Deuteronomium 14:7

Staten Vertaling

Maar deze zult gij niet eten, van degenen, die alleen herkauwen, of van degenen, die den gekloofden klauw alleen verdelen: den kemel, en den haas, en het konijn; want deze herkauwen wel, maar zij verdelen den klauw niet; onrein zullen zij ulieden zijn.

Parallel Translations

Gereviseerde Lutherse Vertaling
Maar gij zult niet eten wat herkauwt en geen gespleten klauwen heeft: de kameel, de haas en het konijn, die wel herkauwen, maar nochtans geen gespleten klauwen hebben, zij zullen u onrein zijn;

Gereviseerde Leidse Vertaling
Doch van de herkauwende dieren en van die met gespleten hoeven zult gij de volgende niet eten: het kameel, den haas en den klipdas, want zij herkauwen wel, maar hebben geen gekloofde klauwen; zij zijn voor u onrein.

Bible Verse Review
  from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge

Matthew 7:22, Matthew 7:23, Matthew 7:26, 2 Timothy 3:5, Titus 1:16, 2 Peter 2:18-22

Reciprocal: Leviticus 7:21 - any unclean Leviticus 11:6 - the hare Psalms 104:18 - the conies Ezekiel 8:10 - every

Gill's Notes on the Bible

:-

(The "hare" is this verse may be an animal that is now is extinct but was alive at the time of Moses. It is only other mentioned in Leviticus 11:6,

Leviticus 11:6- :. Editor.)

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Compare Leviticus 11:0. The variations here, whether omissions or additions, are probably to be explained by the time and circumstances of the speaker.

Deuteronomy 14:5

The “pygarg” is a species of gazelle, and the “wild ox” and “chamois” are swift types of antelope.

Deuteronomy 14:21

The prohibition is repeated from Leviticus 22:8. The directions as to the disposal of the carcass are unique to Deuteronomy, and their motive is clear. To have forbidden the people either themselves to eat that which had died, or to allow any others to do so, would have involved loss of property, and consequent temptation to an infraction of the command. The permissions now for the first time granted would have been useless in the wilderness. During the 40 years’ wandering there could be but little opportunity of selling such carcasses; while non-Israelites living in the camp would in such a matter be bound by the same rules as the Israelites Leviticus 17:15; Leviticus 24:22. Further, it would seem (compare Leviticus 17:15) that greater stringency is here given to the requirement of abstinence from that which had died of itself. Probably on this, as on so many other points, allowance was made for the circumstances of the people. Flesh meat was no doubt often scarce in the desert. It would therefore have been a hardship to forbid entirely the use of that which had not been killed. However, now that the plenty of the promised land was before them, the modified toleration of this unholy food was withdrawn.