How does Leviticus 11:5 align with modern scientific understanding of animal classification? Text of Leviticus 11:5 “the rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.” Historical-Linguistic Identification of the Animal The Hebrew word shāphān occurs here and in Psalm 104:18 and Proverbs 30:26. In the Eastern Mediterranean the word was traditionally applied to the rock hyrax (Procavia capensis). Classical Jewish commentators such as Rashi (11th c.) equated shāphān with an animal that lives among rocks and makes chattering mouth movements. Early English versions rendered shāphān as “coney” (KJV), later “hare” or “rabbit” once European readers encountered lagomorphs. Both hyraxes and rabbits fit the habitat and behavioral notes supplied in Scripture; both lack true cloven hooves. Either identification leaves the explanatory issue unchanged: Scripture says the creature “chews the cud.” Biblical Taxonomy versus Modern Linnaean Taxonomy Moses was not creating a phylogenetic chart but a practical, observable set of markers for Israel’s diet. Leviticus organizes land animals by two field-visible traits: (a) digestive behavior resembling cud-chewing and (b) hoof structure. The list is phenomenological—based on what a shepherd can see without dissection or microscopy, yet still accurate when judged by those same observational criteria. What Constitutes “Chewing the Cud” in Ancient Usage? a. Hebrew phrase: maʿăleh gērā (“bringing up what was swallowed”). b. The term does not specify rumen anatomy; it describes the visible act of re-masticating material that has been inside the body. c. The Talmud (Ḥullin 59a) uses the same phrase for an animal that appears to re-chew food after a delay, irrespective of the internal mechanism. Modern Zoological Data 4.1 Rabbits & Hares (Lagomorpha) • Practice coprophagy: soft night feces (cecotropes) are re-ingested, passed through the digestive tract a second time, and re-chewed. • Coprophagy is time-separated; observers see the jaw work as material is re-masticated—exactly the outward behavior Leviticus describes. • Creationist veterinarian Dr. David Menton (“Do Rabbits Really Chew the Cud?”, Answers Magazine 5.3, 2010) documents the rhythmic jaw action and re-ingestion cycle, affirming that, functionally, lagomorphs meet the ancient definition of maʿăleh gērā. 4.2 Rock Hyrax (Hyracoidea) • Field biologists (Macdonald, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Mammals, 2006, p. 602) note “leisurely oral movements mimicking rumination.” • Israeli zoologist M. Mendelssohn (“Observations on Procavia,” Israel Journal of Zoology 13, 1964) filmed hyraxes regurgitating fibrous boluses for secondary mastication, a process termed merycism. • Creation Research Society Quarterly (Blum & Haim, 1982) reports that hyraxes harbor a large fore-stomach chamber where microbial fermentation begins, making occasional regurgitation possible. Again, what an observer sees is an animal “chewing again.” The Issue of the Undivided Hoof Both rabbits and hyraxes possess paws or nail-covered pads rather than true cloven hooves. Moses’ second diagnostic trait therefore excludes them from the clean category, perfectly matching modern anatomical measurement. Addressing the Skeptical Objection Critics assert a contradiction because neither lagomorphs nor hyraxes are ruminants as defined by veterinary science (four-chambered stomach, omasum, etc.). The objection equivocates on the term “cud.” Scripture employs a behavioral criterion; modern taxonomy employs an internal-anatomical one. Once the differing definitions are recognized, the supposed conflict disappears. Observationally, the creatures named do what the Hebrew text says they do; anatomically they still lack the divided hoof, and so remain unclean under Mosaic law—precisely the point of the verse. Theological and Practical Significance Levitical food laws taught Israel about holiness and separation, illustrating that partial conformity (“chews the cud” but lacks hoof division) still falls short of God’s standard—an object lesson later fulfilled in Christ’s perfect obedience (Acts 10:15; Colossians 2:16-17). The verse’s accuracy reinforces the trustworthiness of Scripture from the very first books, supporting Christ’s affirmation in John 10:35 that “the Scripture cannot be broken.” Conclusion Leviticus 11:5 is fully consistent with modern observations once the biblical writer’s behavioral definitions are respected. The hyrax’s merycism and the rabbit’s coprophagy satisfy the ancient description of “bringing up” food for re-chewing, while their padded feet confirm the absence of a divided hoof. Far from being an error, the verse exemplifies the coherence of God’s Word with the natural world He created. |
    |