Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 11:3
Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
Parteth … – Rather, is clovenfooted and completely separates the hoofs.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed] These two words mean the same thing – a divided hoof, such as that of the ox, where the hoof is divided into two toes, and each toe is cased with horn.
Cheweth the cud] Ruminates; casts up the grass, c., which had been taken into the stomach for the purpose of mastication. Animals which chew the cud, or ruminate, are provided with two, three or four stomachs. The ox has four: in the first or largest, called the ventriculus or paunch, the food is collected without being masticated, the grass, c., being received into it as the beast crops it from the earth. The food, by the force of the muscular coats of this stomach, and the liquors poured in, is sufficiently macerated after which, formed into small balls, it is thrown up by the oesophagus into the mouth, where it is made very small by mastication or chewing, and then sent down into the second stomach, into which the oesophagus or gullet opens, as well as into the first, ending exactly where the two stomachs meet. This is what is termed chewing the cud. The second stomach, which is called the reticulum, honeycomb, bonnet, or king’s hood, has a great number of small shallow cells on its inward surface, of a pentagonal or five-sided form, exactly like the cells in a honey-comb in this the food is farther macerated, and then pushed onward into the third stomach, called the omasum or many-plies, because its inward surface is covered with a great number of thin membraneous partitions. From this the food passes into the fourth stomach, called the abomasum, or rede. In this stomach it is digested, and from the digested mass the chyle is formed, which, being absorbed by the lacteal vessels, is afterwards thrown into the mass of blood, and becomes the principle of nutrition to all the solids and fluids of the body. The intention of rumination, or chewing the cud, seems to be, that the food may be sufficiently comminuted, that, being more fully acted on by the stomachs, it may afford the greatest possible portion of nutritive juices.
The word cud is probably not originally Saxon, though found in that language in the same signification in which it is still used. Junius, with great show of probability, derives it from the Cambro-British chwyd, a vomit, as it is the ball of food vomited, or thrown up, from the first stomach or paunch through the oesophagus into the mouth, which is called by this name. Those who prefer a Saxon derivation may have it in the verb [Anglo-Saxon] whence our word chew; and so cud might be considered a contraction of chewed, but this is not so likely as the preceding.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Cloven-footed, to wit, is divided into two parts only, as in the coney, swine, &c., whereas the horse, camel, &c. have their hoofs entire and undivided. This clause is added only to explain and limit the former, as appears from Lev 11:26; for the feet or hoofs of dogs, cats, &c. are parted or cloven into many parts. Cheweth the cud, Heb. and bringeth up the cud, i.e. the meat once chewed out of the stomach into the mouth again, that it may be chewed a second time for better concoction. And this branch is to be joined with the former, both properties being necessary for the allowed beasts. But the reason hereof must be resolved into the will of the lawgiver; though interpreters guess that God would hereby signify their duties by the first, that of dividing the word of God aright, and discerning between good and evil, between Gods institutions and mens inventions; and by the latter, that duty of recalling Gods word to our minds, and serious meditation upon it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3-7. Whatsoever parteth the hoof,and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cudRuminating animals bythe peculiar structure of their stomachs digest their food more fullythan others. It is found that in the act of chewing the cud, a largeportion of the poisonous properties of noxious plants eaten by them,passes off by the salivary glands. This power of secreting thepoisonous effects of vegetables, is said to be particularlyremarkable in cows and goats, whose mouths are often sore, andsometimes bleed, in consequence. Their flesh is therefore in a betterstate for food, as it contains more of the nutritious juices, is moreeasily digested in the human stomach, and is consequently more easilyassimilated. Animals which do not chew the cud, convert their foodless perfectly; their flesh is therefore unwholesome, from the grossanimal juices with which they abound, and is apt to produce scorbuticand scrofulous disorders. But the animals that may be eaten are thosewhich “part the hoof as well as chew the cud,” and this isanother means of freeing the flesh of the animal from noxioussubstances. “In the case of animals with parted hoofs, whenfeeding in unfavorable situations a prodigious amount of foeligtidmatter is discharged, and passes off between the toes; while animalswith undivided hoofs, feeding on the same ground, become severelyaffected in the legs, from the poisonous plants among the pasture”[WHITLAW, Code ofHealth]. All experience attests this, and accordingly the use ofruminating animals (that is, those which both chew the cud and partthe hoof) has always obtained in most countries though it wasobserved most carefully by the people who were favored with thepromulgation of God’s law.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed,…. That is, whose hoof is parted and cloven quite through; for there are some creatures that have partitions in their feet, but not quite through, they are parted above, but underneath are joined together by a skin; wherefore both these phrases are used to describe the beasts lawful to be eaten: the Egyptians seem to have borrowed this law from the Jews, for Chaeremon says x, that they abstain from such four footed beasts that have only one hoof, or have many partitions, or have no horns: and so the Targum of Jonathan adds here,
“which have horns,”
which, though not in the text, agrees well with the creatures allowed by this law to be eaten, see De 14:4 for such are all horned cattle; nor are there any cattle horned forbid to be eaten:
and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that shall ye eat: who having no upper teeth cannot thoroughly chew their food at once, and therefore bring it up again out of their stomachs into their mouths and chew it over again, that it may be better prepared for digestion in the stomach, and so yield better nourishment; and this makes the flesh of such creatures fitter for food: and these creatures have more stomachs than one; the ventricles for rumination are four; the first is the paunch, which in oxen is so big as to hold food of fifty pound weight, the second the honeycomb, the third the tripe, the fourth the honey tripe, and to which are helpful the pectoral muscle, the abdomen, with the diaphragm y: all this might have a moral and spiritual meaning in it, and may be applied either to ministers of the word; who ought rightly to divide the word of truth, and give to everyone their part, and who should walk uprightly according to it, and who should give themselves up wholly to the meditation of it, and thoroughly digest it; and study to show themselves workmen, that need not to be ashamed; or to private Christians, who have a discerning spirit in spiritual things, and can distinguish not only morality from immorality, but spiritual things from carnal, heavenly things from earthly, the voice of Christ from the voice of a stranger, and the doctrines of Christ from the doctrines of men; and who also walk as they should do, by faith on Christ, in the ways of God, and according to the Gospel; these chew the cud, meditate on the word, feed upon it while delivered, recall it, and have it brought to their remembrance by the divine Spirit, and ponder it in their hearts; see Ps 1:1.
x Apud Porphyr. de Abstinentia, l. 4. sect. 7. y Scheuchzer. Physic. Sacr. vol. 2. p. 278, 279.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof. Whilst I fear that but little confidence can be placed in the allegories, in which many have taken delight; so I do not find any fault with, nor even refuse that which has been handed down from the ancients, (39) viz., that by the cleaving of the hoof is signified prudence in distinguishing the mysteries of Scripture, and by the chewing of the cud serious meditation on its heavenly doctrines; although I cannot approve of the subtlety (40) which they add, viz., that those “rightly divide the word” who have known how to elicit mystical senses from its letter; because hence it has come to pass that they have allowed themselves in all sorts of imaginations. I therefore embrace the more simple notion, that they who only have a taste for the carnal sense, do not divide the hoof; for, as Paul says, only “he that is spiritual discerneth all things.” (1Co 2:15 , margin.) The chewing of the cud ought to follow, duly to prepare and digest the spiritual food; for many gulp down Scripture without profit, because they neither sincerely desire to profit by it, nor seek to refresh their souls by it, as their nourishment; but satisfied with the empty delights of knowledge, make no efforts to conform their life to it. In the first clause, then, brutal stupidity is condemned; in the other, the ambition and levity of curious men. (41) God, indeed, set before Peter, in the vision, unclean animals as images and figures of the Gentiles, (Act 10:12😉 and therefore it is lawful, by probable analogy, to transfer to men what is said about the animals. But why God should have appointed the cloven hoof and rumination as signs, is no more clear to me than why He should have forbidden their eating swine’s flesh; unless, perchance, because the solid hoof is a sign of wildness; whilst the animals which do not ruminate feed for the most part on filth and excrement. We know that on this point there was much contention immediately after the promulgation of the Gospel, because some of the Jews, in their excessive devotion to the Law, and considering that the distinction of meats was not to be reckoned among the, ceremonial enactments, desired that the new Church should be bound by the same trammels as had been imposed upon the ancient people. At length, by the decree of the Apostles, permission was given to the Gentiles to eat all kinds of meat, except only blood and things strangled, and that only for a time, for the sake of avoiding offense, since the Jews would not otherwise have been propitiated. Now, after what God Himself had ordained respecting the distinction of meats had been abrogated, it was an act of diabolical audacity to oblige men’s consciences by human laws, and to prevent them from enjoying the liberty obtained by Christ.
Another question remains, how God should pronounce anything which He has created to be unclean; for, if an animal be rejected on account of its uncleanness, part of the reproach redounds to the Author Himself. Besides, this rejection seems also to be opposed to the first declaration of God, when, considering all things which He had made, He acknowledged them to be “very good.” The solution is, that no animal was ever unclean in itself; but that this merely refers to its use. Thus in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there was naturally neither fault nor harm, so that it should infect man by its pollution, yet he contracted death from it on account of God’s prohibition. Wherefore, also, in this passage, God does not condemn His work in the animals, but, as to their being eaten, He would have them accounted unclean, that the people may abominate that which is forbidden them. In a word, it is only transgression which defiles: for the animals have never changed their nature; but it was in God’s power to determine what He would have to be lawful or unlawful. Thus another objection is removed. Christ declares that
“not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man ” (Mat 10:11.)
If any one should thence infer that harmless animals are improperly condemned, we must reply that they are not accounted unclean in themselves, but that the prohibition had a different object. For that doctrine was always true, that
“the kingdom of God is not meat and drink,” (Rom 14:17😉
but, when God forbade the Israelites to eat this or that kind of food, they were admonished by this ceremonial precept how abominable is the inward corruption of the heart. But by such elementary teaching they were prepared and led onwards to spiritual doctrine, that they might know that nothing defiles a man except what comes out of his mouth. Now-a-days the condition of believers is different. for liberty is obtained for them, since Christ, having abrogated the Law, has nailed
“the handwriting of ordinances to his cross.” (Col 2:14.)
(39) Fr. “ les Docteurs anciens .” “ Ungulam dividunt, qui secundum duo testamenta firmo se gradu innocentiae et justiciae statuunt. Judaei ruminant verba legis: sed ungulam non findunt, quia duo testamenta non recipiunt; nec in Patrem et Filium credunt: fidei gressum dividunt: heretici ungulam findunt, in Patrem et Filium credentes; seal doctrinam veritatis non ruminant.” — Glossa ordinaria, in loco
(40) “ Toutefois ils gastent tout a la fin par une subtilite frivole, etc;” nevertheless they spoil all by a frivolous subtlety. — Fr.
(41) Addition in Fr. “ qui ne prenent nulle refection de la doctrine de salut :” who receive no refreshment from the doctrine of salvation.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted.Better, Whatsoever is clovenfooted, and entirely separateth the hoofs. The first rule laid down by which the clean quadruped is to be distinguished is that the hoofs must be completely cloven or divided above as well as below, or, as the parallel passage in Deu. 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.
And cheweth the cud.In addition to the foot being perfectly cloven, the quadruped to be clean is to be ruminating. The canon which obtained during the second Temple is thus formulated: Every quadruped which has no upper teeth is known to be ruminant, and when it is also clovenfooted is clean. According to the law of Manu the highest Hindoo castes were also forbidden to eat the flesh or drink the milk of quadrupeds with uncloven hoof. The same was the case with the Egyptian priests: they abstained from eating the flesh of any animal which had uncloven hoofs or many claws.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof There is here no limit to the number of divisions, but in Deu 14:6 we find the words “cleft into two claws.” Thus also the Seventy in this verse.
And cheweth the cud Literally, Causeth what has been chewed to come up. This describes the method of rumination. The ruminant is endowed with four stomachs. The first receives the vegetables coarsely bruised by a first mastication, which pass into the second, where they are moistened and formed into little pellets, which are brought up again to the mouth to be chewed again, then swallowed into the third stomach, from which they pass into the fourth, for final digestion. The qualities required in this verse exclude all carnivorous, but do not include all graminivorous, animals.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 11:3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, &c. It is very evident, that a parted and cloven hoof are the same; and accordingly, upon refering to the original, we find no such distinction as that made in ours, and in several other translations; and which seems to have come originally from the LXX. The Hebrew, though peculiar in its phrase, may with great propriety be rendered, every animal having a hoof, and dividing it into two parts. The Chaldee paraphrast has given this true sense; and so also has the Arabic version, which the Vulgate has very properly followed: omne quod habet divisam ungulam. Houbigant renders it, omne quod ungulam protrudit, eamque habet divisam, every thing which puts forth the hoof, and has it divided. Respecting rumination or chewing the cud; see Derham’s Physico Theology, p. 200 edit. 12 or Scheuchzer’s Physic. Sacre. tom. 3: p. 67. These marks are not assigned as reasons why such and such animals are proper for food, but only as marks whereby to distinguish them. Dr. James observes, that under this prohibition of beasts which do not divide the hoof and chew the cud, are included all beasts of prey, and those which eat flesh, whose juices are highly alkalescent, and consequently injurious to the health of the human frame: all animals of the horse and ass-kind are likewise here prohibited; and, in proof of the wisdom of this prohibition, we find, that the flesh of all these is difficult to be digested and assimilated by the vital powers; and that the juices are rank and alkalescent: perhaps, because they are frequently heated by the habitual exercise they are obliged to use for the service of man; or rather, we may add, from the original constitution of their nature.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Some have thought that in order to discountenance the most distant approach to idolatry, those creatures which the neighboring nations made their idols, were those which the LORD marked particularly as unclean; that they might be held in the greater abomination by the Israelites. Whether this be so or not, I do not say. But one observation I would make in this place concerning an error, which, for want of due attention, some Christians have fallen into, I mean respecting swine’s flesh being so carefully abstained from by the Jews. It hath been thought that they eat it not, because CHRIST permitted the devil to enter into the herd of swine: Mar 5:13 . Whereas a moment’s consideration would convince, that as the Jews did not believe in our LORD himself, consequently they pay no attention to this miracle. This scripture of the Levitical law concerning the unclean beast, explains it. The hog cheweth not the cud, and therefore, though he be cloven-footed yet is he unclean.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
Ver. 3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and cheweth the cud. ] To teach them to think upon God’s commandments to do them, Psa 103:18 cleansing themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit. 2Co 7:1 Moreover clean Christians, typed by those clean beasts, must rightly part the hoof; that is, rightly divide their time; giving a due share thereof to either of their callings.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
parteth the hoof. Compare Deu 14:6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
parteth: Psa 1:1, Pro 9:6, 2Co 6:17
cheweth: Deu 6:6, Deu 6:7, Deu 16:3-8, Psa 1:2, Pro 2:1, Pro 2:2, Pro 2:10, Act 17:11, 1Ti 4:15
Reciprocal: Eze 1:7 – like the sole
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 11:3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof That is, divides it into two parts only; or, is cloven-footed As is here expressed. These qualities are not assigned as reasons why such animals are proper for food, but merely as marks whereby to distinguish them. In some animals the hoofs are solid, and not divided at all, as horses, asses, and mules; in others they are divided into several parts like toes, as in lions, wolves, dogs, (of which see Lev 11:27;) in a third sort, they are cloven or divided into two parts, as oxen, deer, sheep, goats. These last are of two kinds; for in some the hoof is divided, but not cloven quite through, as the camel; in others it is both parted and cloven, which are those allowed by this law to be clean creatures. And cheweth the cud Some creatures, such as oxen, sheep, and goats, for want of the upper fore-teeth, cannot chew their food perfectly at once; nor can the stomach make a perfect digestion till it be ground a second time. Therefore such animals are provided with a double stomach; an upper, into which the food goes down after the first chewing; and another, into which it is sent after the second. Such creatures as chew the cud are reckoned more wholesome, because they grind and digest what they eat better, and consequently yield a lighter and more nutritious food than others. Under the prohibition of eating beasts which do not answer this description, all beasts of prey, and those which eat flesh, are included, whose juices, Dr. James observes, are highly alkalescent, and injurious to health. All animals of the horse and ass kind are here also prohibited, and it is well known that the flesh of these is difficult to be digested, and that the juices are rank and unwholesome.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
11:3 Whatsoever parteth the {b} hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
(b) He notes four types of beasts, some that chew the cud only, and some that only have the hoof cleft. Others neither chew the cud, nor have the hoof cleft, and the fourth both chew the cud and have the hoof divided, which may be eaten.