Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 11:9
These shall ye eat of all that [are] in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
Any fish, either from salt water or fresh, might be eaten if it had both scales and fins. but no other creature that lives in the waters. Shellfish of all kinds, whether mollusks or crustaceans, and cetaceous animals, were therefore prohibited, as well as fish which appear to have no scales, like the eel; probably because they were considered unwholesome, and (under certain circumstances) found to be so.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 9. Whatsoever hath fins and scales] Because these, of all the fish tribe, are the most nourishing; the others which are without scales, or whose bodies are covered with a thick glutinous matter, being in general very difficult of digestion.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Whatsoever hath fins and scales, to wit, both of them; such fishes being both more cleanly and more wholesome food than others. The names of them are not particularly mentioned, partly because most of them wanted names, the fishes not being brought to Adam and named by him as other creatures were; and partly because the land of Canaan had not many rivers, nor great store of fishes
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. These shall ye eat . . .whatsoever hath fins and scales“The fins and scales arethe means by which the excrescences of fish are carried off, the sameas in animals by perspiration. I have never known an instance ofdisease produced by eating such fish; but those that have no fins andscales cause, in hot climates, the most malignant disorders wheneaten; in many cases they prove a mortal poison” [WHITLAW].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
These shall ye eat of all that [are] in the waters,…. In the waters of the sea, or in rivers, pools, and ponds; meaning fishes; for though some persons abstain from eating them entirely, as the Egyptian priests, as Herodotus m relates; and it was a part of religion and holiness, not with the Egyptians only, but with the Syrians and Greeks, to forbear eating them n; and Julian o gives two reasons why men should abstain from fishes; the one because what is not sacrificed to the gods ought not to be used for food; and the other is, because these being immersed in the deep waters, look not up to heaven; but God gave the people of Israel liberty of eating them, under certain limitations:
whatsoever hath fins and scales, in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat; some render it disjunctively, “fins or scales” p; but as Maimonides q observes, whatsoever has scales has fins; and who also says, if a fish has but one fin and one scale, it was lawful to eat: fins to fishes are like wings to birds, and oars to boats, with which they swim and move swiftly from place to place; and scales are a covering and a protection of them; and such fishes being much in motion, and so well covered, are less humid and more solid and substantial, and more wholesome: in a spiritual sense, fins may denote the exercise of grace, in which there is a motion of the soul, Godward, Christward, and heavenward; and scales may signify good works, which adorn believers, and protect them from the reproaches and calumnies of men.
m Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 37. n Plutarch. Sympos. p. 730. o Orat. 5. p. 330. p So Bootius. q Hilchot Maacolot Asurot, l. 1. sect. 24.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(cf. Deu 14:9 and Deu 14:10). Of water animals, everything in the water, in seas and brooks, that had fins and scales was edible. Everything else that swarmed in the water was to be an abomination, its flesh was not to be eaten, and its carrion was to be avoided with abhorrence. Consequently, not only were all water animals other than fishes, such as crabs, salamanders, etc., forbidden as unclean; but also fishes without scales, such as eels for example. Numa laid down this law for the Romans: ut pisces qui sqamosi non essent ni pollicerent (sacrificed): Plin. h. n. 32, c. 2, s. 10. In Egypt fishes without scales are still regarded as unwholesome ( Lane, Manners and Customs).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. 13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; 16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Here is, 1. A general rule concerning fishes, which were clean and which not. All that had fins and scales they might eat, and only those odd sorts of water-animals that have not were forbidden, Lev 11:9; Lev 11:10. The ancients accounted fish the most delicate food (so far were they from allowing it on fasting-days, or making it an instance of mortification to eat fish); therefore God did not lay much restraint upon his people in them; for he is a Master that allows his servants not only for necessity but for delight. Concerning the prohibited fish it is said, They shall be an abomination to you (v. 10-12), that is, “You shall count them unclean, and not only not eat of them, but keep at a distance from them.” Note, Whatever is unclean should be to us an abomination; touch not the unclean thing. But observe, It was to be an abomination only to Jews; the neighbouring nations were under none of these obligations, nor are these things to be an abomination to us Christians. The Jews were honoured with peculiar privileges, and therefore, lest they should be proud of those, Transeunt cum onere–They were likewise laid under peculiar restraints. Thus God’s spiritual Israel, as they are dignified above others by the gospel-covenant of adoption and friendship, so they must be mortified more than others by the gospel-commands of self-denial and bearing the cross. 2. Concerning fowls here is no general rule given, but a particular enumeration of those fowls that they must abstain from as unclean, which implies an allowance of all others. The critics here have their hands full to find out what is the true signification of the Hebrew words here used, some of which still remain uncertain, some sorts of fowls being peculiar to some countries. Were the law in force now, we should be concerned to know with certainty what are prohibited by it; and perhaps if we did, and were better acquainted with the nature of the fowls here mentioned, we should admire the knowledge of Adam, in giving them names expressive of their natures, Gen. ii. 20. But the law being repealed, and the learning in a great measure lost, it is sufficient for us to observe that of the fowls here forbidden, (1.) Some are birds of prey, as the eagle, vulture, c., and God would have his people to abhor every thing that is barbarous and cruel, and not to live by blood and rapine. Doves that are preyed upon were fit to be food for man and offerings to God but kites and hawks that prey upon them must be looked upon as an abomination to God and man; for the condition of those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake appears to an eye of faith every way better than that of their persecutors. (2.) Others of them are solitary birds, that abide in dark and desolate places, as the owl and the pelican (Ps. cii. 6), and the cormorant and raven (Isa. xxxiv. 11); for God’s Israel should not be a melancholy people, nor affect sadness and constant solitude. (3.) Others of them feed upon that which is impure, as the stork on serpents, others of them on worms; and we must not only abstain from all impurity ourselves, but from communion with those that allow themselves in it. (4.) Others of them were used by the Egyptians and other Gentiles in their divinations. Some birds were reckoned fortunate, others ominous; and their soothsayers had great regard to the flights of these birds, all which therefore must be an abomination to God’s people, who must not learn the way of the heathen.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 9-12:
Aquatic creatures could be distinguished as clean or unclean, by the presence or absence of scales and fins. Any creature with both fins and scales was considered clean. Any creature having scales but no fins, or fins but no scales, was regarded not only as unclean, but as “an abomination.” Unclean sea creatures included eels, catfish, and shell fish.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters. Here, also, some who know little of religion, plausibly contend that God is acting the physician’s part, and distinguishing wholesome from unwholesome food. But although their opinion is sufficiently refuted by medical men themselves, yet, even if I should admit what they desire, they reason badly. For the purpose of God was other than to provide for the people’s health; and, because He had to do with a rude people, He chose common marks, being admonished by which they might gradually ascend to higher things. It would be useless to follow the allegories which Isychius has invented (44) and I would willingly bury in oblivion these triflings, except that many have such a leaning to subtleties, that sober views would scarcely please them, until the folly of these allegories shall have been convicted. I will say nothing of the scales and fins. If at first sight any should approve of what he says as to the names of the fish being omitted, because the Church seeks not. a name upon earth, and that the Church is signified by the fish, — let them consider whether it is consistent that the Church should only exist in the water; and, again, that the birds, which are nearer heaven, should be excluded from this honor; thirdly, that the clean animals should be rejected, as if they did not belong to the Church; lastly, that those who by their contagion pollute the Church should be counted amongst the elect, whose names are written in heaven; for certainly many of the fish are unclean. Those who will not acquiesce in these perspicuous reasons, I will allow to wander in their labyrinth. This simple view will satisfy the moderate and teachable, that the fish are not named, because the greater part of them were unknown to the Jews, whose country did not produce many of the river-fish, since it scarcely had any river besides the Jordan, whilst the sea-fish only visited the neighboring shores.
(44) “Hesychius, observing that no proper names are given here or elsewhere in Scripture, as I have said, to fishes, interprets it of the Gentiles gathered into the Church, whose names she does not desire to be written on earth, but in another generation, and in heaven; that these are born again in the waters of baptism; that they have fins, in the meditation of the law, which corresponds with the sublime and heavenly life; and scales, which may be easily removed, as also they may easily lay aside their ignorance, even as scales are said to have fallen from the eyes of Paul when he was converted. He declares that the adulterer, the covetous man, the drunkard, and the calumniator, have not fins, since their life is sordid and unclean; and says that the worshipper of idols cannot be counted among those who have scales, since he seems to be possessed of a hard and shellfish-like, and incurable ignorance of divine things.” — Lorinus, in loco.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) SEAFOOD 11:912
TEXT 11:912
9
These may ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, that may ye eat.
10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you,
11
and they shall be an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses ye shall have in abomination.
12
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that is an abomination unto you.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 11:912
205.
Why not eat cat fish?
206.
Wouldnt this limit their choice?
207.
How could this apply to those who lived inland?
PARAPHRASE 11:912
As to fish, you may eat whatever has fins and scales, whether taken from rivers or from the sea; but all other water creatures are strictly forbidden to you. You mustnt eat their meat or even touch their dead bodies. Ill repeat it againany water creature that does not have fins or scales is forbidden to you.
COMMENT 11:912
Lev. 11:9-12 Once again the prohibition is for your health as well as disciplinary reasons. All fish with fins and scales would be nutritioussurely this did give Israel a wide variety of seafood. We need to remember that several of the tribes when their allotment was given them lived by the seaside, either of the Mediterranean or the Sea of Galilee. The other tribes lived near enough to streams of water to be able to exercise this regulation. For those who were commercially engaged the Lord evidenced His care over the spiritual and physical health of the seaman and fishers of Israel. It tried their faith when they needed to cast away whatever unclean fish they had enclosed in their net. Some, indeed might reckon such minute and arbitrary rules as these to be trifling. But the principle involved in obedience or disobedience was none other than the same principle which was tried in Eden at the foot of the forbidden tree. It was really thisIs the Lord to be obeyed in all things whatsoever He commands? Is He a holy lawgiver? Are His creatures bound to give implicit assent to His will? (Ibid.)
When the Lord was recognized as one of infinite love and mercyOne of joy and peace, such regulations would then be regarded as what they were: expressions of concern and care for those whom He loved. Most of all the Creator wanted to fill land, sea and air with tangible evidence of His sovereignty and holiness. When a son of Jacob ate a fish or an animal or fowl with the thought, How good of God to let me know what was the very best of food! then Gods purpose was fulfilled. Unfortunately Satan was ever ready to suggest that the reason God refused some food was because it was the best, He is really selfish and hates you. He is holding out the best for Himself. What a terrible lie! and yet it is told and believed every day.
FACT QUESTIONS 11:912
258.
Read a map and name the tribes to whom this regulation had particular application.
259.
Show how this related to the economic and social life of Israel.
260.
Arent these really rather trifling regulations?
261.
Show how this relates to today.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(9) These shall ye eat.The water animals, which, as we have seen, constitute the second division of the animal kingdom, now follow the land animals. They are discussed in Lev. 11:9-12. Like the clean quadrupeds, the salt-water and the fresh-water fish must comply with two conditions to bring them within the class of clean. They must have both scales and fins. It will be seen that in the case of the quadrupeds, not only are two criteria given by which the clean animals may be distinguished from the unclean, but that the law is illustrated by adducing ten land animals of the former kind (see Lev. 11:2), and four of the latter (see Lev. 11:4-7). In the case before us, however, not a single typical fish is given by name, and the law itself is expressed in the briefest and most generic manner possible. It was evidently left to those upon whom the administration of the law devolved to define it more minutely in order that it may be observed in practical life. Hence the following expanded definitions obtained during the second Temple:(1) All fishes with scales have invariably also fins, but fishes which have fins have not always scales. Any fish, therefore, or even a piece of one exposed by itself for sale in the market, which exhibits scales may be eaten, for it is to be taken for granted that it had fins, or that the fins cannot be seen because of their extraordinary smallness. But, on the other hand, a fish with fins may exist without scales, and hence is unclean; (2) Clean fishes have a complete vertebral column, but the unclean have simply single joints, united by a gelatinous cord. To the former class belong, (a) the soft fins, or the salmon and trout, the capellan and grayling, the herring, the anchovy and the sardine, the pike and carp families, the cod, the hake and the haddock, the sole, the turbot, and the plaice; (b) the spiny fins, as the perch, the mackerel, and the tunny. To the latter class belong the shark tribe, the sturgeons with their caviare, the lamprey, and the nine-eyed eel; (3) The head of clean fishes is more or less broad, whilst that of the unclean kinds is more or less pointed at the end, as the eel, the mammalian species, &c.; (4) The swimming bladder of clean fishes is rounded at one end, and pointed at the other, whilst that of the unclean fishes is either rounded or pointed at both extremities alike. It is in allusion to this law that we are told in the parable of the fisherman, which is taken from Jewish life, that when they drew to shore the net with every kind of fishes, the fishermen sat down (i.e., to examine the clean and the unclean), and gathered the good (i.e., the clean), into the vessels, but cast the bad (i.e., the unclean) away (Mat. 13:48). The orthodox Jews to this day strictly observe these regulations, and abhor eating those fishes which are enumerated under the four above-named criteria of not clean. It is moreover to be remarked that fishes without scales are also still regarded in Egypt as unwholesome, and that the Romans would not permit them to be offered in sacrifice.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
CONCERNING FISHES, Lev 11:9-12.
No species of fish are here mentioned; the possession of both fins and scales is the line of demarcation between the clean and the unclean. It excludes from the table of the Hebrew all the eel genera, or snake-like fishes, whose scales are very minute and slimy; all the genus silurus, the scaleless fishes found in the inland waters of Europe, all the amphibious saurians, like the alligators, being finless, and all shellfish, whether testaceous, as the oyster, or crustaceous, as the lobster, since they have neither scales nor fins. Numa forbade the Romans offering scaleless fishes in sacrifice. The modern Egyptians regard them as unwholesome.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Sea Life That May Or May Not Be Eaten ( Lev 11:9-12 ).
Lev 11:9
“These may you eat of all that are in the waters. Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, that may you eat.”
Once again the principle is the same. Fish intended to be eaten have fins and scales. This is seen as the ‘perfect’ edible fish. They swim and eat in the clear waters, in parts that are ‘clean’, in their proper sphere, not wallowing in the mud. They are solely of the sea or river. Anything less than that is a ‘sea creature’, especially those that cling to the bottom or to rocks, and not an edible fish. For those with fins and scales are again less likely to have absorbed anything parasitic or harmful. They were created to be eaten. Compare Deu 14:9. And their way is not in the mud (wet dust). We should look at, and have dealings with, what is good, not at what delves in the dirt and dust and mud. That is a sound principle of life.
Lev 11:10-12
“And all that do not have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination to you, and they shall be an abomination to you. You shall not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that is an abomination to you.”
On the other hand all other sea and river creatures are not to be eaten. They are to be seen as blemished for they do not have the attributes of the ‘perfect’ fish. They lack scales or they lack fins. They are not designed for the pure waters. They take their food where they find it, among what is ‘unclean’.
This would include all shellfish which tend to eat decaying matter. Indeed these are all ‘an abomination’, that is, especially unclean and to be avoided. Once again there is no doubt that by observing these rules they would avoid much disease, for shellfish for example are notorious for causing physical ailments and food poisoning, although that is not to say that some were not perfectly edible. Compare Deu 14:10. But they were forbidden by God. Note how the deciding factor is very simple. No one could genuinely make a mistake.
So God is again and again emphasising to Israel that they must keep to their proper sphere. When they fail to do so they connect with dirt, and degradation, and dust, and death and become unclean.
If we would serve Christ fully, we too must swim in clear waters, and not be constantly delving in the mud. The principle still applies that what God has created for man’s good lives and eats cleanly, and is thus ‘perfect’ and without blemish and does not render unclean. These sources of food are not forbidden to us, (as long as we are careful), but being like them is.
Lev 11:13-23
Birds And Flying Creatures That May Not Be Eaten ( Lev 11:13-23 ).
Lev 11:13-19
“And these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination; the griffon vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the osprey, and the kite, and the falcon after its kind, every raven after its kind, and the ostrich, and the night-hawk, and the sea-mew, and the hawk after its kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the horned owl, and the pelican, and the black vulture, and the stork, the heron after its kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat.”
In the case of birds it is the negative that is emphasised, the ones to be especially avoided. On the whole the ones mentioned tend to be birds of prey. They do not keep to the proper sphere of birds by flying in the air and eating what is in the air, and seeds. They are mainly death-dealers. They descend into the dust and eat carrion. They descend to the sphere of, and eat, beasts and creeping things. The thought may also be that they eat flesh with the blood like wild beasts. Thus those who take life in this way and who eat in this way must be unclean, for death is unclean and decaying flesh is unclean, and rodents are unclean. It is contrary to what they should be, and contrary to what Yahweh is as the living God.
Others of these unclean birds mentioned are clearly noted fish eaters and swamp dwellers, and are seen to delve their beaks into the mud for food. In all cases they appeared to feed on what was outside their sphere and were not over-particular to avoid what was ‘unclean’. It was their practise that must be avoided.
All these examples bring out the lesson that what we are is revealed by how we behave, and we are not to follow their example. We must remain in our own sphere. And the sphere of Israel is the covenant, and obedience to the Law. The sphere of Israel is to be holiness.
On the other hand Deu 14:11; Deu 14:20 give permission to eat ‘all clean birds’ and ‘all clean fowls’. No further detail is given but it was probably a fairly wide definition. Birds and their eggs generally appear to have been seen as edible, especially turtledoves and pigeons, which could also be sacrificed.
Lev 11:20
“All winged creeping things that go on four are an abomination to you.”
Compare here Deu 14:19. Such creatures sought food in unclean places, and on dead carcases and dead matter. These are the flying things that have more than two legs. ‘On four.’ They go on more than two legs. If we translate ‘go on all fours’ we must recognise that it means rather, ‘scuttle along like a four legged animal’ in the dust, in contrast to those that ‘leap’ like those in the next verse. It means those winged creeping things that have four legs or more. It is not necessarily suggesting that they have only four legs. It is a way of distinguishing those with two feet (e.g. birds) from all others. These creatures were creatures of the dust.
Lev 11:21-23
“Yet these may you eat of all winged creeping things that go on all fours, those which have legs above their feet, by which to leap on the earth. Even these of them you may eat; the locust after its kind, and the bald locust after its kind, and the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. But all winged creeping things, which have four feet, are an abomination to you.”
There were, however, some larger insects which were exceptions and could be eaten, and they are outlined here. They are distinguished by the fact that they are ‘leapers’, not grovellers in the dust. They are also all such as appeared to eat vegetation and grain. They were therefore clean. The Bedouin are known to have eaten certain types of locust, as did John the Baptiser (Mat 3:4), and they appear to have been a delicacy at king’s tables. It is clear from the description that the Israelites also enjoyed them.
The general idea behind these food laws would appear therefore to be to distinguish those which ate what was ‘clean’ and which went where it was relatively ‘clean’, and lived in their own spheres, and were not obviously involved in death-dealing (consider how death-dealing animals have not even been dealt with, their uncleanness is assumed – but see Lev 11:27) in contrast with those whose habits were such that they would continually have contact with dead and decaying and rotting and infested matter, and with what was ‘unclean’, going out of their own spheres and lurking and scrabbling in the dust. Only the ‘clean’ were fit for God’s holy people. The constant recognition of this fact would bring home to Israel God’s holiness, the holiness that was required of them, and a sense of being God’s people as witnessed by what they ate. They would be a constant reminder that they should stay within their own sphere. They certainly helped to prevent disease, and were good aids to hygiene. The rules had to be straight and simple. They were not naturalists. There was no question of arguing individual cases.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Of Animals Living In Water
v. 9. These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat, v. 10. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, v. 11. they shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.
v. 12. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
One general observation will be all that is necessary to offer on the law, concerning the clean and unclean among the fishes, and the fowls, and the creeping things of the earth. The grand object evidently intended from the whole, is to show that we are all unclean by nature, and made clean only in CHRIST JESUS. This is the first and ultimate design of these laws, which were all intermediate and introductory, as leading to the LORD JESUS. Our adored Redeemer hath delivered us from the law of carnal ordinances, which perish with the using, being dead to them with CHRIST. He hath taught us, that it is not that which goeth into the mouth that defileth a man, but that which cometh out from the heart. And as every creature of GOD is good that is sanctified by the word and prayer; it is our happiness and privilege, that what GOD hath cleansed is no longer unclean. See Col 2:21-22 ; Mat 15:11 ; 1Ti 4:3-4 ; Act 10:28 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 11:9 These shall ye eat of all that [are] in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
Ver. 9. Whatsoever hath fins and scales. ] The fins of the fish are for steering of their motion, the scales for smoothness of passage, for safeguard, for ornament. Those only are clean in the sight of God, Qui squamas et loricam habent patientiae, et pinnulas hilaritatis, saith Bernard. a
a Sermon I. in Die oct. And.
Deu 14:9, Deu 14:10, Act 20:21, Gal 5:6, Jam 2:18, 1Jo 5:2-5
Lev 11:9-10. Whatsoever hath fins and scales Both of them. Such fishes being more cleanly and more wholesome food than others. All that have not fins nor scales shall be an abomination A late commentator, by a strange mistake, probably of the press, says here: Fish with scales sooner incline to putrefaction than those that are without. The fact is exactly the reverse. These are what medicinal writers call pisces molles, the soft kind of fish. And, as all sorts of fish, according to Dr. James, are very subject to an alkaline putrefaction, so those without scales incline sooner and more to putrefaction than those furnished with them, and shell-fish most of all. And it may be laid down as a certain rule, that, of all sorts of animals, whether terrestrial or aquatic, those which putrefy soonest, incline the juices of our bodies most to putrefaction, when used as food, and so are least fit for ailment.
Perhaps the Israelites could eat water creatures with fins and scales because these are the normal means of propulsion among fishes. As has already been observed (Lev 11:3), the means of locomotion and the mode of eating were the two types of tests used to distinguish between clean and unclean animals. Water creatures without fins and scales did not have the normal means of locomotion for their element.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)