From Wiki
This rule thus excludes the camel from the list of kosher animals because although the camel does ruminate it does not possess true “hooves” – it walks on soft toes which have little more than a nail merely giving an appearance of a “hoof”.
That’s an excellent point to raise. And I asked my Hebrew professor (who was also a rabbi and renowned Torah scholar) that very question back in 1977. His answer: It would appear to be a problem in English but not under the vocabulary used by the ancient Hebrews. They were quite familiar with camel anatomy so we should not assume they somehow didn’t notice something so easily observable.
Rather than trying to paraphrase his detailed explanation I’ll quote from the Emet Torah U’Mada B’Zmaneynu website Q&A section:
The camel’s hoof is basically a nail. There are animals with nails coming out of every toe, who do not walk on their nails but on the pads, like cats, dogs…and they are categorized by the Torah as not having hooves. There are animals which have nails upon which they walk, like horses, donkeys, cows, and sheep. And they are categorized as having hooves (but the horse and donkey do not have split hooves, and so are not kosher). The camel has two large nails but does not walk on them, so it is part of the same category as the dog and the cat, which do not have hooves. That is why the Torah says the camel does not have split hooves. We learn all this from the following verse:
“Every animal that has true hooves but without clefts through the hooves or that does not chew the cud are unclean for you; whoever touches them shall be unclean. Also all animals that walk on paws, among those that walk on fours, are unclean for you ” (Leviticus 11:26-27). There is a difference between those that walk on their paws and those that walk on their nails (and the camel walks on its paws). But zoologists have different categories (not based on the observer’s point of view but on toe bones), so they categorize the camel as having split hooves.
— excerpt from: Does the camel have split hooves? | Daat Emet
In addition, yet again we must keep in mind that the semantic domains of the Hebrew words underlying an English Bible translation do not necessarily map 100% with the semantic domains of the English words. Translation is an art, not a science. Approximations are often necessary especially when the translators goal emphasizes a concise reading (i.e., not overly wordy) which flows well.
As I’ve said in the past, Torah studies and the rabbinical literature was never my field of specialization. So I would be curious to know if @deuteroKJ has any insights on this.
This is perhaps an argument about what a hoof is. Do hippos have hooves? More importantly, why should hooves have anything to do with being clean or unclean.
Yes, it’s an argument about semantics. Camels walk mainly on the pads of their toes, not the nails. They might be considered digitigrade rather than unguligrade. Of course there’s a continuum between these two conditions.
Here is an interesting article that makes the case for both ruminant digestion and split hooves based on the conditions in Canaan 3000 plus years ago. Split hooves allow the animals to find vegetation on rocky unplowed surfaces.
I understand why the camel isn’t kosher under the Levitical law.
What I was seeking was the scientific rationale for discriminating between creatures with similar diets.
I don’t think so. Why would ability to find vegetation on rocky surfaces determine whether you should eat the animals?
Not really. I’ve not studied this intensely; I’ve spent more time in the food lists trying to figure out what “kind” means. I do think theology, wrapped in ANE ways of conceiving the world, is most likely the assumed rationale, with the practical effect of keeping Israel separate (holy) from the other nations. If it doesn’t match our modern conceptions, so be it.
The kosher animals have both the ability to properly process grass by chewing the cud and processing plants w 4 quadrant stomachs using fermentation. They also can find grass on many types of land especially rugged land where their split hoofs offer a mobility advantage.
At the end of the day these animals with a searching and processing advantage have a healthier diet and their meat is claimed to be healthier to consume.
Does there really need to be one, or are we imposing a modern worldview that favours science on the text if we look for this?
It’s a fair point, but the broader point I was making in this discussion is that there does appear to be a scientific rationale behind some of the laws, in the first order vs higher order consumer, herbivore vs omnivore/carnivore point.
Not making a strong argument, and I agree that the Biblical text has its own meaning on its own terms, and is likely about ceremonial purity rather than health or environmental grounds.
I do think it’s interesting to ponder the connection, though…
Ah, sorry for the confusion. I thought you were looking at trying to find a scientific rationale that the distinctions would make sense related to health which I think would be pushing past the intent of the text.
The Hebrews who worked with and around camels would have been familiar with camel anatomy. The Hebrews who wrote Leviticus might not have been. There are lots of examples of creationists being completely unfamiliar with the actual nature of the world, including the animals in it. Why shouldn’t the ancients have similar blind spots?
One answer would be that the average person in the ancient world was not as “insulated” from the realities of nature as are many people today. The modern world and its technologies allow people to function quite obliviously to things which were daily essentials of life for most people throughout most of human history. (e.g., food gathering: big difference between shopping at a grocery store versus an ancient market and/or raising one’s own food.)
As to camels, it is debated as to whether mention of these beasts is anachronistic in various Torah passages. Personally speaking, I don’t find the “Camels were not yet introduced to the Levant” evidence compelling.
To which the obvious response is that the authors of Leviticus weren’t average people.
Ugh, no, this is all wrong. Guys, actual scholarship exists on the topic of the origins/meanings of Levitical laws. There’s no need to make stuff up.
Decades ago in my cultural anthropology course in college, we studied this as it was then and probably still is a classic case study. Talk about disease and food safety was known then to be unhelpful as an explanation, even if one projects the proscriptions into the present day. (Which is madness of course.) Back then, the best analysis (according to the field), consistent with what the writings themselves say (wacko stuff about “cloven hooves”), suggested that the unclean animals are ambiguous, that they are weird and unworthy because they defy accepted norms of classification and thus are “impure” in a philosophical sense.
Whether that explanation is true or not, it attempts to actually account for the text and the facts about those animals. “Food safety” does not.
Edit: much of what I wrote has been covered earlier in the thread, and @ProfBravus seems not to have intended to assert that the rules were motivated by or influenced by food safety. My impression is that even unintended “benefits” re food safety are nonexistent, then and now. Just like most of the appalling Levitical laws, some of which are pure evil, my opinion is that these dietary regulations lack value as anything other than ways to see the damaging aspects of religion.
For those readers who are new to this topic, here’s a relatively non-technical paper from the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation reviewing what were at that time (1974) considered the nine major theories which sought to explain the dietary laws from Leviticus. (Torah studies were never my specialty so I don’t know if any new theories would be appended to such a list today.) I remember it as an assigned reading when I was in seminary long ago.
It provides a convenient Pros and Cons format for each theory so I thought it might be useful for the average reader.