In the books of Leviticus 11:1–7 and Deuteronomy 14:6–8, the Torah teaches that to be considered kosher, land animals must have fully divided hooves and chew the cud. Any species that meets only one (or none) of these criteria is considered non-kosher and therefore forbidden for consumption.
By: Tev Djmal
In addition to establishing these two parameters, the Torah identifies four animals that meet only one of them: the gamal (camel), the Shafan (hyrax), the arnevet (hare) and the chazir (pig), since the first three chew the cud but do not have cloven hooves, while the latter does exactly the opposite. The Torah presents them as an exclusive list and notes that no other land animal exhibits this partial combination of signs, a statement with profound theological implications.
The Pentateuch was transcribed over 3.300 years ago, when our knowledge of nature was geographically limited and vast ecosystems were unknown to us. If true, the information that only four species meet a single criterion of kashrut would be beyond human capacity at that remote time. Such precision reinforces a central tenet of Jewish faith: the Divine origin of the Torah. According to the Talmud Bavli (chulin 60b): “Moshe Rabenu was neither a hunter nor an archer” (i.e., he was not familiar with all the animals in the world), which is “a refutation of those who say that the Torah is not from Heaven.”
Despite advances in biology, taxonomy, and exploration of the planet, a fifth terrestrial species has never been identified that exhibits just one of the signs of kashrut. Thousands have already been catalogued, and the finding of Vayikra e Devarim remains fully valid.
Responses to Skeptics' Objections
The Torah's identification of the only four terrestrial species that exhibit only one of the two signs of kashrut has a clear theological purpose. How, to be considered kosher, the animal must ruminate and have completely cloven hooves, it would seem unnecessary to mention those that only meet that criterion, something that is evident upon observation.
The pig, which, due to its external anatomy, may seem suitable for consumption, is the exception. Since the less obvious fact that it does not ruminate may go unnoticed, its explicit inclusion is understandable. In the other three species, which do not have cloven hooves, the condition of not kosher it is quite apparent.
The Torah, however, does not limit itself to classifying animals. By naming these four species, it makes an implicit but profound statement: only they, in the entire world, exhibit this partial combination of characteristics. This reveals a knowledge of nature that surpasses human capacity at the time and reinforces the belief in the Divine origin of the Torah. Only an omniscient Being could confidently assert that there is no fifth species with only one of the characteristics required to be kosher.
However, when claiming that these laws serve as evidence of the Divine authorship of the Torah, one must be prepared to answer questions. Unlike what happens with the gamal (camel) and the chazir (pig), modern science has raised doubts about the identification of the Shafan and the arnevet. Based on verses from Psalms and Proverbs, many scholars associate these last two species with the hyrax (Procavia capensis) and the hare (lepus), which, according to the Torah, are not kosher because, although they "chew the cud," they do not have cloven hooves. According to critics, however, these animals neither have compartmentalized stomachs nor regurgitate food, so according to the modern technical definition, they are not ruminants.
A possible answer would be that, since there is no absolute certainty about the identification of the Shafan and the arnevet, which may even be extinct, it is possible that the Torah does not refer to the hyrax and the hare. In this case, although modern science does not include these species in the suborder Ruminantia, the Torah's statement would remain fully valid.
However, this explanation, while plausible, merely avoids the objection rather than confronting it. Therefore, we will assume that the Torah does indeed refer to the hyrax and the hare. Below, we will demonstrate that the identification made by the sacred text, if interpreted based on the Talmud, the Oral Torah, is fully compatible with modern biological knowledge.
What It Means to Ruminate: The Torah, the Talmud, and Modern Biology
Zoology includes in the suborder Ruminantia animals whose stomach consists of multiple chambers (generally four) and which regurgitate partially digested food ("acorn") to rechew it. Thus, the hyrax, the hare and, to a certain extent, the camel do not fit into this taxonomic category, as they do not fully present the anatomical structure indicated.
The most contested point in the Torah's description is the association of Shafan The hyrax, which neither has a compartmentalized stomach nor regurgitates food, is common in these animals. However, it is common to observe repetitive jaw movements similar to rumination in these animals, even at rest. Furthermore, some reports point to behaviors indicative of a form of regurgitative chewing, which, however, has not yet been scientifically proven. According to some, the hyrax sometimes brings partially digested plant material into its mouth to rechew it. Although this resembles rumination, this does not, strictly speaking, characterize it.
Now the identification of the arnevet The hare presents fewer difficulties, as cecotrophy is well documented among these rabbit relatives: the ingestion and chewing of soft feces to extract a greater quantity of nutrients from them. Although different from rumination in that it does not involve regurgitation itself, it is a cyclical and visible digestive process, similar to the rechewing of partially processed material.
The inclusion of the hyrax and the hare among ruminants depends on the classification adopted. Modern zoology does not classify them as such. However, the apparent conflict between the Torah and science may stem from different criteria. The sacred text does not define rumination based on anatomical characteristics, such as the presence of a compartmentalized stomach.
There are relevant differences between ruminants kosher, such as cows, sheep and goats, and those prohibited for consumption (hyrax, hare and camel). In fact, according to modern biology, none of these last three are part of the suborder RuminantiaAlthough it regurgitates and rechews its food, the camel has only three stomach compartments and lacks an omasum, an essential part of the digestive system of animals in this taxonomic category. Therefore, it is considered a "pseudoruminant." The hyrax, on the other hand, exhibits chewing movements but not regurgitation, and the hare practices cecotrophy, similar to but distinct from rumination. For Jewish law, these differences are irrelevant: because they lack cloven hooves, the three are not kosher.
Still, the pattern is remarkable. The Torah appears to identify the only animals that rechew partially digested food without being ruminants in the technical sense. This suggests that their classification is based on visible behaviors, perceptible to the average observer, rather than internal anatomy.
And it is, in fact, extraordinary to find such precision in a text over three thousand years old, long before modern zoology.
Let us analyze the language used by the Torah in describing animals that have the characteristic kosher to ruminate. The expression used is ma'aleh geirah. The first word comes from god (“climb”), and the second relates to gerenciah (“drag” or “pull”), a clear reference to the movement of bringing food back to the mouth. There is no mention of any internal anatomical features. This interpretation is confirmed by Targum Onkelos, which translates the expression as “brings back what has been dissolved”, and by Rashi, who explains that it is food that has been softened and partially digested through repeated chewing.
From this perspective, the behaviors of the hyrax, the hare, and certainly the camel are in accordance with the description of ma'aleh geirah. Although they do not fall within the scope of rumination per se, the digestive processes of these species align with the linguistic and behavioral criteria outlined in the Torah.
Some critics argue that if the hare is considered a “ruminant” because of cecotrophy, other species, such as hamsters or chimpanzees, which also reprocess food, should be included in this definition, which would call into question the exclusivity of the four species with only one sign of kashrutHowever, this objection ignores that the Torah is based on visible and regular habits, not rare or subtle actions. Unlike the hyrax and the hare, these other animals do not exhibit regular chewing movements that could be interpreted as ma'aleh geirahSporadic and not very evident, their rumination-like behaviors do not correspond to the external signs described by the Torah and its commentators. Thus, the classification of the sacred text maintains its coherence and is not invalidated by exceptions that do not fit the clearly established criteria.
The inclusion of the hare, the hyrax, and, above all, the camel highlights the Torah's remarkable precision rather than weakening it. These animals occupy an intermediate position: they are not ruminants according to the technical definition of modern biology, yet, to the eyes of an ordinary observer, they exhibit behaviors similar to those of species in this suborder. Had the Torah omitted them, many, especially before modern zoology, might have questioned its accuracy for failing to mention animals that appear to ruminate but do not have cloven hooves. The camel illustrates this point well: how should the Torah classify a mammal that even current science classifies imprecisely? Does it ruminate or not? That depends on the definition adopted. The same goes for the hare and even the hyrax.
One might object, however, that the Torah should be unequivocal and describe reality with scientific precision. The argument is valid: from a text that claims Divine authorship, accuracy is expected. From this perspective, it would make sense to include the camel, but not the hyrax and the hare, which don't even qualify as pseudoruminants.
Interestingly, this correction is preserved in the Oral Torah, the Talmud.
The Talmud in Harmony with Modern Biology
When addressing how laws regarding animals kosher evidence the Divine authorship of the Torah, the Talmud (chulin 59a) adopts a perspective remarkably compatible with modern biological understanding. In his analysis of species that possess only one of the signs of kashrut, highlights two unequivocal examples: the camel and the pig, the former because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, and the latter for the opposite reason.
When discussing species that have this habit but not this anatomical characteristic, the Talmud, curiously, mentions neither the hyrax nor the hare. Instead, it states: “As the School of Rabbi Ishmael taught: the verse says: ‘The camel, because it chews the cud, but does not have cloven feet; (eating it) makes you spiritually unclean’ (Leviticus 11:4). The Sovereign of His world knows that no other animal besides the camel chews the cud, and yet it is not kosher. Therefore, the verse highlights him with the word 'he' – that is, he, and no other.”
When dealing with animals with cloven hooves that do not chew the cud, the Talmud repeats the same principle applied to the pig: “As the School of Rabbi Ishmael taught: the verse says: ‘And the pig, because it has divided feet that are completely divided, but it does not chew the cud; (eating them) makes you spiritually unclean’ (Leviticus 11:7). The Sovereign of His world knows that no other animal besides the pig has cloven hooves, and yet it is not kosher. Therefore, the verse highlights him with the word 'he' – that is, he, and no other.”
It is no coincidence that, although the same page of the Talmud states that the Shafan and arnevet chew the cud, as the Torah teaches, when mentioning the "Sovereign of His world," it refers only to the camel. Noting the absence of the hyrax and the hare, Rashi and the Tosafot (a group of medieval commentators, mostly students or descendants of this great Sage and known for their detailed analyses of the Talmud) suggest that both species should also be included. Curiously, the Rambam does not mention them.
Why, then, does the Talmud quote the School of Rabbi Ishmael's statement that “the Sovereign of His world knows that none other than the camel chews the cud and yet is not kosher", but doesn't mention the hyrax and the hare? It's plausible that it does because only the former, although lacking cloven hooves, regurgitates and rechews its food clearly and unequivocally. The latter two species, however, exhibit behaviors similar to rumination, but lack all the required anatomical characteristics. Thus, the Talmud mentions only the camel, with a precision consistent with modern biological knowledge.
Among the four animals with only one of the signs of kashrut, only the camel and the pig represent unequivocal cases. The former, despite the modern biological classification, clearly regurgitates and rechews its food, but lacks cloven hooves, the exact opposite of what is observed in pigs. The hare and the hyrax, however, raise more doubts: they have habits that, strictly speaking, do not correspond to rumination, although they resemble it.
As the basis of Jewish law, the Talmud, by adopting criteria of precision and legal clarity, focuses on definitive examples. The Torah, on the other hand, anticipates human perceptions, including borderline cases, such as animals that appear to have one of the signs of kashrut even if they do not meet all the anatomical requirements. For example, the camel, although not included in the suborder Ruminantia, in fact, regurgitates and rechews food. In the cases of the hyrax and the hare, the idea that they have this habit is more subjective, as it depends on the definition adopted.
The Torah often expresses itself in the language of human perception, and much of its law is not based on technical definitions or hidden structures, but on what is visible to the naked eye. This principle is particularly evident in the rules of kashrut, but applies broadly to Halacha, Jewish Law, in which outward appearance in many cases determines legal status.
Therefore, it is incorrect to consider an argument post hoc (created solely to justify the Torah) the classification of the hyrax and the hare as ruminants because they exhibit behaviors similar to those of animals of this suborder. This is not a retroactive attempt to correct an alleged inaccuracy, but a consistent and deliberate methodological approach.
The Talmud, in turn, seeking maximum precision, defines the limits of Jewish law based on rigorous criteria and crystal-clear logic. Therefore, it is based on certainty, while the Torah refers to what is perceptible. The mention of the hyrax and the hare as cud-chewing animals is not a concession, but an intentional choice, based on how these behaviors appear to the human eye. The Talmud, in addressing the knowledge of an omniscient God, expresses an absolute standard based on anatomical accuracy.
Thus, even the most staunch skeptic may question the inclusion of Shafan and the arnevet by the Torah, but you cannot dispute the statement of the School of Rabbi Ishmael about the camel and the pig. The Talmud is scientifically accurate, even by the standards of modern biology, so much so that, to date, no species has been identified, other than the camel, that chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, nor any other, other than the pig, that has this anatomical characteristic but not that habit.
Another skeptical objection concerns South American camelids, such as llamas, which also chew their cud but lack cloven hooves. The existence of these animals does not contradict the Torah's assertion that only four species exhibit a single sign of kashrut and, therefore, calls into question the idea of Divine authorship of the sacred text? Absolutely not!
The Torah does not consider these species distinct from the camel, which belongs to the family camelidae, in the same way as it treats the wild boar as a variation of the pig. It does not list subspecies, but archetypal categories. When mentioning the gamal (camel), includes all members of its family, such as llamas and their other relatives.
To date, no other animal has been found that visibly chews the cud and, at the same time, does not have completely cloven hooves. Thus, the Torah's list remains accurate and complete.
Kosher Fish: Scales, Fins, and the Divine Wisdom of the Talmud
The Torah, both in Vayikra (Leviticus 11:9–12) as in Devarim (Deuteronomy 14:9–10), establishes that in order to be considered kosher, the fish must have fins (senapir) and scales (kaskeset).
In commenting on this law, the Talmud Bavli (chulin 66b) states: “We learned in another Mishnah (Nidá 51b): Every fish that has scales certainly has fins, but there are fish that have fins and no scales. Any fish that has both scales and fins is kosher. If it has fins but no scales, it is not a fish. kosher".
In other words, all fish that have scales also have fins, but not vice versa. Therefore, simply checking for fins is sufficient to determine whether the species can be consumed; otherwise, it will be banned.
This teaching is remarkable for its breadth and precision. It is not an observation restricted to the waters of Israel or Babylon (in present-day Iraq), where the Talmud was transcribed. Bavli, but of a universal biological statement: the Talmud declares that, in the entire world, there does not exist, nor has there ever existed, a single species of fish with scales that does not also have fins.
It's remarkable that, some 1.500 years ago, the Talmud made such a statement with such conviction despite the immense diversity of marine life, largely unknown until then. Unlike modern biologists, the Sages of the Talmud had no access to the ocean's depths. Yet this generalization, recorded long before scientific taxonomy or the exploration of the seas, has never been refuted. To this day, not a single scaled fish has been found that doesn't also have fins.
Ichthyology, the branch of modern science that studies these aquatic animals, has identified more than 33.000 species. Yet, not a single one has ever been recorded that possesses scales like this. kosher and have no fins. None.
How could the Talmud, transcribed over 1.500 years ago, long before the emergence of marine biology or the exploration of our planet, so convincingly assert such a broad zoological truth and be right? The fact is, not a single exception to this rule has ever been discovered.
Even today, with advanced technology and access to databases from around the world, it would be risky to make such an absolute statement without fear of finding an exception. However, the Talmud's statement still stands the test of time. Even the skeptic must confront the remarkable accuracy of a work produced in an age of extremely limited empirical knowledge, an accuracy that, to this day, has only been confirmed.
Why does the Torah mention fins?
In the discussion of land animals, we saw that the Talmud demonstrates a precision that goes beyond what is explicitly written in the Torah, such as the teaching of the School of Rabbi Ishmael that the only animal that undoubtedly chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves is the camel.
Something similar occurs with fish, which, according to the Torah, are only kosher if they have fins and scales. However, it is the Talmud Bavli (chulin 66b) which reveals the remarkable principle that every animal that satisfies the second criterion necessarily meets the first. In other words, the presence of scales is enough to consider the fish kosher.
This raises the question: if so, why does the Torah also mention fins? At first glance, this is a redundant requirement, so much so that one might even assume that this text was unaware of something the Talmud already knew.
However, this conclusion is theologically untenable. After all, the Torah, each letter of which was written by God and transmitted to Moses, who transcribed them, cannot contain errors. Thus, it is inconceivable that the Talmud, the Oral Torah, possesses knowledge lacking in the Written Torah. How, then, can one explain the reference to fins?
The Talmud asks: “Since we consider a fish to be a fish based solely on its scales, kosher – assuming that if it has scales, it also has fins – why did the Merciful (G-d) mention both 'scales' and 'fins'? That the Torah would only mention 'scales' and completely omit the 'fins'.”
The answer is as follows: “If the Merciful One had only written kaskeset (scales) and had not mentioned senapir (fins), one could misinterpret the word kaskeset as meaning 'fins', and would end up allowing fish that have fins but no scales – fish that are not kosher. That is why the Torah mentioned so much senapir as kaskeset, to eliminate any possibility of confusion and to ensure correct interpretation.” However, not completely satisfied with this answer, the Talmud notes that we could have understood, based on a verse in the Book of Samuel, that kaskeset means “scales” and not “fins”, even though the Torah did not mention it either senapir (fins).
A deeper explanation for this apparent redundancy is that it aims to combat a common misconception: the Five Books of the Torah are widely accepted by Jews as being of Divine origin, but the same is not always true of the Talmud. Some consider it merely the result of rabbinic discussions (valuable, but subject to error), thus questioning its authority, as well as its claim to convey God's will and wisdom.
However, the Talmud reveals a scientific truth absent from the Torah but confirmed by modern biology: every fish with scales also has fins, without any known exception. The fact that this statement was made over 1.500 years ago, long before taxonomy, ocean exploration, or the systematization of biology, defies natural explanation.
Unlike land animals, fish are difficult to observe directly, so much so that new species are still being discovered. The fact that the Talmud presents a universal statement in this context indicates access to knowledge beyond what was possible for humanity at the time.
It is plausible, therefore, that one of the reasons the Torah mentions fins alongside scales is to create an opportunity for the Talmud to reveal knowledge that transcends human comprehension. What initially seems like unnecessary repetition turns out to be a subtle device through which the Written Torah demonstrates the Divine origin of the Oral Torah. By presenting a seemingly redundant formulation, the Talmud allows it to manifest its authority as a source of Divine wisdom, not merely as a product of human reasoning.
When asked why the Torah mentions fins if every fish that has scales also has them, the Talmud responds (chulin 66b): “The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: The Holy One, blessed is He, pleased to bless the People of Israel. Therefore, He made His Torah abundant, as it is written: ‘The Lord pleased, because of His righteousness, to magnify and glorify the Torah’” (Isaiah 42:21). In other words, what seems redundant in Leviticus and Deuteronomy serves to magnify the Torah as a whole by demonstrating that the Talmud is also an expression of Divine wisdom. This sacred text, although not written by G-d, like the Five Books of Moses, also contains truths that only the Almighty could reveal.
However, beyond its theological aspects, the Torah's requirement for scales and fins also conveys an ethical and spiritual lesson. According to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, scales and fins symbolize integrity, the ability to stand firm in the face of temptation, while fins represent ambition, the force that drives an individual to grow and realize their potential. The fact that the Talmud states that every fish with scales also has fins indicates that, while essential, integrity must be accompanied by initiative and action. The Torah, by requiring both signs, teaches that true spiritual growth requires both moral protection and movement.
This teaching of the Rebbe demonstrates that this apparent redundancy actually reveals a profound insight into the human soul. This explanation reinforces a fundamental principle of the Torah: nothing in it is superfluous. Even what appears redundant, such as the simultaneous mention of scales and fins, is an invitation to explore deeper meanings. The Five Books of Moses reveal themselves as Divine texts in which each word carries a legal, theological, or moral purpose.
There is yet another explanation for the mention of both scales and fins. By stating that a fish needs both to be considered kosher, the Torah does not limit itself to providing simanim (signs) for identification. If that were the only purpose, as the Talmud teaches, scales would be sufficient. Thus, the Torah actually establishes that both characteristics are essential for a fish to be, in fact, kosher.
At first glance, this requirement may seem redundant. What is the difference between considering these characteristics as mere signs or as determining criteria? The answer is that, although the Talmud (chulin 66b) state that all fish with scales have fins, and the Shulchan Aruch, the Code of Jewish Law, allows consumption based solely on the presence of those, this principle is based on known biological reality. However, any new species that eventually emerged, through natural mutation or genetic engineering, and had only scales (but no fins) would not be considered kosher. In this case, the explicit criterion of the Torah would prevail, which requires both characteristics (Vayikra 11: 9).
It may seem like a remote hypothesis, but in a world of rapid technological advancement, what is improbable today may become reality tomorrow. Eternal as the God who transmitted it, the Torah reflects a vision that transcends time and anticipates even the most remote possibilities.
The Divine Origin of the Torah and the Talmud
The laws on animals kosher, recorded in the Torah and explained precisely in the Talmud, contain information that would have been impossible to know at the time they were written. According to the Torah, four species of land animals have only one of the two signs of kashrutAs we have seen, despite discussions about the rumination of two of them, this claim has never been refuted, because after millennia and countless advances in biology, no fifth has ever been identified that exhibits this bias. Furthermore, the Talmud's approach to the subject presents a surprising compatibility with the criteria of modern science.
In the case of fish kosher, the Talmud states that everything that has scales also has fins. In fact, among more than 33 known species, no exception has been found.
This level of precision has profound theological implications. In addressing the classification of land animals and fish, the Torah and Talmud demonstrate knowledge that transcends the human capacity of the time, reinforcing one of the central tenets of Judaism: the Divine origin of both the Written and Oral Torah.
This is how we should approach the study of the Torah: with the recognition that it is much more than a compendium of Jewish laws, narratives, and history. The Torah, both Written and Oral, expresses the wisdom and will of God. By studying it, we establish a direct bond with its Author: the Holy One, blessed is He.
