Deuteronomio 14:6

La Biblia Reina-Valera

Y todo animal de pezuñas, que tiene hendidura de dos uñas, y que rumiare entre los animales, ese comeréis.

Parallel Translations

La Biblia de las Americas
Y cualquier animal de pezuña dividida que tenga la pezuña hendida en dos mitades y que rumie, lo podréis comer.

La Biblia Reina-Valera Gomez
Y todo animal de pezu�as, que tiene hendidura de dos u�as, y que rumiare entre los animales, ese comer�is.

Sagradas Escrituras (1569)
Todo animal de pezu�as, que tiene hendidura de dos u�as, y que rumiare entre los animales, ese comer�is.

Bible Verse Review
  from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge

Psalms 1:1, Psalms 1:2, Proverbs 18:1, 2 Corinthians 6:17, On this verse remark, that the clean beast must both chew the cud and part the hoof: two distinct characteristics, or general signs, by which the possibility of error arising from the misinterpretation of names is obviated. When God directs, his commands are not of doubtful interpretation.

Gill's Notes on the Bible

Ver. 6-8. And every beast that parted the hoof,.... In this and the two following verses two general rules are given, by which it might be known what beasts were fit for food and what not; one is if they parted the hoof, and the other if they chewed the cud, such might be eaten; but such that only chewed the cud, but did not divide the hoof, as the camel, hare, and coney, might not be eaten; and so if they divided the hoof, and did not chew the cud, as the swine, they were alike unlawful; :-,

:-,

:-,

:-,

:-,

:-.

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.