Are Ducks, Geese and Swans Clean to Eat According to

YAHOWAH‘s Laws?

A Biblical Investigation by the Assembly of YAHOWAH the Eternal

11/6/2010

By Bishop Roman Sanchez

2

3

Are Ducks, Geese and Swans

Clean to Eat

According to YAHOWAH‘s Laws?

A Biblical Investigation by the Assembly of YAHOWAH the Eternal

By Bishop Roman V. Sanchez

November 6, 2010

4

5

Are Ducks, Geese and Swans

Clean to Eat

According to YAHOWAH‘s Laws?

Many have asked us, are ducks and geese clean to eat, and many years ago, we would've given the answer that no, ducks, geese and swans are unclean because they lack a crop (like chickens and turkeys), they did not scratch the ground with their toes, and they have webbed feet! This was the typical answer we would've given everyone that asked, so recently someone asked again why can't we eat ducks and they asked to be shown the evidence from the scriptures!

These questions prompted us to search through the bible for any answers as to whether or not we can eat ducks and geese, and this study is a summary of what we found.

Now, I've been criticized for using too many references from Jewish books, Jewish scholars and the Internet and for that I'm not going to apologize because frankly the biblical record is very sparse with regard to properly indentifying the unclean birds.

YAHOWAH gave Moses the law with regard to what is clean and unclean for humans to eat and for the most part they are simple instructions to follow as in the example of any land animal in Leviticus 11:2-4 (Isaac Leeser's OT Translation):

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying. These are the beasts which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever divideth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat. But these shall ye not eat, of those that chew the cud, or of those that divide the hoof: the camel; because he cheweth the

cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

So in this example, any land animal that doesn't re-chew it's food (as cows often do when they lay in the fields and continually move their jaws to re-chew their food that they had previously taken in) and doesn't have (literally from the Hebrew text) "two," "split," or cloven hoofs, it is unclean to eat. See image below:

With regard to the creatures found in the water, YAHOWAH said in Leviticus 11:9-10 (Isaac Leeser's OT Translations, ILOTT):

6

These may ye eat, of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them may ye eat. But all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of whatever moveth in the waters,

and of any living thing which is in the waters, shall be an abomination unto you:

I'm going to skip down to Leviticus 11:20-23 to show you where YAHOWAH gave us special instructions on which insects we are allowed to eat, from the ILOTT:

All flying insects that walk upon four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat, among all the flying insects that walk on four feet, which have spring-legs above their feet, to leap therewith upon the earth. These of them may ye eat: the locust after its kind, and the sol'am after its kind, and the chargol after its kind, and the chagab after its

kind.

Simple enough, right?

Any land animal that isn't a ruminate (ruminate - Any of various hoofed, even-toed, usually

horned mammals of the suborder Ruminantia, such as cattle, sheep, goats, deer, and giraffes,

characteristically having a stomach divided into four compartments and chewing a cud consisting

of regurgitated, partially digested food), is unclean.

Any water creature that doesn't have fins and scales is unclean.

All creeping and crawling creatures are unclean except the locust and grasshopper family

(properly prepared and cooked of course).

But with the creatures of the air, we have these instructions, in Leviticus 11: 13-19 from the ILOTT.

And these shall ye have in abomination among the fewls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the ostrick, and the night-hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind; and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier-eagle, and the stork, the heron after his kind, and the lapwing, and the

bat

According to Mr. Leeser's Old Testament English Translation of the Hebrew Bible (ILOTT), he has

translated the Hebrew word, ת מ נש Tanshemeth, as swan, which we will show in this study is הת

inaccurate. The other English translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (as found in the King James Version of the Bible) has also mistranslated, tanshemeth, as swan! The KJV, as you well know, is the most commonly used bible in the English-speaking world, and we will use it to compare with other modern translations as we go through this study.

Let us begin with Leviticus 11:13-23 where YAHOWAH gave Moses instructions on what type of flying creatures are allowable for human consumption according to the KJV:

v13 And these are they, which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an

abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey,

v14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

v15 Every raven after his kind;

v16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

v17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

v18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

7

v19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

v20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

v21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

v22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after

his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

v23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14

v11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

v12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey,

v13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

v14 And every raven after his kind,

v15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

v16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

v17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

v18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

v19 And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.

v20 But of all clean fowls ye may eat.

Well, it looks straight forward doesn‘t it, Leviticus 11:18 and Deuteronomy 14:16 state ―swans‖ (as well as ―its kind,‖ ducks and geese), are unclean to eat, end of story! Problem is this is NOT the end of the story.

The Hebrew text of Leviticus 11:18 is duplicated below from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS):

ת הרחם ת הקאת וא ת וא מ נש ת הת וא

One of the first things we learned in our search for the truth about ducks, geese and swans is that the English translation of ―swan‖ in the KJV of the Scriptures is WRONG! The KJV English word, swan,

comes from (Strong‘s #8580) the Hebrew ת מ נש Tanshemeth, tan-sheh'-meth, which all the הת

Lexicons, Concordances and Dictionaries have defined as follows:

An unclean animal of some kind an unclean bird

o perhaps the ibis, water-hen, species of owl, barn owl

an unclean lizard o perhaps the chameleon

perhaps an extinct lizard or bird, exact meaning unknown

8

No mention of any swans, geese or ducks! From the Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures by Wilhelm Gesenius, we have a reproduction of the same definition (right):

We must understand from the beginning that many of these Hebrew names, for animals, are ambiguous at best, which makes it difficult for many scholars to identify.

Take for example the observations from the following book, Animals and Birds of the Bible by Burton L. Goddard, page 12, quoted in part with YAHOWAH's name.

II Problems of Identification

One of the major problems facing the bible student is that of identifying with any exactness and assurance of correctness the animals mentioned in the Word. For instance, is the last of the "unclean" creeping animals mentioned in Lev. 11:29, a land crocodile (LXX), a tortoise (AV), a great lizard (ARV, RSV), or a crocodile (DV)? The problem is present in not just

one instance but in many and for several reasons.

A. Ancient Lack of Scientific Classifications

One of the basic difficulties is that the ancients did not undertake to make any technical, scientific classification of the members of the animal kingdom. There was a tendency, therefore, for names to be used loosely uncritically. Terms were

apt to be popular and general rather than scientific and specific...

B. Non-Technical Approach of Writers

The Biblical writers were not engaged in writing natural history as such. Their mention of animals was somewhat incidental to their main task, that of revealing [YAHOWAH] to man and setting forth the way of life and salvation ... that the Biblical approach was phenomenal rather than scientific is demonstrated by the fact that in the classifying of animals into the "clean" and the "unclean," bats, though mammals, are listed with birds (Lev. 11:19; Deut. 14:18), and the rock

badger (AV, coney) and hare are said to "chew the cud" (Lev 11: 5, 6; Deut 14:7) although they only appear to do so.

C. Relative Lack of Contemporary helpful Literature For Comparative Purposes

Since most of the bible animals are those mentioned in the OT, it would be most helpful in matters of identification if we had other Hebrew literature from that period or time paralleling that represented by the OT writings. But, unfortunately, there is almost no literature of this kind to which to turn to see whether contexts in which animals are mentioned might shed any light upon the meaning of the same terms in scripture. To get much help, it is therefore necessary to bridge both time and language gaps. Instead of finding what other Hebrew writers in the time of Moses meant by the term (AV, tortoise), one may be limited in large degree to what a similar word in the Arabic language meant many years later or to

what the Greek translators of the OT, not long before the time of [The Messiah], understood the word to mean.

These limitations do not make for scientific accuracy in identifying genus and species.

D. Hapax Legomena

The problem is complicated further by the fact that some of the animal names occur but once in the Bible. In such cases, there is no parallel passages to which to turn in order to gain the help of several contexts in coming to conclusion as to

9

proper identifications. Other names may occur in only two or three places, not enough to give any clear indication of the

meaning of the words.

E. Changes in Habitat

...the difficulty is, however that with the moving of some species and the dying out of others there can be no current listing which would correspond with the ancient situation. The process of elimination therefore takes its starting point

from a tabulation based partly upon guesswork and so can lead only to conclusions which can be no more than tentative.

H. Biblical Use of Terms - page 14

(2) General Names

Most of the animal names found in scripture probably indicate individual species, but some terms are very general, such as living creature, animal, beast, moving thing, creeping thing, strong one, possessions (i.e., flocks & herds), and proud beasts. Others, less broad in meaning, having been suggested and/or accepted as generic term, among which are the following: sheep and goats, fish large sea animal, great serpent, reptiles or worms which burrow in the ground, the easel-marten family, animals which burrow in waste places, the fox-jackal family, a variety of insects, gnat-like insects, the snake family, poisonous snakes, the bovine family, the lizard family, and the lion family. Then there are descriptive expressions which are difficult to tie down to any one animal, as e.g., "one girt in the loins" (Prov 30:31), which has been variously translated as greyhound (AV), war horse (RVm), fighting cock (BV), and strutting cock (RSV). It is obvious,

therefore, that it would be well nigh impossible to decide in every case what animal is intended by the writer.

Below we have another source which recognizes the difficulty of properly identifying the names of the birds, but does make an observation that many of the unclean birds are "fierce and ravenous" which is not exactly a description appropriate for the swan family; The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments, edited by Thomas Scott (emphasis mine):

Page 219, v.13-20 (Lev 11)

Here the critics find abundance of work; and if this law were now in force it would be necessary to decide upon the meaning of the original words, many of which are used in no other part of scripture, except in the parallel passage in

Deuteronomy (Deut 14:11-20). Many of the unclean birds are fierce and ravenous; other feed very grossly...

The following remark is taken from Mr. Benner's exceptional website, which is a great source of information for all bible students who wish to know more about the Hebrew language! We've taken the liberty of inserting the proper name and titles of YAHOWAH's Family (emphasis mine).

Is Strong's dictionary and concordance a good resource for studying Hebrew words?

One of the best tools written to begin learning about Hebrew is Strong's dictionary. Many concordances and some Bibles are keyed to this resource. Using Psalm 51:1 as an example - Create in me a clean heart, O El (The Almighty One), and put a new and right spirit within me, the word "right" is listed in Strong's dictionary as number 3559 and we find that the Hebrew word is "kun" which means to be firm or stable. This provides a deeper understanding of the verse than from the English alone. However, it must be understood that Strong's dictionary has many limitations which, if not known, can cause some problems. In Deuteronomy 15:6 we find the words "lend" and "borrow" and when we look both of these words up in Strong's we find that they are both the same Hebrew word - avat. How can the same Hebrew word be translated as lend and as borrow? What cannot be determined through Strong's is some of the nuances of Hebrew words. The Hebrew word avat literally means "to give a pledge" and is translated as borrow but when written in the causative

form it would literally be translated as "cause to give a pledge" or "to lend."

Someone once told me that the Hebrew word for Savior is "yasha." I proceeded to correct them and say that it was "moshia" but I was told that that is not what Strong's says. So I got out my concordance and looked up the word savior and found that this was listed in Strong's as #3467 which is the Hebrew word "yasha" but, what they did not know is that this was a verb meaning "to save" and when written in the piel participle form it becomes "moshia" and means "one who

saves" or a "savior."

10

Another problem with Strong's is that it was written over a hundred years ago and much about the Hebrew language has been learned since then. All this aside, it is still a great tool for investigating the Hebrew language behind the English

translations.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_faqs.html#strongs1

The statement above by Mr. Benner, is very true according to our own observations several years ago when we first started to investigate the true meaning of Passover! Another great contributor to the knowledge of the Hebrew language is Mr. Isaac Mozeson who comments below:

Animal Names from Eden By Isaac Mozeson

"..And Adam called out names to for all the beasts, for the birds of the sky and all the living things of the field..." Genesis 2:20

The bible places a profound emphasis on the naming of every person, place or thing. What's in a name? Everything, apparently. Semites are named for the son of Noah named SHeM (name). The name is the essence of the thing, its SHAY-Ma or reputation. Commentaries have much to say about each unknown person in a list of begats and begots or each unknown, one came to town on the journey to somewhere else. Reputation -- or name -is something to live for or die for to a Semite. No less than the supreme deity is referred to by the Jews as HaShem, The Name [His Family name is YAHOWAH, our Addition]. The name of an animal is therefore far more than an echoic device for identification. If the Chinese call a cat something like a meow (it sounds much like it) and if we've named a bird a Chickadee (after its call) --these are sure signs that the creature was not named at Eden by our first human ancestors. None of the animals are so specialized that a sub-species is named in the bible. All primordial animal names are generic: Bird or Raven, and even the "children of the raven" (Psalms ) --but never Crow, Blackbird or Grackle. Gen 2:19-20 Seals in Middle East? SEECATCH. Otherwise, general terms like /TSAKHAN so the Algonquin Indians could name their stinker

(the skunk).

"Who Named the Animals?" Where did animal names come from? According to the bow-wow theory, all words are echoic, some grunting caveman's attempt to capture the essence of a thing by its sound. Among the many thousands of animal names, however, only a few creatures like the chickadee have an echoic name. Even in Chinese, where the cat word sounds like "meow meow," echoic names are the exception. A larger set of animal names are clearly descriptive,

like the grasshopper or hippopotamus (Greek for river horse).

Most of the older, more generic animal names have unknown origins, suggesting that the bow-wow theory is for the dogs. Now the world's oldest etymological text is the last place that an academic would look, but Genesis 2:20 relates that "Adam called out names for all the beasts, for the birds of the sky and all the living things of the field..." Let us see if Biblical Hebrew offers any insights into animal names of unknown origin and meaning. The carrion-eating BUZZARD is traced only as far back as Old French busart, a word without apparent cognate or meaning. In Hebrew, BuZ means a hawk and BeeZa spoils (of war). BoZeZ would mean the plunderer or looter, while a

BuZiaR is a falconer.

Unlike the EAGLE (from oKHeL, to eat or destroy), the BUZZARD is merely a scavenger who emBeZZles WaSte or BooTy. (These BZ, BT and W-ST words are related to our Bet-Zayin family of words of plunder). The Kiowa plains

Indians named this same bird a bosen for good reason.

If you think the GIRAFFE is a strange animal, check out its weird (given) etymology. French girafe and Italian giraffa is aid to be a corruption of Arabic zirafah, although the term is meaningless is Arabic too and a G from a Z corruption is unnatural.. Using Emetology instead of etymology, one could suppose that zirafah is a common jumble (called metathesis in linguistics and relat! ed to the neurological disorder called dyslexia) of Hebrew [T]ZaVaR (neck). While Adam or any ancient human would do well to call the GIRAFFE a "neck" creature, the Hebrew term stresses the throat or front of the neck rather than the GIRAFFE's prominent back or scruff of the neck. The Hebrew for this part of the anatomy is OReF, more correctly pronounced by Sephardim as KHoReF or GHoReF. Now we've got the perfect sound and sense for GIRAFFE, since GHoReF means the scruff of the neck. Like SCARF, SCRUF is a neck word whose initial S is non-historic. Any word with more than 3 root letters in Hebrew or any language is carrying extra baggage around the root or roots. These CRF neck words come from Biblical Hebrew KHoReF (neck) just like the CRAVat (necktie). A related Gimel-Resh term, GaRoN (throat, neck) gives us other long-necked animals, like the CRANE, EGRET and HERON, along with neckwear like the GORGEOUS GORGET, the throaty GROAN of a CROONer and the GARGLING of a GOURMET GARGOYLE.

11

Returning to animals and addressing the interchangeable C/G/H/K sounds above, both the Hebrew Ayin and the Gimel are gutturals that can harden to make the hard C of Latin corvus (raven) and French corbeau (raven) or soften to make the soft H of Anglo-Saxon hraefn (raven). Do these disparate Indo-European cousins meet when linked to a common Semitic ancestor? The Hebrew raven is an OReV or KHoReBH (Ayin-Resh-Bet). Etymologists don't have to dig far to get true word origins, but they refuse to consider Hebrew. The prolific digger among American rodents (and net surfers) is the GOPHER. The given guess in our dictionaries is an attribution to French gaufre (a honeycomb or waffle). Those who

dig for a true source will consider Hebrew KHoPHeR (digger).

Now a HORSE is a horse of course, and of course there is no known meaning for this term. It doesn't relate to the German horse (Pferd, a knock-off of the Hebrew PHeReD or mule) or the Latin equs (an echo of Hebrew AQeV--heel or HooF). The mystery unraveled when I noticed the similarity of HORSE and HEARSE (a funeral wagon named for an elaborate plow). Unlike their Continental forbears, the British plowed with horses instead of oxen. The horse was the plower, and plower in Hebrew is HoReS[H]. The Americans continued the awkward tradition of plowing with a horse, which needs blinders and constant attention. The God-given plowing animal is clearly the SHoRe (ox), which innately knows how to plow a SHuRa [Ya]SHaR (straight row or SuRe SeRies). True, the ox doesn't sound like the ShoRe at all, but Aramaic constantly corrupted the Hebrew Shin to a T, later giving us the Latin taurus (bull) and Spanish toro. Reject

the bull and discover a world of meaning-- with the majesty and science of! Hebrew.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/36_animals.html

Getting back to the Hebrew word, Tanshemeth, TMEŠENitI which has been translated "swan" in the KJV,

the COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT by C. F. KEIL AND F. DELITZSCH, remarks on its meaning, (emphasis mine).

Lev. 11:13-19 (cf. Deut. 14:11-18). Of birds, twenty varieties are prohibited, including the bat, but without any common mark being given; though they consist almost exclusively of birds, which live upon flesh or carrion, and are most of them natives‘ of Western Asia.

‡wŠNiYA: from ‡ŠANF to snort, according to Isa. 34:11, dwelling in ruins, no doubt a species of owl; according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the uhu, which dwells in old ruined towers and castles upon the mountains, and cries uhupuhu. TMEŠENitI, which occurs again in v. 30 among the names of the lizards,

is, according to Damiri, a bird resembling the uhu, but smaller. Jonathan calls it uthya = wÏtoÂj, a night-owl. The primary meaning of the word „ŠANF is essentially the same as that of ‡ŠANF, to breathe or blow, so

called because many of the owls have a mournful cry, and blow and snort in addition; though it cannot be decided whether the strix otus is intended, a bird by no means rare in Egypt, which utters a whistling blast, and rolls itself into a ball and then spreads itself out again, or the strix flammea, a native of Syria, which sometimes utters a mournful cry, and at other times snores like a sleeping man, and the flesh of which is said to be by no means unpleasant, or the hissing owl (strix stridula), which inhabits the ruins in Egypt and Syria, and is sometimes called massusu, at other times bane, a very voracious bird, which is said to fly in at open windows in the evening and kill children that are left unguarded, and which is very much dreaded in consequence.

TJAQF, which also lived in desolate places (Isa. 34:11; Zeph. 2:14), or in the desert itself (Psa. 102: 7), was

not the katà, a species of partridge or heath-cock, which is found in Syria (Robinson, ii. p. 620), as this bird always flies in large flocks, and this is not in harmony with Isa. 34:11 and Zeph. 2:14, but the pelican

(pelekaÂn, LXX), as all the ancient versions render it, which Ephraem (on Num. 14:17) describes as a

marsh-bird, very fond of its young, inhabiting desolate places, and uttering an incessant cry. It is the true pelican of the ancients (pelecanus graculus), the Hebrew name of which seems to have been derived from JWQO to spit, from its habit of spitting out the fishes it has caught, and which is found in Palestine and the reedy marshes of Egypt (Robinson, Palestine). „XFRF, in Deut.

HMFXFRF, is kuknoÂj, the swan, according to the Septuagint porphyrio, the fish-heron, according to the

Vulgate; a marsh bird therefore, possibly vultur percnopterus (Saad. Ar. Erp.), which is very common in Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, and was classed by the ancients among the different species of eagles (Plin. h. n. 10, 3), but which is said to resemble the vulture, and was also called oÏreipeÂlargoj, the

mountain-stork (Arist. h. an. 9, 32). It is a stinking and disgusting bird, of the raven kind, with black

12

pinions; but with this exception, it is quite white. It is also bald-headed, and feeds on carrion and filth. But it is eaten notwithstanding by many of the Arabs (Burckhardt, Syr. p. 1046). It received its name of ―tenderly loving‖ from the tenderness with which it watches over its young (Bochart, iii. pp. 56, 57). In this respect it resembles the stork, HDFYSIXá, avis pia, a bird of passage according to Jer. 8: 7, which builds its nest upon

the cypresses (Psa. 104:17, cf. Bochart, iii. pp. 85ff.). In the East the stork builds its nest not only upon high towers and the roofs of houses, but according to Kazwini and others mentioned by Bochart (iii. p. 60), upon lofty trees as well. f28

A large number of scholars affirm that מ נש תהת ―Tanshemeth‖ is either a water-hen or an owl, and the

following modern versions of the bible reflect that, given the information they have at their disposal:

(NIV) - 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,

(NASB) - 18 and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture,

(NLT) - 18 the barn owl, the desert owl, the Egyptian vulture,

English Standard Version (ESV) – 18 the barn owl, the(A) tawny owl, the carrion vulture,

Today's New International Version (TNIV) 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,

American Standard Version (ASV) 18 and the horned owl, and the pelican, and the vulture,

(New Life Version) (NLV) 18 the white owl, the pelican, the vulture that eats dead flesh,

(JPS 1917 OT) 18 and the horned owl, and the pelican, and the carrion-vulture;

So according to their own words, scholars admit that establishing a clear identity of certain animals in the

bible is difficult at best and next to impossible at worst, so how can a bible student truly discern between

the clean and unclean animals to be eaten (specifically the Biblical bird list)?

One way we can discern the difference between the clean and unclean is to observe! Observe the

physiology and eating habits of certain clean animals with the unclean! For example we have in the

scriptures a description of a clean land animal (ruminant animals like: cows, deer, moose, elk, goats,

sheep, etc) which is "split-hoofed" and chews the cud and a description of another animal that is cloven

hoofed but DOESN'T chew the cud, namely the swine.

Another point that must be made is the way YAHOWAH created the different fleshly bodies of different

animals to digest and assimilate their foods, for example: ruminant animals like cows, deer and goats

instinctively eat grass, buttercups, flowers or other fibrous plants that need a special digestive system to

help break it down and YAHOWAH says they are clean to eat! Yet a horse eats grass but doesn't "chew

the cud" or have a spit hoof, so YAHOWAH determined the flesh of horse to be unclean or unhealthy to

eat, because it's flesh is vastly different than a cow's!

The point of this illustration is to show how the eating habits of birds of prey or scavengers (like vultures,

crows, etc) is also vastly different than a chicken's or even a duck! Another point that must be made is

how YAHOWAH created the digestive system of clean animals to be a great deal more efficient at

preventing disease and parasite infestation than in unclean animals. Some people are repulsed to learn

that ducks, swans and geese eat worms, crustaceans and other unclean things, besides seeds and grass,

but believe or not, chickens have been known to eat unclean things too, and YAHOWAH says that a

chicken and turkey are clean.

The following article answers some of the questions that some people raise about eating ducks and geese, namely their eating habits and the fact that they have webbed feet. This author also mentions the fact that, by and large, ducks, geese and swans do not fit either category of: a) a bird of prey or b) a scavenger! Article used by permission of author (we've taken the liberty of inserting the proper name and titles of YAHOWAH and His Heavenly Family, emphasis mine).

Duck and Geese Question

13

What about webbed footed birds by P. Bennett

Within...circles it is taught that all birds with webbed feet are prohibited. However, a search of our scriptures soon reveals that there is no such general rule of prohibition with regard to birds. Indeed, birds are the ONLY group that are NOT covered by an all embracing rule, in the way that VEGETATION MATTER, ANIMALS, FISH and INSESTS are (i.e. 'every herb bearing seed, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed' Gen.1:29: 'Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud' Lev.11:3: 'Whatsoever hath fins and scales' Lev.11:9: 'All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet, these may you eat of every flying creeping thing that goes upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth' Lev.11:20 and 21). Nowhere in scripture can one find any reference to the term 'webbed feet.' Indeed scripture suggests that all birds are fit for food except those specifically forbidden. This leads to the second reason that is often given for our NOT eating DUCK and GOOSE; namely that there is a prohibition against the SWAN after its kind. This argument relies in the first place upon the fact that ducks and geese belong to the same family as swans. Scientists long ago devised a system of classifying the animal kingdom into various groups. These groups are hierarchical, so that all animals included in one group are automatically included in the group above. The main groups in descending order are Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. Swans, ducks and geese all belong to the family ANATIDE, of which there are 150 species worldwide. The Anatidae family is divided into three sub-families, namely ANSERINAE, which includes swans, geese and whistling ducks; ANATINAE, which include all other ducks, and ANSERANATINAE, the magpie goose. Science then agrees that ducks, geese and swans are of one family. Therefore, a prohibition of the swan after her kind would SEEM to include duck and goose. Before we rely too heavily upon the above reasoning to convince our Jewish, or other friends, that their menus should NOT include such delicacies as Canard Montmorency, let us look closely at the scriptures, beginning with the Authorized Version. In neither Lev.11:18, nor Deut. 14:16 do we find the phrase 'the swan after her kind.' The word swan appears on its own. Are we therefore entitled to include 'after her kind'? When we read Lev. 11:13-19 in CONTEXT, the answer to this question would appear to be NO. Let us look at other translations and see if they give us a clearer guide to the inclusion of duck and goose in the list of prohibited birds.

BASIC ENGLISH - Lev. 'And the ostrich, and the night hawk, and the sea hawk, and birds of that sort.'

Deut. 'The little owl, and the great owl and the water hen.' MOFFAT - Lev. 'The water hen, the pelican, the carrion-vulture.' Deut. 'The barn owl and the eagle-owl, the water hen.' GOOD NEWS - Lev. 'You must not eat any of the following birds, Eagles, owls, hawks, falcons,

buzzards, vultures, crows, ostriches, seagulls, storks, herons, pelicans, cormorants, hoopoes or bats' (13-19).

Deut. As above (12-18). LAMSA - Lev. 'And the swan and the hoopoe after their kind.' Deut. 'The stork, the hoopoe after its kind.' N.I.V. - Lev. 'The white owl, the desert owl, the osprey.' Deut. 'The little owl, the great owl, the white owl.' AMPLIFIED - Lev. 'The swan, the pelican, the vulture.' Deut. 'The little owl, the great owl, the horned owl.' R.S.V. - Lev. 'The water hen, the pelican, the carrion vulture.' Deut. 'The little owl, and the great owl, the water hen.' LIVING BIBLE - Lev. 'The ibis, the marsh hen, the pelican.' Deut. 'The screech owl, the great owl, the horned owl and the pelican.' FERRAR FENTON - Lev. '...and the crested owl and the turkey buzzard.'

Deut. '...and the seagull and the cormorant, with their species, with the pelican.'

14

From this random selection of translations, we now see that it is by no means CERTAIN that the SWAN is indicated. When we consider the Hebrew, the meaning becomes even LESS clear. The Hebrew word translated 'swan' in the Authorized Version is TINSHEMETH. This word appears three times, twice it is translated 'swan' and in Lev. 11:30 it is translated 'mole.' If the translation 'swan' is doubtful, how accurate is the translation 'mole'? Again, let us look at other translations to see if they agree with the Authorized Version.

BASIC ENGLISH - 'And the ferret and the land crocodile and the lizard and the sand lizard and the chameleon.'

MOFFAT - '...the gecko, the land crocodile, the beetle, the snail and the chameleon.' GOOD NEWS - 'Moles, rats, and lizards must be considered unclean.' LAMSA - 'And the ferret, and the mole, the yellow lizard, the skink and the chameleon.' N.I.V. - 'The gecko, the monitor, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon.' AMPLIFIED - 'The gecko, the land crocodile, the lizard, the sand lizard, the chameleon.' R.S.V. - 'The gecko, the land crocodile, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon.' LIVING BIBLE - 'The mole, the rat, the great lizard, the gecko, the mouse, the lizard, the snail,

the chameleon.'

FERRAR FENTON - 'And the ponter, and the shew, and the ignanodou, and the chameleon.' Once more, we see that the meaning of TINSHEMETH is UNCERTAIN, so let us consider what commentaries have to say on this subject. James Strong, S.T.D., L.L.D., in his Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words, suggests that Tanshemeth is derived from Nasham, to blow away, i.e. destroy. He states that the meaning of Tanshemeth is probably 'a hard breath' i.e. the name of two uncertain creatures, a lizard and a bird (both perhaps from changing colour through their irascibility), probably the tree-toad and the water-hen. The notes on Lev.11:18 and 30 contained in The Student's Commentary on the Holy Bible published 1879, state the following:

Verse 18. 'The swan, more probably the ibis, the sacred bird of the Egyptians....' Verses 29, 30. 'The identification of 'the creeping things' here named is not always certain. They are most likely those, which were occasionally eaten....., by the word rendered snail is probably meant another kind of lizard, and by the mole, the chameleon.'

Henry Chichester Hart, in By Paths on Bible Knowledge X1, Scripture Natural History, 11 Animals of the Bible, Religious Tract Society 1888, has this to say:

The Hebrew word 'tinshemeth' is found amongst the list of unclean birds in Lev. 11:18 and Deut. 14:16. It is there translated 'swan,' but this must be erroneous for the double reason that swans are, and in all probability always were, very rare in Palestine, and that were the common or known at all to the Israelites is not likely that they would have been regarded as unclean. They are vegetable feeders, and cygnets have been generally regarded as good to eat. In the Jewish Bible, this word is un-translated. The Septuagint and Vulgate render it either 'porphyrio' or 'ibis.' Either of these is likely enough to be the bird meant, and the original seems to point to an aquatic bird. The meaning of the Hebrew word is, however, highly ambiguous. In verse 30 it is translated 'mole' and, as has been shown already, is most likely there intended to represent the 'chameleon.' Of the two water fowl suggested, the ibis is the most acceptable interpretation at first sight. It was sacred amongst the Egyptians, and connected with their idolatrous worship, and it was a bird of very unclean feeding. No doubt, the Israelites were very familiar with the sacred ibis (ibis religiosa) in Egypt. But the bird is not found in Palestine, and has become extinct on the lower Nile. Nevertheless from its abundant representation on their monuments, and in the mummified state amongst their tombs, it must formerly have been common in Lower Egypt. The other species, the porphyrio or violent gallinule (Porphyrio hyacinthinus), is a large handsome purple waterhen as big as a duck. It is, however, by no means abundant in Lower Egypt except on the Fayoom, according to Capt. Shelly and as Tristram tells, it is very rare in Palestine. A much more likely bird is our common waterhen or gallinule (Porphyrio chloropus), which is everywhere abundant in Palestine and Egypt; and with it might have been included the coot (Fuligula atra) its constant associate, and an equally abundant bird.

Marray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, published 1908, has the following entries:

15

Swan (Heb. tinshemeth). This translation, which occurs...in the list of unclean birds, is almost certainly wrong: while the emendations 'pelican' and 'owl' are equally unsatisfactory. The LXX renderings 'porphyrio' and 'ibis' are much more probable, neither of these birds occurring elsewhere in the catalogue, while both would be familiar residents in Egypt, and the original seems to point to some waterfowl.....The purple waterhen (Porphyrio Caerulus), a brilliant coloured and large relation to our own moorhen, is abundant in the marshes and reed brakes of the Mediterranean countries, and is most probably the species mentioned. Mole. Two words are thus translated. 1. 'Tinshemeth,' which occurs in the list of unclean birds in Lev. 11:18, Deut. 14:16 (Authorized Version 'swan') and in Lev. 11:30 (Authorized Version 'mole'). There seems considerable probability that 'tinshemeth' refers to the chameleon. 1. 'Hephor peroth' rendered 'moles' by the Authorized Version in Isaiah 2:20....Apparently true moles (Talpa) are absent from Syria-Palestine.....

The Dictionary of the Bible edited by Sir. W. Smith and published in 1893:

Swan (tinshemeth). Thus rendered by A.V. where it occurs in the list of unclean birds....Bochart explains it noctua (owl), and derives the name from (Hebrew) to astonish, because other birds are startled at the apparitions of the owl. Gesenius suggests the pelican, from (Hebrew) 'to breathe, to puff,' with reference to the inflation of its pouch. Whatever may have been the bird intended by Moses, these conjectures cannot be admitted as satisfactory, the owl and the pelican both being distinctly expressed elsewhere in the catalogue. Nor is the A.V. translation likely to be correct. It is not probable that the swan was known to Moses or the Israelites, or at least that it was sufficiently familiar to have obtained a place in the list. Hasselquist indeed mentions his having seen a swan on the coast of Damietta; but though a regular winter visitor to Greece, only accidental stragglers wander so far south as the Nile, and it has not been observed by recent naturalists either in Palestine or Egypt. Nor, if it has been known to the Israelites, is it easy to understand why the swan should have been placed among the unclean birds. The rendering of the LXX; 'porphyrio' and 'ibis' are either of them more probable. Neither of these birds appears elsewhere in the catalogue, both would be familiar to residents in Egypt, and the original seems to point to some waterfowl. The Samaritan version also agrees with the LXX, Porphyrio antiquorum Bp, the purple waterhen, is mentioned by Aristotle, Aristophanes, Pliny, and more fully described by Athenaeus. It is allied to our cornrake and waterhen, and it is the largest and most beautiful of the family Rallidae, being larger than the domestic fowl, with a rich dark blue plumage, and brilliant red beak and legs. From extra-ordinary length of its toes, it is enabled, lightly treading on the flat leaves of water plants, to support itself without immersion, and apparently to run on the surface of the water. It frequents marshes and sedge by the banks of the rivers in all the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, and it is abundant in Lower Egypt. Athanaeus has correctly noted its singular habit of grasping its food with its very long toes, and thus conveying it to its mouth. It is distinguished from all other species of Rallidae by its short powerful mandibles, with which it crushes its prey, consisting often of reptiles and young birds. It will frequently seize a young duck with its long feet, and at once crush the head of its victim with its beak. It is an omnivorous feeder, and from the miscellaneous character of its food, might reasonably find a place in the catalogue of unclean birds. Its flesh is rank, coarse and very dark coloured.

Lastly, The Jewish Encyclopaedia states:

Swan: The rendering of the A.V. for tinshemeth.....The Revised Version, more correctly, gives 'horned owl'.....Two species of swan have been found in Palestine, the whooper, or wild swan (Cygnus musicus or ferus) and the Cygnus olor, or mansuetus; they are, however, comparatively rare. Some take the 'barhurim abusim' of the Talmud (B.M. 86b) to mean 'swans' though the usual rendering is 'fattened hens.'

From the above it can be seen that the identity of the creatures (tinshemeth) is UNCLEAR. In order to clear up this and other ambiguities, I made enquiry of the Board of deputes of British Jews. I am most grateful of their prompt and full reply. With regard to the word 'tinshemeth' they agree that the creature is NOT certainly identified. They add that generally, ALL domestic fowl are allowed, while wild fowl (which would include swans) are not. However, this rule does NOT HELP us, as it would exclude fowls such as partridge, pheasants, quail, etc. We know that Israelites were able to eat quail from Exodus 16: 13 and Numbers 11:31, 32. So far then, we have examined the TWO MAIN objections AGAINST eating duck and geese, namely that they are prohibited by falling into the category of 'web' footed birds' and alternately, they are banned because they come within the classification of 'the swan after her kind.' The THIRD objection often put forward is that duck and geese are SCAVENGERS, and are therefore prohibited. Again, to turn to the scripture we find no mention of the word 'scavenger.' Nowhere in the food laws are the forbidden creatures so described. However, a careful examination of those prohibited SUGGEST that the common denominator of the prohibited birds is that they are either birds of prey, or scavengers and therefore the Creator in His heavenly wisdom has denied them from us as food.

16

The Universal English Dictionary defines a scavenger as an animal, which feeds on and clears away carrion, garbage, or any decaying organic matter, e.g. vultures, certain beetles and other insects, shrimp, crabs etc. We realize the function of these scavengers, and the fact that they are provided to clear away the poisonous debris, which, if left, could cause the spread of diseases, our reaction, should be to leave well alone. So, if ducks and goose are scavengers, then they should be considered unfit for our table. What are the feeding habits of ducks and goose? If we study the family ANATIDAE in any good book on birds, we find that the diet of its various members consist of vegetable matter, insects, and their larvae, worms, molluscs, crustaceans and fish. For example, the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) feeds on various seeds, plant shoots, and grass, although ducklings eat mainly insects, plus molluscs, crustaceans and green plants. The Pintail (Anas acuta) feeds on various seeds, shoots and green plant parts, plus insects, worms, molluscs and as an occasional delicacy, small frogs. The Eider (Somateria mollissima) feeds mainly on molluscs, but will eat crustaceans, worms, starfish and fish. The Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) eats mostly vegetables, but will also eat insects, small fish, tadpoles and crustaceans. The same applies to Bewick's Swan (Cygnus cygnus), which is almost completely vegetarian. Strangely enough when we look at the diet of various geese, we find that they too are largely vegetarian, e.g. Greylag goose (Anser anser) feed on green plants and seeds. The white fronted goose (Anser albiforns) eats grass, shoots, various berries and seeds. Brent geese (Branta bernicla) feed on marine plants during winter and during the summer, grass, lichens, moss, plus molluscs, crustaceans and insects.

A study of their diet suggests that the family Anatidae are neither scavengers nor birds of prey.

Before we leave the diet of birds, let us, out of interest; look at the feeding habits of some of the PERMITTED birds.

Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) eats a variety of seeds, berries, green plant shoots, insects, worms and molluscs.

Quail (Coturnix coturnix) feeds on insects and larvae, green leaves and seeds.

The Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) in the wild state feeds on fruit, berries, seeds, and occasionally will capture and eat small rodents.

Domestic chickens, when allowed the freedom to range the farmyard, can be seen feeding on worms, insects and kitchen scraps.

It would seem therefore; that there is LITTLE DIFFERENCE between the diet of the ducks and goose and those birds we can eat... I will here say again, that which I have said before in the series of these studies that it is a WRONG foundation to try to say clean animals and unclean animals are clean or unclean because of what they eat. All things are made of atoms and molecules. It is HOW they are put together within the very creational structure that is the key to clean and unclean. The horse eats mainly grass and hay, and then oats, barley, flax and such. They love a well cooked meal of the last three grains, I know for I worked with horses on Stud Farms as a young man, and had to feed them a few times a week such a cooked mash, with some molasses added. The horse is a totally vegetarian and grain eater, BUT horsemeat is unclean as a food according to [YAHOWAH‘s] food laws. It is not what they eat that makes them unclean, it is the way their flesh is atom/cell and molecule created and put together. Their very creation of flesh is not compatible with our created flesh. You could feed a pent up pig the greatest mixture of grains etc. and it would not change its atom/cell and molecule structure. The same goes for the bear. You could keep it caged up, feed it only honey, berries, and salmon, all its life, and it would still be unclean meat, for its atom/cell and molecule structure would be as [YAHOWAH] created it....unclean for human consumption. This truth was brought out in the famous book by Rachel Carson called "Silent Spring" (1962). The book is still available from Amazon.com on the Internet. She showed how some were, in their labs, able to change the atom/molecule pattern, put it together in a different pattern, still call it "organic" for it still was, did not have any human chemicals etc. in it, but she claimed, it would now be slow poison for us. This is the basic bottom line as to how [YAHOWAH] created things and what He knew would be compatible in atom/cell/molecule structure for food for us to eat and rebuild our cells in a good healthy manner. How [YAHOWAH] created the working chemical/atom digestion in all created creatures to use whatever they digested, is another matter. The horse is the classic example, the good vegetation/grain foods it eats works in no way to change the atom/cell/molecule of its flesh, to make it good healthy flesh food for us humans to eat. And the reverse is true of animals and birds etc, that are clean food for us to eat, but they may eat certain things that are of themselves unclean for us to eat. It really is the atom/cell - the very inner being of things that makes the difference. Rachel Carson was able to show that man was messing with the very foundation and so with his chemicals like DDT, effecting the atoms and cells in a way that normally would not be affected when left as [YAHOWAH] created each, and so was harming our atoms and cells. Such of

17

course is the same bottom line concern today with the debate and battle over genetically altered foods. It would seem most western countries will enact a law that food labels will declare if the product has been genetically manipulated in any way - Keith Hunt). The THIRD objection to duck and geese, i.e. that they are scavengers, does NOT appear to stand up to close examination. Indeed, NONE of the three objections, when considered in detail, appears to be valid... We have seen that orthodox Jews regard these fowls as Kosher. But what about the Muslims? It appears that their dietary laws are based on the general principle, 'Oh people eat of the lawful and good (wholesome) things of what is in the earth.' What conclusion then can be drawn from this section of our study? I believe that we can see that it is dangerous to say that scripture forbids the eating of webbed footed birds, or that scripture excludes 'the swan after her kind.' It is also dangerous to teach that duck and goose are FORBIDDEN, as they are scavengers. However, before we all rush out to sample goose pie or duck en casserole, let us prayerfully seek [YAHOWAH‘s] guidance as to the truth of His word. In the meantime, let us honestly admit to our enquirers that this does present an area of doubt. http://www.keithhunt.com/Foodlaw5.html

You'll notice in the preceding and following quotes that many authors use the words "probably" and

"most likely" and other indicators of their uncertainty of these particularly ambiguous Hebrew names, but

as I've tried to explain before unless we come across a clear record of the Hebrew definitions as they

understood them from yesteryear we may never fully understand these names! However not all is lost

because the Rowach Kodesh, YAHOWAH's Wonderful Pure Spirit of Truth, hasn't forgotten the definitions

and it will reveal what needs to be revealed about swans, geese and ducks. Remember what it says in

the Word about attaining knowledge and understanding?

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in YAHOWAH with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding. 6

Acknowledge him in all your ways, and he will make your paths straight.

Proverbs 16:1-4 The intentions of the heart belong to a man, but the answer of the tongue comes from

YAHOWAH. 2 All the ways of a person seem right in his own opinion, but YAHOWAH weighs the

motives. 3 Commit your works to YAHOWAH, and your plans will be established. 4 YAHOWAH

works everything for its own ends— even the wicked for the day of disaster.

Proverbs 16:9 A person plans his course, but YAHOWAH directs his steps.

James 1:5 But if anyone is deficient in wisdom, he should ask YAHOWAH (the Almighty One), who gives

to all generously and without reprimand, and it will be given to him.

1 Peter 5:6-7 And YAHOWAH will exalt you in due time, if you humble yourselves under his mighty hand 7 by

casting all your cares on him because he cares for you.

1 Corinthians 1:25 For the foolishness of YAHOWAH is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of YAHOWAH

is stronger than human strength.

We trust in YAHOWAH and His Son, YAHO-Hoshu-WAH, for knowledge, wisdom and understanding and we care not for any human opinion unless it can be established by His Word! So yes, the true identity of some of these birds is vague but YAHOWAH gives the bible student the wisdom to look at all the evidence and to weigh it out before making a rash decision, plus He has given us a brain to use to observe the birds themselves and see whether or not these birds are like eagles, vultures, cranes and falcons or more like chickens, pigeons, doves or pheasants.

18

Now getting back to our study and some food for thought - according to recent studies it is estimated that about 8616 species of birds exist in the world but even this number isn‘t complete or accurate (http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/biogeog/MAYR1946.htm).

YAHOWAH created such diversity among all the flying creatures that to number all the clean ones would have taken many more books or scrolls than was necessary, therefore, YAHOWAH gave Moses a list of UNCLEAN birds to avoid as food.

If you study the list of 24 unclean birds given to Moses you will find that many of them are either birds of prey (eagles, hawks, falcons, owls) and/or scavengers (ravens, crows, vultures, sea-gulls), and a few other species that YAHOWAH enumerates as unclean (herons, storks, bitterns, bats).

However, because of the supposed vagueness of some of the descriptions of these birds (in Leviticus chapter 11 and Deuteronomy 14) the Jews formulated a guide to establish ―clean‖ characteristics of certain birds to see if they were fit for food.

Comment: I should comment that this "Jewish" list of characteristics is a general guideline for determining clean birds, but it is not found in the scriptures. The requirement of clean birds having a crop and gizzard is actually common among many birds, including some of the unclean ones, so the fundamental difference between clean and unclean birds is again a matter of reading and studying the laws of Leviticus 11 and

Deuteronomy 14.

The following is a list of characteristics that the Jewish religious leaders have put together to help their people understand what to look for in a clean bird, from http://www.giveshare.org/Health/health5.html:

Characteristics of Clean and Unclean Fowl

The six characteristics of clean birds are listed elsewhere in this article. One or more of these characteristics is lacking in all unclean birds. The Jewish Mishnah says that "a bird that seizes food in its claws is unclean; one which has an extra

talon, a craw, and the skin of whose stomach can be pealed, is clean," (Hul. 3:6).

Clean birds have, in essence, three stomachs, including a crop, the gizzard and another section between the two. This prevents poisons from being assimilated into its meat, just like ruminant animals. According to Robert Burton (Bird Behavior, page 76), leaf-eating birds such as swans, geese, grouse, ducks, pigeons and other game birds, have bacteria in their intestines which break down cellulose. Pigeons and doves use their crop to store, or partly digest, food taken too quickly for the stomach to handle. During brooding season, the crop produces "milk" from seeds eaten, which is regurgitated for the young. This is one form of rumination, making these clean birds similar to clean animals, which chew

their cud.

As one would expect, unclean birds, such as vultures, owls, eagles, hawks and seagulls, are generally birds of prey (carnivorous), and often feed on carrion (dead or decaying flesh, including fat and blood). On the other hand, clean birds are predominantly vegetarian, eating leaves, nuts, seeds and fruits. This means that clean birds have less disease and fewer parasites. Owls eat rats and other disease-carrying rodents. Eagles eat dead animals. Vampire bats drink blood and

bats in general can carry rabies.

There is a brilliant reason for these ―kosher‖ laws, YAHOWAH in His infinite Wisdom knew exactly which animals would be beneficial and/or detrimental to our well-being. Take for example the difference between the digestive systems of clean and unclean animals as seen in the following article:

Clean and Unclean Meats - Stomach and Small Intestine

Striking differences between carnivores and herbivores are seen in these organs. Carnivores have a capacious simple (single-chambered) stomach. The stomach volume of a carnivore represents 60-70% of the total capacity of the digestive system. Because meat is relatively easily digested, their small intestines (where absorption of food molecules takes place) are short -- about three to five or six times the body length. Since these animals average a kill only about once a week, a large stomach volume is advantageous because it allows the animals to quickly gorge themselves when eating, taking in

as much meat as possible at one time which can then be digested later while resting.

19

Additionally, the ability of the carnivore stomach to secrete hydrochloric acid is exceptional. Carnivores are able to keep their gastric pH down around 1-2 even with food present. This is necessary to facilitate protein breakdown and to kill the abundant dangerous bacteria often found in decaying flesh foods. Because of the relative difficulty with which various kinds of plant foods are broken down (due to large amounts of indigestible fibres), herbivores have significantly longer and in some cases, far more elaborate guts than carnivores. Herbivorous animals that consume plants containing a high proportion of cellulose must "ferment" (digest by bacterial enzyme action) their food to obtain the nutrient value. They

are classified as either "ruminants" (foregut fermenters) or hindgut fermenters.

The ruminants are the plant-eating animals with the celebrated multiple-chambered stomachs. Herbivorous animals that eat a diet of relatively soft vegetation do not need a multiple-chambered stomach. They typically have a simple stomach, and a long small intestine. These animals ferment the difficult-to-digest fibrous portions of their diets in their hindguts (colons). Many of these herbivores increase the sophistication and efficiency of their GI tracts by including carbohydrate-digesting enzymes in their saliva. A multiple-stomach fermentation process in an animal, which consumed a diet of soft, pulpy vegetation, would be energetically wasteful. Nutrients and calories would be consumed by the fermenting bacteria and protozoa before reaching the small intestine for absorption. The small intestine of plant-eating animals tends to be very long (greater than 10 times body length) to allow adequate time and space for absorption of the nutrients.

Colon The large intestine (colon) of carnivores is simple and very short, as its only purposes are to absorb salt and water. It is approximately the same diameter as the small intestine and, consequently, has a limited capacity to function as a reservoir. The colon is short and non-pouched. The muscle is distributed throughout the wall, giving the colon a smooth cylindrical appearance. Although a bacterial population is present in the colon of carnivores, its activities are essentially putrefactive. In herbivorous animals, the large intestine tends to be a highly specialized organ involved in water and electrolyte absorption, vitamin production and absorption, and/or fermentation of fibrous plant materials. The colons of herbivores are usually wider than their small intestine and are relatively long. In some plant-eating mammals, the colon has a pouched appearance due to the arrangement of the muscle fibres in the intestinal wall. Additionally, in some herbivores the cecum (the first section of the colon) is quite large and serves as the primary or accessory fermentation site. http://www.earthlife.net/birds/non-passer.html

The following article gives us more information on YAHOWAH‘s food laws.

What Fish and Fowl are Good for Food?

Many have asked for more specific information on this question after reading Mr. Armstrong's article "Is all Animal Flesh good food?" in THE PLAIN TRUTH. The Bible itself defines what sea life is good food. "Whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat" (Leviticus 11:39). In verse 10 it is further clarified: "and all that have not fins AND scales in the seas... they shall be an abomination unto you." "But which fish have both fins and scales?" is the question asked by many readers. Two points to remember is that many fish have very small or minute scales and some have merely patches of scales near the head and the tail fin. In either case, such fish are clean and fit for food. First, let us name the commonly known unclean fish--these are scaleless fish--which are not fit for food: catfish, eels, paddlefish, sculpins, stickle backs, sturgeons and swordfish. These fish do not have true scales. Together with these creatures are other forms of sea life unfit for human consumption: abalone, clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, scallops, shrimp, and whale. The complete list of fish fit for human consumption would be too lengthy to enumerate in this

column. Only the most important clean fish--having BOTH scales and fins--can be named.

The second part of the question concerns fowl. Which birds are fit for human consumption? The answer is found in Lev. 11:13-19 and Deut. 14:11-20. Each of these sections lists specific varieties of birds unfit for human consumption. No clean birds are listed. Only about two dozen unclean birds are listed out of thousands found the world over. These unclean birds illustrate the characteristics of all unclean birds. They fail into types each of which is unclean "after its kind." The question is, how do these unclean birds differ from those to be clean or fit for human consumption? The characteristics of clean fowl are, of course, determined by the dove and the pigeon (Luke 2:24 and Lev. 1:14-17) which were anciently used for sacrifice. By comparing the differences between these clean birds and those listed as unclean, we can arrive at the following six characteristics of clean birds: 1) they must not be birds of prey; 2) they catch food thrown to them in the air, but they bring it to the ground, where they divide it with their bills, if possible, before eating it; whereas unclean birds devour it in the air, or press it with one foot to the ground and tear it with their bills; 3) they must have an elongated middle front toe and a hind toe; 4) they must spread their toes so that three front toes are on one side of a perch and the hind toe on the other side; 5) they must have craws or crops; 6) they must have a gizzard with a double lining which can easily be separated. (Consult articles in Jewish Encyclopaedia under "Poultry," and "Clean and Unclean Animals.") Clean birds have all these characteristics; unclean birds lack one or more of these characteristics. If a bird lacks any one of these characteristics, it is unclean. Beside the pigeon and dove, the following birds are clean:

20

chicken, pheasant, quail, partridge, grouse, turkey, all song birds, ducks, geese, swan (the word swan is a mistranslation in the King James Version). Unclean birds not listed specifically in the Bible are roadrunners, woodpeckers and the parrot family (which divide their toes so that two are on either side of a perch); aquatic and wading birds and gulls which have

no crops or craws, no double lining of gizzards, and often no hind toe or no elongated middle front toe.

http://www.revelationsofthebible.com/Fish%20And%20Fowl.htm

The following references have been gathered from my personal library and/or Internet. As you will see in the proceeding pages, the evidence for ducks and geese being kosher is overwhelming, and Heaven forbid the fact that I used certain Jewish sources! As far as we are concerned the Truth is the Truth and it will stand the test of time because the Truth ultimately comes from YAHOWAH our Heavenly Father through YAHO-Hoshu-WAH His Son, not from "Christians," "Jews" or otherwise, Amen! (Wherever possible the proper Family Name of YAHOWAH the Father and YAHO-Hoshu-WAH the Son have been inserted by The Assembly of YAHOWAH the Eternal including their appropriate Hebrew titles).

Birds

Birds. Here the Law proceeds by way of elimination. From the rather lengthy list of forbidden birds (Lev. xi. 13-19; Deut. xiv. 11-18) it may be concluded that all the birds of prey and most of the water-fowl were considered unclean. The bat

closes the list.

It was hard for the rabbinical authorities to distinguish clean from unclean birds, as the Scripture (Lev. xi. 13-19) enumerates only the birds, which shall not be eaten, without giving any of the marks that distinguish them from the clean birds. This is all the more important as the names of some of the birds mentioned in the Scriptures are followed by the word "lemino" or "leminehu"—i.e., "after its kind"—and it is therefore necessary to recognize certain fixed distinguishing characteristics. The Talmud fixes the following rules, by which a clean bird may be distinguished. It must

not be a bird of prey; it must have a front toe, if that be the meaning of ; but according to most explanations the hind toe is meant. Although most birds of prey have the hind toe, the toes of the clean bird are so divided that the three front toes are on one side and the hind toes on the other, while the unclean bird spreads his toes so that two toes are on each side; or if it has five toes, three will be on one side and two on the other (compare Rashi to

Ḥul. 59a, and Nissim b. Reuben on the Mishnah to this passage).

The clean birds, furthermore, have craws, and their stomachs have a double skin that can easily be separated. They catch food thrown into the air, but will lay it upon the ground and tear it with their bills before eating it. If a morsel be thrown to an unclean bird it will catch it in the air and swallow it, or it will hold it on the ground with one foot, while tearing off pieces with its bill (Ḥul. 59a, 61a, 63a). As this distinction is not found in Scripture, opinions differ greatly during and since Talmudic times. According to the Talmud (Ḥul. 62a, 63b), only the twenty-four kinds of birds mentioned in Scripture are actually forbidden. If certain birds are positively known as not belonging to these, no further investigation as to characteristic signs is necessary, and they may be eaten. The marks of distinction are laid down only for cases in which there is doubt whether the species is clean or unclean. Authorities, especially in Germany, would only permit the

eating of such kinds as have always been eaten ( ). Accordingly, some birds are permitted to be eaten in certain countries, but not in others. There are many controversies in the casuistic literature concerning this matter. Menahem Mendel Krochmal ("Ẓemaḥ Ẓedeḳ," No. 29), for instance, declares the wild goose forbidden, while Eybeschütz ("Kereti u-Peleti," § 82) permits it. When the turkey was brought to Europe Isaiah Horwitz forbade it to be eaten; and although his

opinion did not prevail, his descendants refrain from eating it even to-day.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=531&letter=C#1870

Birds with Clean Characteristics

21

Chicken Dove Duck Goose Grouse Guinea Fowl

Partridge Peacock Pheasant Pigeon Sagehen Songbirds

Sparrow Swan Quail Turkey

http://www.sky.cgi.org/clean.html

From the Encyclopaedia Judaica:

BIRD Characteristics:

Their bodies are covered with feathers, and their upper limbs are wing-shaped. They have no teeth, breathe through

lungs, and have a constant body temperature. The heart is four-chambered (two auricles and two ventricles). They lay

eggs, which have a hard shell of calcium carbonate (chalk).

CLEAN

The Bible does not give the characteristics, which distinguish clean birds from unclean, as it does in the case of mammals

and fish. The Mishnah, however (Ḥul. 3:6), states that "a bird that seizes food in its claws is unclean; one which has an

extra talon (1), a craw, and the skin of whose stomach can be peeled, is clean." To this the Talmud adds in the name of

R. Nahman that "to anyone familiar with birds and their nomenclature, any bird which has one of these characteristics is

clean, but to one unfamiliar with them, it is unclean, but if it has the two characteristics it is clean" (Ḥul. 61b-62a).

However, they also posited the rule "With regard to which birds are clean we rely upon tradition. A hunter is believed

when he says "my master transmitted to me that this bird is clean." R. Johanan added, "provided he was familiar with

birds and their nomenclature" (Ḥul. 63b). Already in the Talmudic period varying traditions are mentioned whereby

certain birds were considered permitted in one locality and forbidden in another. For this reason, at the present day the

custom has been adopted to eat only such birds as have all the signs of cleanliness, and about which there is a general

tradition that they are clean. In the Bible and Talmud the following birds are mentioned as clean:

Columbiformes: pigeon, turtle dove, palm dove.

Galliformes (2): hen, quail, partridge, peacock (3), pheasant (4).

Passerinae: house sparrow (5).

Anseriformes: domestic duck, domestic goose.

UNCLEAN

a) Diurnal Birds of Prey - The Diurnal Birds of Prey mentioned in the Bible are from the family Falconidae, which are

carnivorous, and Vulturidae, which feed on carrion. Falconidae: have hooked beaks and their talons are sharp and

bent like hooks.

b) Examples: kestrel, hawk, eagle, kite, buzzard. Vulturidae: The neck is usually bare, the bill thick and solid. The

talons are blunt and only slightly inclined. Examples: griffon vulture (6), black vulture, Egyptian vulture, bearded

vulture.

c) Nocturnal Birds of Prey (Strigiformes)

Possessed of large head and eyes; they have four toes, two pointing forwards and two

backwards. The Mishnah (Ḥul. 3:6) declares them unclean.

Examples: owl.

d) Water and Marsh Fowls

With the exception of the goose and the duck (7), they are all regarded as

unclean.

Examples: stork, bittern, heron, crane, gull.

e) Various other Birds which either have no characteristics of a clean bird,

or about which there is no tradition that they are permitted.

Examples: warblers, crow, swift, hoopoe, ostrich.

Notes:

22

1) I.e., the rear talon is situated higher up on the leg than the other four, or the middle talon is longer than the

others. This latter is characteristic of birds which eat grain and walk extensively on the ground (see *Eagle).

2) To this order belong two more domestic fowls: (a) the turkey which is today everywhere regarded as a clean

bird, although a few generations ago there were localities where they refrained from eating it because of the

lack of any tradition that it was clean, coming as it does from the New World. To this day the descendants of

Isaiah Horowitz (the "Shelah") do not eat turkey; (b) the guinea-fowl which in some localities is regarded as

clean while in others it is regarded as forbidden.

3) For the problem of its identification see *Peacock.

4) In many countries there is a tradition that the pheasant is a clean bird and permitted. See *Pheasant.

5) This is the "deror" of the Bible (Prov. 26:2; Ps 84:4). With regard to this bird also there is a tradition,

particularly in Oriental countries, that it is a clean bird and permitted.

6) The signs of this bird are discussed in Ḥulin 61a et seq. see Tosafot, ibid 63a, s.v. nez, as to its

identification.

7) In some countries there is a tradition with regard to other species of birds belonging to this and

other groups that they are clean and permitted.

http://www.encyclopaediajudaica.com/sample-articles/article_view.php?sid=dietary-laws&p=7

The following article is from www.yahsaves.org. Incidentally, the proper poetic short form of YAHOWAH‘s name is YAHO, not Yah.

Clean And Unclean Meats

From Jewish Cooking Secrets, by Lorraine Gerstl, editor, page 10 -

"Birds and Poultry: The Bible does not stipulate identifying characteristics for birds, but the Mishnah states that 'a bird

that seizes food in its claws is unclean, while one which has an extra talon, a craw, and a peelable gizzard is clean,' (Hulin

3:6). Kosher birds include chicken, duck, goose, pigeon, pheasant, quail, and turkey. Birds of prey are all treyf.

http://www.yahsaves.org/learn/Booklets/cleanmeats.htm

In The Guardian, vol. IV, May, 1858, The Birds of the Bible under swan, states:

The swan, says Goldsmith, is as delicate in its appetites, as it is elegant in its form, it feeds on corn, bread, and such

herbs as grow in the water, or such roots and seeds as it finds on the margin of streams.

Bible Animals by John George Ward says on page 212, quoted in part:

Among them occurs the name of tinchemeth, between the great owl and the pelican. What was the precise species of

bird which was signified by this name it is impossible to say, but there is no doubt that it could not have been the swan,

according to the rendering of the AV.

23

More information on birds from http://www.keithhunt.com/Food17.html (The proper family Name of YAHOWAH and His Son YAHO-hoshu-WAH has been inserted by The Assembly of YAHOWAH the Eternal):

Rule for Fowl - Not as simple as ABC – by Harold Hemeway

Continuing in Leviticus 11, we come to the bird category next. But the Bible gives no rule for distinguishing between the clean and unclean as it did in the two previous categories. Deuteronomy 14 is also silent in this regard. Furthermore, no clean birds are listed! All that the Bible gives us in these chapters are the names of about 24 unclean birds! But other scriptures reveal that the PIGEON and DOVE are both clean since they were used for sacrificing Lev. 1:14-17; Luke 2:24), and the QUAIL is clean since [YAHOWAH] provided it for food in Numbers 11:31-32, and the SPARROW is clean since it sold for food and [the Messiah] recognized this use (Luke 12:6), so it's possible to determine a rule based on these four birds, comparing them with the ones listed as unclean.

The result is six characteristics that all clean birds have.

FIRST, they are not birds of prey. SECOND, they catch food thrown to them in the air, but bring it to the ground, where they divide it with their

beaks before consuming it, if this is possible. But unclean birds devour it in the air or press it with one foot to the ground and tear it with their bills.

THIRD, they must have an elongated middle front toe and a hind toe. FOURTH, they spread their toes so that the hind toe is on one side of their perch, and the three front toes are

on the other.

FIFTH, they must have craws or crops. SIXTH, they must have a gizzard with a double lining, which can easily be separated (Jewish Encyclopaedia,

vol. 6, p.111). One or more of these characteristics is lacking in all unclean birds!

The Mishnah (the collection of Jewish oral interpretations of scripture, which were compiled about 200 A.D.) gives a more concise rule. It states that, "a bird that seizes food in its claws is unclean; one which has an extra talon, a craw, and the skin of whose stomach can be pealed, is clean" (Hul. 3:6). The Mishnah mentions that any one of these characteristics makes the bird clean. In other words, a bird does not have to possess them all to be edible (Hul. 61b-62a).

It is extremely interesting that clean birds have, in essence, THREE STOMACHS including the crop and the gizzard and another third section of stomach between the two, reminding a person of clean ruminating beasts, which all have four stomachs! These extra digestive organs in clean birds and beasts no doubt prevent poisons from being assimilated into the meat since the bird gets all its nutritional needs from harmless plants. To take the parallel further, some of the leaf-eating birds have bacteria in their intestines, which break down cellulose (p.76, Bird Behavior, by Robert Burton, copyright 1985). The "only essentially leaf-eating birds are the SWANS, GEESE, GROUSE, some of the DUCKS and the KAKAPO, PIGEONS, COOTS, GAMEBIRDS, and the OSTRICH and its allies are mainly leaf eaters, but they supplement this diet with fair quantities of other plant and animal food" (p.76, ibid.) (Note that the only unclean birds in this list are the KAKAPO and OSTRICH.) Remember that the ruminating beasts all used bacteria in their digestion of plants too! One more point of comparison is found in PIGEONS and DOVES, which use their crop to store, or partly digest, food taken too quickly for the stomach to handle. During breeding season, the crop produces "milk" from seeds eaten which is REGURGITATED for the young. This is one form of RUMINATION!

The Encyclopaedia Judaica also reveals certain characteristics, which are unique to unclean birds. Unclean birds are birds of prey (carnivorous) or birds that feed on carrion (dead and decaying flesh, including FAT and BLOOD) like VULTURES or nocturnal birds of prey which have two toes pointing forward and two backward like the OWL, or Waterfowl like the SEAGULL, STORK, BITTERN, HERON, CRANE and GULL or birds with hooked beaks and hooked talons like the HAWK, EAGLE, KITE, BUZZARD, KESTREL, FALCON, etcetera.

But some water fowl are clean, including DUCKS, GEESE, TEAL and, yes, the SWAN! All these birds comply with the requirements for clean birds. The Hebrew word translated "SWAN" should be rendered "IBIS," or "STORK," or "WATER HEN. As mentioned above, swans are vegetarian!

24

GENERALLY speaking, we could say that clean birds are predominantly vegetarian. (FINCHES, WEAVERS, SPARROWS, CROWS, TITMOUSES, JAYS, NUTHATCHES, NUTCRACKERS, CROSSBILLS, UELEAS, CARDINALS and PARROTS are the birds that eat nuts and seeds. Birds that eat fruit and nectar are BLACKBIRDS, ROBINS, THRUSHES, ORIOLES, WAXWINGS, WARBLERS, GROUSE, FINCHES, SHOREBIRDS, SILKY FLYCATCHERS, GULLS, TITMICE, SUNBIRDS, HUMMINGBIRDS, HONEYCREEPERS, BELLBIRDS, BARBETS, TOURACOS, MOUSEBIRDS, TROGONS, OILBIRDS, TOUCANS, FRUIT PIGEONS, CACI UES, ARACARIS, HORNBILLS, COTINGAS, MANAKINS, OROPEN LAS, CASSOWARIES and PARROTS...

Unclean birds are carnivorous and/or scavengers. This, of course, means that clean birds have less disease and fewer parasites (generally speaking - Keith Hunt).

OWLS eat rats, mice and other disease-carrying rodents almost exclusively! The EAGLE will eat "fish and refuse that is thrown up on the shore" and one kind of EAGLE is "able to take some birds as they fly, but a large part of its sustenance is the flesh of animals that die a natural death" (vol. 20, p.397 & vol. 8, p.790, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed.). VAMPIRE BATS drink BLOOD and bats are vectors of the disease Rabies*! Bat salivary gland fever* can also infect man via bites and infection.

Starting in Leviticus 11:13, we read, "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the EAGLE, and the OSSIFRAGE, and the OSPREY, And the VULTURE (KITE), and the KITE (FALCON) after its kind; Every RAVEN after its kind; And the OWL (OSTRICH), and the NIGHT HAWK, and the CUCKOW (SEA GULL), and the HAWK after its kind, And the LITTLE (WHITE) OWL, and the CORMORANT, and the GREAT (HORNED) OWL, And the "SWAN" (IBIS, STORK, or WATER HEN), and the PELICAN, and the GIER (CARRION) EAGLE, and the STORK, the HERON after its kind, and the LAPWING (HOOPOE), and the BAT" (vv.13-19). Deuteronomy 14:13, 16 and 17 mentions some additional birds: "And the GLEDE (BUZZARD) ... The LITTLE (SCREECH) OWL, and the GREAT OWL ... and the GIER EAGLE (CARRION VULTURE)." Other examples are the BITTERN, CRANE, CROW, KESTREL, PARROT, ROADRUNNER, SWIFT and WOODPECKER.

The list of clean birds and fowl must be the following:

BLACKBIRD, BRAMBLING, BALDHEADED IBIS, CHAFFINCH, CHICKEN, CORN BUNTING, DOVE, DUCK, GOOSE, GROUSE, GARDEN WARBLER, GREENFINCH, GOLDEN PLOVER, GARGANAY, GUINEA FOWL, HEN, ITALIAN SPARROW, MEADOW PIPIT, ORTOLAN BUNTING, PHEASANT, PEA000K, PARTRIDGE, PIGEON, UAIL, REDSTART, ROCK BUNTING, ROBIN, ROOSTER, SPARROW, SONGBIRDS (including such beautiful singers as the thrushes, wrens, honeyeaters, cardinals, larks, mockingbirds, canaries, nightingales, butcherbirds, blackbirds and warblers), SONG THRUSH, SKY LARK, SNIPE, SWAN, TURTLE DOVE, TURKEY, WOOD COCK, WHEATEAR, WHITE WAGTAIL, YELLOWHAMMER, etcetera.

Incidentally, birds must have their blood drained in accordance with Leviticus 17:13 which says, "And whatsoever man there is ... who hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall even pour out the BLOOD thereof; and cover it with dust." In order to obey this scripture, a hunter must use harmless nets and snares to catch his prey, rather than birdshot which causes the BLOOD to coagulate in the flesh.

Written 1987 (all capital words were Hemeway's) http://www.keithhunt.com/Food17.html

[YAHOWAH‘s] LAW CONCERNING THE EATING OF CLEAN AND UNCLEAN CREATURES

BIRDS - The predominant characteristics of clean birds are as follows: bodies covered with feathers, upper limbs are wing-shaped, no teeth, breathe through lungs, constant body temperature, four-chambered heart, lay eggs.

Clean Birds

There are five predominant characteristics of clean birds:

25

Not a bird of prey

Elongated middle front toe plus a hind toe

Three toes on one side of perch with hind toe on the other side

Has a crop

Has a gizzard with double lining that can be easily separated

A few examples of clean birds are chickens, ducks, geese, house sparrows, most song birds, partridges, peacocks,

pheasants, pigeons, and quail.

Unclean Birds

There are four predominant characteristics of unclean birds:

Birds of prey that are carnivores and have hooked beaks and sharp talons that are bent like hooks

Scavenger birds that feed on carrion and are usually bare necked, with thick solid bills and blunt talons that are slightly inclined

Night birds of prey. Large head and eyes and 4 opposing toes

Water and marsh fowls, except ducks and geese

A few examples of unclean birds are buzzards, crows, eagles, hawk, kites, swifts, ostriches, owls, and vultures.

http://www.bibleresearch.org/lawbook4/b4w10.html

Questions about Kashrut food abound on the forums, and I happen to find this one, which is relevant to

our study:

Swan Vs. Giraffe

Contents Harvey Margolin wrote: Dear Rabbi,

Here are two "wildlife" kashrut questions: Is the swan a kosher bird (if properly slaughtered)? And what about the giraffe? A chef whom I know, and who was born in Morocco but raised in Israel, has told me that the giraffe is a kosher animal but could never be eaten because the shochet (ritual slaughterer) would not know where to make the cut. Does this make any sense at all?

Dear Harvey Margolin,

The swan is kosher, provided it is kosher-slaughtered. The giraffe is also kosher, in theory. The reason we don't eat it is not because we don't know where on its neck to slaughter it; rather, we don't eat giraffe because there is no continuous tradition that giraffes have been eaten by Jews throughout the generations. Source: Mazon Kasher Min

Hachai, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Levinger pp.19, 22

http://ohr.edu/ask/ask210.htm#Q5

The preceding forum entry led me to the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, which commented on ―non-kosher‖ animals (please make a note of their comments on ―swan‖):

Unclean animals - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia

These are the animals considered to be unclean according to Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

It should be noted that the translations of some of the aforementioned animals from the Hebrew are a matter of dispute in classical Jewish commentaries. With respect to birds the Torah only specifies ones which may not be eaten and the translations of these are also a matter of contention in traditional Jewish texts so it is common practice to eat only birds

with a clear tradition of being kosher, e.g. domestic fowl:

26

Bat Camel Chameleon Coney Cormorant Cuckow Eagle Ferret Gier Eagle[1] Glede

Great Owl[2]

Hare Hawk Heron Kite Lapwing Little Owl Lizard Mole Mouse Night Hawk Osprey

Ostrich

Ossifrage Owl Pelican Raven Snail Stork

Swan[3],[4],[5] Swine Tortoise Vulture

Weasel

^ "In the King James Version, Leviticus 11:18 and Deuteronomy 14:16 list "swan" among unclean birds.

However, this seems to be a mistranslation. The original word apparently refers to a kind of owl

and is so translated in most modern Bible versions."

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/CU/bibledesignate.htm Retrieved October 21, 2005.

^ http://ohr.edu/ask/ask210.htm#Q5 Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem Website "Ask the Rabbi - Swan Vs. Giraffe"

which itself references Mazon Kasher Min Hachai, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Levinger pp.19,22 for its answer. Retrieved

October 21, 2005.

^ Support for "swan" in Sept., Vulg., and Targum Onkelos (?).

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

This article deals with the LAWS OF HEALTH as YAHOWAH intended from the beginning:

Volume 2 – Chapter 33 - LAWS OF HEALTH

The Bible doesn't directly give a rule by which clean birds can be recognized. It simply lists all different kinds of those that are unclean. Outside of mentioning the quail, the dove, the pigeon and the sparrow, [YAHOWAH] doesn't specifically

name the clean ones. (Leviticus 11:13-20; Deuteronomy 14:11-18.)

It is easy to learn which fowl are clean simply by noticing the characteristics of birds which are named as clean or

unclean.

Studies of fowl have revealed some striking differences between the two kinds. Clean fowl have six unusual characteristics. One or more of these characteristics is lacking in unclean birds. A clean bird has a craw or crop AND, second, a gizzard with a double lining which can easily be separated. Two such digestive organs are doubly helpful in

changing its food into meat that is good for humans and insuring against poisonous waste matter going into its flesh.

Third, a clean bird does not prey upon other birds. Fourth, it does not devour food while flying. Fifth, its hind toe and middle front toe are both long. Sixth, when it stands on a perch, it spreads its toes so that three front ones are on one side of the perch and the hind toe on the opposite side. All unclean birds lack at least one of these characteristics. Clean

birds have all these characteristics.

Clean fowl include the chicken, pheasant, peafowl, ptarmigan, guinea fowl, prairie chicken, pigeon, dove, partridge, grouse, quail, turkey, duck, goose, all song birds and the teal and swan. (The swan is named in the King James or

Authorized Version as being unclean, but this is a mistranslation. The water hen should be mentioned instead.)

Unclean birds include the eagle, vulture, kite, buzzard, osprey, raven, crow, magpie, ostrich, owl, hawk, cormorant, sea gull, water hen, sandpiper, plover, pelican, stork, coot, heron, bittern, crane, grebe, rail, roadrunner, woodpecker,

penguin, parrot, albatross and bat.

http://www.icgchurches.org/Bible_Story/chapter033.shtml

27

So far, the best authorities seem to agree that the Hebrew word, 'tinshemeth', should not have been translated into English as swan but instead as an ibis, owl or waterhen. Despite the fact that someone wrote to us to say that water hens and ducks are the same, I would have to strongly disagree from the following images! Below are images of water hens as found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterhen.

According to the information found on Wikipedia.org, the waterhen is...

... a bird in the rail family with an almost worldwide distribution outside Australasia as well as deserts, many tropical rainforests, and the polar regions. It is equally often called the common Waterhen, a name which is more apt because the bird lives around ponds, lakes, canals, marshes, etc., but is not common in moorland.

The rail family is classified as part of the Gruiformes order of birds, which Wikipedia describes, as...

...the diverse order Gruiformes contains a considerable number of living and extinct bird families with, on first sight, little in common. Gruiform means "crane-like."

YAHOWAH classifies any bird of the crane family as unclean! The ibis is another unclean bird listed in YAHOWAH‘s food laws and they are of the order Ciconiiformes that includes the following:

...Saddle-billed Stork, Great Egrets, Yellow-billed Spoonbill.

From the website called -

theownersmanual.net/pdf/The_Owners_Manual_01_Instructions_a

nd_Signs.pdf – managed by Ken Power, he writes:

The Owner‘s Manual The Law of Moses… What is it, and what are we supposed to do with it? By Ken Power:

The Dietary Laws

(147) Examine the marks in fowl, to distinguish the clean from the unclean. "All clean birds you may eat. But these you shall not

28

eat: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the red kite, the falcon, and the kite after their kinds; every raven after its kind; the ostrich [a mistranslation in the NKJV: it‘s ossifrage (Hebrew: peres), i.e. a lammergeyer or osprey], the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after their kinds; the little owl, the screech owl, the white owl, the jackdaw, the carrion vulture, the fisher owl, the stork, the heron after its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat." (Deuteronomy 14:11-18) In Deuteronomy, Moses repeated many of the instructions he had delivered previously in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Here we see a list of forbidden fowl--although the precise species intended by Moses are in question, the picture is pretty clear: all of these are carnivorous birds of prey, scavengers, or otherwise indiscriminate in their dietary habits. The bat, of course, is not a bird (nor did Moses say it was) but it‘s listed here because it flies like one.

That leaves an unspecified litany of "clean" birds that were okay for food and sacrifices. [YAHOWAH] Himself provided quail to eat (Exodus 16:13, Numbers 11:31-32) and turtledoves and pigeons were specified as acceptable sacrifices--thus clean--in Leviticus 5:7, etc. Partridges are mentioned in passing in I Samuel 26:20. It‘s pretty clear that domestic fowl like chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese would have been considered clean as well, although they‘re not specifically listed. It‘s apparent from inadvertent New Testament references (a hen and her chicks, eggs, cockcrowing) that chickens were kept in Judea at the time of [the Messiah].

So, does science agree with scripture in regard to the Torah‘s dietary precepts? In a word, yes. In 1953 (that‘s right, the

facts have been available for over half a century now), the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine published an

article in their "Bulletin of the History of Medicine" by a Jewish physician named David I. Macht, M.D. It was given the

unwieldy title An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of V‘yrikra XI and D‘varim XIV. Perhaps if he had entitled the

article The Health Ramifications of the Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 Dietary Laws, it might have received more

attention (or have been rejected for publication altogether). At any rate, Dr. Macht set about testing extracts of the flesh

and blood of a wide range of animals, including fifty-four different kinds of fish, identified as "clean" or "unclean" in the

Torah. Under controlled laboratory conditions, he subjected each sample to the same standard toxicological analysis. The

results were, depending on your point of view, either yawningly predictable or stunningly revealing: every single sample

that the Torah listed as "clean" or edible was shown to be non-toxic, while every subject tested from the Mosaic Law‘s

"unclean" or inedible list turned out to be toxic. There was a one hundred percent correlation between [YAHOWAH‘s]

instructions and Dr. Macht‘s experiments. Pigs, by the way, ranked way up there in toxicity with rats and groundhogs.

We will discuss and show the actual dissertation by Dr. Macht further on in our study. From The

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

FOOD

Pigeons and turtle doves find a place in the ritual of various sacrifices, and so are to be reckoned as "clean" for ordinary uses as well. The species of domestic fowl found there today seem to have been introduced during the Persian period (compare 2 Esdras 1:30; Matthew 23:37; 26:34, etc.). It is thought that the fatted fowl of Solomon's table (1 Kings 4:23) were geese (see Mish). Fatted goose is a favourite food with Jews today, as it was with the

ancient Egyptians.

Of game birds used for food (see Nehemiah 5:18) the partridge and the quail are prominent, and the humble sparrow comes in for his share of mention (Matthew 10:29; Luke 12:6). Then, as now, the eggs of domestic fowls and of all

"clean" birds were favourite articles of food (Deuteronomy 22:6; Isaiah 10:14; Luke 11:12).

http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3498

Fausset's Bible Dictionary:

Fowl

Used for birds of prey: 'ayit (Genesis 15:11; Job 28:7; Isaiah 18:6). The Assyrian host, type of the anti-Christian hosts (Revelation 19:17-18, ta ornea; Ezekiel 39:17-20), "shall be left to the fowls of the mountains ... and the fowls shall summer upon them." In the sense "poultry," see Nehemiah 5:18; 1 Kings 4:23; "fatted fowl," barburim, from barar,

"to be pure." Gesenius translated "geese." Birds in general (ta peteina) (Luke 12:24).

http://www.studylight.org/dic/fbd/view.cgi?number=T1302

Clean and Unclean Food from http://adaaministries.tripod.com/id15.html:

29

Gen. 11:13-20. Deductive reasoning tells me that the lists of unclean birds are birds of prey (they eat flesh/blood) or eats

carrion (dried flesh/blood). This list contains fowl found in Arabia and Israel only. [YAHOWAH] did not have to tell them

not to eat a Dodo bird, there weren't any around. Duck and turkey are not listed as unclean, but they were not birds

of Israel. Only unclean birds‘ native to Israel had to be listed.

Duck are kosher. Duck is neither a bird of prey nor carrion eater. Yes ducks eat their own feces, but so do all

birds. "But ducks have webbed feet, and they are so greasy, so they are not kosher!" Where does [YAHOWAH] say clean

birds have to have three talons? A webfoot actually validates the kosher duck argument, since web feet denote non-

violence, whereas chicken talons denote violence. It is deductive logic, to conclude that if the chicken with sharp talons is

kosher, then the less violence capable webbed feet bird must be kosher, in lieu that both eat the same food.

From http://www.anointed-one.net/knowledge.html (quoted in part):

You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud. There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. Leviticus 11:3-4 written 1400 b.c. All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations, a people who continually provoke me to my very face...who eat the flesh of pigs and whose pots hold broth of unclean meat. Isaiah 65:2-4 written 1400 b.c. Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things, they will meet their end together," declares [YAHOWAH]. Isaiah 66:17 written 1400 b.c. You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. Deuteronomy 14:11-18 written 1400 b.c.

The difference between clean and unclean meat is related to an animal's primary food source and its digestive system.

Animals that have a split hoof and chew their cud are good to eat because they primarily eat grasses and grains. Animals

that do not have a split hoof and chew their cud are scavengers who will eat anything. Pigs are gluttonous animals and

do not know when to stop eating. Their stomach acid becomes diluted because of the volume of food they consume

which allows all sorts of parasites, bacteria, viruses and toxins to freely pass from their stomachs into their flesh.

Scavengers were created for the sole purpose of cleaning up the environment. They are not healthy to eat because their

diets are composed of society's disease laden refuse. Farmers have increased their profit margins by feeding free raw

sewage to pigs. Dr. David Macht of Johns Hopkins University did a study where he recorded the toxic effect of animal

flesh on a controlled growth culture. This study revealed rat meat is actually less toxic than pig meat. Here is a list of

common animals that do not have both a split hoof and chew their cud: camel, cat, dog, fox, ground hog, guinea pig,

hamster, horse, opossum, rabbit, rat, rhinoceros, squirrel and swine (pigs).

Birds of prey are excluded by [YAHOWAH] as acceptable to eat because of their scavenging diets.

The following are clean to eat: goose, chicken, duck, quail and turkey.

These dietary commandments are what we should expect from a loving [Almighty One] who wants us to live healthy lives. Notice how [YAHOWAH] does not give a reason why we should not eat certain things, he just tells us what to eat and what not to eat. The same goes for his other commandments regarding how we should act. The bottom line is [YAHOWAH] knows what is best for us and we should take to heart his commandments without always needing a reason.

The bible reference website ―BibleStudy.Org‖ has an article called ―Are all animals fit for humans to eat?‖

The clean fowl are more difficult to pin down. By taking the characteristics of the listed "unclean" birds and comparing them with the characteristics of the known "clean" birds (dove and pigeon as they were acceptable for sacrifice), it

becomes more clear as to what to look for. "Clean" birds possess six definite characteristics:

they are not birds of prey

they can catch food in the air, but bring it to the ground, divide it (when possible) with their beaks, then eat it

they have an elongated middle front toe and a hind toe

30

they spread their toes with the three front toes on one side of a perch and the hind toe on the other side

they have craws or crops

they have a gizzard with a double lining which can easily be separated

If a bird possesses all of the above, it is "clean". If it lacks one or more of these characteristics, it is "unclean". Additional "clean" birds include the chicken, duck, goose, grouse, partridge, pheasant, quail, turkey, and all song

birds.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/are-all-animals-fit-for-humans-to-eat.html

From http://thefountainoffaith.blogspot.com/2008/04/birds-of-bible-clean-vs-unclean.html:

In our study on the Birds of the Bible, it has been mentioned whether a bird is "clean" or "unclean." As I have prepared

the blogs, I have been considering why a bird is on the clean or unclean list. I had been saving this blog for later, but due

to unexpected travel, I'll do it now.

In Genesis 9:3 it is stated that "every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you." So, of course, the birds would be

included in this as well. In Deuteronomy 14:11-20, a list of birds is given to signify which birds are unclean and not

eaten; basically, all the rest can be consumed. But why are some birds unclean: Looking at the list, the eagle, ossifrage,

kite, glede, vulture, and the hawk are known to eat dead animals (carrion). It would not be very healthy to eat them. The

other birds on the list are all meat eaters, and maybe that has something to do with their being placed on the unclean

list. Are the birds bad because of what they eat? No. Each one was created exactly for the purpose [YAHOWAH] intended.

The carrion eaters help keep the land clean. Another passage mentions the list of unclean birds in Lev 11:13-20.

Some of the other birds on the list are a mystery to me. For instance the Cormorant, Swan, Pelican, Heron, and the Stork

are birds I watch here in Florida, and they all seem to be fish eaters. One article mentions that the Heron used to be

eaten, but they were fishy tasting and they stopped eating them. Why is it that no matter how many things we are given

with only a few put off limits that someone always has to try the few. Does that not sound like what happened in the

garden of Eden when Eve just had to try the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When [YAHOWAH] puts something off-

limits or says it is "unclean," there is a good reason for it. Most times it is for our benefit because [YAHOWAH] loves us

and doesn't want us harmed. The "clean" birds mostly have a diet of grain, fruits, and vegetation. Could that be why they

are okay to eat? With all the good birds available like chicken, turkey, quail, duck, etc., I'd much rather sit down to a

Thanksgiving meal of turkey than vulture. The birds used for the sacrifices were all clean birds.

Biblical Kosher food:

Biblical kosher refers to the dietary laws as outlined in the Scriptures, forbidding the eating of (1) animals that God calls unclean (Lev. 11:47), (2) animal fat (Lev. 3:17), or (3) animals that still have the blood in them (Lev. 17:12-14) as food.

Lev. 11 talks about clean and unclean foods.

Clean animals include cows, sheep, goats, and deer. Unclean animals include pigs, horses, camels, rats, cats, dogs, snakes, raccoons, squirrels, and most insects. Clean birds include chicken, turkeys, geese, ducks, and doves. Unclean birds include eagles, sparrows, and crows. Clean seafood includes salmon, trout, and other fish with fins and scales.

Unclean seafood includes catfish, sharks, shrimp, eel, octopus, squid, shellfish, and whales.

The story of Noah shows that the distinction between clean and unclean foods existed early in human history, long before [YAHOWAH] ratified His covenant with Israel. Almost a thousand years before there was a covenant with the nation of Israel, [YAHOWAH] told Noah to take two pairs of unclean animals and seven pairs of clean animals into the ark (Gen. 6:19-7:2). [YAHO-Hoshu-WAH the Messiah] knew these biblical dietary laws and obeyed them. But, He often came into conflict with the Pharisees over the traditions that they had added to [YAHOWAH‘s] law over the years. This brings us to

Rabbinic Kosher.

http://biblicalholidays.com/Biblical%20kosher.htm

This commentary is from one of the Yahweh movements:

Verses 13-19 discuss unclean birds. "And these are they which you shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey, And the vulture, and the kite after

31

his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the

heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat" (Lev. 11:13-19).

The first unfit bird that is mentioned is the eagle (Heb. nesher, from nashar). Nesher means to cut or tear in pieces. From this definition we can see that the eagle is a raptor. The Ossifrage (os – bone, frango – break) probably signifies the black eagle. Among the Greeks and Romans the eagle was held sacred, and is represented carrying the thunderbolts of Jupiter. The vulture (Heb. daah) from a root meaning "to fly," may be more probably rendered kite. Daah is different from the vulture. The Hebrew word daiyah indicates the vulture. The word for kite in The New Strong‘s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible is No. 344, ayah, and it denotes a species of the hawk. The interesting fact that surrounds these birds is that

they are all birds of prey or scavengers.

Forbidden birds are also listed in Deuteronomy 14:11-18, but [YAHOWAH] does not specify why these particular birds are

forbidden. Other kinds of bird are permitted, such as chicken, goose, duck and turkey.

http://www.yrm.org/popularcf.htm

Kashrut Birds:

Kosher birds include: duck (domestic), goose (domestic), chicken, capon (castrated rooster), turkey, guinea fowl and many others. As a general principle, scavenging birds such as vultures and birds of prey such as hawks and eagles (which will eat carrion when they find it) are not considered kosher, while other birds generally are. Leviticus outlines the non-kosher birds and the rest are all kosher; in practice, however, the identities of the birds listed as non-kosher are not all known, so religious authorities have restricted consumption to specific birds which Jews have traditionally eaten. Thus birds such as songbirds, which are consumed as delicacies in many societies, are not generally eaten although they might

theoretically be Kosher.

http://www.davening.net/kashrut.html

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 5:

BIRDS Characteristics: Their bodies are covered with feathers, and their upper limbs are wing-shaped. They have no teeth, breathe through lungs, and have a constant body temperature. The heart is four-chambered (two auricles and two ventricles). They lay eggs which have a hard shell of calcium carbonate (chalk).

CLEAN The Bible does not give the characteristics which distinguish clean birds from unclean, as it does in the case of mammals and fish. The Mishnah, however (Ḥul. 3:6), states that ―a bird that seizes food in its claws is unclean; one which has an extra talon1, a craw, and the skin of whose stomach can be peeled, is clean.‖ To this the Talmud adds in the name of R. Nahman that ―to anyone familiar with birds and their nomenclature, any bird which has one of these characteristics is clean, but to one unfamiliar with them it is unclean, but if it has the two characteristics it is clean‖ (Ḥul. 61b–62a). However, they also posited the rule ―With regard to which birds are clean we rely upon tradition. A hunter is believed when he says ―my master transmitted to me that this bird is clean.‖ R. Johanan added, ―provided he was familiar with birds and their nomenclature‖ (Ḥul. 63b). Already in the Talmudic period varying traditions are mentioned whereby certain birds were considered permitted in one locality and forbidden in another. For this reason, at the present day the custom has been adopted to eat only such birds as have all the signs of cleanliness, and about which there is a general tradition that they are clean. In the Bible and Talmud the following birds are mentioned as clean:

a) Columbiformes: pigeon, turtle dove, palm dove. b) Galliformes: hen, quail, partridge, peacock, pheasant c) Passerinae: house sparrow. d) Anseriformes: domestic duck, domestic goose.

UNCLEAN

a) Diurnal Birds of Prey - The Diurnal Birds of Prey mentioned in the Bible are from the family Falconidae which are carnivorous and Vulturidae which feed on carrion. Falconidae: have hooked beaks and their talons are sharp and bent like

32

hooks. Examples: kestrel, hawk, eagle, kite, buzzard Vulturidae: The neck is usually bare, the bill thick and solid. The talons are blunt and only slightly inclined. Examples: griffon vulture 6, black vulture, Egyptian vulture, bearded vulture. b) Nocturnal Birds of Prey (Strigiformes) Possessed of large head and eyes; they have four toes, two pointing forwards and two backwards. The Mishnah (Ḥul. 3:6) declares them unclean. Examples: owl. c) Water and Marsh Fowls With the exception of the goose and the duck 7, they are all regarded as unclean. Examples: stork, bittern, heron, crane, gull. d) Various other Birds which either have no characteristics of a clean bird, or about which there is no tradition that they are permitted. Examples: warblers, crow, swift, hoopoe, ostrich. Notes: 1) I.e., the rear talon is situated higher up on the leg than the other four, or the middle talon is longer than the others. This latter is characteristic of birds which eat grain and walk extensively on the ground (see *Eagle). 2) To this order belong two more domestic fowls: (a) the turkey which is today everywhere regarded as a clean bird, although a few generations ago there were localities where they refrained from eating it because of the lack of any tradition that it was clean, coming as it does from the New World. To this day the descendants of Isaiah Horowitz (the ―Shelah‖) do not eat turkey; (b) the guinea-fowl which in some localities is regarded as clean while in others it is regarded as forbidden. 3) For the problem of its identification see *Peacock. 4) In many countries there is a tradition that the pheasant is a clean bird and permitted. See *Pheasant. 5) This is the ―deror‖ of the Bible (Prov. 26:2; Ps 84:4). With regard to this bird also there is a tradition, particularly in Oriental countries, that it is a clean bird and permitted. 6) The signs of this bird are discussed in Hulin 61a et seq. see Tosafot, ibid 63a, s.v. nez, as to its identification. 7) In some countries there is a tradition with regard to other species of birds belonging to this and other groups that they are clean and permitted.

www.encyclopaediajudaica.com/efiles/Dietary.pdf+karaite,+duck,+clean+fowl&hl

More information on kosher fowl as found on the WWW (worldwide web):

Kosher fowl is a domesticated bird, such as chicken, turkey, tame duck, and goose (Leviticus 11:13ff).

http://www.bethhatikvah.org/kashrut2.html

Clean Birds:

Only chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, partridges, peacocks, pheasants, pigeons, quails and sparrows are permitted for

consumption, providing they have been slaughtered by a shohet.

http://www.wcls.org.uk/kashrut.php

Kosher Fowl:

A kosher fowl is one that is not listed among the twenty-four types of fowl forbidden in the Bible and that is traditionally

accepted as kosher, including chickens and domestic ducks, geese, turkeys, and doves.

http://www.kosherhouston.org/kosherprimer.htm#kosherfood

From http://www.betemunah.org/eating.html#_Toc513827593:

VI. Birds

Birds are a special category of animals. The Torah actually lists all the birds that cannot be eaten:

Vayikra (Leviticus) 11:13-19 "'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the

eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, The red kite, any kind of black kite, Any kind of raven, The horned owl, the

screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, The little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, The white owl, the desert

owl, the osprey, The stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. "

33

In practice, we normally eat only the birds, which have been understood from tradition, to be kosher. The common ones

are the chicken, turkey, ducks, and geese.

Poultry must be salted in order to remove the blood. Poultry must also be slaughtered correctly. Buying kosher certified

chicken usually solves both of these issues.

From http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/treif.php:

Ouf Tamey - non-kosher fowl:

The Torah similarly differentiates between kosher and non-kosher fowl. Unlike animals, the Torah gives no signs to

differentiate between kosher and non-kosher fowl. The Torah merely lists twenty-four types of forbidden fowl; all other

fowl are assumed to be kosher. The Talmud does provide signs to identify non-kosher fowl. However, since we lack the

experience to apply these rules, we are permitted to eat only those fowl traditionally accepted as kosher. All variations of

the common chicken are accepted as kosher. Similarly, common domestic ducks, geese and doves are considered

kosher. Some communities have a tradition that the quail is a kosher fowl. With the appearance of turkeys, Rabbis

questioned whether a reliable tradition exists about their kashrut. Common custom today accepts turkeys as kosher fowl.

There is no definitive tradition about the status of a pheasant, peacock, guinea hen, partridge, swan, or certain species of

wild ducks, geese, pigeons and doves; therefore, they should not be eaten. The eggs of any non-Kosher fowl are also

forbidden to be eaten.

Comment: As the preceding editorials have explained from the scriptures, YAHOWAH gave Moses instructions for avoiding unclean

birds by naming them and adding the injunction ―after its kind,‖ referring to its related family or species. Therefore if doves, quails,

chickens, turkeys and ducks are allowed (domesticated or not) then their families are allowed too. It matters not whether a turkey

is domesticated or wild, in both instances it is kosher. The same is true of ducks and geese.

Clean Birds- from bethimmanuel.org:

Clean birds identified by most communities include chicken, geese, ducks, and doves. Additionally, winged insects with

large jumping legs (various types of grasshoppers and locusts, for example) are also edible according to Scripture,

although only the Sephardic (Mediterranean/Middle Eastern) communities have a recorded tradition of which ones are

edible.

http://www.bethimmanuel.org/article.cgi?t=a1&a=6000

Your Guide to Kosher Foods from http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:1MnbNd-

5s4YJ:www.reslife.net/assets/docs/kosher_kitchen.ppt+torah,+unclean+meat,+ducks,+geese&hl=en&ct

=clnk&cd=10&gl=ca:

Meat and Poultry

Beef, veal, lamb, and venison are permitted as well as other animals that have split hooves and chew their cud. These are usually animals that graze and are not predators. Most domestic birds, like chicken, turkey, duck and

geese, are kosher.

Bible Plants and Animals by Alfred Ernest Knight, page 220:

The swan - this bird is mentioned twice in the authorised version, viz in Lev. XI. 18 and the parallel passage in Deut. XIV.

(verse 16); but few commentators have any thought that the swan is intended. Probably a species of water-hen is

referred to, and perhaps the porphyrio hyacinthus mentioned by Kitto, which was a bird much famed by the ancient for

its rich dark-blue plumage and brilliant red beak and legs. It abounds in the Levant and the island of the Mediterranean,

inhabiting the marsh-lands and the neighbourhood of lakes and rivers. - Illus. Com., Vol. i.

34

Swans

Is it true that swans have a poor digestive system, which renders them unclean? In spite of this claim we have found evidence to the contrary, Swans, ducks and geese are mostly herbivores and/or seedeaters, their digestive systems was created to consume these hard and/or fibrous foods.

According to the following articles, the avian digestive system is rather familiar among all birds including raptors and other unclean birds.

Avian Anatomy and Physiology – Birds of Prey –

Richard Best, Bristol.

Alimentary Canal

The digestive system in birds is a remarkably uniform structure throughout the Class, the main variations, which relate to

the feeding habits, is with the beak, the crop, the gizzard and the caecum. Feces are held in the anterior section of the

cloacae and voided together with the urine.

One of the defining characteristics of raptors is the possession of a powerful ‗hooked‘ beak, an adaptation for grasping

and, in many species, tearing up quarry. Diurnal raptors all possess well-developed crops often used to accommodate

large amounts of food following a kill. Owls do not possess crops and tend to swallow their prey whole. The

proventriculus, as in all birds, is the glandular part of the stomach producing a low pH gastric secretion. The

proventriculus leads, in raptors, to a thin walled poorly developed gizzard. Nondigestible food material, such as fur,

feathers, bones [owls are unable to digest bone as well as Falconiformes], invertebrate exoskeletons, collect in the

gizzard and are formed into a ‗pellet‘ which is then regurgitated.

zoovet.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Birds%20of%20prey%201.doc

Notice again the difference between the raptors and the clean birds of our inquiry! Owls for example

were not given crops, and their gizzards are poorly developed as with other birds of prey.

As for the following bird orders, Galliformes, Columbiformes, Anseriformes, the crop is large, the

proventriculus is well developed and the gizzard is very strong and muscular to help in the breakdown

of plant cellulose and/or seeds. Another common feature found in many kosher birds is their habit of

swallowing small stones to help them break down plant cellulose and/or seeds.

These particular stones, often found in swans, ducks and geese, chickens and turkeys are called gizzard

stones or Gastroliths. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gizzard...

Gizzard stones - Some animals that lack teeth will swallow stones or grit to aid in digestion. All birds have gizzards, but

not all will swallow stones or grit. The birds that do employ the following method of 'mastication':

"A bird swallows small bits of gravel that act as 'teeth' in the gizzard, breaking down hard food such as seeds

and thus helping digestion." (Solomon et. al, 2002).

These stones are called gizzard stones or gastroliths and are usually smooth and round from the polishing action in the animal's stomach. When too smooth to do their required work, they may be passed or regurgitated.

The following website on birds had this to say about gastroliths:

35

True Grit

Birds have no teeth for chewing, but many consume hard foods such as grains and seeds almost exclusively. So what

helps birds digest these tough morsels?

The answer is in a bird's stomach -- the lower part of its stomach, to be specific, in an area called the gizzard. Here the mixing and grinding of food that occurs in human mouths takes place. Instead of bicuspids, the gizzard uses grit --small rocks, shells and sand -- to break apart hard foods.

The bird swallows the grit specifically to help with digestion. And when the grit wears down, the bird simply passes it as waste and consumes a fresh supply. Grit normally is easily accessible in the wild, so it is not necessary to put it out at your feeding station. However, when snow covers the natural supply, you can add some -- use a ratio of about one part

coarse sand or ground clam or oyster shells to 20 parts of seed.

When the usual grit ingredients are not available, some birds will pick up things such as fruit pits as a substitute. Other, more remarkable objects have been recovered from bird gizzards, once nearly starting a gold rush. In 1911, gold nuggets were found in ducks shot during hunting season. The largest piece was worth about 50 cents and sent an entire western

Nebraska community out prospecting.

http://wildbird.com/bird-food.html

More information on avian anatomy from Margaret A. Wissman D.V.M.,

D.A.B.V.P.

Avian Anatomy

In the front part of the neck of parrots, the crop (or ingluvies) is found. It is actually an

outpouching of the oesophagus, the tube that carries food from the mouth to the stomach. Many

people think that all birds have a crop, but some do not, including the gull and penguin. In the

parrot, it is oriented transversely across the neck. In pigeons and doves, the lining of the crop is shed when they are

feeding babies, for the first few days. This is called crop milk, and it resembles mammalian milk in that it is rich in fat and

protein, however, it lacks carbohydrates and calcium, and contains no milk sugar (lactose). The crop, in baby parrots, is

very large, and shrinks down as the bird weans.

The digestive system has some unique avian features. We have already talked about the crop, the outpouching of the

oesophagus. The oesophagus connects to the crop and then travels through the bones at the top of the keel. The

oesophagus then connects to the stomach. The avian stomach is unique. The first portion of it is called the

proventriculus, and this is the part with glands in it that secretes gastric juice. The second part of the stomach is called

the ventriculus, or gizzard, and it is where digested proteins are broken down and where grinding occurs. When a bird

has PDD, proventricular dilation disease, the nerves to the gastrointestinal tract is usually affected, and the proventriculus

will become dilated, thin-walled, and impacted with food items. The ventriculus may also become mushier and less

muscular.

http://www.exoticpetvet.net/avian/anatomy.html

Animals and Birds of the Bible by Burton C. Goddard, page 58, commenting on the swan:

1) perhaps an owl

2) an unclean bird: identification uncertain

(1) could hardly be a swan since Isa. 34:11 pictures it at home in the ruins of mountainous Edom. There

is little ground for the AV and DV translation of (2) as swan (see Ibis). Swans are rather rare in

Palestine, and there is some question as to whether the Mute Swan is ever seen there.

36

Below is an illustration of the avian digestive system.

According to the information found at http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/, most birds‘ digestive systems are like the diagram above, but there are some with slightly, or very, different designs:

These bird groups have no crop: Ostriches, Emus, Rheas and Cassowaries, Owls

Most birds will produce pellets of undigested fur, claws, fish scales, and insect hard parts. But these bird groups are best known for gizzards that collect waste and make it into a pellet, which the bird spits out: Owls, Falcons, and Hawks

These bird groups have a special crop, which produces milk to feed their young: Penguins, Pigeons, and Flamingos

37

YAHOWAH allows the consumption of certain

insects, namely grasshoppers and locusts because

their anatomy is comparable to clean birds and

ruminants. YAHOWAH said in the book of Leviticus

chapter 11 concerning ―winged swarming things‖:

All winged swarming things that walk on fours shall

be an abomination for you. But these you may eat

among all the winged swarming things that walk on

fours: all that have, above their feet, jointed legs to

leap with on the ground--of these you may eat the

following: locusts of every variety; all varieties of

bald locust; crickets of every variety; and all varieties

of grasshopper, but all other winged swarming things

that have four legs shall be an abomination for you.

Lev. 11: 20-23

However, what makes grasshoppers kosher to eat?

Firstly, YAHOWAH said so!

Secondly, if we study their anatomy we find

grasshoppers are equipped with special organs

(similar to the ones found in clean birds) to digest

plant food. These organs were designed to help them circumvent diseases.

Notice the similarities of

the alimentary canal of

the grasshopper and the

bird. The clean birds

have been given ―three‖

stomach‘s (crops,

proventriculus/stomach,

strong gizzard) to help in

the digestion of hard or

fibrous foods.

38

According to the previous diagrams, the grasshopper has also been equipped with ―three‖ stomach‘s (in

type): the foregut, which includes the oesophagus, crop and gastric ceca, the midgut, and the hindgut,

which includes the rectum and anus. The grasshopper alimentary system was designed for the

consumption and absorption of plant material.

These two alimentary systems are comparable to ruminants (cows, bison, and goats), which are

equipped with a four chambered stomach, special enzymes and generally bring up their food to re-

masticate it.

Swans, ducks and geese, in particular, feed on plants, seeds, and insects so YAHOWAH has adequately

equipped them with the proper digestive system to break down and absorb the proper nutrients for their

bodies and their young. Because of these wonderfully made alimentary systems, YAHOWAH deems these

―kosher‖ animals and insects to be ―clean‖ or fit for human consumption because they have the least

number of diseases and/or parasites.

Comment: I came across something that was very interesting to me in regards to a grasshopper‘s digestive system! It

appears that YAHOWAH also created a gizzard for the grasshopper to help him digest plant food. The image below shows

the location of the gizzard in a cricket, which is part of the grasshopper and locust family.

The following images are of a dissected grasshopper with its internal organs labelled notice again the

location of the gizzard and its proximity to the crop and stomach (proventriculus):

39

Why Are Grasshoppers Edible? From http://www.british-israel.us/02.html (quoted in part):

Continuing in Leviticus 11, we read,

"All fowls that creep (winged insects), going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every FLYING creeping thing (winged insect) that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, with which to LEAP upon the earth (They have six appendages but use four to walk and two to hop); Even these of them ye may eat: the LOCUST after its kind, and the BALD LOCUST after its kind, and the beetle (CRICKET) after its kind, and the GRASSHOPPER after its kind. But all other flying creeping things (winged

insects), which have four feet (and two hands), shall be an abomination unto you" (Lev.11:20-23).

"A Grasshopper has six legs.... The front legs hold food when the animal eats" (8:318, ibid.).

40

(So they could be considered hands rather than legs). "Grasshoppers are active by day and if disturbed jump suddenly and powerfully, using their greatly enlarged hind legs. They can crawl slowly by means of the other two pairs of legs"

(They go "upon all fours" therefore, just as the Bible says) (Wildlife Encyc., 1980, 7:931).

The N.I.V. renders verse 22 this way, "Of these you may eat any kind of LOCUST, KATYDID (a green cricket-like insect), CRICKET or GRASSHOPPER." The T.E.V. says, "All WINGED insects are unclean, except those that hop. You may eat

LOCUSTS, CRICKETS, or GRASSHOPPERS" (vv.20-22).

But a word of caution should be given since "MORMON CRICKETS, CAMEL (CAVE) CRICKETS, MOLE CRICKETS, and JERUSALEM CRICKETS are NOT considered TRUE crickets" (World Book Encyc., 1985, 4:908). The CAMEL (CAVE) CRICKET is a WINGLESS SCAVENGER! It cannot fly and consequently is unclean! The MORMON and JERUSALEM CRICKETS do not have any WINGS either, so they are unclean! MOLE CRICKETS have only VERY SHORT, STUBBY WINGS! Instead of LEAPING ON the earth, they BURROW UNDER it! Many CAVE and CAMEL CRICKETS are also SUBTERRANEAN. Also, some kinds of LOCUSTS and GRASSHOPPERS are WINGLESS (World Book Encyc., 1985, 8:317 &

4:908).

Leviticus 11:29-30 says, "These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth: the WEASEL, and the MOUSE, and the TORTOISE after its kind, And the FERRET, and the CHAMELEON, and the LIZARD, and the SNAIL, and the MOLE." "Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath many feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination" (11:41-42). Other members of this list include the ALLIGATOR, ASP, BOA CONSTRICTOR, CENTEPEDE, COBRA,

CROCODILE, FROG, MILLIPEDE, RAT, RATTLESNAKE, SALAMANDER, SLUG, SPIDER, and etcetera.

Most people have common sense enough to avoid the members of this group as food, yet even here, the SNAIL is eaten as ESCARGOT, and CANNED RATTLESNAKE can be found in the delicacy section of some food stores. FROG'S LEG'S and HORSEMEAT are especially popular in France and MAGUEY BUTTER (made from yellow worms) is eaten in Mexico! TURTLE SOUP is available in some parts of the United States. The Chinese eat RATS! DOGFISH are eaten in Japan and

SHARK-FIN SOUP in Hong Kong.

But why are grasshoppers permitted? Part of the answer undoubtedly lies in the fact that, "Except for mantids, which capture living insects, and some cockroaches, crickets and katydids, which are SCAVEN-GERS, OMNIVORES and

occasionally PREDATORS, most ORTHOPTERA are HERBIVOROUS" (Encyc. Brit. 1973, 16:1129).

From the eleventh edition of the Britannica, volume 12, page 377, article "Grasshoppers," we read, "ALL are VEGETABLE feeders." The large, Old World species of locusts are "PHYTOPHAGOUS" (plant feeders) (volume 16, p.857, article "Locust"). Many of these Orthoptera insects are so selective in their eating habits that they consume the same foods as man -- vegetable gardens and grain fields! This is why swarms of LOCUSTS and GRASSHOPPERS, unlike all other insects, can be so detrimental to man! But at the same time, farmers who have read their Bibles can benefit from locust plagues at least in a small way by catching swarms of these insects in nets, drowning them in water, plucking off their wings,

legs, and heads, and eating them. The viscera are attached to the head and will come out when the head is pulled off.

"While somewhat deficient in vitamin content, locusts contain upsalts and some calories.... John the Baptist

could enjoy a reasonably balanced diet by eating locusts along with honey" (p.129, R.K. Harrison).

"Many people catch and eat the swarming locusts, especially in the Middle East and parts of Africa. They

remove the wings and legs before eating the insects" (World Book Encyc., 1985, 8:318).

Interestingly, GRASSHOPPERS have a crop, gizzard, gastric caeca and a stomach, in that order, from front to back. Truly, they could be classified as "clean birds" according to the Mishnah! Even the Bible itself seems to include winged insects in the bird category just as much as in the "creeping thing" category. They are called "fowls" (Lev.11:20-21) the same as all the birds we normally consider to be fowls (11:13-19). Of course, the word in Hebrew merely comes from a root meaning of "to cover" (with wings) which would apply equally to insects or feathered birds! But nobody can dispute the fact that verses 20 to 23 (discussing winged insects) come immediately after verses 13 to 19 (discussing

feathered birds) rather than in verses 29 and 30 (discussing "creeping things").

Also like their clean counterparts in the beast category, they CHEW their food with two powerful grinding jaws called MANDIBLES. All of the insects that PIERCE and SUCK are unclean! A person cannot help but compare their chewing mandibles with the BROAD, FLAT teeth of RUMINANTS that are constantly engaged in CHEWING vegetation! But unclean dogs GULP down their food! "Snakes swallow their food whole.... Sharp, pointed teeth, poorly adapted for chewing,

generally characterize meat eaters such as SNAKES, DOGS, and CATS" (Encyc. Brit. 1974, 5:784).

41

Furthermore, the GRASSHOPPER uses its antennae to examine food; it even has finger like projections "on both sides of

the mouth and on the lower lip. They contain the insect's 'taste buds.'" (World Book Encyc. 8:317).

But, in contrast, the unclean "creeping things" don't seem to care what they eat! They're CARNIVORES, PREDATORS, and SCAVENGERS! In addition to these undesirable characteristics, many of these unclean creatures are also poisonous. SPIDERS, TICKS, SCORPIONS, SNAKES, WASPS, BEES, ANTS, TOADS and FROGS all have their poisonous varieties that infect man via bite, sting, or just plain contact, as is the case between the "warts" (poison glands) of TOADS and a person's mouth or cut hand! The skin of Fire-bellied TOADS is so poisonous that just "looking into a bag of freshly caught

specimens causes fits of sneezing and watering of the eyes" (Encyclopedia of the Animal World 6:566).

Incidentally, even though BEES are unclean, the HONEY they produce is fit to eat since it is POLLEN from FLOWERS in

another form and not actually from the BEES themselves.

Other unclean "creeping things" are notorious disease-carriers! MOSQUITOS transmit MALARIA*, YELLOW FEVER*, DENGUE* and FILARIASIS. FLIES transmit TRYPANOSOME DISEASES*, TULAREMIA, PAPPATACI FEVER and LEISHMANIASIS*. "SNAILS convey FLUKES, but not by ingestion" (p.821, M. Rosenau). BILHARZIASIS (Urinary Schistosomiasis) is contracted through the eating of infected SNAILS (pp.126-127, R.K. Harrison). TICKS can transmit

germs of ROCKY MOUNTAIN SPOTTED FEVER*, Q FEVER, and other diseases.

RATS host fleas which carry BUBONIC PLAGUE.* RAT-BITE FEVER* can be transmitted to man by the bite of an infected RAT or MOUSE. LASSA FEVER* is also transmitted to humans by contact with infected rodent urine, feces and saliva. INFECTIOUS JAUNDICE, ENDEMIC TYPHUS*, TRICHINOSIS*, and FOOD INFECTION can all be transmitted to man, one way or another, by RATS! RATS and MICE "may harbour eleven species of internal parasites which also occur in man"

(p.278, M. Rosenau).

Finally, notice that these four categories of BEASTS, FISH, BIRDS and "CREEPING THINGS" are not based on modern-day classification criteria which use such categories as "Mammals," "Reptiles," "Invertebrates" and "Insects," but instead are based on the creature's environment and VISIBLE characteristics, making it easy to tell ON SIGHT whether or not the creature is edible. When buying packaged, processed foods, it is still possible to tell ON SIGHT whether or not the food is edible, or "KOSHER." Just look for a "K" on the label. Sometimes, instead of a "K" for KOSHER, we find a "U" which stands for Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. Incidentally, the word "PARVE" or "PAREVE" on a food package means it was prepared without meat, milk or their derivatives. Thus, it may be eaten with meat or dairy dishes. This is Jewish tradition based on Ex.23:19, not a biblical command. Israelites also denied themselves the sinew of the hip

(Gen.32:32) but this was mere tradition and not a law also!

Liberal "rabbis" regard the LIVER as kosher and have taken the initiative of labelling JELL-O Brand Gelatin and ROYAL Gelatin Desserts as being kosher when in fact the gelatin protein is extracted from collagen-bearing tissue found in hide trimmings and connective tissue of beef and PORK, and other animals. Supposedly, severe physical and chemical changes

in the gelatin make it "kosher." The circled "U" is more trustworthy than the "K" in these instances.

As far as I can see, swans are part of the duck and geese family and they all seem to have the proper

organs to assimilate insects, seeds and/or plants like other kosher birds (and even the grasshopper and

locust family).

Therefore, it is irresponsible to compare a swan with a bird of prey and categorically say they have a

poor digestive system, consequently, making them unclean.

The evidence, so far, has shown otherwise.

42

Kosher Poultry

The following articles and (selection's from my library), are presented to the bible student in the following

pages for their own studies and verification. We stress again the overall basis for determining whether or

not a bird is clean to eat, is the pattern that YAHOWAH laid out in the Scriptures! We have a list of birds

in the Old Covenant scriptures that have characterizes of predators and/or scavengers, and many other

examples of birds that were used for human consumption and offerings that have distinct characterizes

that are contrary to predators and/or foragers. Bless you all in YAHO-Hoshu-WAH‘s Name.

The following website has this information on Poultry:

When it comes to poultry/birds, the Torah does not state guidelines for the determination of which are kosher. Instead, the Torah writes a list of all the kosher birds and a list of the non-kosher ones. This method, though, naturally can hinder the determination of which birds are kosher. One only knows what not to eat if he knows exactly which 24 birds the Torah prohibits. While this may seem like a job for any child who can read, one must remember that the Torah was written in Hebrew more than 2500 years ago. Thus, the exact translations of each of the prohibited birds can only be based on tradition. Consequently, there is some debate regarding which birds are kosher and which are not. Rabbi Binyomin Forst summarizes kashrus law as it relates to birds: ‗‗All variations of the common chicken are accepted as kosher. Similarly, common domestic ducks, geese, and doves are considered kosher. Many Sephardic [Jews descendant from Spain, North Africa, and the Middle East] communities have a tradition that the quail is a kosher fowl. With the appearance of turkeys, rabbinic authorities questioned whether a reliable tradition exists about their kashrus. Common custom today accepts turkeys as kosher fowl. There is no definitive tradition about the status of a pheasant, peacock, guinea hen, partridge, swan, or certain species of wild ducks, geese, pigeons and doves; therefore, they should not be eaten. The eggs of any non-kosher fowl are also forbidden to be eaten.

23. Leviticus 11:13-19, Deuteronomy 14:12-18. The text in Leviticus states, ―These shall you abominate from

among the birds, they may not be eaten – they are an abomination: the nesher, the peres, the ozniah; the

daah and the ayah according to its kind; every orev according to its kind; the bas hayaanah, the tachmos, the

shachaf, and the netz according to its kind; the kos, the shalach, and the yanshuf; the tinshemes, the kaas,

and the racham; the chasidah, the anafah according to its kind, the duchifas, and the atalef.‖

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:DUB4vTY3HYQJ:leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/469/Sicklick.pdf+torah,+unclean

+meat,+ducks,+geese&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=ca

The following piece written by Rabbi Rob Miller entitled ―Anti-Soul Food‖ says:

Ruminating animals are not by nature flesh eaters, nor predatory, they generally are vegetarians and they consume food

that is intrinsically less complicated than meat. Consequently, ruminating like ruminating animals, the clean bird has a

stomach or gizzard with a double skin, which can be easily separated like the chicken, the turkey, and certain species of

ducks and geese. Knowing these facts about the clean bird, I believe that [YAHOWAH] permitted it to be used for food

because it has a digestive system something like that of the clean beasts—a digestive system more capable of eliminating

impurities from the food eaten than is the digestive system of the unclean animals. According to Robert Burton (Bird

Behavior, page 76), leaf-eating birds such as swans, geese, grouse, ducks, pigeons and other game birds, have bacteria

in their intestines, which break down cellulose. Pigeons and doves use their crop to store, or partly digest, food taken too

quickly for the stomach to handle. During brooding season, the crop produces "milk" from seeds eaten, which is

regurgitated for the young. This is one form of rumination, making these clean birds similar to clean animals, which chew

their cud.

Chicken

For years chicken has been the white meat preferred by Americans--and for good reason: It's naturally low in fat, tasty (what doesn't it taste like?) and a good source of vitamins and minerals. As one of the most versatile meats, chicken is easy to prepare and well suited for a variety of tasty recipes. In addition, the fat content of a three-ounce

43

skinless portion of whole roasted chicken is about one-third of pork, and most fat in chicken is unsaturated, which

can actually help lower blood cholesterol.

Because the meat is very rich it can, if not processed right, be a host to diseases. Salmonella and campylobacter, the main sources of food poisoning in humans, are commonly found on broiler chickens. This usually occurs when the processing plant leaves stomach contents and feces on the product. One must thoroughly wash and salt the meat before cooking.

Another thing to look for is that beef and pork proteins are regularly added to chicken because this enables the product to hold very high levels of water, a common practice used to "pump up" the size of meat portions. Carefully

look at the packaging of the chicken you buy.

A form of influenza has mutated from the pig to the chicken called avian influenza. Migratory birds pick up this virus and have infected chickens, turkeys, pheasants, quail, ducks, geese, and guinea fowl as well as a wide variety of

other birds. Migratory waterfowl have proved to be the natural reservoir for this disease.

It is better to purchase kosher chickens when possible.

Unclean Fowl

Unclean birds, such as vultures, owls, eagles, hawks and seagulls, are generally birds of prey (carnivorous), and

often feed on carrion (dead or decaying flesh, including fat and blood). Owls eat rats and other disease-carrying

rodents. Eagles eat dead animals.

―These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black

vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of

hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of

heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Leviticus 11:13-19)‖

Clean Birds and Insects

(Scriptural Reference: Lev. 11:21-23, Deut. 14:20)

Chicken

Grouse

Pigeon

Sparrow (and other

songbirds)

Dove

Guinea fowl

Prairie chicken

Swan *

Duck

Partridge

Ptarmigan

Teal

Goose

Peafowl

Quail

Turkey

Pheasant

Sagehen

* Please note that the word "Swan" listed in the King James Version Bible translation of Leviticus 11:18 is a mistranslation. Swans are clean birds. Translations such as The Jewish Publication Society version render the word in

question as "horned owl."

http://www.messianic-torah-truth-seeker.org/Torah/Kashrut/Clean-unclean-food.html

44

The following piece on kosher birds is from a Yahwweh website (the Proper and True Name of the Heavenly Father is YAHOWAH not Yahweh!):

Yahweh‘s Dinner Table - Shabbat Message - 10/05/02

What Birds Can We Eat?

Leviticus 11:13-19 lists the birds that we cannot eat. By inference, we can determine what birds we can eat. According to

Rabbinic authority, the birds we cannot eat are scavengers so they assume that those that are not scavengers are kosher.

Birds that we can eat are:

Chicken, turkey, capon, pigeons, doves, ducks, geese

Birds that we cannot eat:

Eagle, ostrich, vulture, stork, owl, pelican, kite, cuckoo, heron, bat

A bat is not a "bird" but it is a flying thing. Eggs from kosher birds can be eaten but eggs from un-kosher birds cannot be eaten.

Now, I learned a lot about what they might have eaten from an article by Shimon Dar, "Food and Archaeology in

Romano-Byzantine Palestine" from Food in Antiquity, Wilkins, Harvey and Dobson, eds. (Exeter: University of Exeter

Press, 1995.) Dar took as his starting point a section of the Mishnah (Ketubot 5:8-9, if you want to look it up) that details

what a husband who travels far from home owes his wife in terms of maintenance. Dar translated and quoted the

selection, and then figured out that the rabbis thought the bare minimum that a woman would eat was a little over 3,000

calories a day.

Dr. Dar also tells us that, in spite of what we have before us in the Talmud, people ate a lot more meat in this period in

Palestine than we used to think. They mainly ate lamb, mutton and goat meat. They would sometimes eat beef, but not

very often at all. Jewish farmers raised pigs for their non-Jewish neighbours, Dar says. (I find this quite shocking!) They

also ate poultry, including chickens, geese and ducks, though apparently they ate a lot of pigeons because archaeological

evidence has been found for pigeon breeding in caves.

http://www.servant2000.org/articles/message_notes/Yahwehs_Dinner_Table.htm

From http://www.askmoses.com/article/554,180/What-are-kosher-animals.html:

2. Cruelty in the Air

For food that flaps or flies, the rules of Positive Mitzvah #150 are the same as with land-bound animals--if a bird kills

other animals regularly for its own food, eats meat, or is known to be dangerous, it's not kosher.1 The grim taking of

other lives makes a bird a predator, and kosher makes predatory birds unfit to eat. So, rule out raptors, eagles, hawks,

owls and other hunting birds, vultures and other carrion-eating birds, and storks, kingfishers, penguins and other fish-

eating birds. Ostriches and other giant fowl, which are capable of killing you or otherwise ruining your day, are forbidden.

Harmless little quacks like ducks, geese, turkeys, and, let us not forget, the immortally obsequious chicken, are perfectly

fit for your plate.

More details on the list of unclean birds of Leviticus » Chapter 11, notice again that verse 18 says ―swan‖ but according to

the best authorities, the Hebrew word does not indicate a swan but to another bird.

11:18 the swan, the pelican, the magpie,

45

swan

Tinshemeth in Hebrew; kuknos in Greek; cycnus in Latin. Other sources identify it as a bat, chauve-souris in French

(Rashi; Chizzkuni). Still others say that it is a kind of owl, chouette in French (Rashi, Chullin 63a); suetta in Old Spanish

(Radak, Sherashim; Ralbag). This is thought to be the barn screech owl (Tyto alba).

pelican

Ka'ath in Hebrew; pelekon in Greek; kuk in Arabic and Aramaic (Chullin 63a; Saadia; Radak, Sherashim). Also given as

kik in Aramaic (Shabbath 21a), which is identified as a water bird (Arukh). However, some challenge this, since the ka'ath

is seen as living in the desert (Psalms 120:7) and inhabiting ruins (Isaiah 34:11, Zechariah 2:14) (Ibn Janach). It is also

seen as a bird that vomits up its prey (Chizzkuni; Toledoth Yitzchak), and this description fits the little desert owl (Athena

noctua saharae).

magpie

or pie (Chizzkuni). Racham in Hebrew; rachamah in Deuteronomy 14:17 porphorion in Greek. Some sources identify it

with the Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), rakham in Arabic (Saadia). This is the smallest vulture in the Holy

Land, and it flocks on carrion and eats insects.

According to the periodical (vol.2, 2003) from the Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety entitled The

Kosher and Halal Food Laws written by J.M. Regenstein, M.M. Chaudry, and C.E. Regenstein, they wrote:

With respect to poultry, the traditional domestic birds (that is, chicken, turkey, squab, duck, and goose) are kosher. Birds

in the rattrie category (ostrich, emu, and rhea) are not kosher, as the ostrich is specifically mentioned in the Bible (Lev.

XI: 16). However, it is not clear whether the animal of the Bible is the same animal we know today as an ostrich. There is

a set of criteria that are sometimes referred to in trying to determine if a bird is kosher. The kosher bird has a stomach

(gizzard) lining that can be removed from the rest of the gizzard. It cannot be a bird of prey. Another issue deals with

tradition; for example, newly discovered or developed birds may not be acceptable. Some rabbis do not accept wild

turkey, while some do not accept the featherless chicken.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com

B. Poultry:

The Torah does not enumerate specific characteristics to distinguish permitted and forbidden birds. Instead, it

enumerates 24 forbidden species of fowl, while all other birds are considered to be kosher. Nonetheless, for various

reasons, in practice we eat only those birds, which have an established tradition that the species is kosher.

In the United States, the only poultry accepted by mainstream kashrus organizations as kosher are chicken, turkey, duck

and goose.

http://www.ou.org/kosher/primer.html

POULTRY AND OTHER FOWL (quoted in part, because they recommend the consumption of liver which the scriptures forbids, no matter how you cook it!):

The Torah names the bird species, which are not kosher. Since we are not certain to which birds all of these ancient

Hebrew names refer, only birds, which traditionally have been eaten, are allowed; primarily, domesticated fowl.

Please note that they are considered to be meat. They must be slaughtered by a ritual slaughterer (shokhet), and the

prohibition against mixing dairy products with them applies, as for with other sources of meat.

Fowl That Is Allowed

46

Chicken, Turkey, Quail, Cornish, Hens, Doves/Pigeon, (Squab) Goose, Duck, Pheasant

Note: All liver must be broiled before use in recipes, because of a prohibition against ingesting blood. Note: In the U.S.,

the only fowl, which are kosher-slaughtered, commercially, are chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese.

Fowl That Is Not Allowed

In most general terms, birds of prey are not allowed.

http://www.cyber-kitchen.com/rfcj/kosherfaq.htm

What Are The Kosher Food Laws?

In addition to traditional animal meat, there are restrictions when it comes to birds. Meat and other products, such as

eggs, are not considered kosher if they come from non-kosher birds. The slaughter of the birds is often taken into

consideration when deeming a specific bird kosher or not. Domestic duck, domestic geese, and chicken are the most

commonly consumed kosher birds.

http://www.whatskosher.com/kosher-food-laws.php

The Halachic Tale of Three American Birds: Turkey, Prairie Chicken, and Muscovy Duck By: Rabbi Ari Z.

Zivotofsky, Ph.D. and Zohar Amar, Ph.D. This article first appeared in The Journal of Halacha and

Contemporary Society (Succot 5764/Fall 2003, vol 46, pages 81-104). Reprinted with permission of the

publisher. Copyright © 2003 The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (quoted in part):

Questions regarding the kashrut of previously unknown species of birds proved to be much more challenging, and some

have remained unresolved to this day.5 The kosher status of birds is a much more complex issue than that of animals and

fish. The Torah (Lev. 11:1-27 and Deut. 14:3-20) specifies identifying features to indicate whether a particular animal

species is kosher. Within the mammalian quadruped category, an animal is defined as kosher if it both chews its cud and

has fully split hooves. A sea creature is deemed kosher if it is a fish (Aruch Hashulchan 83:5-11) and has at least one fin

and one scale (Lev. 11:9-10; Deut. 14:9-10) that are visible to the naked eye.

Birds are categorically different.6 The Torah offers no identifying features to distinguish kosher from non-kosher species.

It simply provides a listing (Lev. 11:13-19 and Deut. 14:11-18) of the 24 species7 of birds that are not kosher (Chullin

63b). By inference, the vast number of other bird species is kosher.8 Today, when the 24 non-kosher species can no

longer be accurately identified, things are quite a bit more complicated.

Although the Torah did not provide physical indicators by which to identify kosher fowl, the rabbis provided four

identifying features to help categorize birds. The Mishnah (Chullin 3:6 [59a]) states: "every bird that is 1) dores ("a

predator") is not kosher.9 Every bird that has 2) an extra toe, 10 3) a zefek (crop, the biblical more‘eh, e.g. Lev. 1:16), and

4) a korkuvan (gizzard, "pupik" in Yiddish) whose inner lining can be peeled, is kosher."

These seemingly simple rules were the source of ongoing and acrimonious debate throughout the ages, 11 to the point

that a 19th century authority wrote: "In order to fully explain the identification of kosher birds would take a small booklet

of its own" (Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 157). And some poskim (decisors) did precisely that. Following responsum YD: 74,

Chatam Sofer (Rabbi Moses Sofer; 1762-1839) wrote several pages of explanation of the subject, followed by a note that

the rest of his thoughts on this topic are in a separate monograph. The Beit Yitzchak at the beginning of YD 1:106 refers

to three monographs that others had written on the subject. Similarly, Rabbi Yonatan Eibschitz wrote a monograph, P'nei

Nesher, on the kashrut of birds.

With all the disagreement and confusion, the final halacha follows Rashi (Chullin 62a), who, based on the incident of the

tarnegulsa d'agma in which people ate a non-kosher bird as a consequence of applying physical characteristics as a

criterion, ruled that birds may only be eaten based on a mesorah - oral tradition. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 82:3), and

even more definitively, the Ramo (ibid), ruled that the only applicable principle is that "no bird should be eaten unless

47

there is a mesorah that it is a kosher species." And this is where the problem for New World birds arises - there simply

cannot be an ancient continuous unbroken tradition regarding a New World bird.12 The three birds discussed in this

paper, the turkey, the prairie chicken, and the Muscovy duck, have had quite different relationships with the kosher

community.

Muscovy duck

The most interesting New World species, from the perspective of its halachic story, is the Muscovy duck. It is generally

accepted that domestic ducks are derived from the wild mallard (Anas platyrhynchos; order Anseriformes, family

Anatidae).17 There are seven recognized subspecies. The most prominent breed (in the US and Israel) is the Pekin breed,

introduced to the West from China in the late 19th century. The common mallard A.p.platyrhynchos is likely the sole

progenitor of the domestic form.18

There is only one exception, the most recently domesticated of waterfowl species, the Muscovy duck, also known as

barbarie duck.19 It is native to Mexico, Central America, and most of South America. The male weighs 2-4 kg and the

female 1-1.5 Kg. It is generally accepted that they were domesticated in pre-Columbian South America, where they were

found in the very early 16th century by the Spaniards. There appears to have been a very early and rapid diffusion into

the Old World. They were so widely diffused so early that there are even theories that they were introduced into Africa in

the pre-Columbian period by trans-Atlantic Arab traders. While this theory is generally rejected, 20 the fact of their rapid

spread is unchallenged.

The early Jewish settlers in the southern U.S. began eating Muscovy duck. The Muscovy has a peelable gizzard, an "extra

toe", webbed feet, and a wide beak, all indicating that it is kosher. It does not have a standard crop, but has the same

psuedo-crop21 found in other ducks and geese. Thus, these Jewish settlers treated it as kosher.

In 1860 Rabbi Yissachar Dov (Bernard) Illowy (1814-1871),22 in possession of smicha (rabbinic ordination) from the

Chatam Sofer and his Pressburg Yeshiva and a Ph.D. from the University of Budapest, arrived as the new rabbi in New

Orleans, and declared that the Muscovy duck could not possibly be treated as a kosher species because there could be no

mesorah for it.23

In a letter24 written in beautiful biblical, poetic Hebrew Rabbi Illoway first presented the situation of Jewish life in the

United States in general and in New Orleans in particular, and then explained his question regarding the Muscovy duck.

He outlined the history of his involvement and then presented the question. The letter was sent from New Orleans on

Wednesday of Parshat Bechukotai, 5622 [May 14, 1862] and addressed to Chief Rabbi Dr. Nathan Adler of London and

Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch of Germany. Almost every line in the first section is a paraphrase or a play on a biblical

verse, making it almost futile to attempt its translation...

...It is interesting to note that despite the popularity of Muscovy duck in Europe, there are no known responsa or halachic

discussions about them before Rabbi Illoway's responsa. This may be due to the facts that they have been known by a

wide variety of names, their origin was a source of confusion, they were frequently grouped with domestic ducks, and

that even today they are often overlooked as a separate species.

Several decades later another European transplant to US shores seems to have addressed the same issue. Rabbi Leeber

Cohen (born ca. 1874) studied in one of the great mussar yeshivot near Kiev and then served as a rav in the town of

Kazen near Kiev from 1896-1911 before moving to the US.26 Upon taking a job as rabbi in Memphis, TN, he discovered

two things: First, he was receiving many queries about a new kind of goose about which he had also answered several

questions in Europe, and second, that a way to advance in the US is to publish.27 With that in mind, in 1916 he published

Chiddushei Chaviva, the first half of which is devoted to the question of the new goose that was already being eaten in

some areas. Based on his description of the bird, he seems to have been discussing the Muscovy duck. Following a

masterful analysis of the subject of which birds are kosher and what evidence may be relied upon, he concludes that

based on the "egg signs" discussed in the Talmud, the bird under discussion was permitted.28

In the US, questions about the Muscovy persisted. Rav Gedalia Schwartz, Av Beit Din of the RCA and of the Chicago

Rabbinical Council, reports29 that in the 1950s while he was a rav in Providence, RI he was asked about the kashrut of the

Muscovy duck and he prohibited it.

48

The status of the Muscovy duck was also under discussion in other areas of the world beyond its native U.S. and Mexico.

Rav Aharon Halevi Goldman, 30 a rav and shochet in Moisville, Argentina, discussed the issue at length.31 He first raised

the issue in the journal Yalkut Yosef in 1906, 15 years after his arrival in Argentina. At that point he received

contradictory reports regarding a mesorah on it and thus solicited assistance. He followed that with several other

submissions and the following year concluded to permit the Muscovy based on several points. He further reports that the

Netziv had permitted it [see below], as had Rav Naftali Adler, av bet din of London, and the Divrei Malkiel in letters to

him.

Concurrently, another Argentinean rabbi and shochet was also fighting for the kashrut of the Muscovy duck. Rav Yosef

Aharon Taran devoted the first section of his Zichron Yosef (Jerusalem, 5684 [1924]) to rebutting those who sought to

prohibit it despite Rav Goldman‘s earlier permissive ruling. In an effort to strengthen their position, those who sought to

ban it, sent a pair of birds to Yerushalayim to have Rav Shmuel Salant (1816-1909), the av beit din, rule on it. The male

bird died en route but the female successfully completed the lengthy journey. Rav Salant initially refrained from ruling on

the matter due to his advanced age, and requested that Rav Chaim Berlin who was then visiting the city rule on the

matter. When Rav Berlin was fed all manner of fiction, such as that the bird breeds with snakes, he refused to rule and

returned the question to Rav Salant. Rav Salant immediately ordered his shochet to slaughter the bird and on erev

Pesach a letter was promptly dispatched to Argentina stating that the bird had been eaten following Rav Salant‘s ruling.

Rav Shmuel Salant committed his opinion to writing in a responsum dated 25 Kislev 5668 (1908). Rav Taran publicized in

his book that letter as well as several other permissive rulings from European rabbis, including one from Rav Naftali

(Herman) Adler (1839-1911), chief rabbi of the British empire and son of former Chief Rabbi Nathan Adler (1803-1890)

who had prohibited it years earlier.

Rabbi Israel Meir Levinger32 presents some interesting evidence from Europe and Israel. Based on the description of the

bird under discussion, it appears that the Meshiv Davar (2:22)33 was discussing the Muscovy duck. He reports that there

were some locations where it was eaten as a kosher duck, while at the same time other people were arguing against it

being considered kosher because of the differences between this duck and the common duck. The Netziv notes that had

he been asked ab initio he would have hesitated to permit its consumption because it differs from the standard duck and

should therefore require its own mesorah. However, since it was then already widely eaten as kosher, it should not be

prohibited without definitive evidence that it is indeed a non-kosher species, evidence that did not exist.

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (1879-1960; Har Tzvi YD: 75) reports in 1954 that 45 years earlier (i.e. 1909) an Argentinean Jew

had brought a Muscovy to Yerushalayim to ask about its kashrut and was told that it was kosher. Nonetheless, in 1954

Rav Frank only permitted those who already ate it to continue eating it and did not want to introduce it amongst those

who did not eat it. His ruling notwithstanding, during the period of great economic difficulty in Israel (5709-5714/1949-

1954), the Muscovy was consumed in large numbers because it is able to be raised on kitchen scraps.

Rav Levinger reports that as of his writing the Muscovy duck was treated as kosher in Israel based on an assortment of

rulings. A rav in Zichron Yaakov reported to Rav Levinger that Rav Frank had permitted it to him in 5692 or 5693 (ca.

1932) and Rav Levinger was told by a shochet in Tiberias that he had been told by Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlap (1883-

1951; a disciple and confidant of Chief Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook; see EJ 7:1343-1344) that it was a kosher

bird.

The Avnei Nezer (YD: 1:75) raises an important relevant point. Just like there cannot be a positive mesorah on a New

World bird, so too there cannot be a negative one. Therefore, if it were possible to "establish" a mesorah it clearly would

not be contradicting a negative mesorah, and would be acceptable. The Avnei Nezer then proceeds to do just that, and

permitted what may have been the Muscovy duck based on the hybridization principle discussed below.34

Rav Amitai Ben David, author of the important work Sichat Chullin , wrote (19 Shvat 5761) a long letter to Rav Naftali

Weinberger that is appended to R. Weinberger's book Shaleach Tishalach (5761, Jerusalem, p. 169-187) in which he

details the kosher birds. He observes (p. 180) that the Muscovy had been given a defacto OK by the Netziv and the Avnei

Nezer because it was already being eaten. In addition, he states that he personally received a mesorah on the Muscovy

from his teacher who taught him shechita, the well-known Rav Chochaima.35

49

Muscovy today

The mulard and its liver are accepted as kosher today in Israel by the chief rabbinate and are sold in large numbers by a

company known as Foie Gras. If the offspring is treated as kosher it categorically implies that the parents are also kosher

species, implying the kashrut of the Muscovy.

In the late 1980's various farms in northern Israel raised large numbers of Muscovy ducks that were marketed by an

Israeli company, Oaf Hagalil. Based on information provided by the company, 46 they sold 413 tons of Muscovy in 1988,

1300 tons in 1989, and 2200 tons in 1990, worth a total of 5-6 million dollars. In one of the statements regarding

Muscovy issued at the time, the company states that they were under certification of the chief rabbinate of Jerusalem.

We also have a copy of a letter from Rav Tzafanya Drori, chief rabbi of Kiryat Shemonah, dated 16 [Mar]Cheshvan 5750

(11/15/89) in which he states that he supervises the Oaf Hagalil plant and that the Muscovy ducks slaughtered there are

kosher l'mehadrin.

In 2003 there are no Israelis whom we know of who raise Muscovy for its own sake. However, one farmer has about 200

males (and a handful of females) that he uses to interbreed with pekin females in order to produce the approximately

150,000 mulards that he sells annually, mostly to Foie Gras. We are unaware of mulard or Muscovy currently being sold

as kosher in other parts of the world.

Conclusion

For at least close to a thousand years the halacha has been that birds are treated as kosher only if there is a solid

tradition (mesorah) regarding their acceptability. That requirement should have precluded the introduction of any New

World birds into the kosher repertoire. It didn't. Some popular meat birds, such as the prairie chicken, were never

accepted as kosher despite their resemblance to the accepted chicken. Others, such as the turkey and the Muscovy duck

are today both accepted as kosher by a large segment of the Jewish people. But their historical trail to the Jewish table

was quite different. There is almost no opposition in the responsa literature to the turkey, yet the Muscovy had to claw its

way past numerous negative responsa until it was grudgingly accepted. The reasons for this difference are difficult to

even speculate, particularly if it is noted that the Muscovy duck has a much greater similarity to the accepted mallard

than the turkey has to the chicken.

The Arugat Habosem, in a long and detailed responsum (p. 339-347) in which he permits a large, different type of

chicken, points out (ibid, p. 346) that lest anyone wants to be strict and reject his permissive ruling they perforce must

also refrain from eating turkey, a bird whose permissibility is on much shakier ground than the bird he is discussing. In

addition, many of the principles used to permit the turkey apply to the new bird as well.

We are not suggesting herein that the turkey be suddenly removed from the kosher kitchen; rather, that those who

accept it realize that they should not perfunctorily reject other birds, such as the Muscovy duck, while at the same time

continuing to accept turkey as kosher.

1 Cyrus Gordon (Cyrus H. Gordon, Before Columbus: Links Between The Old World and Ancient America, Turnstone

Press, Ltd., London, 1971), in what can best be described as a controversial theory, purports to prove the existence of

transatlantic communication (and Pacific crossings) in antiquity. There are those who assert that such ancient global

communication resulted in the introduction of many of the New World animals to the Old World prior to 1492. If it did

occur, it for some inexplicable reason remained a small phenomenon. For example, when turkeys were introduced after

1492 they rapidly spread to all corners of the Old World. If they were introduced pre-Columbian they remained a local

commodity and did not diffuse widely. Because of the disputed nature of this theory, despite Gordon's stature in his own

field, and because of the small scale of the effect if there was one, the assumption will be that New World birds did not

reach the Jews in the Old World until after 1492.

2 See Minhag Yisrael Torah, 336-337, on whether to make an "adama" or "she'hakol" on potato and on whether it should

be considered kitniyot.

50

3 Corn, another New World product, is generally treated as kitniyot.

4 The current widespread custom to say "she'hakol" seems to have been arrived at rather quickly and took root.

However, see the recent discussions by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:2 and Dayan Gavriel Krausz,

Mekor haBracha , p. 52-61 for discussions regarding the proper blessing for chocolate and their leanings towards "borei

pri ha-etz." Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe OC 3:31) justifies the current practice, as do Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach

in his introduction to Mekor Brachah and Shu"t Ohr L'Tzion (2:14:5). See R. Nathan Kamenetsky, Making of a Godol, vol.

1, p. 139, that Rav Shlomo Zalman personally made a borei pri ha‘etz on chocolate, although he refrained from ruling as

such in practice for others, even for his grandson.

5 This same question obviously applies to the over 750 species of birds indigenous to Australia and New Zealand. Some

examples are: Brown kiwi (Apteryx australis ) - one of the three kiwi species. It is probably not kosher because, although

it does not hunt, it does feed on invertebrates; Australian gannet (Sula serrator ) and laughing kookaburra (Dacelo gigas )

- almost definitely are not kosher since they are predatory; emu (Dromaius novae-hollandiae ) - has a peelable gizzard;

and black swan (Cygnus atratus ) and Cape Barren goose (Cereopsis novae-hollandiae ) might very well be kosher.

6 For a discussion of this topic see: Ari Z. Zivotofsky and Ari Greenspan, Kashruto shel haPasyon (The kashrut of the

Pheasant)[Hebrew] in Sefer Zikaron L'Rav Yosef ben David Kafich Ztz"l , Zohar Amar and Chananel Seri, editors, pages

107-116, 5761 (2001), published by the Office of the Campus Rabbi, Bar Ilan University, and Ari Greenspan and Ari Z.

Zivotofsky, Kashruto shel HaPasyon (The kashrut of the Pheasant)[Hebrew] Mesorah (published by the Kashrut Division

of the OU):18(Tishrei 5762/October 2001):87-96.

7 The term "species" is used here in a decidedly non-scientific manner. When the rabbis stated 24 "species" of birds, they

meant 24 categories or broad classes of birds. Thus, for example, the Talmud (Chullin 63b) states that there are 100

birds in the east that are all types of ayah.

8 Most authorities, e.g. Rashi (Chullin 61a); Rambam (Maachalot Asurot 1:15); Meiri; Shulchan Aruch (YD 82:1);

Chachmot Adam (36:2). There is a dissenting opinion that says that there are non-kosher species other than the listed 24

(Tosafot and Rashba, Chullin 61a).

9 The definition of dores is mired in dispute. For a summary see: Ari Z. Zivotofsky, Is Turkey Kosher?, The Journal of

Halacha and Contemporary Society , Pesach 5758 (XXXV):81-83.

10 The extra toe is explained by Rashi and Rav Ovadiah Mibartenura (Chullin 3:6) as a toe behind and above the rest, i.e.

the hallux. The Ran and Kaf haChaim (Rav Yaakov Chaim Soffer, 1870-1939) (YD 82:9) explain it to mean that the middle

of the three front toes is larger than the other two. Some have suggested that the extra toe is a kind of spur that sticks

out part of the way up the leg and does not rest on the ground. The Ramban (Chullin 59a) flatly rejects this since pigeon,

the paradigmatic kosher bird, does not have this spur.

11 In fact, most opinions fall into one of four principal explanations. A lucid review of these four opinions and how they

relate to the Talmudic discussion and to Halacha is given by the Tzemach Tzedek (YD 1:60; Rabbi Menachem Mendel

Schneersohn, 1789-1866, 3rd Rebbe of Lubavitch).

12 Because of this rule, the number of Old World birds that are considered kosher is also rapidly shrinking. In an effort to

publicly preserve many of the mesorahs that still exist, a learning dinner serving 13 species of known kosher birds was

held in Jerusalem on 3 Tammuz 5762. See Ari Z. Zivotofsky and Ari Greenspan, Living the Law, Jewish Observer

35:10(Tevet 5763/December 2002):28-31 and the letters in the Adar II 5763/March 2003 issue. On the ongoing effort to

preserve these masorot see Zohar Amar and Ari Zivotofsky, Project to preserve the masoret of tahor animals [Heb]

Ha'Ma'ayan , Tevet 5763[43:2]:36-40.

13 For detailed discussions regarding the kosher status of turkey see: Ari Z. Zivotofsky, "Is Turkey Kosher?" The Journal

of Halacha and Contemporary Society, 35 (Spring, 1998):79-110 and Zohar Amar, "Kashrut of the Turkey" [Hebrew], BDD

13(2003) (in press).

14 See their website (http://www.eatturkey.com/consumer/history/history.htm) for statistics.

51

15 There are, of course, individual exceptions. Such notables as Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky

and Rav Dovid Lifshitz did not eat turkey. However, these were personal stringencies that

they did not advocate for others. For example, Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky (son of Rav

Yaakov Kamenetsky) wrote (personal fax, 1/20/1998): "My father did not advocate that

others abstain" (emphasis RNK). It is also reported orally but not in writing that the

ShLa"H (Rabbi Isaiah ben Avraham haLevi Horowitz; 1565? - 1630) left instructions that

his descendants should not eat turkey, and to this day there are members of that family

who adhere to this custom. There is a similar custom among some of the descendants of

the Tosfot Yom Tov (Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman ben Nathan ha'Levi Heller; 1579-1654).

These two traditions may share a common source. There is also the "well-known" Russian

family (Frankel) whom Arugat haBosem (Kuntras ha'tshuvot , 16) writes did not eat

turkey. Finally, there are several prominent contemporary rabbis who do not eat turkey. All of this notwithstanding, there

is no question that the overwhelming majority of Jews and of kashrut agencies treat the turkey as a kosher species.

16 This was more common in the eastern U.S. and was hunted to extinction by 1932.

17 Information on the history of the Muscovy is from R.D. Crawford, Poultry Breeding and Genetics, Elsevier, 1990,

Chapters 1, 2, and 17.

18 A New World bird that has not (yet) seen controversy is the American black duck (Anas rubripes ) that is indigenous to

eastern North America. Hybrids between it and the domestic duck occur and are even fertile, a strong indicator that it is

kosher.

19 The origin of the name is lost. Some suggest it is a corruption of musk duck because of a peculiar odour that used to

be emitted by older muscovies. It may derive from one of the major merchant companies of Queen Elizabeth's reign, the

Muscovite Company. Alternatively, it could relate to the Muisca Indians of central Colombia.

20 Crawford, p. 34.

21 On this pseudo-crop see the discussion in I.M. Levinger, Mazon Kasher Min Hachai (Modern Kosher Food Production

from Animal Source , third edition, Israel, 1984) p. 36-37.

25 Rabbi Illowy was given incorrect information. Muscovy eggs actually look very similar to chicken eggs. (Personal

conversation with Stanley Searles, Curator of Birds at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, Oct. 6, 1997).

32 Mazon Kasher Min Hachai (Modern Kosher Food Production from Animal Source , third edition, Israel, 5745, p. 70-71).

33 Written by R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, the Netziv, in 5644 [1884].

34 Rav Eliyahu Klatzkin (1852-1932) from Lublin permitted a duck that he was asked about in 1911, and it seems that it

may have been the Muscovy duck. He ruled that it does not require a mesorah because of its similarity to known kosher

ducks, and it is therefore sufficient that it has the physical signs of a kosher bird (Dvar Halacha , 1921, #53 [pages 37a-

b]).

35 Rav Ben-David confirmed this in a telephone conversation, August 2002.

45 This cross is made easier by the fact that the domestic duck (Anas platyrhyncha) and the Muscovy duck (Cairina

moschata) both have 80 chromosomes.

http://www.kashrut.com/articles/ThreeBirds/

How do I know whether a particular bird is kosher or not? By Rabbi Naftali Silberberg:

52

The Torah provides a list of non-Kosher birds (Leviticus 11:13 and Deuteronomy 14:12). Any bird species not mentioned

in this list - and this includes the overwhelming majority of all bird species that exist - is kosher.

Unlike the kosher animals and fish, which are identified not by name but by characteristics so that their identities are clear, the identities of the permissible birds are very cloudy.

As a result of the various exiles and dispersions, the language of the Torah fell into relative disuse, with the result that

the exact identities of the non-kosher birds became doubtful.

Therefore, the Code of Jewish Law (Yoreh De'ah 82:2) rules that it is forbidden to eat any species of bird unless there is a

well-established tradition that it is kosher.

Amongst the species that are known to be kosher are: chicken, turkey, dove, duck, certain types of geese, pheasant,

quail.

http://www.askmoses.com/article/554,1353/How-do-I-know-whether-a-particular-bird-is-kosher-or-not.html

Which Animals Are Kosher?

● Fowl: The Torah lists 21 non-kosher bird species -- basically all predatory and scavenger birds. Examples of kosher

birds are the domestic species of chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys and pigeons.

http://www.chabad.org/library/howto/wizard_cdo/aid/133726/jewish/Which-Animals-Are-Kosher.htm

The Natural History of the Bible, by Henry Baker Tristram, 1867, page 249-250:

Swan - among the list of unclean birds in Lev. XI: 18, Deut. XIV:18, occurs the word tinshemeth, rendered swan in our

version.

In the Septuagint and other version, it is translated porphyrio or ibis. It is scarcely probable that the swan was intended

by Moses.

Though both the mute and whistling swans have been occasionally found in Egypt, yet they are very rare (I obtained a

single whistling swan at the pools of Solomon). There is, moreover, no reason for making the swan unclean.

It is far more probable that the old versions are right, and that either the purple gallinule (porphyrio antiquorum) or the

sacred ibis (ibis religiosa), both of them necessarily familiar to the Israelites in Egypt, are intended. There was every

reason for classing the ibis among unclean birds from its connection with Egyptian idolatry, as well as from its unclean

feeding...

Page 250

The purple gallinule is still common on the Nile and in the marshes of the Holy Land. It is a giant water-hen, as large as a

duck, with rich dark-blue plumage and brilliant red beak and legs. It is an omnivorous feeder, and from the miscellaneous

character of its food might reasonably find a place in the catalogue of unclean birds.

In the next section we will show the different birds of the Galliformes family that are clean to eat

according to YAHOWAH's Laws!

53

Galliformes

The foregoing images of birds (from http://www.earthlife.net/birds/galliformes.html), are from the order called Galliformes, which we are going to look at in this section. An argument that is often made against eating ducks and geese is that they are dirty and unclean in their habits especially in their diet, but again I reiterate that YAHOWAH created their internal organs to cope with these victuals, which helps them to be less prone to sickness.

We quote in part the following piece to bring into perspective the foods laws of YAHOWAH with regard to the bird family (http://www.earthlife.net/birds/galliformes.html).

Galliformes

The Galliformes is a medium sized order comprising game birds in three families; Phasianidae - Pheasants, grouse, turkeys, partridges; Numididae - Guinea fowls; Odontophanidae - New World quails. Between them they add up to 214 species in 58 genera. They are generally recognised as being birds with stocky bodies, small heads and short wings. Their flight is usually rapid and low to the ground, often involving an explosive take off. They are generally omnivorous, taking some insect food at least whilst young. They are also generally sedentary in habit with only one species, the Quail,

Coturnix coturnix, being migratory and a few species being nomadic.

Many are well know, in fact the Red Jungle Fowl, Gallus gallus, is perhaps the best-known and most common bird in the world in its role as the common chicken. All domestic forms of chickens or bantams stem from this wild species, which still occurs naturally in its native India. Other well-known members of this group include various pheasants, grouse,

partridges and quail as well as the peafowl the male of which is well known as the peacock.

Quails and Partridges

Quails are often referred to as Old World quails, a reference to their mostly palearctic distribution (Europe, North Africa and Asia) and to distinguish them from the Odontophoridae - often called New World Quails. The Americas are the 'new world' and though the Odontophoridae are restricted to North and South America ordinary quails and partridges occur in

North America as well, so it is best to leave old and new world designations behind as far as quails are concerned.

Quails and Partridges are medium-sized birds of round, dumpy appearance. They often have patterned plumage and short legs. The two groups differ in that Quails have shorter beaks, more slender tarsi, no spurs, primary wing feathers longer than secondaries and no bare areas around the eye. Quails fly much better than partridges and Coturnix coturnix is the only truly migrant galliform bird. Migrations of these quail are recorded in the bible, or at least their arrival in

certain places is.

Partridges are fairly social birds living in groups for most of the year, but break up into breeding pairs in the spring in order to rear a brood. Each pair chooses and defends a territory. The nest is a shallow bowl shaped in the ground and lined with dead leaves. Into this the female lays up to twenty eggs, which she alone incubates. The male stays nearby

during this time and helps protect the young after they hatch. Hatching takes about 3 weeks and the young are precocial.

54

Quail are less social than partridges, forming flocks only when they migrate. Like partridges they are basically monogamous, though the male has far less interest in the young. If they female population in an area is greater than the male, some males will have two females in their territory. Common quail normally fly north from Africa to Europe to

breed, though some may stay in north Africa for their first brood and then fly north for a second brood.

Quails eat a higher proportion of insects and other invertebrates are smaller than partridges and have been introduced into North America and New Zealand. However, they are quite rare in the UK. There are over 100 species of quails and

partridges.

True Pheasants

The true Pheasants can be recognised by the long tapering tail of the males, which ranges from a modest collection of elongated feathers in the Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus gallus) to the extensive magnificence of the Peafowl otherwise known as the Peacock (Pavo cristatus). Female pheasants are all much duller than their male partners. Pheasants, like all the game birds have calls, which are not particularly musical to the human ear and in many cases are quite harsh. Pheasants are essentially polygamous with the male calling and displaying to attract females and playing no part in nest building, incubation or protecting the young. Most pheasants originated from the Indo-Asia area though many have been introduced to remaining parts of the world to be shown off for their beauty while the Ring Necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) is a prized game bird in much of the first world.

Mated females make a nest of a small depression scraped in the soil and lined with dead vegetation into which she lays about 7-15 eggs which take about 4 weeks to hatch. The young are precocious but stay with their mother for some time after hatching - at least until they can fly. Like the rest of the Galliformes, Pheasants are ground-feeding omnivorous

birds, feeding mostly on insects, seeds and fruit.

Turkeys

Turkeys were for a long time given family status as a group, despite their being only 2 species and you will often find them under Meleagridae.

Turkeys are large birds weighing around 8 kg (17 lbs) for males and 4 kg (8.5 lbs) for females. The head and neck are bare of feathers and the overall colour is dark grey-brown with metallic highlights. The head and neck are blue with patches of red. The Common Turkey, Meleagris galloparo, ranges from Southern Canada to Mexico. The Ocellated Turkey, Agriocharis ocellata, is much rarer and confined to lowland rainforest in Mexico, Guatemala and Belize. It is believed that Mexican Indians were the first to domesticate the common turkey. Domestic turkeys are now bred far larger than their wild ancestors, so large in fact that they have trouble mating and breeders have to develop special techniques

to help the heaviest birds pass on their sperm.

Turkeys are polygamous with males displaying to attract several females for mating. Courtship begins in February and nesting in April. The nest is on the ground and the female builds it on her own, lays 8-15 eggs and incubates them for 28 days. The young are precocial. Turkey's are social animals in the wild and roam around in flocks looking for fallen fruits

and seeds. The young remain with their mother until the following spring.

Guinea Fowl - Numididae

The six species of Guinea fowl are all confined to the Africa with the Helmeted Guinea fowl, Numida meleagris, having the largest range extending north to Morocco and Arabia. It is also the best-known species outside Africa, being kept domestically in many countries including the UK. Some species inhabit semi-arid areas though some like the rare Black

Guinea fowl, Agelastes niger, are forest specialists.

Guinea fowl are all chicken-sized birds with round, plump bodies, longish necks and large feet. The top of the neck and the head are devoid of feathers. Guinea fowl are omnivorous, feeding on whatever is available, mostly seeds and insects.

They are mostly terrestrial, living in small flocks and can travel up to 20 miles in a day's foraging. They are not migratory.

The nest is a simple hollow in the ground with little in the way of lining. The females lay 7-20 eggs, which she incubates on her own for about four weeks. As with other Galliform groups, the young are precocial and able to fend for themselves

almost immediately.

The popular book called The Maker‘s Diet by author Jordan Rubin says:

55

Summary of the Maker's Diet

... the kosher laws are still morally binding, no more outdated and legalistic than the 10 Commandments...By Jordan S. Rubin

3. Birds that live primarily on insects, grubs, or grains are considered clean, but avoid birds or fowl that eat flesh

(whether caught live or carrion). They are unclean. (See the extensive list in Leviticus 11:13-19.)

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14479_1.html

From http://diet.lovetoknow.com/wiki/The_Maker_Diet, ―The Maker's Diet, sometimes called the Maker

Diet, is a holistic approach to health, addressing healthy habits in the physical, spiritual, and emotional

realm. While not specifically geared toward weight loss, it has the effect, when followed as written, of a

reasonable amount of weight reduction, while improving overall health and well-being.‖ Again, the author

stresses the importance of eating kosher according to Biblical Law:

Poultry must be non-scavenging birds, such as turkey, chicken, duck, or guineas; ostrich and emu are not allowed.

Chicken and duck eggs are allowed.

Sermon: May We Eat Puffin? Or Facing Up to the Environmental Challenge:

There's a list of prohibited birds in the Torah. The Babylonian Talmud - Tractate Hullin - rules that there are twenty-four

forbidden species. The implication is that any bird that doesn't fall within the list is permitted. Since the identification of

the birds from their ancient Hebrew names is quite difficult and it would be reasonable to suppose that the list is

restricted to birds found in the Middle East 3,500 years ago, that should make the kosher status of the puffin reasonably

clear. Always assuming that the puffin on the menu has been caught by a black-hatted, bearded gentleman and

despatched in the traditional manner.

But the rabbis were never ones for an easy life and wanted to seek a rationale behind the prohibited twenty-four. So

they deduced four distinguishing marks of birds that are permitted - it has to have a crop; the sac in the gizzard has to be

peeled off; it has to have an extra toe in addition to three front toes; and it mustn't be a bird of prey.

Yet despite those positive identifying marks, orthodoxy has now reached the point of accepting only those birds that have

traditionally been accepted as permitted i.e. chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese and pigeons. Which is why, the London Beth

Din has a problem with quail even though manna and quail were what our ancestors ate in the wilderness.

http://www.reformjudaism.org.uk/articles/from-the-head-of-the-movement/sermon-may-we-eat-puffin-or-facing-up-to-

the-environmental-challenge.html

Fowl Diet:

Like the turkey, pheasant, quail, and other related birds, the domestic fowl is adapted for living on the ground, where it

finds its natural foods, consisting chiefly of worms, insects, seeds, and greenstuff. The feet, usually four-toed except in

the English breed, Dorking, are designed for scratching the earth. The large, heavy body and short wings make most

breeds incapable of flying except for short distances. The crop is large and the gizzard strongly muscular. In adults of

both sexes the head is decorated with wattles and a naked, fleshy crest, called the comb, which is more prominent in the

male and is variously shaped in the different breeds and varieties. The typical comb is single, serrated and relatively

large, either erect or drooping. A variation is the rose comb, with three rows of tubercles merging in a rearward-pointing

spike. The pea comb of the Brahma has three low serrated ridges, and the leaf comb of the French Houdan has two

ridges, set transversely on the head. The strawberry comb of the Malay fowl is a small, rounded, nodular protuberance

set near the eyes, and the V-shaped comb of the La Flèche fowl suggests a pair of tiny horns. Plumage of various fowl

ranges in color through white, gray, yellow, blue, red, brown, and black.

Fowl from Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia (Redirected from Galloanserae):

56

The birds referred to as fowl belong to one of two orders, namely the game fowl or land fowl (Galliformes) and the waterfowl (Anseriformes). Interestingly, studies of anatomical and molecular similarities suggest these two groups were close evolutionary relatives; together, they form the fowl clade, which is scientifically known as Galloanserae.[1] This clade

has been supported by Retrotransposon presence/absence data as well. [2]

"Poultry", on the other hand, is a term for any kind of domesticated bird or bird captive-raised for meat or eggs;

57

What do doves eat?

We mentioned in the previous segment that a number of people avoid the eating of ducks and geese

since they are put off by their diet. In comparing what ducks and geese eat with other clean birds, we

should first consider the dove family.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dove#Diet

Columbidae -Diet

(Image middle right) The White-bellied Green-pigeon feeding on fruit

Seeds and fruit form the major component of the diet of pigeons and doves. In fact, the family can be divided into the seed eating or granivorous species (subfamily Columbinae) and the fruit eating or frugivorous species (the other four subfamilies). The granivorous typically feed on seed found on the ground, whereas the species that feed on fruit and mast tend to feed in trees. There are morphological adaptations that can be used to distinguish between the two groups; granivorous species tend to have thick walls in the gizzards, whereas the frugivores tend to have thin walls. In addition, fruit eating species have short intestines whereas those that eat seeds have longer ones. Frugivores are capable of

clinging to branches and even hang upside down in order to reach fruit.

In addition to fruit and seeds a number of other food items are taken by many species. Some species, particularly the ground-doves and quail-doves take a large number of prey items such as insects and worms. One species, the Atoll Fruit-dove is specialised in taking insect and reptile prey. Snails, moths and other insects are taken by White-crowned Doves, Orange Doves and

Ruddy Ground Doves.

Another kosher bird, the chicken, has a varied diet that may surprise many bible students. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken

In the wild, chickens often scratch at the soil to search for seeds,

insects and even larger animals such as lizards or young mice.

This website says that chickens will even eat mice!

Chicken Diet

Chickens have a varied diet. Chickens are omnivores and will feed on small seeds, herbs and leaves, grubs, insects and even small mammals like mice, if they can get them. Domestic chickens are typically fed commercially prepared feed that includes a protein source as well as grains. Chickens often scratch at the soil to get at adult insects and larva or seed.

Chickens have a well-developed gizzard (a part of the stomach that contains tiny stones) that grinds up their food.

http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/farm/chickens/chicken_about.html

More information on the order of birds known as Anseriformes (ducks, geese

and swans), better known as water-fowl,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anseriformes:

The earliest known Anseriform is the recently discovered Vegavis, which lived during the Cretaceous period[1]. It is thought that the Anseriformes originated when the original Galloanserae (the group to which Anseriformes and Galliformes belong) split into the two main lineages. The extinct dromornithids represent early offshoots of the anseriform line, possibly derived from screamer-like ancestors, and so maybe Gastornis (if it is an Anseriform). The ancestors of the Anseriformes developed the characteristic bill structure that they still share. The combination of the internal shape of the bill and a modified

58

tongue acts as a suction pump to draw water in at the tip of the bill and expel it from the sides and rear; an array of fine

filter plates called lamellae traps small particles, which are then licked off and swallowed.

All Anseriformes have this basic structure, but many have subsequently adopted alternative feeding strategies: geese graze on plants, the saw-billed ducks catch fish; even the screamers, which have bills that seem on first sight more like those of the game birds, still have vestigal lamellae. The prehistoric wading presbyornithids and the huge and possibly

carnivorous dromornithids were even more bizarre.

From http://godkind.org/dietary-laws.html:

BIRDS

The predominant characteristics of clean birds are as follows: bodies covered with feathers, upper limbs are wing-

shaped, no teeth, breathe through lungs, constant body temperature, four-chambered heart, lay eggs.

Clean Birds

There are five predominant characteristics of clean birds:

Not a bird of prey

Elongated middle front toe plus a hind toe

Three toes on one side of perch with hind toe on the other side

Has a crop

Has a gizzard with double lining that can be easily separated

A few examples of clean birds are chickens, ducks, geese, house sparrows, most songbirds, partridges, peacocks,

pheasants, pigeons, and quail.

Unclean Birds

There are four predominant characteristics of unclean birds:

Birds of prey that are carnivores and have hooked beaks and sharp talons that are bent like hooks

Scavenger birds that feed on carrion and are usually bare necked, with thick solid bills and blunt talons that are slightly inclined

Night birds of prey. Large head and eyes and 4 opposing toes

Water and marsh fowls, except ducks and geese

A few examples of unclean birds are buzzards, crows, eagles, hawk, kites, swifts, ostriches, owls, and vultures.

Unclean birds (we have inserted the proper Family Name of YAHOWAH into the article):

Leviticus 11:13-19 "And these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, 14 the kite, the falcon according to its kind, 15 every raven according to its kind 16 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according to its kind, 17 the water

hen, the pelican, the vulture, the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. (RSV)

There seems to be many birds that are not good for food, but in reality, we can eat a very wide variety of birds.

[YAHOWAH] also has His reason for us not to eat these kinds of birds. One of the most obvious ones is that most, if not all, of these birds are scavengers. That means they eat a lot of different things including animals that are already dead. This makes them not good for humans to eat because they may have got a disease from some of the food that they have eaten. They also have specific enzymes in their bodies, which help them to digest these dead animals and other types of

unclean species, and these enzymes are harmful to humans.

Clean Birds

59

The clean birds are of the family of chicken, turkey, pigeon and dove – those that have a crop. The duck, goose and

swan are also clean birds.

Most of the other birds are not clean. Science is finding out more about the transmission of viral diseases amongst unclean birds. It appears that these diseases are being passed on to the clean birds, namely the duck, in areas like Hong Kong, when they are raised with swine. The viruses are contracted by the swine from the migratory unclean birds and

passed into the food chain.

Outbreaks of influenza from Asia have been traced to this source. We all know about the dreaded flu that is common every winter and which makes people very sick. The clean birds generally are free from this problem but under certain conditions, they too may become infected. The general hygiene rules for contamination can be found in Leviticus 11 and

should be applied where necessary.

http://logon.org/english/c/cb019.html

Are Some Meats Unfit To Eat?

ABRIDGED LIST OF SCRIPTURALLY "CLEAN" FOODS: [see Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14]

MEAT:

They chew the cud &

have a divided hoof

Beef

Antelope

Elk

Buffalo

Lamb

Deer Goat

FISH:

They must have both fins

and scales

Cod

Haddock

Mackerel

Salmon

Bream

Tuna

FOWL:

Chicken

Turkey

Quail

Pheasant

Goose

Grouse

Duck

Dove (and related)

Insects: Those listed in Scripture are not easily identified with our familiar insects. But you could with John the Baptist, try

locusts. [see Leviticus 11:20-23.] Modern outdoorsmen warn, however, to carefully inspect the locusts for parasites

before ingesting!

http://www.abcog.org/food.htm

CLEAN MEATS OF THE BIBLE - AIR CREATURES

Chickens, Dove, Duck, Goose, Grouse, Guinea Pig, Partridge, Peacock, Pheasant, Pigeon, Songbird, Sparrow, Quail,

Turkey

http://users.penn.com/~rarearts/cleanmeatsofthebible.htm

BIRDS (quoted in part):

The predominant characteristics of clean birds are as follows: bodies covered with feathers, upper limbs are wing-

shaped, no teeth, breathe through lungs, constant body temperature, four-chambered heart, lay eggs.

A few examples of clean birds are chickens, ducks, geese, house sparrows, most songbirds, partridges, peacocks,

pheasants, pigeons, and quail.

http://www.bibleresearch.org/lawbook4/b4w10.html

What Does the Bible Teach About Clean and Unclean Meats?

Animals Viewed as ―Clean‖ in the Bible

60

Birds with clean characteristics: Chicken, Dove, Duck, Goose, Grouse, Guinea fowl , Partridge, Peafowl, Pheasant, Pigeon, Prairie chicken, Ptarmigan, Quail, Sagehen, Sparrow (and other songbirds), Swan * Teal, Turkey

*In the King James Version, Leviticus 11:18 and Deuteronomy 14:16 list ―swan‖ among unclean birds. However, this seems to be a mistranslation. The original word apparently refers to a kind of owl and is so translated in most modern Bible versions.

http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/CU/CU.pdf

Biblical Meats:

Birds - Lev. 11:13-19, Deut. 14:11-20

Chicken Goose Turkey Duck Quail Pheasant Cornish Hens Doves/Pigeon Squab. Basically, all predatory and scavenger

birds are not Kosher.

http://www.kyrieology.com/drupal/wwje/biblicalmeats

We quote (in part) the following piece called The Dietary Law with the following note. The original followers of YAHO-Hoshu-WAH were never called ―Christians‖ since the Saviour was by no means known as the Christ when He came in the flesh, therefore the proper terms we use are; believers, followers, or those of the ―Way.‖ (We have also inserted the proper Family Name of YAHOWAH in the article):

One of the most interesting (and certainly most controversial) aspects of the biblical perspective on health is the Old Testament dietary laws. Even to suggest that these 3000-year-old laws just might have some relevance to 20th century Christians, will get you quickly branded as a "legalist" in most Christian circles. Of course, in contemporary Christianity perhaps the best definition of a legalist is someone who acts on convictions you don't happen to possess, someone who is

obeying [the Almighty One] in a way you are not!

I have been a student of the health relevance of the Old Testament dietary law for over 25 years. During that time I have fairly strictly followed those eating guidelines, and consider them to be a significant part of my own personal health formula. I encourage other Christians to follow the dietary law for health reasons alone. And just for the record, I see no spiritual benefit or merit for a Christian to follow the dietary law. It's strictly a health issue.

WHAT IS THE DIETARY LAW?

The Dietary Law is found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The laws distinguished the clean and edible animals from the unclean and inedible animals. Mammals had to be cud chewing and have cloven hooves to be edible. This made cows, goats, sheep, deer, etc. edible, while pigs, rabbits, dogs, cats, horses, etc. were inedible. Water life had to have fins and scales to be edible. Thus most fish we eat today such as cod, trout, salmon, etc. were okay, but shellfish, eel‘s

sharks, catfish, squid, etc. did not pass that test.

Among the birds restricted were basically birds of prey, such as falcons and eagles, as well as scavenger birds like vultures. Insects with jointed legs, such as locusts, were considered edible. Other Mosaic Law passages give further dietary instruction including the prohibition against eating blood (Lev. 17:10-11), animal fat (Lev. 7:23-24) and mixing milk and meat at the same meal (Exod. 23:19). Still other laws related to

slaughtering methods, not eating diseased animals, and washing of hands and cooking utensils.

Much of the Dietary Law has been incorporated into Western culture. We don't eat dogs and cats, spiders, maggots, etc. - all of which are forbidden in the Dietary Law. Likewise, Western civilization is built upon other biblical principles of health and sanitation - principles like washing in running water, digging your latrine away from the camp, and quarantining those with communicable diseases (except for "politically protected" communicable diseases like AIDS). The main

deviation from the Dietary Law in our culture in eating pigs and shellfish - two of the unhealthiest foods you can eat!

PURPOSE OF THE DIETARY LAW

Leviticus 11:47 defines the purpose of the Dietary Law:

―. . . to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the

creature which is not to be eaten."

61

This passage beautifully shows the two purposes of the Dietary Law:

Distinguishing the "clean" from the "unclean"

Distinguishing the "edible" from the "inedible"

"Clean" and "unclean" refers to the ceremonial laws. Only clean animals could be offered as a sacrifice in the Old Testament sacrificial system. This aspect of the Dietary Law has obviously been fulfilled by [YAHO-Hoshu-WAH], who as the final, complete sacrifice for sin, ended the Old Testament sacrificial system (Heb. 10:1-18). But here comes the error: Many Bible expositors, seeing only this purpose of the Dietary Law, rule it totally irrelevant for today. However, the "edible" and "inedible" distinction noted in Leviticus 11:47 isn't talking about ceremonial sacrifices - it's talking about food, about nourishment, about health. The children of Israel were promised health if they kept

[YAHOWAH‘s] laws:

"If you will give earnest heed to the voice of [YAHOWAH your Almighty One], and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, [YAHOWAH], am your healer." Exodus 15:26

Part of those "commandments" that would produce health was the Dietary Law. Thus, the Dietary Law was also based on

Health, not just ceremony in the sacrificial system . . . as now proven by modern science.

SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF THE DIETARY LAW

While science "discovered" the problem of eating animal fat in recent years, it was prohibited in the Dietary Law 3000 years ago! I want to focus, though, on a most interesting article published in 1953 in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, published by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a study entitled "An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Leviticus XI and Deuteronomy XIV" by David I. Macht, M.D.

Dr. Macht tested extracts of meats of the various "clean" and "unclean" animals according to the Dietary Law, including 54 kinds of fish, using a standard toxicological test. The results were absolutely amazing for a scientific study! Every single animal meat that the Dietary Law said was inedible tested out as toxic in Dr. Macht's experiments. Every single animal meat that [YAHOWAH] said was edible tested out as non-toxic. There was a 100% correlation between the

Dietary Law and the scientific study!

DON'T EAT SCAVENGER ANIMALS"

Basically, the Dietary Law is a prohibition against eating scavenger animals. For example, pigs are scavengers that will eat almost anything. Obviously an animal that eats filth won't have very healthy flesh-like us, they too are what they eat. But even if the swine's diet is controlled, it‘s simple digestive system does little to purify the food it eats. Food becomes flesh on the pig in two hours after consumption. Compare that with a clean, cud-chewing animal like the cow, which requires 24 hours to turn food into flesh due to its more complicated digestive tract with four stomachs. The more digestion, the more purification of the food, and the less toxicity. Trichinosis parasites have long been associated with pork, some authorities indicating that as many as 25% of all Americans are infected. Hubert O. Swartout, M.D., a member of the American Board of Preventive Medicine and Public

Health warns:

"Pork, moreover, is objectionable from other points of view than the danger of contracting trichinosis. It contains a larger portion of fats than most other flesh foods. It is difficult to digest. The undulant fever due to the swine type of germ is on the average more severe than that due to either the cattle or goat type. It is no wonder that from the earliest times of

Old Testament history swine have been classed as 'unclean'."

Just as pigs are scavengers on land, so shellfish are scavengers in the ocean. It is common knowledge from hygiene textbooks that oysters frequently transmit typhoid. Eating shellfish from polluted waters, such as the deadly "red tide," is

often prohibited because their digestive system does not filter out their accumulated toxicity.

Even if the Bible were silent on this subject, there is more than enough scientific evidence to motivate a prudent person to avoid the "unclean" animals for health reasons.

http://www.pacifichealthcenter.com/updates/29.asp

62

I was curious to see what type of scientific evidence they had found in recent years to prove the difference between clean and unclean animals and the previous article mentioned a David I. Macht, M.D. Who was David I. Macht? The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Macht:

David Israel Macht (February 14, 1882 - October 14, 1961) was a Pharmacologist and Doctor of Hebrew Literature,

responsible for many contributions to pharmacology during the first half of the 20th century.

Medicine in the Bible

Macht was an Orthodox Jew and a Doctor of Hebrew Literature, and he frequently advocated the position that there was a harmonious relationship between religion and science. He studied medical and other descriptions in the Bible and the Talmud, and published many papers that claimed to show that these were accurate descriptions of diseases or

treatments. [5]. Such papers include:

A Pharmacological Appreciation of References to Alcohol in the Hebrew Bible , (1929). In which he compared the effects of alcohol mentioned in the Bible with current medical understanding and concluded "the Book of Books is in complete accord with the most modern and advanced experimental data on the subject"[6]

An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Leviticus XI and Deuteronomy XIV, (1953). In which Macht used his phytopharmacology technique on samples of both Levitically clean and unclean animals, and showed a markedly higher phytotoxic index for the unclean meats and the correlation was 100%.[7]

A pharmacological appreciation of a biblical reference to mass poisoning, II Kings IV

Books by Macht

The Holy Incense. A Botanical, Pharmacological, Psychological, and Archaeological Appreciation of the Bible, 1928, Waverly Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD

Bones and Verdure. An Appreciation of Science in Biblical Expressions, 1943, H.G. Roebuck and Son, Baltimore, MD.

The Heart and Blood in the Bible, 1951, Boone Press, Baltimore, MD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Macht

A reproduction of Dr. Macht‘s paper called An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Leviticus XI

and Deuteronomy XIV, (1953) will be shown later in this study, but first let us read and understand the

next item.

The following is a condensed version of the original (quoted in part) as found at apologeticspress.org,

which is entitled Scientific Foreknowledge and Medical Acumen of the Bible by Kyle Butt, M.A. The article

explains the procedures used in the experiments to determine or test the toxicity of certain meats as

found in the scriptural record by Dr. Macht.

Scientific Foreknowledge and Medical Acumen of the Bible by Kyle Butt, M.A.

While it is the case that the Bible does not present itself as a scientific or medical textbook, it is only reasonable that if [YAHOWAH] truly did inspire the books that compose the Bible, they would be completely accurate in every scientific or medical detail found among their pages. Furthermore, if the omniscient Ruler of the Universe actually did inspire these books, scientific and medical errors that fill the pages of other ancient, non-inspired texts should be entirely absent from the biblical record. Is the Bible infallible when it speaks about scientific fields of discipline, or does it contain the errors

that one would expect to find in the writings of fallible men in ancient times?

That the first five books of the Old Testament are a product of Moses is a matter of historical record (Lyons and Staff, 2003). Furthermore, the story of Moses‘ education among the Egyptian culture was well understood. In fact, even those Jews who did not convert to Christianity were so familiar with the historic fact that Moses was educated in ―all the wisdom of the Egyptians‖ (Acts 7:22), that Stephen‘s statement to that effect went completely undisputed. Moses had been trained under the most advanced Egyptian educational system of his day. With such training, it would have been

63

only natural for Moses to include some of the Egyptian ―wisdom‖ in his writings if he were composing the Pentateuch by

using his own prowess and mental faculties.

A look into the medical practices from ancient Egypt and those found in the Pentateuch, however, reveals that Moses did not necessarily rely on ―wisdom‖ of the Egyptians (which, in many cases, consisted of life-threatening malpractice). While some medical practices in the Pentateuch are similar to those, found in ancient Egyptian documents, the Pentateuch exhibits a conspicuous absence of those harmful malpractices that plague the writings of the Egyptians. Moses penned the most advanced, flawless medical prescriptions that had ever been recorded. Furthermore, every statement that pertained to the health and medical well-being of the Israelite nation recorded by Moses could theoretically still be implemented and be completely in accord with every fact modern medicine has learned in regard to germ spreading,

epidemic disease control, communal sanitation, and a host of other medical and scientific discoveries.

Thus, while the medical practices of the Bible could be equally compared to those of other ancient cultures and found to be flawlessly superior, comparing them to that of the eminent Egyptian culture should suffice to manifest the Bible‘s

supernatural superiority in the field.

LAWS OF FOOD CONSUMPTION

Food regulations enumerated in the first five books of the Old Testament have been scrutinized by credentialed professionals in the fields of dietary and pathological research. The regulations have proven to coincide with modern

science‘s understanding of various aspects of health and disease prevention.

In 1953, an extensive study, performed by David I. Macht and published in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine (a publication of the American Association of the History of Medicine and of The Johns Hopkins Institute of the History of Medicine), tested the toxicity of the meat of animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Macht‘s technique was to place a certain seedling (Lupinus albus) in fresh muscle juices of the various animals noted as clean and unclean in the biblical text. This method was used at the time to study the blood of normal human patients as compared to the blood of cancerous patients (1953, p. 444). Macht noted that his results revealed ―data which are of considerable interest not only

to the medical investigator but also to the students of ancient Biblical literature‖ (p. 445).

Some of his results were indeed of interest. For instance, he would take a control group of seedlings that grew in normal solutions and compare that group to seedlings placed in the various meat juices. He would then record the percent of seeds that grew in the meat juices as compared to those that grew under normal circumstances. For example, when placing the seedlings in meat juices from the Ox, the seeds grew 91% as often as they would if placed in a regular growing solution. Seeds in sheep juices grew 94% as often as those in the control group in regular solution. Seedlings in meat juice from a calf—82%; from a goat—90%; and from a deer 90%. Since these animals chew the cud and have a

divided hoof, they were listed as clean in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:

Now [YAHOWAH] spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, ―Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‗These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: Among the animals, whatever

divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat‘‖ (Leviticus 11:1-3).

When several unclean animals were studied, however, they showed significantly higher levels of toxicity and much lower levels of seedling growth. Seedlings in meat juice from pigs grew only 54% as often as the control group under normal growing conditions; rabbit—49%; camel—41%; and horse—39%. These results for larger mammals suggested that the

biblical division between clean and unclean could have been related to the toxicity of the juices of such animals.

Macht did similar research on birds, in which he found that extracts from biblical clean birds such as the pigeon and quail grew his seedlings 93% and 89%, while those from unclean birds such as the Red-tail hawk (36%) and owl (62%) were much more toxic. As Moses said: ―And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind‖ (Leviticus 11:13-19). Other studies included several different kinds of fish. The biblical regulation for eating fish was that the Israelites could eat any fish that had fins and scales (Deuteronomy 14:9). Those water-living creatures that did not possess fins and scales were

not to be eaten (14:10). In regard to his study on the toxicity of fish, Macht wrote:

Of special interest were experiments made with muscle juices and also blood solutions obtained from many species of fishes. Fifty-four species of fishes were so far studied in regard to toxicity of meat extracts. It was found that the muscle extracts of those fishes which possess scales and fins were practically non-toxic [Herring—100%; Pike—98%; Shad—100%—KB], while muscle extracts from fishes without scales and fins

were highly toxic for the growth of Lupinus albus seedlings (pp. 446-448).

64

Macht‘s study, even after more than five decades, continues to remain of great interest. His rigorous research led him to

conclude:

The observations described above corroborate the impression repeatedly made on the author in investigations as a physician (M.D. Johns Hopkins, 1906), as an experimental biologist (Member of Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine), and as Doctor of Hebrew Literature (Yeshiva University, 1928) that all allusions of the Book of Books, to nature, natural phenomena, and natural history, whether in the form of factual statements or in the form of metaphors, similes, parables, allegories, or other tropes are correct either literally or figuratively.... Such being the extraordinary concordance between the data of the Scriptures and many of the modern and even most recent discoveries in both the biological and physico-chemical sciences, every serious student of the Bible will, I believe, endorse the assertion of Sir Isaac Newton that ―The Scriptures of [YAHOWAH] are the most sublime philosophy. I find more such marks of authenticity in the Bible than in

profane history anywhere‖ (p. 449).

Some, however, have questioned Macht‘s results. Prior research done by Macht in 1936 and 1949 produced discordant results from his research in 1953. But there are several compelling reasons for accepting Macht‘s 1953 research. First, it could be the case that Macht‘s 1953 research simply was more refined and the procedure better understood. As one would expect in the scientific field, research generally tends to improve with time. Second, Macht was a high-profile doctor with copious credentials. His research in 1936 and 1949 had been published and was easily accessible. Yet even though his previous research was available, the Johns Hopkins Institute considered it acceptable to publish his 1953 research, which would suggest that the 1953 research included additional methods and/or information that would override the earlier research. Third, Macht‘s procedure as described in the 1953 paper was fairly simple and easily reproducible. But those who question the work have failed to produce experimental data after 1953 that would negate Macht‘s study. If his 1953 procedures were fraught with error, a few simple experiments could be done to prove that. No

such experimental data refuting Macht has been produced.

For these reasons, the findings of Dr. Macht aid in the defence of the Bible‘s inspiration and remarkably accurate medical procedures as far back as the time of Moses. But the validity of Old Testament food consumption laws certainly does not rely solely on Macht‘s 1953 research. Additional confirmation of the beneficial, protective nature of Mosaic food

consumption laws is readily available.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/print/3159

The following is a facsimile of Dr. Macht‘s study, An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Leviticus XI and Deuteronomy XIV, (1953).

65

66

67

68

69

70

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/hollymick/Macht1953.pdf

71

Dr. Macht‘s experiments on the flesh of chickens, ducks and geese (page 446 of his paper) show these

birds are considerably less toxic than the birds of prey used in the same experiment. The following item

(quoted in part) can be found at –

http://www.churchofgodproclaimed.org/topics/biblically_clean_and_unclean.htm:

Biblically Clean and Unclean Foods

[YAHOWAH] created certain animals that can be used for food and others that are unfit to eat. "Clean" foods are those, which in their natural state do not harm the human body. "Unclean" foods are those, which are unhealthy for the body.

(DUET 14:3-21) You are not to eat any abominable thing. And these are the creatures, which you can eat; the ox, the sheep, the goat, the hart, the roebuck, the fallow deer, the wild goat, the antelope, and the wild ox. And every creature that has parted hoofs or separates the cleft into to two, and chews the cud among all creatures, them you can eat. And these are those you cannot eat from among those that chew the cud, or that divide the hoof; the camel, and the hare, and the coney, for they chew the cud, but do not have a divided hoof, they are therefore unclean for you. Also the swine, because it does not have a divided hoof, even though it chews a cud it is unclean for you, you cannot eat of them. These you can eat that are in all the waters; all that have fins and scales you can eat. Anything that does not have fins and scales you cannot eat it is unclean for you. And you can eat any clean fowl but these you cannot eat: the eagle, the ossifrage, the osprey, the glede, the kite, the vulture, the raven, the owl, the hawk, the cuckoo, the swan, the pelican, the stork, the cormorant, the heron, and the bat. And all creeping things that can fly are unclean; they are not to be

eaten. All clean fowls you may eat.

Clean Birds (Lev. 11:13-20, Deut. 14:12-19)

The following are Clean Birds not specifically mentioned in the Bible

Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to

leap withal upon the earth; (Le 11:21)

Chicken Grouse Pigeon Sparrow (and other songbirds)

Dove Guinea fowl Prairie chicken * Swan

Duck Partridge Ptarmigan Teal

Goose Peafowl Quail Turkey

Peacock Pheasant Sagehen

* Please note that the word "Swan" listed in the King James Version Bible translation of Leviticus 11:18 is a mistranslation.

The following are Unclean Birds not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

Albatross Crane Magpie Roadrunner

Bat Flamingo Loon Sandpiper

Bittern Grebe Ostrich Seagull

Buzzard Grosbeak Penguin Woodpecker

Condor Gull Parrot Swallow

Coot Plover Rail Swift

Crow Water Hen

The Difference Between Biblical and Rabbinical Kosher:

72

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean;

and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.

Thus you are to be consecrated to Me, for I [YAHOWAH] am consecrated; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

Leviticus 20:25-26

Biblical Kosher

Biblical kosher refers to the dietary laws as outlined in the Scriptures, forbidding the eating of (1) animals that [YAHOWAH] calls unclean (Lev. 11:47), (2) animal fat (Lev. 3:17), or (3) animals that still have the blood in them (Lev.

17:12-14) as food. Lev. 11 talks about clean and unclean foods.

Clean animals include cows, sheep, goats, and deer. Unclean animals include pigs, horses, camels, rats, cats, dogs, snakes, raccoons, squirrels, and most insects. Clean birds include chicken, turkeys, geese, ducks, and doves. Unclean birds include eagles, sparrows, and crows. Clean seafood includes salmon, trout, and other fish with fins and scales.

Unclean seafood includes catfish, sharks, shrimp, eel, octopus, squid, shellfish, and whales.

The story of Noah shows that the distinction between clean and unclean foods existed early in human history, long before [YAHOWAH] ratified His covenant with Israel. Almost a thousand years before there was a covenant with the nation of Israel, [YAHOWAH] told Noah to take two pairs of unclean animals and seven pairs of clean animals into the ark (Gen. 6:19-7:2). [YAHO-Hoshu-WAH the Messiah] knew these biblical dietary laws and obeyed them. But, He often came into conflict with the Pharisees over the traditions that they had added to [YAHOWAH‘s] law over the years. This brings us to

Rabbinic Kosher.

http://biblicalholidays.com/Biblical%20kosher.htm

Bible Dietary Laws -Birds Lev. 11:13-19, Deut. 14:11-20:

Acceptable

pigeon

dove

chicken

pheasant,

quail,

partridge,

grouse,

turkey,

songbirds, ducks,

geese

Not Acceptable

red kite falcon raven ostrich owl sea gull hawk little and great owls cormorant white owl pelican carrion vulture stork heron hoopoe bat

etc.

http://biblicalholidays.com/Dietary%20laws%20bible.htm

The New Testament and Unclean Meats:

Appendix A A Listing of Clean and Unclean Animals

73

Clean Animal Listing

Note that following listing was prepared from several sources presumed to be accurate. It is possible that some items (especially some names of fish may refer to multiple types of creatures, but essentially the listing here is accurate for the usual definitions of the animals listed).

Red meat animals include Addax (like a gazelle), American Buffalo (bison), Antelope, Caribou, Cow (beef, ox, pastrami, and veal), Deer (venison), Elk, Gazelle, Giraffe, Goat, Hart, Ibex, Moose, Musk Ox, Reindeer, and Sheep (lamb, mutton).

Clean birds include: Bobwhite, Chicken (including capon), Chukar (a type of quail), Cornish hen, Dove, Duck, Essentially all songbirds, Goose, Grouse, Guinea (a type of fowl), Partridge, Peacock/hen, Pheasant, Pigeon, Prairie chicken,

Ptarmigan, Quail , Robin, Sage hen, Sparrow, Swan, Turtle-dove (the bird, not a turtle), and Turkey.

Although the word "Swan" is listed in the King James Version translation of Leviticus 11:18 as unclean, that is a mistranslation. The NKJV translates that creature as "white owl" and not as a swan (this is consistent with the understanding of other translators as well.

http://www.cogwriter.com/unclnt.htm

WHAT ARE CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS?

Clean Animals

Birds With Clean Characteristics

Sagehen Chicken, Dove, (Duck (?) researching), Goose, Grouse, Guinea fowl, Partridge, Peafowl, Pheasant, Pigeon,

Prairie chicken, Ptarmigan, Quail ,Sparrow (and other songbirds), Swan*, Teal, Turkey,

http://www.cofah.com/-CLEAN_AND_UNCLEAN_MEATS_.html

List of Clean Animals - Birds with Clean Characteristics:

Chicken Dove Duck Goose Grouse Guinea fowl Partridge Peafowl Pheasant Pigeon Prairie chicken Ptarmigan Quail

Sagehen Sparrow (and other songbirds) Swan* Teal Turkey

Types of locusts that may include crickets and grasshoppers

* In the King James Version, Leviticus 11:18 and Deuteronomy 14:16 list "swan" among unclean birds. However, this

seems to be a mistranslation. The original word apparently refers to a kind of owl and is so translated in most modern

Bible versions.

http://www.isawthelightministries.com/meats.html

List Of Foods Clean And Unclean – Birds:

Chicken

Dove

Duck

Goose

Grouse

Guinea fowl

Partridge

Peacock

Pheasant

Pigeon

Songbirds

Sparrow

74

Quail

Turkey

http://www.yahsaves.org/learn/Booklets/meatslist.htm

CLEAN AND UNCLEAN CREATURES BASED ON LEVITICUS 11 AND DEUTERONOMY 14 – BIRDS:

The predominant characteristics of clean birds are as follows: bodies covered with feathers, upper limbs are wing-

shaped, no teeth, breathe through lungs, constant body temperature, four-chambered heart, lay eggs.

A few examples of clean birds are chickens, ducks, geese, house sparrows, most songbirds, partridges, peacocks,

pheasants, pigeons, and quail.

http://godkind.org/dietary-laws.html

How to Answer the Most Popular Arguments Against Clean Foods:

Forbidden birds are also listed in Deuteronomy 14:11-18, but [YAHOWAH] does not specify why these particular birds are

forbidden. Other kinds of bird are permitted, such as chicken, goose, duck and turkey.

http://www.yrm.org/popularcf.htm

Beth Messiah Position Paper # 9 EATING SCRIPTURALLY KOSHER:

Scriptural kosher refers to the dietary laws as outlined in Torah, forbidding the eating of (1) animals that Elohim calls unclean (Lev. 11:47), (2) animal fat (Lev. 3:17), or (3) animals that still have the blood in them (Lev. 17:12-14) as food. Lev. 11 talks about clean and unclean foods. Clean animals include cows, sheep, goats, and deer. Unclean animals include pigs, horses, camels, rats, cats, dogs, snakes, raccoons, squirrels, and most insects. Clean birds include chicken, turkeys, geese, ducks, and doves. Unclean birds include eagles, sparrows, and crows. Clean seafood includes salmon, trout, and other fish with fins and scales. Unclean seafood includes catfish, sharks, shrimp, eel, octopus, squid, shellfish, and whales. For air animals (birds and bats), the Bible specifically lists which are clean and unclean. Since there are no general rules for birds (other than a clear grouping of birds of prey as unclean) in Scripture, and the actual identities of many names for birds are uncertain, Jewish law only permits eating birds that have traditionally been eaten by their own community in the past. Clean birds identified by most communities include chicken, geese, ducks, and doves. Additionally, winged insects with large jumping legs (various types of grasshoppers and locusts, for example) are also edible according to Scripture, although only the Sephardic (Mediterranean/Middle Eastern) communities have a recorded tradition of which ones are edible. http://lampofmessiah.org/Documents/Position%20Paper%209%20Eating%20Scripturally%20Kosher.pdf

Parshat Shemini - 2001 - Lay Off the Rock Badger!

The bird group is distinct because it lists only specifically forbidden birds, which are all hunters or carrion-eaters, and

therefore it assumes by omission that all other birds are permitted to be eaten. These permitted birds tend to be

herbivorous fowl and waterfowl or other types of "tame" birds. Therefore, we are permitted only animals that do not eat

other animals! Rabbi Levine surmises that this distinction is meant to direct us towards a more humane level of animal for

consumption, and that we will better control our animal instincts by consuming animals that appear to control their own.

After all, we were all originally commanded to be vegetarians and live in peace with other animals (Gen. 1:27-31).

[YAHOWAH] only permits us to eat meat after the flood (Gen. 9:2-4), with the assumption that we could not stop

ourselves from doing so even when commanded to do so because we are "evil from youth," i.e., possessed of animal

instincts to hunt and kill (Gen. 8:21)!

75

http://www.hillel.org/jewish/archives/vayikra/shemini/2001_shemini.htm

Definition of Clean and Unclean (quoted in part):

3. Clean birds*: chicken, dove, duck, goose, grouse, guinea fowl, partridge, peacock, pheasant, pigeon, songbirds,

sparrow, quail, and turkey. Their eggs are also good to eat.

* The Bible doesn‘t reveal a specific set of characteristics of clean birds. However, all clean birds have six

characteristics: (1) a crop, (2) a gizzard with a double lining that can be easily separated, (3) do not prey on

other birds, (4) do not devour their food while flying, but catch it in the air and then land and divide it with

their bills (5) their hind toe and middle front toe are both long, and (6) when perching, the three front toes are

on one side of the perch and the hind toe is on the opposite side.

"Swan" in Leviticus 11:16 (KJV) is a mistranslation. Swans as we know them are clean birds. The Jewish

Publication Society version translates it "horned owl," while Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon calls it "an unclean aquatic

bird." Other translations render it as "water hen." Hemenway says the Hebrew word rendered "swan" could be translated

"ibis," or "stork."

Characteristics of Clean and Unclean Fowl

Clean birds have, in essence, three stomachs, including a crop, the gizzard and another section between the two. This

prevents poisons from being assimilated into its meat, just like ruminant animals.

According to Robert Burton (Bird Behavior, page 76), leaf-eating birds such as swans, geese, grouse,

ducks, pigeons and other game birds, have bacteria in their intestines which break down cellulose.

Pigeons and doves use their crop to store, or partly digest, food taken too quickly for the stomach to handle. During brooding season, the crop produces "milk" from seeds eaten, which is regurgitated for the young. This is one form of

rumination, making these clean birds similar to clean animals, which chew their cud.

As one would expect, unclean birds, such as vultures, owls, eagles, hawks and seagulls, are generally birds of prey (carnivorous), and often feed on carrion (dead or decaying flesh, including fat and blood). On the other hand, clean birds are predominantly vegetarian, eating leaves, nuts, seeds and fruits. This means that clean birds have less disease and fewer parasites. Owls eat rats and other disease-carrying rodents. Eagles eat dead animals. Vampire bats drink blood and

bats in general can carry rabies.

http://www.giveshare.org/Health/health5.html

Which Animals Does the Bible Designate as 'Clean' and ‗Unclean‘?

Birds With Clean Characteristics

Chicken

Dove

Duck

Goose

Grouse

Guinea fowl

Partridge

Peafowl

Pheasant

Pigeon

Prairie chicken

Ptarmigan

Quail

Sagehen

Sparrow (and other songbirds)

Swan*

76

Quail

Teal

Turkey

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/clean/animals.html

CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE - Posted by grimandi on Oct 29, 2006,

7:00pm:

GENERAL LIST OF CLEAN AND UNCLEAN CREATURES

CLEAN BIRDS: All Song Birds, Chicken, Dove, Duck, Geese, Grouse, Partridge, Pheasant, Pigeon, Quail and Turkey

http://newzim.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=religion&action=print&thread=113307

"True Believer's Diet‖ by Norman F. Rowe:

The clean fowl are more difficult to pin down. By taking the characteristics of the listed "unclean" birds and comparing them with the characteristics of the known "clean" birds (dove and pigeon as they were acceptable for sacrifice), it

becomes more clear as to what to look for.

"Clean" birds possess six definite characteristics:

o They are not birds of prey (As Hawks, Eagles, Vultures, etc...). o They can catch food in the air, bring it to the ground, divide it (when possible) with their beaks, and

then eat it. o They have an elongated middle front toe and a hind toe (As Chickens, Turkeys, etc...). o They spread their toes with the three front toes on one side of a perch and the hind toe on the other

side. o They have craws or crops.

o They have a gizzard with a double lining, which can easily be separated.

If a bird possesses All of the Above, it is "clean". If it lacks one or more of these characteristics, it is "unclean". Additionally, "Clean" birds include the chicken, duck, goose, grouse, partridge, pheasant, quail, turkey, and all

songbirds.

http://www.marriagesupper.com/Content/BelieversDiet.html

Shopping and Eating Biblically:

-- Clean birds identified by most communities include chicken, geese, ducks, and doves.

http://www.bethimmanuel.org/article.cgi?t=a1&a=6000

Beyond the obvious physical benefits of obeying YAHOWAH‘s Foods laws, the food laws seem to have significant symbology behind it as we see in the quote below from The Biblical World by John Barton, page 389:

―These distinctions made in the food law‘s between clean and unclean foods match the divisions among

mankind…Through this system of symbolic law‘s the Israelites are reminded at every meal of their redemption to be

[YAHOWAH‘s] people…the oldest Jewish explanation of these law‘s in the second-century [BCE] Letter of Aristea‘s seems

to endorse such a symbolic interpretation…The writer states that humans must behave like the clean birds that eat grain,

not like the wild and carnivorous unclean birds…These regulations teach Israel to act ‗with discrimination according to the

standard of righteousness – more especially because we have been distinctly separated from the rest of mankind…‖

In the book called In Walk in the Light – Kosher – Scriptural Insights Reveal that the Food Instructions Apply to all Believers by Todd D. Bennett, appendix A, page 91, he lists Clean Birds as such:

77

Chicken, dove, duck, goose, grouse, guinea, partridge, peacock, pheasant, pigeon, song birds, sparrow, quail, turkey

Overview of Food Laws by Keith Hunt (quoted in part):

A nutshell list From an old issue in "Answers Magazine"(1984) - 3. BIRDS

CLEAN The Bible does not give characteristics, which distinguish clean birds from unclean. But, based on the scriptures, which list unclean birds and then comparing the qualities of clean and unclean birds, we find 6 general rules in order for a bird to be clean:

1) Not a bird of prey. 2) Catch food thrown to them in the air, bring it to the ground and divide it with their bills;(-unclean birds devour it in the air, or press it with one foot to the ground and tear it with their bills. 3) Elongated middle front toe plus a hind toe. 4) Three toes on one side of a perch, with hind toe on the other side. 5) Has a crop. 6) Gizzard with double lining, easily separated.

Examples: Duck, goose, hen, house sparrow, quail, partridge, peacock, pheasant, and pigeon.

http://www.keithhunt.com/Food19.html

Biblical Health Principles by Richard Anthony:

Air Creatures

Chickens, Dove, Duck, Goose, Grouse, Guinea Hen, Partridge, Peacock, Pheasant, Pigeon, Songbird, Sparrow, Quail,

Turkey.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/health.html

CLEAN MEATS OF THE BIBLE:

AIR CREATURES

Chickens, Dove, Duck, Goose, Grouse, Guinea Pig, Partridge, Peacock, Pheasant, Pigeon, Songbird, Sparrow, Quail,

Turkey

http://users.penn.com/~rarearts/cleanmeatsofthebible.htm

The following is from The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia Online, subject – FOWL; take note of the bold and underlined section because 1st Kings 4:23 appears to show the Hebrew word, barburim, translated as ―fatted fowls,‖ signify swans or geese, according to some authorities!

The fatted fowls served on Solomon‘s table were in all probability swans or geese but certainly not young ostrich's as suggest by some scholars. Taking into account that Solomon was the wisest man on earth, he definitely would have known the distinction between clean and unclean birds, so there is no possible way he would‘ve served unclean birds in the temple of YAHOWAH (yes it is true as someone has pointed out to us that Solomon was very wise in the beginning of his reign but was soon corrupted by his many allegiances to foreign women, but there is no evidence, at least in 1st Kings 4:23 that Solomon had yet forsaken YAHOWAH and His laws!

foul (`oph; peteinon): The word is now generally restricted to the larger, especially the edible birds, but formerly it denoted all flying creatures; in Leviticus 11:20 the King James Version we have even, "all fowls that creep, going upon all

four," Leviticus 11:21, "every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four."

78

1. Old Testament Terms and References:

The word most frequently translated "fowl" is `oph from `uph, "to cover," hence, wing; it is used collectively for birds and fowl in general (Genesis 1:20, etc.; Genesis 2:19-20, etc.); `ayit (from `ut, "to rush") means a ravenous beasts; or bird of prey, used collectively of ravenous birds (Genesis 15:11 the King James Version; Isaiah 18:6 the King James Version "fowls"; Job 28:7, "a path which no fowl knoweth," the Revised Version (British and American) "no bird of prey"); in Isaiah 46:11 it is used as a symbol of a conqueror (compare Jeremiah 12:9, "bird," "birds of prey"; Ezekiel 39:4, "ravenous birds"); tsippor, Aramaic tsippar (from tsaphar, "to twitter or chirp"), "a chirper," denotes a small bird or sparrow (Deuteronomy 4:17 the King James Version; Nehemiah 5:18; Daniel 4:14); to give the carcasses of men to the fowls (birds) of the air was an image of destruction (Deuteronomy 28:26 the King James Version; 1 Samuel 17:44,46; Psalms 79:2; Jeremiah 7:33, etc.); barburim, rendered (1 Kings 4:23) "fatted fowl" (among the provisions for Solomon's table for one day), is probably a mimetic word, like Greek barbaros, Latin murmuro, English babble, perhaps denoting geese from their cackle (Gesenius, from barar, "to cleanse," referring to their white plumage; but other derivations and renderings are given). They might have been ducks or swans. They could have been guineas or pigeons. The young of the ostrich was delicious food, and no doubt when Solomon's ships brought peafowl they also brought word that they were a delicacy for a king's table. The domestic fowl was not common so early in Palestine, but it may have been brought by Solomon with other imports from the East; in New Testament times chickens were common; ba`al kanaph, "owner of a wing," is used for a bird of any kind in Proverbs 1:17. "In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird," the King James Version margin Hebrew, "in the eyes of

everything that hath a wing."

2. In the Levitical Law:

In the Levitical law fowls (birds) were distinguished as clean and unclean (Leviticus 11:13 f; Deuteronomy 14:11-20; compare Genesis 8:20); the first were allowed to be eaten because they fed on grains, seeds, and vegetables; the second

were forbidden because they fed on flesh and carrion.

http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/F/fowl.html

CLARKE'S COMMENTARY - LEVITICUS 11

Verse 18. The swan] tm•nt tinshemeth. The Septuagint translates the word by porfuriwna, the porphyrion, purple or

scarlet bird. Could we depend on this translation, we might suppose the flamingo or some such bird to be intended. Some suppose the goose to be meant, but this is by no means likely, as it cannot be classed either among

ravenous or unclean fowls. Bochart thinks the owl is meant.

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkelev11.htm

For those of you that might still have some doubts, we ought to remember a simple rule in regards to birds as we see in the following piece, ARE THE FOOD LAWS SCIENTIFIC? By Harold Hemenway:

An interesting consequence of the ruminant-type digestive process is the fact that ruminants are not PREDATORY or CARNIVOROUS! They get all the nutrition they need from PLANTS! This PLANT-EATING nature results in LESS DISEASE and FEWER PARASITES. But the PIG is a SCAVENGER, eating DEAD and DECAYED flesh (often of other

UNCLEAN animals).

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/foodlaws.html

Liberal Judaism - Where We Stand – KASHRUT:

BIRDS

Only chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, partridges, peacocks, pheasants, pigeons, quails and sparrows are permitted for

consumption, providing they have been slaughtered by a shohet.

http://www.wcls.org.uk/kashrut.php

Are The FOOD LAWS Scientific? What Is The Rule For Birds? (quoted in part):

79

Continuing in Leviticus 11, we come to the bird category next. But the Bible gives no rule for distinguishing between the clean and unclean as it did in the two previous categories. Deuteronomy 14 is also silent in this regard. Furthermore, no clean birds are listed! All that the Bible gives us in these chapters are the names of about 24 unclean birds! But other scriptures reveal that the PIGEON and DOVE are both clean since they were used for sacrificing (Lev.1:14-17; Luke 2:24), and the QUAIL is clean since [YAHOWAH] provided it for food in Numbers 11:31-32, and the SPARROW is clean since it sold for food and [YAHO-Hoshu-WAH] recognized this use (Luke 12:6), so it's possible to determine a rule based on these

four birds, comparing them with the ones listed as unclean.

The result is SIX CHARACTERISTICS that all clean birds have. FIRST, they ARE NOT BIRDS of PREY. SECOND, they catch food thrown to them in the air, but bring it to the ground, where they divide it with their beaks before consuming it, if this is possible. But unclean birds devour it in the air or press it with one foot to the ground and tear it with their bills. THIRD, they must have an elongated middle front toe and a hind toe. FOURTH, they spread their toes so that the hind toe is on one side of their perch, and the three front toes are on the other. FIFTH, they MUST have CRAWS or CROPS. SIXTH, they MUST have a GIZZARD with a DOUBLE LINING, which can easily be separated. (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol.6,

p.111). One or more of these characteristics is lacking in all unclean birds!

The Mishnah (the collection of Jewish oral interpretations of scripture, which were compiled about 200 A.D.) gives a more concise rule. It states that, "a bird that seizes food in its claws is unclean; one which has an extra talon, a CRAW, and the SKIN of whose STOMACH can be PEELED, is clean" (Hul. 3:6). The Mishnah mentions that any one of these

characteristics makes the bird clean. In other words, a bird doesn't have to possess them all to be edible (Hul. 61b-62a).

It is extremely interesting that clean birds have, in essence, THREE STOMACHS including the CROP and the GIZZARD and another THIRD SECTION of stomach between the two, reminding a person of clean ruminating beasts, which all have FOUR STOMACHS! These extra digestive organs in clean birds and beasts may prevent poisons from being assimilated into the meat since the bird gets all its nutritional needs from harmless plants. To take the parallel further, some of the leaf-eating birds have BACTERIA in their intestines, which break down CELLULOSE (P.76, Bird Behavior by Robert Burton,

copyright 1985).

"The only essentially leaf-eating birds are the SWANS, GEESE, GROUSE, some of the DUCKS and the KAKAPO. PIGEONS, COOTS, GAMEBIRDS and the OSTRICH and its allies are mainly leaf-eaters, but they

supplement this diet with fair quantities of other plant and animal food" (p.76, ibid.)

(Note that the only unclean birds in this list are the KAKAPO and OSTRICH). Remember that the RUMINATING beasts all used BACTERIA in their digestion of plants too! One more point of comparison is found in PIGEONS and DOVES, which use their crop to store, or partly digest, food taken too quickly for the stomach to handle. During breeding season, the

crop produces "milk" from seeds eaten which is REGURGITATED for the young. This is one form of RUMINATION!

The Encyclopedia Judaica also reveals certain characteristics that are unique to unclean birds. Unclean birds are BIRDS of PREY (carnivorous) or birds that feed on CARRION (dead and decaying flesh, including FAT and BLOOD) like VULTURES or nocturnal BIRDS of PREY which have two toes pointing forward and two backward like the OWL, or waterfowl like the SEAGULL, STORK, BITTERN, HERON, CRANE and GULL or birds with hooked beaks and hooked talons like the BUZZARD,

EAGLE, FALCON, HAWK, KESTREL, KITE, etcetera.

But some waterfowl are clean, including DUCKS, GEESE, TEAL and, yes, the SWAN! All these birds comply with the six requirements for clean birds. The Hebrew word translated "SWAN" should be rendered "IBIS," or "STORK," or

"WATER HEN." As was mentioned above, swans are vegetarian!

Generally speaking, we could say that clean birds are predominantly vegetarian. The birds that eat nuts and seeds are CARDINALS, CROSSBILLS, CROWS, FINCHES, JAYS, NUTCRACKERS, NUTHATCHES, PARROTS, QUELEAS, SPARROWS,

TITMOUSES and WEAVERS.

The birds that eat leaves are SWANS, GEESE, GROUSE, some of the DUCKS and the KAKAPO.

Unclean birds are CARNIVOROUS and/or SCAVENGERS. This, of course, means that unclean birds have more diseases

and parasites.

OWLS eat rats, mice and other disease-carrying rodents almost exclusively! The EAGLE will eat "fish and refuse that is thrown up on the shore" and one kind of EAGLE is "able to take some birds as they fly, but a large part of its sustenance is the flesh of animals that die a natural death" (Encyc. Brit. 11th, 20:397 & 8:790). VAMPIRE BATS drink BLOOD and

bats are vectors of the disease RABIES*! BAT SALIV ARY GLAND FEVER* can also infect man via bites and infection.

80

Starting in Leviticus 11:13, we read, "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the EAGLE, and the OSSIFRAGE, and the OSPREY, And the VULTURE (KITE), and the KITE (FALCON) after its kind; Every RAVEN after its kind; And the OWL (OSTRICH), and the NIGHT HAWK, and the CUCKOW (SEA GULL), and the HAWK after its kind, AND the LITTLE (WHITE) OWL, and the CORMORANT, and the GREAT (HORNED) OWL, And the "SWAN" (IBIS, STORK, or WATER HEN), and the PELICAN, and the GIER (CARRION) EAGLE, and the STORK, the HERON after its kind, and the LAPWING (HOOPOE), and the BAT" (vv.13-19). Deuteronomy 14:13,16 and 17 mentions some additional birds: "And the GLEDE (BUZZARD) ... The LITTLE (SCREECH) OWL, and the GREAT OWL ... and the GIER EAGLE (CARRION VULTURE)." Other examples are the BITTERN, CRANE, CROW, KESTREL,

PARROT, ROADRUNNER, SWIFT and WOODPECKER.

The list of clean birds and fowl must be the following: BLACKBIRD, BRAMBLING, BALDHEADED IBIS, CHAFFINCH, CHICKEN, CORN BUNTING, DOVE, DUCK, GOOSE, GROUSE, GARDEN WARBLER, GREENFINCH, GOLDEN PLOVER, GARGANAY, GUINEA FOWL, HEN, ITALIAN SPARROW, MEADOW PIPIT, ORTOLAN BUNTING, PHEASANT, PEACOCK, PARTRIDGE, PIGEON, QUAIL, REDSTART, ROCK BUNTING, ROBIN, ROOSTER, SPARROW, SONGBIRDS (including such beautiful singers as the thrushes, wrens, honeyeaters, cardinals, larks, mockingbirds, canaries, nightingales, butcherbirds, blackbirds and warblers), SONG THRUSH, SKYLARK, SNIPE, SWAN, TURTLE DOVE, TURKEY, WOOD COCK, WHEATEAR,

WHITE WAGTAIL, YELLOWHAMMER, etcetera.

http://www.british-israel.us/02.html

The following is a listing of Clean and Unclean foods by Herbert W. Armstrong compiled from various articles (quoted in part):

BIBLICALLY CLEAN MEAT, FISH AND FOWL

MEAT:

Beef

Lamb

Goat

Hart

Roebuck

Deer

Antelope

Ox

Mountain sheep

Buffalo

FISH:

Albacore

Anchovies

Bluebill Sunfish

Bluefish

Bowfin

Buffalo fish

Butterfish

Carp

Chubs

Cod

Crappies

Flounder

Fresh water mullet

Groupers

Grunts

Haddock

Hake

81

Halibut

FOWL:

Dove

Pigeon

Chicken

Pheasant

Quail

Partridge

Grouse

Turkey

Duck

Geese, and

all song birds

http://www.hwarmstrong.org/clean.html

The following copies of Mr. Armstrong‘s original magazine on the food laws is reproduced here for the

students evaluation (please note again that the true family name of the Creator is YAHOWAH, and one of

His many title is Aloahyim which means Almighty One, not God!).

82

83

http://www.hwarmstrong.org/goodfood.pdf

84

What Fish and Fowl are good for Food?

Clean birds have all these characteristics; unclean birds lack one or more of these characteristics. If a bird lacks any one

of these characteristics, it is unclean. Beside the pigeon and dove, the following birds are clean: chicken, pheasant, quail,

partridge, grouse, turkey, all songbirds, ducks, geese, swan (the word swan is a mistranslation in the King James

Version). Unclean birds not listed specifically in the Bible are roadrunners, woodpeckers and the parrot family (which

divide their toes so that two are on either side of a perch); aquatic and wading birds and gulls which have no crops or

craws, no double lining of gizzards, and often no hind toe or no elongated middle front toe.

http://www.revelationsofthebible.com/Fish%20And%20Fowl

What is Kosher?

BIRDS

The Torah lists only the birds, which are forbidden to eat, such as ostriches, owls and vultures. We cannot be sure

however of the true identity of the species listed. But by tradition, we can eat poultry such as duck, chicken goose and

turkey, and also pigeon, pheasant and partridge. A Germanic tradition also allows sparrow!

www.kosher.org.uk/images/chicken.jpg&imgrefurl

We‘ve mentioned the gizzard often enough in this study, so let us take a closer look at them, especially in

relationship to clean birds;

The Gizzard (kirkiban) The kirkiban or gizzard is the stomach of the bird. Most birds eat primarily seeds, which need to be digested. As a prerequisite to digestion the seeds must be broken down. For this reason, many birds swallow pebbles, which are rubbed against the seeds, which the bird eats. The gizzard is a very muscular organ, as it must be able to grind the seeds into digestible form.

Inspecting the Gizzard If the gizzard is punctured, then it is forbidden. It is not unusually for birds to swallow nails or other objects, which can cause a rupture in the gizzard. Particularly, ducks and geese, tend to swallow large metal objects and as such their gizzards should be inspected. If there is a problem in the gizzard, there is usually a significant amount of inflammation, and thus it is quickly noticed. In the event that there is such an inflammation, and there is the possibility that something punctured the gizzard a rabbinical authority should be consulted.

Kashering the Gizzard The gizzard is essentially a muscle; the inside is lined by a latex like substance. This inside membrane is very rough and not edible. To kosher the gizzard, cut the gizzard open, remove the inside membrane and then soak and salt the gizzard as you would any other piece of meat.

How the Gizzard is used to Identify Kosher Birds One of the physical characteristics of kosher birds is that they have a gizzard, which is composed of the two membranes just described. There is no bird, which is currently accepted as kosher, which does not have a gizzard, which separates into two membranes. To separate the membranes there should be no need to use a knife, but rather the membrane should separate easily in the hand. As shown in the images (Gizzard 1:7, 1:8, 1:9) the gizzards of most kosher birds look similar. They are similar in coloration, texture and the ease with which the two membranes can be separated. Obviously, there are significant differences in size depending on the size of the bird from which they are derived. There are certain birds of prey, such as the owl, which has gizzards similar to that of the kosher birds. The membranes can be separated, but the bird is an accepted bird of prey listed as such in the Torah. Hence, while all kosher birds have this type of gizzard, it is not true that all birds with this type of gizzard are kosher.

85

Picture Guide

Gizzard 1:5 (upper left hand corner) Shows a greatly magnified cross section of a chicken gizzard, prior to the separation of the membranes. The rough, latex like, yellow membrane can still be clearly seen. From the cross section, it is also clear that there are two separate, but attached, membranes in the gizzard. Gizzard 1:6 (upper right hand corner) The yellow, latex like, membrane has been removed. The gizzard once rinsed will be ready to be soaked and salted. There are

tiny bits of the membrane, which remains on the lower left. The ability of the two membranes to separate easily in the hand, without the use of a knife, are one of the four signs that bird is kosher.

Picture Guide

Gizzard 1:1 (bottom left hand corner, bottom center, and bottom right hand corner, in that order) This is a gizzard, which has just been removed from a chicken. The gizzard is covered with fats, and the actual gizzard can just barely be seen. The amount of fat found around the gizzard can vary from chicken to chicken. This chicken was raised for eggs, and these chickens tend to have much more fat than chickens that are raised for meat.

http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/gizzard.pdf

Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws:

For birds, the criteria are less clear. The Torah lists forbidden birds (Leviticus 11, 13-19; Deuteronomy 14, 11-18), but does not specify why these particular birds are forbidden. All of the birds on the list are birds of prey or scavengers, thus the rabbis inferred that this was the basis for the distinction. Other birds are permitted, such as chicken, geese, ducks,

and turkeys.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/kashrut.htm

What are the dietary restrictions that some Jews follow to "keep kosher" (the laws of kashrut)?

There are a number of foods that have already been predetermined by the Torah and interpreted by the rabbis as either

kosher or non-kosher.

Prohibited Fowl: Bat, cuckoo, eagle, hawk, heron, kite, lapwing, ostrich, owl, pelican, stork, swan, and vulture.

86

Permitted Fowl: Capon, chicken, dove, duck, geese, pigeon, and turkey.

http://joi.org/qa/kosher.shtml

The Basic Laws of Kashrus:

Not all birds are permitted. We know which birds are acceptable by means of tradition (the Torah lists the forbidden birds but the exact translation of some of these species is no longer known. Thus we can only eat birds known by tradition to be kosher.) Most commonly eaten birds (chicken, duck and turkey) are acceptable. (There is a minor controversy about

turkey but most authorities maintain that it is acceptable.)

http://members.aol.com/LazerA/kashrus.html

Kosher and Non-Kosher Animals

With regard to birds, the Bible gives a list of the forbidden birds, implying that all others are kosher. But since the exact identity of the birds mentioned is uncertain, it is the practice only to eat birds that are known by tradition to be kosher, such as chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and pigeons. The eggs of forbidden birds are terefah, but quails' eggs are

permitted since the quail is a kosher bird (see Numbers 12:31-2).

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/Kashrut/Overview_Kosher_Food/Kosher_NonKosher_Animals.htm

Kashrut Class - Permitted Meat

Birds - The kashrut of birds is tricky. The Torah only lists certain birds as being kosher and the Oral Law does not expand

it. The kosher birds include chicken, turkey, duck, goose, dove, and pheasant.

http://www.chelm.org/jewish/kashrut/l2.permissible_meat.html

In Holy Cow written by Hope Egan, she says, on pages 23, 34-35, 142 (proper name of the Heavenly Father inserted by the Assembly of YAHOWAH the Eternal):

Page 23 - Birds (Leviticus 11:13-19):

In contrast to mammals and fish, [YAHOWAH‘s] Word does not provide distinguishing characteristics for clean birds. Rather, it lists examples of unclean birds. As with fish, those listed – such as vultures and buzzards – are generally scavengers that [YAHOWAH] designed for purposes other than to be eaten. Commonly eaten poultry, like chicken, turkey

and duck, are not listed as unclean and are therefore considered clean.

Pages 34-35 - Birds

In Leviticus 11 [YAHOWAH] prescribes which birds to avoid eating, rather than listing those we may eat. Not surprisingly, most of these birds are scavengers, designed by [YAHOWAH] to help clean our environment. Included in their diets are

carcasses, lizards, rats and other animals designated as unclean. Some will eat dead human flesh.

By process of elimination, chicken, turkey, duck, goose and quail are considered clean by most authorities. Their digestive systems are quite different from those of scavenger birds. A chicken‘s primary diet consists of grasses and grain,

and its craw (part of its digestive system) is similar to the cow‘s rumination pouches.

Low in calories and fat, and high in cancer-fighting niacin, immune-boosting selenium, and metabolism-enhancing vitamin B6, chickens seem to be designed by [YAHOWAH] for us to eat. In fact, ―The prostaglandins in chicken have strong

antiviral properties. (Maybe your mother‘s chicken soup is good for the flu and colds.)

As with fish, [YAHOWAH‘s] original, intelligent design for clean birds has become somewhat obscured by man‘s intervention. Cramming chickens into close quarters and feeding them hormones and antibiotics reduces their health benefits to us. Thankfully, consumers are becoming more aware of these conditions, which are detrimental to both

animals and humans, and some food producers are responding to the public‘s demand for free-range, chemical-free birds.

87

Page 142 - Birds with Clean Characteristics

Chicken, Dove, Duck, Geese, Grouse, Guinea fowl, Partridge, Peafowl, Pheasant, Pigeon, Prairie chicken, Ptarmigan,

Quail, Sagehen, Sparrow (and other songbirds), Swan, Teal, Turkey

To Eat or Not to Eat? by J.K. McKee posted 15 April 2002 www.tnnonline.net:

Birds and Flying Creatures ―These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat‖ (Leviticus 11:13-19). ―You may eat any clean bird. But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the red kite, the falcon, and the kite in their kinds, and every raven in its kind, and the ostrich, the owl, the sea gull, and the hawk in their kinds, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the cormorant, the stork, and the heron in their kinds, and the hoopoe and the bat‖ (Deuteronomy 14:11-18). The list of unacceptable birds that are not to be eaten primarily include birds of prey, some of which are believed to be extinct today. These unclean birds, however, include ―the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat‖ (Leviticus 11:13-19, NIV). None of these creatures are widely consumed by anyone, notably as many of these birds like the eagle or falcon are considered endangered species. There is a growing trend in America to eat ostrich as a delicacy meat, but it is only limited to a few parts of the country. Birds that are considered acceptable for consumption today include chicken, turkey, duck, goose, and numerous other fowl that are primarily wild.

J.K. McKee (B.A., University of Oklahoma; M.A. Student, Asbury Theological Seminary) is the editor of TNN Online (www.tnnonline.net) and is a Messianic apologist. He is author of several books, including: The New Testament Validates Torah, Torah In the Balance, Volume I, and When Will the Messiah Return?. He has also written many articles on the Two Houses of Israel and Biblical theology, and is presently focusing on Messianic commentaries on various books of the Bible. Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard, Updated Edition (NASU), © 1995, published by The Lockman Foundation. revised 30 September, 2005 edited for spelling/grammar; minor theological fine-tuning 20 November, 2006

http://www.tnnonline.net/theonews/bibpractices/eat-not-eat/To_Eat_or_Not_to_Eat.pdf

The Laws of Kashrut:

Most common fowl are kosher, like chickens, ducks and geese, but the birds of prey (hawks, eagles, owls, parrots) are

not kosher.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://ohr.edu/special/misc/soulfood.gif&imgrefurl=http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/993&h=154&w=559&sz=19&hl=en&start=16&tbnid=iNg9NaVZfxpurM:&tbnh=37&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3D

Kosher%2BAnimals%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

KOSHER SPECIES - 2. Birds:

The Torah enumerates 24 forbidden species of birds, and the Talmud explains that, among other signs, all birds of prey (vulture, hawk, eagle) are forbidden. In practice today, we eat only those birds for which there is an established tradition that the bird is kosher -- e.g. chicken, turkey, duck and goose. As for "kosher eggs," they must come from a species of

kosher bird (e.g. chicken).

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://articles.aish.com/graphics/articles/ABCsOFKosher140x100.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/&h=100&w=140&sz=7&hl=en&start=20&tbnid=M5ojG-3D6CcUZM:&tbnh=66&tbnw=93&prev=/images%3Fq%3DKosher%2BAnimals%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Do

ff%26sa%3DG

88

Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws

For birds, the criteria is less clear. The Torah lists forbidden birds (Lev. 11:13-19; Deut. 14:11-18), but does not specify why these particular birds are forbidden. All of the birds on the list are birds of prey or scavengers, thus the rabbis

inferred that this was the basis for the distinction. Other birds are permitted, such as chicken, geese, ducks and turkeys.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kashrut.html

In the book Daily Life in Biblical Times by Oded Borowski, chapter 4, entitled The Israelite Diet, it says on pages 69-70, we quote in part (emphasis mine):

Fowl. As with other living things, the Hebrew Bible contains prescriptions concerning the consumption of fowl. From the Iron Age and earlier, no architectural evidence is available showing that fowl were domesticated. Evidence, like columbaria (dove-cotes), is known from the later Hellenistic and roman periods. However, the inclusion of certain birds in

the sacrifice lists strongly suggests that pigeons and turtledoves were raised under controlled conditions.

Bone remains of chickens, geese and ducks from excavations at the Ophel in Jerusalem and other Iron Age sites

show that these domestic types were available.

Biblical reference and zooarchaeological evidence demonstrate that certain wild birds were hunted. The consumption of birds was probably not different from what is practiced in the region today, which is similar to the consumption of other meats. Furthermore, like other animals, birds were fattened for consumption on special occasions, as suggested by the

reference to barburim abusim, ―fattened fowl,‖ that were served on Solomon‘s table (1st Kings 5:3 [Eng. 4:23]).

The following correspondence came as a resul of an email I sent to one of the splinter groups that use to

be with H.W. Armstrong, who taught the food laws to his congregation. I was interested to know why

some of the splinter groups were against ducks and geese and many others were not. This is the reply I

received:

Dear Roman,

Thank you for your questions and comments.

I appreciate all the articles you have on the site; they've helped me in years past.

Thank you for your encouragement. We are very happy that you have been benefitting from our offerings.

Right now I've come across some information from the scriptures that seem to show that ducks, geese and

swans are clean to eat!

I am aware of some controversy over the years about whether or not swans are clean, but I believe most branches of

God‘s church have always considered ducks and geese to be clean.

Do you have any more information in the form of studies or articles that may help in this study of clean birds?

Although most of our articles, which mention clean and unclean foods, deal with the spiritual aspects, here are some

links, which might help:

http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/57/Clean-Unclean-Meats.htm

http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/6210/Clean-Unclean-as-

Metaphor.htm

http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/5454/Clean-Unclean-

Distinction.htm

http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/4391/Clean-Unclean-

Animals.htm

http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/4390/Clean-Unclean-Laws.htm

89

Also, here is a link to a Google search on this topic:

http://www.google.com/search?q=clean unclean birds

I know that for many years H.W. Armstrong wrote in his articles that ducks and geese were clean, but someone

told me many years ago that web feet makes the birds unclean.

Research conducted by Herbert Armstrong and the staffs of the Worldwide Church of God and Ambassador College

concluded that there are common factors of clean birds listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The main common

factors include the structure of the feet (without regard to whether or not they are webbed), the

possession of a crop/craw and the structure of the stomach. This agrees in the most part with the Jews‘ research

on the same subject. See the following article from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=531&letter=C#1870

Despite going through the Hebrew scriptures, I haven't found one law that says that web feet makes a bird

unclean!

We are inclined to agree with you on this, but please contact us again if you come up with any solid evidence one way or

the other.

Regards,

John Plunkett

Church of the Great God

Victoria, BC, Canada

From The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible - Leviticus 11:18:

And the swan…

This is a bird well known to us, but it is a question whether it is intended by the word here used; for though it is so

rendered in the Vulgate Latin, it is differently rendered by many others:

the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem call it "otia", which seems to be the same with the "otus" of Aristotle F14, who says it is like an owl, having a tuft of feathers about its ears (from whence it has its name); and some call it "nycticorax", or the owl; and here,

by Bochart F15, and others, the owl called "noctua" is thought to be meant; and with which agrees the account some Jewish writers give of it, as Aben Ezra and Baal Hatturim, who say it is a bird, which every one that sees is astonished at it, as other birds are at the owl, are frightened at the sight of it, and stupefied.

But as the same word is used (Leviticus 11:30) among the creeping things, for a mole, what Jarchi observes is worthy of consideration, that this is "calve (chauve) souris" (the French word for a bat), and is like unto a mouse, and flies in the night; and that which is spoken of among the creeping things is like unto it, which hath no eyes, and they call it "talpa", a

mole.

The Septuagint version renders it by "porphyrion", the redshank; and so Ainsworth; and is thought to be called by the

Hebrew name in the text, from the blowing of its breath in drinking; for it drinks biting, as Aristotle says F16:

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=le&chapter=011&verse=018

90

From Smith‘s Bible Dictionary:

Swan

(Heb. tinshemeth ), thus rendered by the Authorized Version in (Leviticus 11:18; 14:16) where it occurs in the list of unclean birds Rut either of the renderings "porphyrio" (purple water-hen) and "ibis" is more probable. Neither of these birds occurs elsewhere in the catalogue; both would be familiar to residents in Egypt, and the original seems to point to some waterfowl. The purple water hen is allied to our corn-crake and water-hen, and is the largest and most beautiful of the family Rallidae. It frequents marshes and the sedge by the banks of rivers in all the countries bordering on the Mediterranean and is abundant in lower Egypt.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/dic/sbd/view.cgi?number=T4155

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

SWAN

swan (tinshemeth, "chameleon," "tree-toad," "water-hen," "owl"; kuknos; Latin cygnus; Anglo-Saxon:

swan and swon): Mentioned only in old versions and the Revised Version margin in Leviticus 11:18: "the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle," and in Deuteronomy 14:16 Septuagint porphurion = "water-hen"; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) ibis). In the Revised Version (British and American), this is rightly changed to "the horned owl, and the pelican, and the vulture." A bird of the duck family wrongly placed

among the abominations in old versions of the Bible, now changed to horned owl.

White and gray swans spend their winter migratory season on the waters of the Holy Land. They are among the most ancient birds of history; always have been used for food; when young and tender, of fine flesh and delicious flavour; so there is no possibility that they were ever rightfully placed among the birds unsuitable for food. Their feeding habits

are aquatic, their food in no way objectionable.

Gene Stratton-Porter

http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T8513

According to The Kosher and Halal Food Laws by J.M. Regenstein, M.M. Chaudry, and C.E. Regenstein Vol. 2, 2003 - Allowed animals, they said:

With respect to poultry, the traditional domestic birds (that is, chicken, turkey, squab, duck, and goose) are kosher. Birds in the rattrie category (ostrich, emu, and rhea) are not kosher, as the ostrich is specifically mentioned in the Bible (Lev.XI:16). However, it is not clear whether the animal of the Bible is the same animal we know today as an ostrich. There is a set of criteria that are sometimes referred to in trying to determine if a bird is kosher. The kosher bird has a stomach (gizzard) lining that can be removed from the rest of the gizzard. It cannot be a bird of prey. Another issue deals with tradition; for example, newly discovered or developed birds may not be acceptable. Some rabbis do not accept wild turkey, while some do not accept the featherless chicken.

YAHOWAH‘s Law on birds, which ones are we allowed to eat?

Clean Birds

The clean birds are of the family of chicken, turkey, pigeon and dove – those that have a crop. The duck, goose and

swan are also clean birds.

http://secondhoperanch.com/BibleVerse.html

91

From The Youth Instructor, of June 16, 1942, Vories quotes the following:

The clean bird has a stomach or gizzard with a double skin, which can be easily separated. . . . Examples are the chicken, the turkey, and certain species of ducks and geese. Knowing these facts about the chicken, we might believe that the Creator permitted it to be used for food because it has a digestive system something like that of the clean beasts—a digestive system more capable of eliminating impurities from the food eaten than is the digestive system of the unclean

animals (Vories, 13).

http://www.bethelcog.org/church/general-articles/gods-commandments/unclean-meats-should-they-be-eaten

How We Know What Is Clean:

Eagles, hawks, pelicans, sea eagles, owls, vultures and crows are examples of unclean carnivores of the bird family.

Clean birds include turkeys, chickens, geese, ducks, and doves--those that feed on grains or plants.

http://www.yaiy.org/literature/ScriptFood.html

Clean and Unclean Of the Sky (quoted in part):

Notice that this applies to birds also, as the unclean ones will eat the flesh of animals (many times already dead) and the clean do not. For birds, we are given specific species, which we are told, are unclean and are to us an ―abomination‖ not to be

eaten.

Not listed as unclean, and therefore clean for us, would include chicken, duck, dove, turkey, pheasant, goose, and quail. You

may remember that it was quail that was given to the children of Israel during the exodus.

http://www.yaiy.org/literature/YahwehFood.html

From the Beth Messiah Position Paper # 9 - EATING SCRIPTURALLY KOSHER:

Clean birds include chicken, turkeys, geese, ducks, and doves. Unclean birds include eagles, sparrows, and crows. Clean birds identified by most communities include chicken, geese, ducks, and doves. Additionally, winged insects with large jumping legs (various types of grasshoppers and locusts, for example) are also edible according to Scripture, although only the Sephardic (Mediterranean/Middle Eastern) communities have a recorded tradition of which ones are edible.

Acceptable Pigeon, dove, the following birds are clean: chicken, pheasant, quail, partridge, grouse, turkey, songbirds, ducks, geese http://lampofmessiah.org/Documents/Position%20Paper%209%20Eating%20Scripturally%20Kosher.pdf

From Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, Astrid B. Beck, it says

under the heading, Domesticated Birds:

A number of birds were domesticated and kept for both pets and food. They included the ―yona‖ (dove/pigeon), ―tor‖

(turtledove), barburim (geese and ducks), ―qore‖ (partridge), ―selaw‖ (quail), ―deror‖ (swallow), and ―sis‖ (swift).

Sometime ca. 1400 B.C. domestic chickens (probably Heb. ―tuhot‖ and/or ―sekwl‖) were introduced to Palestine.

http://books.google.com/books?id=P9sYIRXZZ2MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bible&lr=&as_brr=3&rview=1&sig=NnaQR068Pfq02o3HDQuH4NeAJBo#PPA189,M1

The following piece on Poultry can be found at this website, http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Fowls:

92

Biblical Data:

The rearing of domestic fowl for various uses became a part of Palestinian husbandry only after the return from Babylon (see Cock; Hen); but from Isa 60:8 it appears that at the time when that passage was written the dove was to a certain degree domesticated (see Dove). The "fowls" ("ẓipporim") served on the table of Nehemiah (Neh 5:18) probably included pigeons and other small birds. Besides there are mentioned as having been used for food the quail (Ex 16:13 and

parallels) and "fatted fowl" ("barburim abusim"; 1 Kg 5:3 [A. V. iv. 23])

In the Talmud:

The Talmud gives the number of unclean birds after the Pentateuch lists as twenty-four, and then adds: "the clean birds are without number" (Ḥul. 63b). The characteristics of the clean birds are given (ib. 65a) as follows: (1) they do not kill or eat other birds; (2) they have a super-numerary toe ("eẓba' yeterah"), which is interpreted to mean either an additional toe behind the others, or an elongation of the middle toe; (3) they are supplied with a crop; (4) their stomachs have two skins, which can be easily separated; (5) they catch food thrown to them in the air, but bring it to the ground, when they divide it with their bills before eating it, while the unclean birds devour it in the air, or press it with one foot to the ground and tear it with their bills. Many birds are declared doubtful (ib. 62a, b). A distinction is made (ib. 42a) between large fowl ("'of ha-gas," geese, hens) and small ("'of ha-daḳ," doves, sparrows). "Ẓippor," denoting in the Old

Testament the sparrow and other small birds, occurs in the Talmud as a general name for any clean bird (ib. 139b).

Domesticated Fowl.

The fowl mentioned as domesticated are the dove, the goose, the hen (see the special articles thereon), and the duck ("bar aweza"; Beẓah 32b; B. Ḳ. 92b; Ḥul. 62b). The flesh of fowl was especially the food of the aged and feeble (Yer. Peah viii. 21a); otherwise it was considered inferior to the meat of cattle, so that after bloodletting the latter was

preferred (Me'i. 20b).

From ADAM CLARKE'S BIBLE COMMENTARY:

(Hebrew: barburim (1 Kings 4:23 ) ―fatted fowl‖) Barn-door fowl, or geese. The Egyptian paintings represent catching,

keeping, feeding, killing, salting, cooking, and eating of fowl.

http://www.godrules.net/library/smith/NEWsmith6.htm

Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws the Details:

Animals that may not be eaten

For birds, the criteria are less clear. The Torah lists forbidden birds (Leviticus 11,13-19; Deuteronomy 14,11-18), but does not specify why these particular birds are forbidden. All of the birds on the list are birds of prey or scavengers, thus the rabbis inferred that this was the basis for the distinction. Other birds are permitted, such as chicken, geese, ducks,

and turkeys.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/kashrut.htm

From the COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT by C. F. KEIL and F. DELITZSCH:

1Ki. 4:22, 23

In addition to this, game was also supplied to the king‘s table: viz., LyFJA stags, YBICi

gazelles, RwMXiYA fallow-deer, and „YSIwBJá „YRIbURibA ―fattened fowl.‖ The

meaning of „YRIbURibA is doubtful. The earlier translators render it birds or fowl. Kimchi

adopts the rendering ―capons;‖ Tanch. Hieroz. ―geese,‖ so called from their pure (RRAbF) white feathers; and both Gesenius and Dietrich (Lex.) decide in favour of the latter. The word must denote some special kind of fowl, since edible birds in general were called „YRIpæCI (Neh. 5:18).

93

Birds of the Bible - Clean vs. Unclean (blog) from Friday, April 11, 2008 (the Assembly of YAHOWAH the

Eternal inserted YAHOWAH‘s name into the piece):

The "clean" birds mostly have a diet of grain, fruits, and vegetation. Could that be why they are okay to eat? With all the good birds available like chicken, turkey, quail, duck, etc., I'd much rather sit down to a Thanksgiving meal of turkey than vulture. The birds used for the sacrifices were all clean birds. Then the #1 reason to eat or not eat a bird according to the list is AND [YAHOWAH] SAID http://leesbirdblog2.blogspot.com/search/label/Birds%20of%20the%20Bible

Eating Kosher by Hillel ben David (Greg Killian):

VI. Birds

Birds are a special category of animals. The Torah actually lists all the birds that cannot be eaten:

Vayikra (Leviticus) 11:13-19 "'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the

eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, The red kite, any kind of black kite, Any kind of raven, The horned owl, the

screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, The little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, The white owl, the desert

owl, the osprey, The stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. "

In practice, we normally eat only the birds, which have been understood from tradition, to be kosher. The common ones

are the chicken, turkey, ducks, and geese.

www.betemunah.org/eating.doc

The Basic Laws of Kashrus:

Not all birds are permitted. We know which birds are acceptable by means of tradition (the Torah lists the forbidden birds but the exact translation of some of these species is no longer known. Thus we can only eat birds known by tradition to be kosher.) Most commonly eaten birds (chicken, duck and turkey) are acceptable. (There is a minor controversy about turkey but most authorities maintain that it is acceptable.) http://hometown.aol.com/lazera/kashrus.html

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia – CHICKEN:

The many references to "fatted fowl" in these older records, in accordance with the text and the history of the other

nations, were pigeons, guineas, ducks, geese and swans. The importation of peafowl by Solomon is mentioned.

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/C/CHICKEN/

Eating in Jerusalem of the First Temple Period:

The wealth and luxury of King Solomon's court is indicated by the daily menu of the palace kitchens: "Solomon's daily

provisions consisted of 30 kors of semolina and 60 kors of [ordinary] flour,10 fatted oxen, 20 pasture-fed oxen, and 100

sheep and goats, besides deer and gazelles, roebucks and fatted geese" (1 Kings 5:2-3).

http://jeru.huji.ac.il/eb41l.htm

94

95

Conclusion The evidence in this study shows that ducks, geese and swans are kosher and their web feet is not a justification for making them unclean. YAHOWAH made it clear to Moses and the whole Nation of Israel which birds are unclean by listing them in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These birds of prey, scavengers, and certain water fowl that hunt and kill their food are vastly different than the clean birds described in the Word of YAHOWAH that eat mostly seeds, plants and insects. Thank you in YAHO-Hoshu-WAH's name for taking the time and effort to read through and study this whole study, May YAHOWAH bless you in YAHO-Hoshu-WAH's Name.

The Assembly of YAHOWAH the Eternal

c/o Bishop Roman Sanchez 225-202 Westhill Place

Port Moody, BC Canada v3h 1v2

romanvansanchez@yahoo.ca

778-355-0409

Bless you all in YAHO-Hoshu-WAH‘s Name through the Power of the Rowach Kodesh.

Amen.