Leviticus 11:47

Lev 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

Ver. 47. To make a difference.] Ministers also in their discourses should put a difference, and take out "the precious from the vile," {Jer 15:19} as did Zuinglius; who, when he inveighed most vehemently against sin, would usually come in with this clause, Probe vir, haec nihil ad te, This is not intended to thee, thou godly man.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

make a difference between the unclean and the clean--that is, between animals used and not used for food. It is probable that the laws contained in this chapter were not entirely new, but only gave the sanction of divine enactment to ancient usages. Some of the prohibited animals have, on physiological grounds, been everywhere rejected by the general sense or experience of mankind; while others may have been declared unclean from their unwholesomeness in warm countries or from some reasons, which are now imperfectly known, connected with contemporary idolatry.

Next: Leviticus Chapter 12

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(47) To make a difference.—Better, that ye may put difference, as the Authorised Version renders the same word in Lev_10:10. That is, the design of the dietary law is to enable both the administrators of the law and the people to distinguish, by the characteristics and criteria specified above, between what is clean and unclean.

And between the beast that may be eaten.—From the fact that the same word, “beast,” is used in both clauses with regard to the animal which may be eaten and the one which may not be eaten without the qualifying adjunct “clean” and “unclean,” the administrators of the law during the second Temple concluded that the same clean animal is meant in both instances, under different conditions. The clean animal may be eaten when it is in a healthy state, but the same animal may not be eaten when it has organic defects, or is diseased. Hence they enacted the following canon: an animal is perfectly sound when it is capable of conceiving and bringing forth young. This is the reason why the LXX. renders the word beast here by viviparous.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

To make a difference between the unclean and the clean,.... Whether of beasts, fish, fowl, and flying creeping things:

and between the beast that may be eaten, and the beast that may not be eaten; the former clause takes in all in general, this instances in a particular sort of creatures; and the first mentioned of which, that might be eaten, are, that part the hoof, are cloven footed, and chew the cud; and that might not, that chew the cud, but divide not the hoof, or divide the hoof, but chew not the cud; and now, by such like descriptions and distinctions of the creatures treated of, the Israelites would be able to make a difference between the one and the other, and know what was to be eaten, and what not.

Next: Leviticus Chapter 12

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

להבדיל TO MAKE A DISTINCTION — Not that one should only learn the laws, but it is a command that you should know and recognize the differences and be expert in them (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 6).

‎הטהור‎‎ בין הטמא ‎ובין‎ BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN — Is it necessary to say. that one should understand to distinguish between the ass and the cow? Have they not already been closely defined as to their distinguishing characteristics? But the meaning is: that you should thoroughly understand to distinguish between what is unclean for you and what is clean for you (i. e. between what is forbidden and what is permitted to you) — between the case of an animal only half of whose wind-pipe has been cut through by the knife, and the case when the greater part has been cut through (in the former case the animal is forbidden, in the latter it is permitted as food) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 7).

ובין החיה הנאכלת AND BETWEEN AN ANIMAL THAT MAY BE EATEN — Is it necessary to say that one should learn to distinguish between a stag and a wild ass? Have not these already been closely defined as to their distinguishing characteristics? But the meaning is: that you should thoroughly understand to distinguish between the case when there have arisen in it (in the animal) signs by which one might regard it as forbidden (טרפה) and yet it is permitted as food (כשרה), and the case when there have arisen in it signs by which one might regard it as forbidden and because of which it is actually unfitted to be eaten (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 8).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN. This means that we should distinguish between all things mentioned above, between the unclean and the clean, with regard to impurity[through contact]. AND BETWEEN THE ANIMAL THAT MAY BE EATEN. This is connected with the word “soul” mentioned [in the preceding verse], thus meaning: “and between the living animal that may be eaten.” Scripture is thus stating that we should distinguish as far as eating is concerned, between the living animal that may be eaten according to the Torah in the waters and upon the earth, and the animal in them that may not be eaten. In the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis said:. “And ‘hachayah’ (the beast) that may not be eaten. The Sages say, this establishes a prohibition against eating a [forbidden type of] beast.” (beast) is included in the term beheimah (cattle), as explained above in Verse 24, yet Scripture mentioned here a specific prohibition with regard to a forbidden chayah. If so, there is a special negative commandment regarding it.Now Rashi wrote: “To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean. Is it necessary to tell us to distinguish between the cow and the ass? Have they not clearly been defined already [by distinguishing signs]? But the meaning is: [to make a distinction between] that which is forbidden for you and that which is permitted for you, between the case of an animal of which only half of the windpipe was cut, [in which case, even if he cut through the whole gullet, it may not be eaten], and the case of an animal of which the greater part of the windpipe [or the entire windpipe] was cut through, [in addition to the gullet, or the greater part of it being cut through, which is permitted to be eaten].” There [in Tractate Chullin] it is taught: “And how much is there between half and the greater part of it? As much as a hair’s breadth,” [and it is this which requires ‘making a distinction’]. Do not be disturbed here because of that which they said there in the Gemara that it must be “a greater part which is apparent to the eyes” [thus a mere hair’s breadth would not be sufficient], for the meaning of that was only in order to exclude the opinion of the Sage who says that half and half is treated as if the majority [was cut through]; therefore they said that the part cut through must actually be a greater part, which is apparent to the eyes, not a half which we only treat in our minds [as the greater part], and we say that “the greater part” was cut through since the part not cut through is not larger than it [the part which was cut through]. But so long as more than half was [actually] cut through, it may be eaten, even if it be only by as much as a hair’s breadth, as is clearly explained in that Beraitha, and as it emerges from the discussion of the Gemara.Tazria

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.