Chewing a cud is what all ruminants must do in order to eat properly. A ruminant is any animal with multiple stomach chambers and no upper teeth in the front. Because they cannot chew well they ingest their food almost entirely whole the first time. The first chamber of the stomach retains the food for a time, then forms a 'mass' called a cud, and then burps the cud back into the mouth of the animal to be re-chewed. Per day, a cow spends 6 hours eating and 8 hours chewing cud. Animals that are ruminants include: cattle, sheep, goats, llamas, reindeer, and bison.
http://www.pettingfarm.com/DPFAnimalFacts.htm#
Chewing a cud is what all ruminants must do
Let's ruminate on it
• Always chewing
Sheep belong to the ruminant classification of animals. Ruminants are characterized by their "four" stomachs and "cud-chewing" behavior. The cud is a food bolus that has been regurgitated.
• Ruminants
There are about 150 different domestic and wild ruminant species including cows, goats, deer, buffalo, bison, giraffe, moose and elk. Ruminant animals are further classified by the foraging behavior: grazers, browsers, or intermediate grazers. Grazers, such as cattle, consume mostly lower quality grasses while browsers such as moose and mule deer stay in the woods and eat highly nutritious twigs and shrubs. Intermediats, such as sheep, goats, and white tail deer, have nutritional requirements midway between grazers and browsers. Of this group, sheep are more of a grazer, while goats and deer are browsers.
The primary difference between ruminants and simple-stomach animals (called monogastrics), such as people, dogs, and pigs is the presense of a four-compartment stomach. The four parts are the rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum. Often it's said that ruminants have four stomachs. In reality, their "stomach" has four parts.
• Pseudo-ruminants
Camelids (llamas and alpacas) are called "pseudo-ruminants" because they have a three-compartment stomach instead of four like ruminants. Horses are not ruminants. They have an enlarged cecum that allows them to digest fibrous materials. Animals of this type are called "hind-gut fermenters." A rabbit has a similiar digestive system.
http://www.sheep101.info/cud.html
Video Transcript
"Alright so pigs are not ruminants even though they do have a two toed hoof. They have a hoof that is split like a cow, sheep or a goat but they do not chew their cud. All of the other farm animals that we know of are herbivores pretty much and a pig is an omnivore. Pigs will eat almost anything. They actually have a digestive system that is very close to humans which is most likely one reason why we don't like the smell of pig because pig waste is not something that is attracted to us. Maybe it is a little too close to home but a pig is not a ruminant. They do not chew their cud and that is exactly what makes a pig not kosher. It does have a cloven hoof but it does not chew its cud. Its omnivorous diet means it needs some different things to eat than your basic ruminant but it also lets it grow at a tremendous rate. "
Read more: Pig Digestion: Understanding & Raising Pigs | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/video_2349795_pig-digestion.html#ixzz13W0ZqTss
===================
In 1966, British cultural anthropologist Mary Douglas published the influential study Purity and Danger, which made the first proposal that the prohibited foods were those that were liminal; for example, she argued that Leviticus declared pigs unclean because the place of pigs in the natural order is superficially ambiguous, since they shared the cloven hoof of the ungulates, but do not chew cud[33].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_animals
Kosher bacon?
Daniel Radosh
In response to the news that scientists are genetically engineering pigs to produce heart-healthy pork, my friend Brett asks if they can create kosher pork?
Though meant as a joke, it's an interesting question. The laws regarding kosher mammals derive from Leviticus 11, which begins, "You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud." Verse 7 specifically forbids eating pig, which "though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud." Chewing the cud is a method of digestion that is exactly as disgusting as it sounds and transforming an animal's entire digestive tract is probably beyond current technology -- but it's a brave new world out there, and if someone put their mind to this, I'm sure it could be done eventually. Presumably some rabbis would say that since Leviticus specifically mentions pig, nothing would change the prohibition. But it seems to me that the pig is being used as an example of an animal with certain traits, and if those traits are different... who knows?
http://www.radosh.net/archive/001475.html
________________________________________
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed,.... Not only its hoofs are parted, but cloven quite through, and so in this respect answers Moses's first descriptive character of clean creatures; though Aristotle (u) and Pliny (w) speak of some kind of swine in Illyricum, Paeonia, and other places, which have solid hoofs; but perhaps these were not properly swine, though so called:
yet he cheweth not the cud; and a learned physician observes (x), that such creatures that chew not the cud, so perfect a chyle cannot be elaborated by them as is by those that chew the cud, and therefore their flesh must be less wholesome; and of the swine, he says (y), they have but one belly, and so there is no rumination or chewing the cud by them; wherefore they are to be placed, and are in a lower degree than the camel, the coney, and the hare; and as they cannot digest the chyle so well as those that chew the cud, and also live upon most sordid and filthy food, the eating of swine's flesh, he observes, must produce many inconveniences to the body, as especially scorbutic, arthritic, scabious, and leprous disorders: so Manetho the Egyptian says (z), that he that eats swine's milk is liable to be filled with the leprosy; and Maimonides (a) gives it as the principal reason of its being forbid the Jews, because it is such a filthy creature, and eats such filthy things:
he is unclean to you: and so it has always been accounted by the Jews, and nothing is more abominable to them, as is even testified by Heathen (b) writers; and in this they have been imitated by many nations, particularly the Egyptians, who, as Herodotus says (c), reckon swine a very filthy creature; so that if anyone does but touch it passing by, he is obliged to plunge himself into a river with his clothes on; and keepers of them may not go into any of their temples, nor do the rest of the Egyptians intermarry with them, but they marry among themselves; the reason of this their abhorrence of swine, Aelianus says (d), is because they are so gluttonous that they will not spare their own young, nor abstain from human flesh; and this, says he, is the reason why the Egyptians hate it as an impure and voracious animal: likewise the Arabians entirely abstain from swine's flesh, as Solinus says (e), who adds, that if any of this sort of creatures is carried into Arabia, it immediately dies; and the same Pliny (f) attests: and so the Phoenicians, the near neighbours of the Jews, would not eat the flesh of them; hence Antoninus is said to abstain from it after the manner of the Phoenicians (g), unless the historian should mean the Jews; also the Gallo-Grecians or Galatians (h); nay, even the Indians have such an abhorrence of it, that they would as soon taste of human flesh as taste of that (i), and it is well known that the Mahometans abstain from it; and they have such an aversion to it, that if any chance to kill a wild pig, for tame they have none, they look on the merit of it to be almost equivalent to the killing a Christian in fight (k): now these creatures may be an emblem of filthy and impure sinners, especially apostates, who return to their former impurities and wallow in them.
http://bible.cc/leviticus/11-7.htm
Hare Chewing Cud Error
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/errancy/hare_chew_cud.html
by Sharon Mooney and Edward T. Babinski
Do Rabbits Chew A Cud?
Christian Evangelist Dr. Norman Geisler confirms he does not believe in rabbits chewing a cud in the literal modern sense, rather an observational viewpoint... and short, concise answer "No, they do not", with excerpts from dictionary.com defining what cud is, scientific research on digestion/refection in rabbits, and theologians themselves speak on hares and alleged cud chewing from the book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
"Rabbits also produce normal droppings, which are not re-eaten."
Rabbits, cavies and related species have a digestive system designed for coprophagia. These herbivores do not have the complicated ruminant digestive system, so instead they extract more nutrition from grass by giving their food a second pass through the gut. Soft caecal pellets of partially digested food are excreted and generally consumed immediately. They also produce normal droppings, which are not re-eaten.
Source: Encyclopedia Coprophagia
So why are the Creation Scientists trying to compare this process with Rumination?
Edward T. Babinski: You would think that with the O.T. law that made male warriors have to walk outside the Exodus camp in order to go to the bathroom, that the Hebrews would be particularly appalled by coprophagia. There's even an obscure verse in the O.T. that contains a curse, about holding a "shit stick" up to one's nose. If the Hebrews knew that rabbits were eating something that came out of their rear end, I bet that would have made an impression on them worth mentioning. In effect, I don't think that the inerrantist attempts to try and justify the verse about rabbits being "ruminants" makes any sense. Especially since the Hebrew word means to "bring up," not poop out. More likely they simply noted the APPEARANCE that rabbits have of chewing grass for a long time, and some rabbits may have APPEARED to bring up their food again. One inerrantist mentioned a "throat pouch" in a rabbit in which it might store food and bring it up again, though I haven't found any scientific references to such a pouch, and it's far easier to store food in one's cheeks, rather than in one's throat which can choke a mammal!
http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/14-8.htm
New International Version (©1984)
The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.
New Living Translation (©2007)
And you may not eat the pig. It has split hooves but does not chew the cud, so it is ceremonially unclean for you. You may not eat the meat of these animals or even touch their carcasses.
English Standard Version (©2001)
And the pig, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"The pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Also, you may not eat pigs. (Although their hoofs are divided, they don't chew their cud.) Never eat their meat or touch their dead bodies.
King James Bible
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it [is] unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
American King James Version
And the swine, because it divides the hoof, yet chews not the cud, it is unclean to you: you shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass.
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST PORK
While some of the laws of Kashrut had been introduced in previous sections,4 the prohibition against pork is found in this week's Torah portion:
And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them: "Speak to the People of Israel, saying, 'These are the beasts which you shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. What ever parts the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and chews the cud among the beasts, that shall you eat. Nevertheless, these shall you not eat of those that chew the cud, or of those that divide the hoof; the camel, because it chews the cud, but its hoof is not parted; it is unclean to you. And the coney, because it chews the cud, but its hoof is not parted; it is unclean to you. And the hare, because it chews the cud, but its hoof is not parted; it is unclean to you. And the swine, though its hoof is parted, and is cloven-footed, yet it chews not the cud; it is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall you not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:1-8)5
In order for an animal to be kosher it needs both to chew its cud and have split hooves. The Torah tell us that there are a few animals which have only one of the two signs; these animals are deemed unkosher. But only the pig-swine has split hooves but does not chew its cud, and is consequently not kosher. The Talmud therefore deduces that if an animal that is not a pig and has split hooves is ever discovered, it may be eaten. It can be taken for granted that it will chew cud.
Rabbi Hisda further said: "If a man was walking in the desert and found an animal with its mouth mutilated, he should examine its hoofs; if they are parted he may be certain that it is clean, but if not, he may be certain that it is unclean; provided, however, he recognizes the swine. You admit then that there is the swine [which is the exception to the rule]. But might there well be other species similar to the swine? That should not enter your mind, for a Tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: 'The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast that parts the hoof and is unclean except the swine...'" (Chullin 59a)
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48943046.html
Why does the Bible say that rabbits chew the cud?
Critics of the Bible often quote this passage from the scriptures as evidence of Bible fallacies; Leviticus 11:
1 Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them,
2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth:
3 'Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud -- that you may eat.
4 'Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;
5 'the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;
6 'the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;
7 'and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.
8 'Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.
The intent of this passage is stated clearly. This is an identification of animals that are clean and unclean. The laws God gave Israel serve several purposes; they identify worship practices that point symbolically to Christ; they teach order in conduct; and they teach basic sanitation. If God had declared that animals were parasitic and non-parasitic, the people could not have grasped this concept. The ancient world did not understand microscopic parasites and germs; therefore God simply declared them clean or unclean.
God used the diet of the animal to identify the categories of clean and unclean animals. Predatorily animals generally are not good food sources. They are not identified here at all. The animals identified are basically scavengers and grazers. The swine is a scavenger. Pigs are prone to diseases and spread diseases through their meat. Even today, pork must be thoroughly cooked to insure it is safe to eat. The scavengers are all unclean in Leviticus. The grazing animals are clean or unclean based on how the animal is designed. The split hoof animal that grazes (or chews the cud) is clean. The non-split hoofed animal that grazes is not clean. The rabbit is unclean.
The word cud does not require regurgitation as some claim. Chewing the cud simply means to hold something in the mouth to chew it. We associate the word ‘cud’ with grazing cows because they first eat the grass, regurgitate it and then pass it to another stomach. Rabbits chew vegetation but do not regurgitate it. Both are cud chewers but the rabbit does it in one step. The most common usage today is regurgitating grass and chewing the cud, however the definition is not limited to our common usage. The Israelites understood exactly what was being said.
http://www.exchangedlife.com/QandA/rabbitCud.shtml
How about camels? No. They chew their cud but they don’t have split hooves.
How about pigs? No. The have spilt hooves but don’t chew their cud.
Simple.
Out on a Limb
Look at an animal. Look at its feet. Look at the goo in its mouth. If the foot is split and the mouth is pasty, bon appétit. The Torah mentioned these two signs. And that is all it needed to say. It taught a simple rule to determine if an animal is kosher or not. And that is what makes these verses in the Book of Leviticus 11:4-8 so unusual:
Among the cud-chewing, hoofed animals, these are the ones you may not eat: The camel shall be unclean to you although it brings up its cud, since it does not have a split hoof. The shafan shall be unclean to you although it brings up its cud, since it does not have a split hoof. The arneves shall be unclean to you although it brings up its cud, since it does not have a split hoof. The pig shall be unclean to you although it has a split hoof, since it does not chew its cud. Do not eat the flesh of these animals.
Why does the Torah list these four animals? True, they are exceptions to the rule – each animal has one sign but not the other. But listing exceptions is unnecessary. The rule is already clear: both signs, kosher; one sign or no signs, not kosher. Simple.
And if you look carefully at the Hebrew grammar, it makes it clear that these four animals are the only exceptions. The camel, shafan, and arneves are the only animals that ruminate but don’t have split hooves. The pig is the only animal that has split hooves but doesn’t ruminate.
That is a gutsy thing to say. What happens if you discover another animal with only one sign? Oops.
Why take the risk? Listing the exceptions is risky and unnecessary. The kosher laws are clear without the extra information. Think about it. People discover new animals all the time. People discovered new animals in the ancient world, too.
The ancient Egyptians had zoos. They had animals from all over Africa. They even had bears. The Jews were slaves in Egypt 3,300 years ago. It isn’t farfetched to think that some Jewish slaves visited the zoos of their masters.
Or imagine a different scenario. Maybe a rich Egyptian master took his Jewish slave with him on vacation. If he vacationed up the Nile in Sudan or Ethiopia – and wandered into the wilderness – the master and his slave saw new creatures they never saw before. Exotic beasts live in distant lands.
These are possibilities. You can probably think of a few more. And if an ex-slave helped write the Torah, he would not state: “Four animals have one kosher sign, but not both. There are no other exceptions.” He knows that someone could discover another animal. Why gamble?
The Only Exception
But is it a gamble if you know that you’re right?
The Torah was written 3,300 years ago. Thousands of new animals have been discovered. And none of the new animals are a fifth exception. Pigs are still the only non-ruminating animals with split hooves. Camels, shafans, and arneveses, are still the only ruminating animals without split hooves.
Look at this quote from the Talmud (Chulin 60b):
Was Moses a hunter or an archer? This is to answer those who say that the Torah isn’t from heaven.
Moses was not familiar with every type of animal in the world. But God was. It was risky for Moses to list only four possible exceptions. It wasn’t risky for God.
But you probably have a question: What is a shafan and what is an arneves? Camel and pig are familiar. Shafan and arneves are not. The shafan and arneves are most likely both extinct species. How convenient.
Pigs are the only animal with spilt hooves but don’t chew their cud.
If someone discovers an animal that ruminates but doesn’t have split hooves, just claim it is a shafan or arneves. Maybe the author inserted a fudge factor into the text. He covered all his bases.
But what about the pig? The pig is the only animal listed that has split hooves but doesn’t ruminate. The Torah doesn’t include an extinct animal to cover in case a new animal with split hooves that doesn’t ruminate is discovered. And scientists have classified thousands of animals since the Torah was written. Pigs are still the only animals that have spilt hooves but don’t chew their cud. Incredible.
Moses wasn’t a zoologist. He didn’t know
http://www.aish.com/jl/b/bb/104491254.htmlthe Torah’s PIN number. But the author did. Who do you think he was?
A noted Rabbi was once on a trip to the zoo with his family, came upon the enclosure for the hippopotamus, and was confronted with a problem. Our Torah portion teaches that Kosher land animals are those that both chew their cud and have cloven hooves. But then the Torah goes out on a limb, as it were, telling us something which only the world's Creator could have known at the time: it specifies the four animals which possess only one sign but not the other.
The camel ruminates (chews its cud) but does not have a cloven hoof. Two other animals are listed as sharing these characteristics, and we are not certain which these are today, so we have a certain amount of "negotiating room" should we stumble upon a clearly distinct species that possesses the same traits. The hyrax is one of the two -- the rabbit is not, apparently, since it does not really chew its cud.
The pig, however, is listed as the only animal that has a cloven hoof but does not ruminate -- and this was the Rabbi's problem. The hippopotamus also has a cloven hoof and does not chew its cud, and it's not listed.
One could, of course, dodge the issue. The Torah does not explicitly say that these four animals, and only these four, possess one trait but not the other. Perhaps it was only giving examples. But if so, why does the Torah go on to tell us that fish must have fins and scales in order to be Kosher, but not provide examples such as sharks, which have fins but no scales? The implication is that in the case of land animals, the Torah is listing the only ones which could cause confusion.
Only when the Rabbi read the taxonomy of the hippopotamus did he realize that there was no problem at all. For although the name "hippopotamus" is derived from the Greek for "river horse," a more appropriate term would be "river pig." The Artiodactyl order of hoofed mammals comprises over 220 different species, so it is often divided into distinct suborders. The Suiformes include the hippopotamus, the pygmy hippopotamus (which is considerably more visibly pig-like), three different types of peccaries (also a pig-like creature, native to the American equatorial region (from the US southwest down to Brazil)), and 11 distinct species of pigs, hogs, warthogs and boars. And it is the Suiformes that are cloven-hoofed but do not ruminate!
[Genetically, dromedaries and two-humped Bactrian camels are distinct species, proving that the Torah was speaking about classes of animals. In geneological terms, there are several different varieties of camels, and if I understand it correctly, the entire family of Camelidae, which includes Llamas and a creature called a Vicugna, ruminate without having a cloven hoof. The six species of hyrax, however, are of an entirely different order; camels are more closely related to giraffes and cows. For more details, consult the "Ultimate Ungulate" home page at
http://www.ultimateungulate.com/.]
http://www.torah.org/learning/lifeline/5762/shemini.html
================================
