Hare

VIEW:43 DATA:01-04-2020

HARE (Lev_11:6, Deu_14:7).—Four species of hare are known in Palestine, of which the commonest is the Lepus syriacus. The hare does not really ‘chew the cud,’ though, like the coney, it appears to do so; it was, however, unclean because it did not ‘divide the hoof.’ Hares are to-day eaten by the Arabs.
E. W. G. Masterman.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

arnebeth Reckoned unclean on the ground that it "chews the cud, but divideth not the hoof" (Lev_11:6; Deu_14:7). It brings up from the (esophagus and chews again its food; but there is no genuine rumination, neither it nor the hyrax ("coney") or shaaphan have the special stomach of the ruminants. Rodent animals, as the hare and the hyrax, keep down the undue growth of their teeth, which grow during life, by grinding with their jaws. The sacred legislator did not design the classification of a scientific naturalist or a comparative anatomist, but to furnish a popular mode of recognizing animals the flesh of which was not to be eaten. The rule in Deu_17:27, "whatsoever goeth upon his paws" (as the dog, cat, and beasts of prey), sufficiently excludes from the clean the hyrax and the hare. The Parsees still abominate the hare.
The hare, though having a divided foot, has not a cloven hoof, which was a requisite for legal cleanness. True ruminants have four stomachs, molar teeth, and a jawbone suited for the circular movement of chewing the cud. The hare has none of these marks, and has in the upper jaw incisor teeth, which ruminants have not. But hares retain the cropped food within the hollows of their cheeks and masticate it at leisure, which in phenomenal language is "chewing the cud," and is so described by even so close an observer of nature as the poet Cowper. The ancient Britons rejected it as food. The Palestinian hare, Lepus Syriacus, was of a fur buff or yellowish-grey color, the hare of the desert (Lepus Sinaiticus) darker and smaller. The rabbit (Lepus cuniculus) seems to be unknown in Syria and Palestine.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Hare. (Hebrew, (arnebeth.) Occurs only in Lev_11:6, and Deu_14:7, amongst the animals disallowed as food by the Mosaic law. The hare is at this day called arnel by the Arabs in Palestine and Syria. It was erroneously thought by the ancient Jews to have chewed the cud. They were no doubt misled, as in the case of the shaphfan (hyrax), by the habit these animals have of moving the jaw about.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

ארנבת , Arabic arneb, Lev_11:6; Deu_14:7. This name is derived, as Bochart and others suppose, from ארה , to crop, and ניב , the produce of the ground; these animals being remarkable for devouring young plants and herbage. This animal resembles the rabbit, but is larger, and somewhat longer in proportion to its thickness. The hare in Syria, says Dr. Russel, is distinguished into two species, differing considerably in point of size. The largest is the Turkman hare, and chiefly haunts the plains; the other is the common hare of the desert: both are abundant. The difficulty as to this animal is, that Moses says the arnabeth chews the cud, which our hares do not: but Aristotle takes notice of the same circumstance, and affirms that the structure of its stomach is similar to that of ruminating animals. The animal here mentioned may then be a variety of the species.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

hâr (ארנבת, 'arnebheth (Lev_11:6; Deu_14:7); compare Arabic 'arnab, ?hare?): This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Where it occurs along with the camel, the coney and the swine. The camel, the hare and the coney are unclean, 'because they chew the cud but part not the hoof,' the swine, ?because he parteth the hoof ... but cheweth not the cud.? The hare and the coney are not ruminants, but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continually moving their jaws. Both are freely eaten by the Arabs. Although 'arnebheth occurs only in the two places cited, there is no doubt that it is the hare. Septuagint has δασύπους, dasúpous, ?rough-footed,? which, while not the commonest Greek word (λαγῶς, lagō̇s), refers to the remarkable fact that in hares and rabbits the soles of the feet are densely covered with hair. 'Arnab, which is the common Arabic word for ?hare,? is from the same root as the Hebrew 'arnebhetȟ.
Lev_11:4-7 : Lev_11:4, English Versions of the Bible ?camel?; Septuagint τὸν κάμηλον, tón kámēlon; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 ad) camelus; Hebrew הגּמל, ha-gāmāľ. Lev_11:5, English Versions of the Bible ?coney?; Septuagint τὸν δασύποδα, tón dasúpoda; Vulgate, choerogryllus; Hebrew השׁפן, ha-shāphāň. Lev_11:6, English Versions of the Bible ?hare?; Septuagint τὸν χοιρογρύλλιον, tón choirogrúllion Vulgate, lepus; Hebrew הארנבת, ha-'arnebetȟ. Lev_11:7, English Versions of the Bible ?swine?; Septuagint τὸν ὗν, tón hún; Vulgate, sus; Hebrew החזיר, ha-ḥăzı̄ř.
Deu_14:7 : English Versions of the Bible ?camel?; Septuagint τὸν κάμηλον, tón kámēlon Vulgate, camelum; Hebrew הגּמל, hagāmāl; English Versions of the Bible ?hare?; Septuagint δασύποδα, dasúpoda; Vulgate, leporem; Hebrew הארנבת, hā'arnebeth; English Versions of the Bible ?coney?; Septuagint χοιρογρύλλιον, choirogrúllion; Vulgate, choerogryllum; Hebrew השׁפן, hashāphāň.
Deu_14:8 : English Versions of the Bible ?swine?; Septuagint τὸν ὗν, tón hún Vulgate, sus; Hebrew החזיר, haḥezı̄yř.
It is evident from the above and from the meanings of δασύπους, dasúpous and χοιρογρύλλιος, choirogrúllios as given in Liddell and Scott, that the order of Septuagint in Lev_11:5, Lev_11:6 does not follow the Hebrew, but has apparently assimilated the order of that of Deu_14:7, Deu_14:8. In Psa_104:18, Septuagint has χοιρογρυλλιος, choirogrullios for שׁפן, shāphān; also in Pro_30:26.
Since the word ?coney,? which properly means ?rabbit,? has been applied to the hyrax, so, in America at least, the word ?rabbit? is widely used for various species of hare, e.g. the gray rabbit and the jack-rabbit, both of which are hares. Hares have longer legs and ears and are swifter than rabbits. Their young are hairy and have their eyes open, while rabbits are born naked and blind. Hares are widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere, and there is one species in South America. Rabbits are apparently native to the Western Mediterranean countries, although they have been distributed by man all over the world.
Lepus syriacus, the common hare of Syria and Palestine, differs somewhat from the European hare. Lepus judeae is cited by Tristram from Northeastern Palestine, and he also notes three other species from the extreme south.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.


Syrian Hare
Hare occurs in Lev_11:6, and Deu_14:7, and in both instances it is prohibited from being used as food, because it chews the cud, although it has not the hoof divided. The hare however does not actually chew the cud, but has incisor teeth above and below, set like chisels, and calculated for gnawing, cutting, and nibbling, and when in a state of repose is engaged in working the incisor teeth upon each other. This practice is a necessary condition of existence, for the friction keeps them fit for the purpose of nibbling, and prevents their growing beyond a proper length. As hares do not subsist on hard substances, but on tender shoots and grasses, they have more cause, and therefore a more constant craving, to abrade their teeth; and this they do in a manner which, combined with the slight trituration of the occasional contents of the cheeks, even modern writers, not zoologists, have mistaken for real rumination. It follows therefore we should understand the original in the above passages rendered 'chewing the cud,' as merely implying a second mastication, more or less complete. The act of 'chewing the cud' and 're-chewing' being considered identical by the Hebrews, the sacred lawgiver, not being occupied with the doctrines of science, no doubt used the expression in the sense in which it was then understood. It may be added, that a similar opinion, and consequent rejection of the hare as food, pervaded many nations of antiquity.
There are two distinct species of hare in Syria: one, the Syrian hare, nearly equal in size to the common European, having the fur ochry buff; and the hare of the desert, smaller and brownish. They reside in the localities indicated by their names, and are distinguished from the common hare, by a greater length of ears, and a black tail with white fringe. There is found in Egypt, and higher up the Nile, a third species, represented in the outline paintings on ancient monuments, but not colored with that delicacy of tint required for distinguishing it from the others, excepting that it appears to be marked with the black speckles which characterize the existing species.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Lev_11:6 (c) This little animal may be used to represent the professing Christian whose talk is orthodox, but whose walk is heterodox. The hare of the Bible, or the rabbit, did chew the cud (the talk), but did not divide the hoof (the walk). It does not walk smoothly, nor evenly, but by jumps. Its color blends with its surroundings. So the professing Christian who is not really born again seeks to live and act as a real Christian, when he is in that environment, and vice versa. The walk and the talk must both be according to the Word of GOD, and produced by the Spirit of GOD.
Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types
press 1957.

Hare
(אִרְנֶבֶת, arne'beth'; according to Bochart [Hieroz. i, 994], from אָרָה, to crop, and נַיב fruit; Arab. arneb and Syr. arnebo, a hare; Sept. χοιρογρύλλιος and δασύπους, Vulg. lepus and cheerogryllus, both versions interchanging it with “coney”) occurs in Lev_11:6, and Deu_14:7, and in both instances it is prohibited from being used as food because it chews the cud, although it has not the hoof divided. But the hare belongs to an order of mammals totally distinct from the ruminantia, which are all, without exception, bisulca, the camel's hoof alone offering a partial modification (Ehrenberg, Mammalia, pt. 2). The stomach of rodents is single, and the motion of the mouth, excepting when they masticate some small portion of food reserved in the hollow of the cheek, is more that of the lips, when in a state of repose the animals are engaged in working the incisor teeth upon each other. This practice is a necessary condition of existence, for the e friction keeps them fit for the purpose of nibbling, and prevents their growing beyond a proper length. As hares do not subsist on hard substances, like most of the genera of the order, but on tender shoots and grasses, they have more cause, and therefore a more constant craving, to abrade their teeth; and this they do in a. manner which, combined with the slight trituration of the occasional contents of the cheeks, even modern writers, not zoologists, have mistaken for real rumination.
Physiological investigation having fully determines these questions, it follows that, both with regard to theshaphan (“coney”) and the hare, we should understand the original in the above passages, rendered “chewing the cud,” as merely implying a second mastication, more or less complete, and not necessarily that. faculty of true ruminants which derives its name from a power to draw up aliment after deglutition, when worked into a ball, from the first stomach into the: mouth, and there to submit it to a second grinding process. The act of “chewing the cud” and “rechewing” ‘being considered identical by the Hebrews, the sacred. lawgiver, not being occupied with the doctrines of science, no doubt used the expression in the sense in which it was then understood (compare Michaelis, Anmerk. adloc.). It may be added that a similar opinion, and consequent rejection of the hare as food, pervaded many nations of antiquity, who derived their origin, or their doctrines, from a Shemitic source; and that, among others, it existed among the British Celtae, probably even before they had any intercourse with Phoenician merchants. Thus the Turks and Armenians abstain. from its flesh (Tavernier, Travels, 3, 154), also the Arabians (Russell's Aleppo, 2, 20), and even the Greeks and Romans avoided it (Hermann, ad Lucian. conscrib. hist. p. 135; P. Castellan. De carnis esu, 3, 5, in Gronov. Thesaur. 9) on sanitary grounds (Aristotle, Hist. Anim. 4:5; Pliny, H. N. 28, 79); but the Bedawin, who have a peculiar mode of dressing it, are fond of its flesh.
There are two distinct species of hare in Syria: one, Lepus Syriacus, or Syrian hare, nearly equal in size to the common European, having the fur ochry buff; and Lepus Sinaiticus, or hare of the desert, smaller and brownish. They reside in the localities indicated by their trivial names, and are distinguished from the common hare by a greater length of ears, and a black tail with white fringe. There is found in Egypt, and higher up the Nile, a third species, represented in the outline paintings on ancient monuments, but not colored with that delicacy of tint required for distinguishing it from the others, excepting that it appears to be marked with the black speckles which characterize the existing species. The ancient Egyptians coursed it with greyhounds as we do, and sometimes captured it alive and kept it in cages. “Hares are so plentiful in the environs of Aleppo,” says Dr. Russell (2, 158), “that it was no uncommon thing to see the gentlemen who went out a sporting twice a week return with four or five brace hung in triumph at the girths of the servants horses.” Hares are hunted in Syria with greyhound and falcon.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores