What constitutes a pig to Muslims/Jews?

[Richard]

Upon remembering my cows and Hindus thread, I thought of another question in the same vein: If I were a Muslim and wished to feast on the flesh of, say, a peccary, would that be permissable?

Is there a difference between domestic and wild boars/pigs? What about things that are like pigs, but aren't pigs, such as tapirs?

[roy34543]

There are very specific laws .

In Judaism, Kashrut (kosher) is the set of dietary laws governing what can or cannot be consumed. These laws are based upon the Torah and the Talmud. According to Jewish law, animals that both chew their cud (ruminate) and have cloven hooves are kosher[1]. Animals with one characteristic but not the other (the camel, the hyrax and the hare because they have no cloven hooves, and the pig because it does not ruminate) are specifically excluded[2] (Leviticus 11:3-8).[3] Jews are forbidden from eating pork, as swine are considered to be unclean. In the context of Judaism, the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy from the Hebrew Bible specify what must not be consumed.

The Book of Leviticus states:

“ Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_animals#Judaism

[Richard]

And Muslims? From what I can tell the Koran mentions pigs/swine as unclean, but does it go into further detail? Is this why my local kebab shop does not sell tapir meat?

Regarding Leviticus on camels, http://www.answering-christianity.co...s_rebuttal.htm

Camels have a split hoof; why does Leviticus claim otherwise? I don't get it. Did the guy who wrote it look at a deformed camel for reference or something?

[Chaigidel]

perhaps there was a different genome of camel around back then?

[♔Old Dragoon♔]

Camels have an elastic pad at the bottom of their hoof, which helps prevent it from sinking into the sand. This pad means the hoof is not in fact fully divided. Richard, the dude who wrote Leviticus, most say Moses, got it right. No deformed camels were necessary, just lift up a camel foot. Also, Deut. 14 is not that confusing if you read it through verse 7 you will see it doesn't contradict Leviticus unlike stated in your link. Look at this link.

http://www.expedition360.com/austral...09/camels.html

[Kiljaden]

a different genome of camel

That statement made me cringe

[So Much Fire]

Tapirs are not part of the same family/genus as pigs, but pigs and boars are in the same family/genus so I'd say both are haram. Pigs/swine/hogs I view as the same animal essentially, nothing quite comes to mind from the Quran that speaks of a concrete difference between the animals that you mention. Perhaps if it really comes down to something where someone was in dire need of "is this allowed or not?", the decision would come down to a little research.

[Simetrical]

Regarding Leviticus on camels, http://www.answering-christianity.co...s_rebuttal.htm

Camels have a split hoof; why does Leviticus claim otherwise? I don't get it. Did the guy who wrote it look at a deformed camel for reference or something?

It's kind of silly for us Westerners to try to second-guess a bunch of ancient desert-dwellers on camel anatomy. I assume that the author of Leviticus knew a heck of a lot more about camels than the author of the little screed you link to.

Which, by the way, is absurd. Claiming that the verse "However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney" completely misses the word "or", which I have boldfaced here. It says that camels either chew the cud or have a split hoof, not both, and therefore are forbidden. The author repeats his ludicrous observation about four times without, apparently, bothering to read the text he's quoting.

(In fact, the conjunction used there in the original Hebrew is sort of generic in Biblical Hebrew; it can mean "or" as well as "and", or "then", "but", or any number of similar things. In context it clearly means "or".)

[Richard]

Agreed, admittedly I didn't actually read that article I linked to, I just googled something along the lines of 'camel hoof Bible' and found the good pictures. For the verses in question I read the wikipedia article on clean/unclean animals.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Upon remembering my cows and Hindus thread, I thought of another question in the same vein: If I were a Muslim and wished to feast on the flesh of, say, a peccary, would that be permissable?

Is there a difference between domestic and wild boars/pigs? What about things that are like pigs, but aren't pigs, such as tapirs?

There is a series of checks, believe it or not. For example only very recently were giraffes declared kosher and safe to eat.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith...e-meat-is.html

[Richard]

Judaism seems to have it down to a fine art then doesn't it; Islam seems more ambiguous.

[Green]

Judaism seems to have it down to a fine art then doesn't it; Islam seems more ambiguous.

Well I can't really speak for Islam, but Judaism does get into the nitty gritty of everyday life. Some may call it overly legalistic.

I know Islam has very substantial commentaries and books of hadiths, but I've never looked into them in detail.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Well I can't really speak for Islam, but Judaism does get into the nitty gritty of everyday life. Some may call it overly legalistic.

I know Islam has very substantial commentaries and books of hadiths, but I've never looked into them in detail.

Hadiths to muslims are somewhat like the Talmud to the Jews.

They (Hadiths) are never meant to superseeds the Qur'an though. While there are Hadiths that's considered authentic, muslims generally accepted that Hadiths are works of men about the sayings (or suppose sayings) of Muhammad and are not 'infallible'.

[Simetrical]

Well, the Talmud contains 5,984 folio pages, each of which would (if you include the basic commentaries that are on every page) probably be 20 pages of English text in a normal page and font size, written in a fashion more or less comprehensible to an ordinary person. If that estimate is correct, it would be the equivalent of around 120,000 pages. That's the basis of Jewish law. Great rabbis commonly know it by heart. Then you have many, many, many other authoritative texts from later eras.

So yeah, it's pretty detailed. There's not much that hasn't been thought of at some point. Like, I don't know, artificial insemination? No problem, there's a hypothetical discussion in the Talmud about a woman who gets impregnated by taking a bath in water where someone had ejaculated. Not likely to have actually occurred back then, but it turns out to have come in handy.

[Simetrical]

Not at all like the Talmud, then. Well, the Talmud might be considered fallible on some matters, but not on matters of Jewish law. It's more or less absolutely authoritative there, which the literal text of the Torah is not. As an example, the famous law of "eye for an eye" (lex talionis) is interpreted by the Talmud as meaning not that one who knocks out an eye should have his eye put out, but rather that he should pay compensation. This is a clear contradiction of the simple meaning of the text, and there are a lot of others as well.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Not at all like the Talmud, then. Well, the Talmud might be considered fallible on some matters, but not on matters of Jewish law. It's more or less absolutely authoritative there, which the literal text of the Torah is not. As an example, the famous law of "eye for an eye" (lex talionis) is interpreted by the Talmud as meaning not that one who knocks out an eye should have his eye put out, but rather that he should pay compensation. This is a clear contradiction of the simple meaning of the text, and there are a lot of others as well.

When Hadiths (the collections) are considered 'infallible' with some muslims as they simply didn't exist during Muhammad time. It appears 200 years later.

However, they are some muslims that considers the Hadiths collection as on par with the Qur'an and I'm sad to acknowledge this is the majority of what muslims believe.

[Green]

Not at all like the Talmud, then. Well, the Talmud might be considered fallible on some matters, but not on matters of Jewish law. It's more or less absolutely authoritative there, which the literal text of the Torah is not.

Not exactly. The nature of the Talmud means that it is a debate-filled, discussion-heavy document in which various sources give various opinions about matters. There is lee-way in the Talmud, simply because the Rabbis give sometimes opposing opinions.

The more or less authoritative part is the Mishnah, part of the Oral Torah that was given to Moshe along with the Written Torah. The analysis that comes along with it, the Gemara is 'more' fallible. Because the Talmud is considered to be equal and complementary to the Written Torah, it is not 'authoritative' over the Written Torah. Both are supposed to jive with each other.

As an example, the famous law of "eye for an eye" (lex talionis) is interpreted by the Talmud as meaning not that one who knocks out an eye should have his eye put out, but rather that he should pay compensation. This is a clear contradiction of the simple meaning of the text, and there are a lot of others as well.

The 'simple' meaning of the text AKA the completely literal translation of the text is impossible to apply, as the Rabbinim noted. If a person lost partial sight in one eye in a fight, how can a partial loss of sight be inflicted back on the perpetrator? It is impossible to take the verse literally.

The original intention of the law might very well have been compensation. You chose a poor example.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Not at all like the Talmud, then. Well, the Talmud might be considered fallible on some matters, but not on matters of Jewish law. It's more or less absolutely authoritative there, which the literal text of the Torah is not. As an example, the famous law of "eye for an eye" (lex talionis) is interpreted by the Talmud as meaning not that one who knocks out an eye should have his eye put out, but rather that he should pay compensation. This is a clear contradiction of the simple meaning of the text, and there are a lot of others as well.

Just for the record, the eye for an eye thing refers to legal restitution, not personal revenge. You only get this latter idea from a bunch of people who have no idea what the passage is speaking of.

[Ludicus]

As an example, the famous law of "eye for an eye" (lex talionis) is interpreted by the Talmud as meaning not that one who knocks out an eye should have his eye put out, but rather that he should pay compensation.

In Mesopotamia, there were significant differences. The code of Hammurabi devotes ten statements to the fees due medical practitioners and their punishments for failure. Probably the code was not enforced to the letter, but one may wonder whether under risk of such penalties any practitioner could have the nerve to perform an operation.

Some punishments:
"If a doctor has treated a man (freeman) with a metal knife for a severe wound, and has caused the man to die, or has opened a man´s tumor with a metal knife and destroyed the man´s eye, his hands shall be cut off"
"If the doctor has treated the slave of a plebeian with a metal knife for a severe wound and caused him to die, he shall render slave by slave"
"If he has opened his tumor with a metal knife and destroyed his eye, he shall pay half of his price in silver"

These severe punishments for the physician´s failure (such cutting of the hands) should be matched against the punishements meted out for the failures of other professionals/ other transgressions:
"If a man has destroyed the eye of a patricien, his own eye shall be destroyed"
" If a man has knocked out the teeth of a man of the same rank, his own teeth should be knocked out"
" If he has knocked out the theet of a plebeian, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver"

[Kanaric]

this is a clear contradiction of the simple meaning of the text

Not if you take that metaphorically which i'm sure is their excuse. The common one for people trying to follow a religion in modern times.