Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
Deuteronomy 14:4-10
‘ These are the beasts which you (ye) may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,'
These are the animals which can be used for offerings and sacrifices. They are all domestic animals. They belong to the people (in contrast with wild animals which belong to Yahweh) and can be offered to God as an offering. Thus they are clearly right to eat.
‘ The hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck, and the wild goat, and the ibex, and the antelope, and the chamois.'
These are animals which can be hunted for game and eaten as ‘clean', but cannot be offered as offerings and sacrifices, for as wild beasts they already belong to Yahweh (Psalms 50:10).
‘ And every beast that parts the hoof, and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that may you (ye) eat.'
The principle on which they are chosen is declared. They have the hoof cloven in two and ‘chew the cud'. How the latter was technically conceived we do not know, but the principle was that they ate slowly and deliberately, and took good time over eating their food, all of which was of a kind suitable for that purpose. (Thus it does not necessarily mean literally ‘chewing the cud' by swallowing and regurgitating). The point is that they ate ‘proper food'. The make up of their feet meant that they tended to remain and eat on clean land, land good for growing crops and herbage, and not to wander into ‘unclean' areas. The way they ate made them careful in what they ate. (The goat can be an exception to this, but probably not as herded by the Israelites).
‘ Nevertheless these you shall not eat, of them that chew the cud, or of those who have the hoof cloven, the camel, and the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, they are unclean to you.'
Other animals which are seen as edible to other nations, were not to be seen as so to Israel. These animals may chew slowly and obviously, or they may have cloven feet, but they do not have both. Thus the camel's feet enable it to wander in desert regions, where death is prevalent. Such regions were looked on with foreboding in Israel. The hare and the rock badger, while they chew slowly and deliberately, go into places which are ‘unclean' because their feet enable them to scrabble and encourage them to do so. They are thus ‘unclean'.
‘ And the swine, because he parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, he is unclean to you. Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.'
The pig or swine is a further example. In this case it parts the hoof, but it does not chew slowly and deliberately. It nuzzles in the dirt and eats what is unsavoury. That a sow that was washed returned to its wallowing in the mire became a proverb, because that was how through the ages it was seen (2 Peter 2:22). It was therefore not seen as suitable food for Yahweh's people.
That these distinctions would preserve Israel from many, although not all, diseases is unquestionable. But the overt point is not so much avoidance of disease as the fact of unsuitability, although the one merges into the other. Those that wandered in doubtful environments or nuzzled in the dust, both connected with death, must not be eaten. They did not keep to their proper sphere, whereas His people are constantly required to keep to their proper sphere within the covenant. In all cases the behaviour of unclean creatures was the opposite of what Yahweh was. And His people were to model their lives on what was wholesome. See commentary on Leviticus for further detailed treatment.
‘ These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales you may eat, and whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean to you.'
The distinction with sea and river creatures is again clear and specific. All fish with fins and scales, of which they were aware, swam in the rivers but did not delve into the mud. These were thus ‘clean'. Other creatures did delve in the mud, and were therefore unclean. Again this was not a scientific survey but a fact of observation. This excluded some that were certainly edible, but included shellfish which under certain circumstances could cause unpleasant diseases. But what was most important as seen in this context was their contamination by their contact with dirt and mud.