the first of those prohibited, was then and is still eaten by the Arabians; with whom and the Hebrews, by means of this prohibition, all familiar intercourse was cut off. However, it is observed, that though the food of this animal is only vegetables and water, yet the fibres are hardened, or rendered in a great measure indigestible, and the salts are highly exalted by its habitual exercise. The Arabian writers themselves acknowledge, as Mr. Sale tells us in his Preliminary Discourse to the Koran, that the Arabians have a natural disposition to war, bloodshed, and cruelty, being so much addicted to bear malice, that they scarcely ever forgive; which vindictive temper, some physicians say, is exceedingly increased and indulged, by their frequent feeding on camel’s flesh.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

I make no observations on these verses, but only just to remark, that a spiritual and moral reflection may be drawn from every one. It was easy to follow up the doctrine contained in them, with an eye to believers, whose bodies are the temple of the HOLY GHOST; and to show how everything that is of an unclean and polluting nature should be avoided. Eph 5:1-5 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: [as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.

Ver. 4. The camel. ] The foolish Jews when they saw Mohammed arising in such power, were immediately ready to cry him up for their Messiah. But when they saw him eat of a camel, saith mine author, a they were as blank as when they saw the hoped issue of their late Jewish virgin turned to a daughter.

a Dr Hall’s Peacemaker.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)