Leviticus 11:6

Lev 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.

Ver. 6. Because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not.] Meditation must end in practice: as lessons of music must be practised, and a copy not read only, but written after.

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.

Lev 11:6. The hare, because (rather, though) he cheweth the cud — He has a runnet in his stomach, as those animals have which chew the cud, and therefore is said to chew it. The hare is extremely timorous, and therefore uses a great deal of exercise, by way of precaution, when it goes to seek its food, and at the approach of danger, either real or imaginary. This probably contributes to the exaltation of the salts. Hence it has a very high taste, even in our cold climate, which is an evidence that the animal flesh which gives it is strongly inclined to alkaline putrefaction.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

the hare--Two species of hare must have been pointed at: the Sinai hare, the hare of the desert, small and generally brown; the other, the hare of Palestine and Syria, about the size and appearance of that known in our own country. Neither the hare nor the coney are really ruminating. They only appear to be so from working the jaws on the grasses they live on. They are not cloven-footed; and besides, it is said that from the great quantity of down upon them, they are very much subject to vermin--that in order to expel these, they eat poisonous plants, and if used as food while in that state, they are most deleterious [WHITLAW].

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

Verse 6. The hare] ארנבת arnebeth, as Bochart and others suppose, from ארה arah, to crop, and ניב nib, the produce of the ground, these animals being remarkable for destroying the fruits of the earth. That they are notorious for destroying the tender blade of the young corn, is well known. It is very likely that different species of these animals are included under the general terms שפן shaphan, and ארנבת arnebeth, for some travellers have observed that there are four or five sorts of these animals, which are used for food in the present day in those countries. See Harmer, vol. iii., p. 331, edit. 1808. Some think the mountain rat, marmot, squirrel, and hedgehog, may be intended under the word shaphan.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(6) And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but.—Better, though he cheweth the cud, yet. Other nations, too, shunned the flesh of hares. The Parsees considered the hare as the most unclean of all animals, and the ancient Britons abstained from eating it because of the loathsome disorders to which the hare is subject. Like the rabbit, or the hyrax, the hare has not the peculiar stomach of the true ruminant; but, like the rabbit, the hare, when sitting at rest, so moves its jaws that it appears to masticate. As the object of the legislator was to furnish the people with marks by which they were to distinguish the clean from the unclean animals, he necessarily adopted those which were in common vogue, and which alone were intelligible in those days.

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

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud,.... Or, "though he chews" it:

but divideth not the hoof, he is unclean to you; and so not to be eaten; so Plutarch (q) says, that the Jews are said to abstain from the hare, disdaining it as a filthy and unclean animal, and yet was in the greatest esteem with the Romans of any four footed beast, as Martial says (r): Moses, as Bochart (s) and other learned men observe, is the only writer that speaks of the hare as chewing the cud; though they also observe, that Aristotle (t) makes mention of that in common with those that do chew the cud, namely a "coagulum" or "runnet" in its stomach; his words are,"all that have many bellies have what is called a coagulum or runnet, and of them that have but one belly, the hare;''only that: this creature being prone to lust, may be an emblem of lustful persons, who give up themselves to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness, Eph 4:19. (The "hare" is this verse may be an animal that is now is extinct but was alive at the time of Moses. It is only other mentioned in Deu 14:7. Editor.)

(q) Sympos. l. 9. c. 5. (r) L. 13. Epigr. 87. (s) Ut supra, (Hierozoic par. 1. l. 3.) c. 31. col. 977. (t) De Part. Animal. l. 3. c. 15. & Hist. Animal. l. 3. c. 21.

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

Cheweth. Some copies of the Septuagint add not, which agrees with the nature of the hare; though the people to whom Moses addresses himself were of a different persuasion. Its hoof is not divided into two parts only, and therefore it is accounted unclean.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

6. The hare — This is probably the species lepus Sinaiticus, seen by modern travellers in the Sinaitic Peninsula and in Mount Lebanon. Hares are hunted in Syria with falcon and greyhound. Only the Arabs eat their flesh.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, There is little doubt that the same animal as our hare is meant. Neither the hare, however, nor the hyrax chews the cud in the strict sense of the words. But they have the appearance of doing so. The rule respecting chewing the cud was given to and by Moses as a legislator, not as an anatomist, to serve as a sign by which animals might be known to be clean for food. Phenomenal not scientific language is used here, as in Jos_10:12, "as we might speak of whales and their congeners as fish, when there is no need of scientific accuracy" (Clark). "All these marks of distinction in the Levitical law are wisely and even necessarily made on the basis of popular observation and belief, not on that of anatomical exactness. Otherwise the people would have been continually liable to error. Scientifically, the camel would be said to divide the hoof, and the hare does not chew the cud. But laws for popular use must necessarily employ terms as they are popularly understood. These matters are often referred to as scientific errors; whereas they were simply descriptions, necessarily popular, for the understanding and enforcement of the law" (Gardiner).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

hare

Heb. arnebeth, an unidentified animal, but certainly not a hare, possessing as it is said to, characteristics not possessed by the hare. The supposed error in the text is due entirely to the translators’ assumption that the English hare and the ancient "arnebeth" were identical.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

V’ETH HA’ARNEVETH’ (AND THE HARE). This is a species of which both the male and female are so called in the Sacred Language, [although the word itself is feminine]. A similar case is haya’anah (the ostrich) [although the actual word is feminine in form, both male and female are indicated]. In fowls [a word of the same structure is] yonah (a pigeon), the name for the male not being different from that of the female. [On the other hand], there are many [animal species] the names of which are masculine in form, while their females have no specific name, such as gamal (camel), shafan (rock-badger), chazir (swine), ‘dov oreiv’ (a bear lying in wait), is masculine in form. ‘parah v’dov tir’enah’ (the cow and the bear shall feed) is feminine in form, and dov is masculine in form, it nonetheless refers also to the female, as is shown by the feminine form of the verb tir’enah. A similar case amongst fowls is the word tor (turtle-dove) [which, though masculine in form, denotes also the female]. It is for this reason that Scripture states, ‘shtei’ (two) turtle-doves, or ‘shnei’ (two) young pigeons, thus mentioning [the feminine form] shtei with reference to torim (turtle-doves) which is masculine in form, and [the masculine shnei] with reference to yonah (the young pigeon) [which is feminine in form], in order to inform us that there it does not matter which of them [one brings as an offering, whether male or female]. Do not refute me from the expressions of our Rabbis who say: “cow and chazirah (sow);”, as opposed to the masculine chazir in Verse 7. “a camel born of a gamlah (a she-camel),”, 6 b. Here too, the Rabbis use a special term for the female of the camel. for these are terms they improvised from similar forms in the language in order to make their intent clear. Now the reason why these four animals [the camel, rock-badger, hare, and swine] are forbidden [to be eaten] is that they do not have the two characteristics of purity.

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.