Commentaria in Leviticum
This uncleanness, then, of these animals is twofold: namely, the formal, already spoken of, whereby the animals themselves contain in themselves something unclean and ill-tempered; the other causal, whereby they cause a like uncleanness in man, because, being in themselves of a poor constitution, and of bad and noxious nourishment, hence if they are eaten they generate in man an intemperance of the humours, produce diseases, nay sometimes kill.
The chief cause, however, was symbolic, that these unclean animals might signify the uncleanness of sins and vices, of which they are fitting symbols, as I said.
Note: This uncleanness of animals was bodily and legal, which did not defile the soul (unless one had eaten knowingly, through disobedience, against the law), but only kept the Jews from the ministration and offering of sacrifices, and from entering the Sanctuary: from these he who had unwittingly eaten the forbidden foods had to abstain until he had expiated himself: just as leprosy kept lepers from the converse of men, and from the whole camp.
Verse 3. Whatsoever hath the hoof divided (2), and cheweth the cud among the beasts, you shall eat.—That an animal, then, may be clean, and such as the Jews might eat, it had to have these two things:
First, a hoof, and that cloven and two-parted; for those that have no hoof are of too moist a complexion; those that have a hoof, but not cloven, as horses, asses, camels, are of too dry and hard a temperament and nourishment, and are not suited to nourish the human body; but those that have a hoof, and divide it, as sheep, oxen, goats, are suited for the nourishment of man, because they are of temperate complexion: and therefore are reckoned clean. So Abulensis. Secondly, it had to chew the cud; for those that chew the cud are of better digestion, and therefore of better complexion: but if either of these be wanting, namely if the animal has not a cloven hoof, or does not chew the cud, it is reckoned unclean.
Hence he subjoins examples of the unclean, the camel, the hare, the swine, etc.
Tropologically, holy animals chew the cud, namely holy men, who lay up in the belly of memory the word of God which they receive by the ear, and, recalling it often as it were to the mouth of the heart, break it small by frequent re-handling. So St. Gregory on Canticle, chapter 7. St. Cyril, however, book 9 Against Julian, teaches that to chew the cud is a symbol of prudence. They divide the hoof who in action distinguish good from evil. Both therefore are required for cleanness and holiness, namely both to ruminate the words of God and to fulfil them in work. So Radulphus, Hesychius, Eusebius, book 8 On the Preparation, chapter 3, Cyril, book 14 On Adoration, who adds another tropology: the cloven hoof, he says, is a clear figure by which it is signified that we can walk aright in both directions, namely as regards ourselves and as regards others.
To chew the cud, then, is a symbol of the prudent man: for the prudent man is thoughtful, and ruminating each thing in his mind sees what is expedient in each matter, how he may satisfy God and men, even the impious.
Plutarch in the Laconic Sayings tells of Acrotatus, a prudent man, that when his parents asked his help in an unjust matter he refused; and when they pressed, he said: “You brought me up to justice, and handed me over to the laws of my country; I shall therefore endeavour to obey these rather than you; and since you wish me to do the best, but the best, both for a private man and much more for a prince, is that which is just, I will do what you wish; but what you ask I will decline.” So prudently and gently did he refuse the unlawful thing, and at the same time satisfy the intention and will of his parents. For rumination suggests a thousand ways and means to anything, and especially for avoiding hatred and winning the favour of men. The same author tells that Aristo, hearing the saying of Cleomenes, who, being asked what was the duty of a good king, had said: To do good to friends, evil to enemies; pondering it, corrected it, saying: “How much more right, my man, to do good to friends, and to make enemies friends!”
Among the beasts—in four-footed animals.
Verse 4. As the camel—the camel is unclean, because it has a hoof, but does not divide it. Moses, says Cyril, book 14 On Adoration, gives as examples the camel and the hare, that is, the greatest and the least, that we may understand what lies between these, not chewing the cud or not dividing the hoof, to be unclean and forbidden (1).
Verse 5. The cherogryllus.—What and what kind of animal is the choerogryllus? First, Clement of Alexandria, book 2 Paedagogus, chapter 10, understands the hyena. Secondly, Abulensis, Lyranus, Cajetan, Oleaster and other later writers understand the rabbit.
Note: The Hebrew word saphan signifies three things: first, the choerogryllus; secondly, the hare; thirdly, the hedgehog: so from Philo St. Jerome in the Hebrew Names, on Jeremias. For saphan signifies covered, hidden and lurking. Hence saphan is a general name, and common to many fugitive animals dwelling in hiding-places: as also very many other Hebrew names of animals suit many, as Ribera shows on Zacharias chapter 5, number 21. And this is plain from the fact that the same name is variously rendered by various translators, namely by the Septuagint, the Chaldee, and our own, and even by our own differently here and there: so saphan here and in Deuteronomy 14:7 our version renders choerogryllus, as also the Septuagint; elsewhere it renders hare, as Proverbs 30:26; elsewhere hedgehog, as Psalm 103:18 (2).
The choerogryllus, then, or hedgehog, is an animal of the size of middling rabbits, coming forth in flocks from the caverns of the rocks, and feeding in the rocks of Palestine by the Dead Sea, says Eucherius, book On Hebrew Names, chapter 12, and hence perhaps it is called in Greek choerogryllus from choiras, that is, rock, and gryllos, that is, pig, as if you should say “rock-piglet.” So nearly also St. Jerome, or whoever is the author of the commentaries on Proverbs, chapter 30—for that these commentaries are not St. Jerome’s is gathered from the author’s citing St. Jerome in this very place. They seem rather to be of the Venerable Bede, to whom Trithemius attributes them. This author then says: “For ‘little hare’ the old translation put choerogryllus. But this animal is not larger than a hedgehog, having the likeness of a mouse and a bear, of which there is great abundance in the regions of Palestine, and which is wont always to dwell in the caverns of the rocks and in holes in the earth.”
Hence Origen also here renders the choerogryllus “hedgehog.” The choerogryllus is therefore an animal distinct from the rabbit and the hedgehog, though Peter Serranus denies it: for why would the Septuagint and our version call it choerogryllus, by so obscure and unknown a word, if it were the rabbit or hedgehog? for these
Verse 6. The hare also (is unclean), for it cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof.—For the hare has no hoof, or bony and continuous base of the feet which it might divide, but in its place has various and prickly claws. Under the hare understand the rabbit: for the rabbit is a little hare, as Pliny says, book 8, chapter 85. Clement of Alexandria thinks the hare forbidden on account of lust, to which this animal is greatly prone. Hence it conceives and bears so many young at once.
For this cause also many hares have both sexes. Hear Gesner, gathering various things from various authors in his manner, in the volume On Quadrupeds, under the hare: “The quadruped hare is called in Hebrew arnebet, a word of the feminine gender, because all hares (as most of the learned testify) have both sexes. Archelaus writes of hares that both powers and both sexes are in each, and that they generate equally without a male. That the same hare is at one time male, at another female, and changes its nature, and sometimes begets as a male, sometimes bears as a female, Democritus declares to be manifest, in the Geoponics 19:4. And therefore by the naturalists, says Donatus, the hare is called of uncertain sex, and is said to be now male, now female. Of the hare Niphus says: This is true, that the male is a passive partner. Hence hunters report that among the kind of hares one is found which is female only, but that there is no male which is not also female, which falls under the senses; for a hare was found furnished with testicles and member, which carried young in the womb, and also a hare carrying young, lacking testicles and member: which is a most manifest solution against the objections of adversaries. We ourselves testify that we have seen a hare male only, and a hare female only, and a hare of both sexes, and this is held as most proved among our hunters.” So Niphus. “And in almost the same words Aelian, who testifies that he saw the same.” The Fathers teach the same, whom I shall cite at verse 30, at the end. These things by right and custom of the Jews. For to the Gentiles the hare was a delicacy and an ornament of the table (3). Hear Martial, book 13 Epigrams: