ויקרא, פרק י״א, פסוק ה׳

When outlining the dietary laws, certain animals are singled out as forbidden because they possess only one of the two required signs of purity. The detailed physical characteristics provided for these creatures serve to clearly exclude them from the kosher diet, while also sparking extensive discussion regarding their exact identity and biological traits.

One such animal is known for making its home in rock clefts and holes in the earth. Its Hebrew name is thought to be rooted in the concept of being hidden, reflecting its habit of concealing itself within rocky crevices [שד״ל, רד צ הופמן, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Identifying this exact creature presents a few possibilities. Medieval translators and commentators often identify it as the rabbit, an animal known for hopping and digging burrows in the dirt [שד״ל, רד צ הופמן]. Conversely, an older tradition identifies it as the rock hyrax. This creature features a unique toe structure with cracked soles and relies on cunning to build its home in hard rocks, as it lacks the physical strength to bore holes itself [רד צ הופמן]. Yet another perspective suggests that the animal in question might actually be entirely extinct [חומש קה״ת].

A notable challenge arises from the description of this animal as one that chews the cud. From a biological standpoint, neither the rabbit nor the hyrax are classic ruminants equipped with four stomachs [רש ר הירש, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. To resolve this, commentators explain that the Biblical definition of chewing the cud is broader than strict modern classifications. The animal appears to the observer as a cud-chewer due to its constant, lateral chewing motions, which continue even when it is not actively eating [ביאור שטיינזלץ, חומש קה״ת]. Additionally, there are fundamental similarities in its digestive system. The duration of digestion, the ability to process complex fibers, and even certain methods of regurgitating and re-digesting food are sufficient to include these animals under the Biblical category [חומש קה״ת]. It is also noted that ancient naturalists similarly classified these animals as cud-chewers based on these very traits [שד״ל].

Regarding its sign of impurity, the animal does not possess split hooves. While it may have small, hoof-like nails at the ends of its toes, it lacks a single, continuous hoof that binds the toes together, meaning it is not considered to have hooves at all [ביאור שטיינזלץ, רש ר הירש]. Interestingly, the action of splitting the hoof for this specific animal is described using the future tense, contrasting with the present and past tenses used for other animals in the same category. This shift reflects the distinct differences in toe structure among these creatures [רש ר הירש]. Furthermore, the future tense serves to prevent a specific misunderstanding. An observer might assume that the animal is simply born without hooves and might grow them after a few days. The text deliberately uses the future tense to emphasize that it will never develop a split hoof at any point in its life [ביאור יש״ר].