Leviticus 11:2Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

The law states: ‘And the Lord spoke unto Moses and Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the animals which ye may eat of all the cattle upon the earth: every beast that hath split hooves, that is clean in its hooves, and chews the cud, ye may eat: but these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: The camel, for he chews the cud but his hooves are not split, he is unclean unto you; and the gopher, for he chews the cud but his hooves are not split, he is unclean unto you; and the hare, for she chews the cud but her hooves are not split, she is unclean unto you; And the swine, for his hooves are divided and are indented, but he does not chew the cud, he is unclean unto you; you shall not eat their flesh, nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean unto you’ (Lev. 11:1-8). Moreover, Christ clearly states, ‘what comes out of the mouth defiles a man’ (Matt. 15:11). It is also noted in a vision given to Peter, when a sheet descended from heaven with various four-footed creatures and birds, the command came: ‘Arise, Peter, kill and eat’; yet Peter, still apprehensive of the law’s restrictions, replied, ‘But Peter said, No, Lord, for I have never eaten anything profane or unclean. Then again, a voice came to him, saying, ‘What God has cleansed, you shall not regard as unclean’ (Acts 10:11-15; cf. Ezekiel 4:14). Similarly, the apostle Paul asserts, ‘Food does not bring us near to God’ (1 Cor. 8:8). Thus it is evident that the law does not consider anything inherently unclean but acknowledges that ‘To the pure all things are pure’ (Titus 1:15); rather, it wisely correlates the natural traits of animals with the virtues and vices of humanity, yielding much benefit. To support my assertion, consider this: We ought to reject those things universally deemed distasteful, such as the camel, the weasel, the raven, the lizard, the mouse, and even more detestable creatures than these (Lev. 11:4-5, 17:30). Is not the intent of the Lawgiver evident in this, my friend? Palladius. Absolutely clear. Cyril. Therefore, it is essential to associate the innate qualities of certain mute creatures with moral character, for each of them can be seen to embody the traits of humanity. Are we not inclined to liken individuals who are fierce and brave to boars or lions, while those who are gentle and meek are called sheep or doves, and at times even honored with the title of Silence, drawing from the appropriate characteristics of each? Palladius. Indeed.