A Hare That Chews Its Cud?

In Le Sycomore 5:1, a Journal about Bible translation for Francophones, an article by René Péter-Contesse entitled "Un lièvre qui rumine ? Pas possible !" (A Hare that Chews Its Cud ? Not Possible!) was written about Leviticus 11. What follows is a summation of key ideas in that article.

The Problem in the Text (cf. Deuteronomy 14:7-8)

Among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these...And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:4, 6)

While the text here declared hares to be unclean because of its cud-chewing properties, it is observed that hares do not in fact ruminate, that is, they do not regurgitate their food and eat it once again.


Dismissing Some Current Interpretations
1. Insistence on Ignorance (some inerrantists)

Some claim that since rumination is claimed here for hares, it must be the case that an animal like that either existed on the earth or will be discovered at some point. We discover new species every day, after all. Péter-Contesse dismissed this as not convincing.
2. Transcribe the Word Without Understanding (e.q. Chouraqui)

André Chouraqui claimed that pure transcription of the Hebrew word avoids the problem of needing to interpret and understand the issue, an "elegant" solution according to him.
3. Error in the Bible (e.g. Edouard Dhorme in the Bible of the Pléiade)
4. Imaginary Zoological Classification (e.g. Pierre Buis and Jacques Leclercq in their Deuteronomy commentary)


Two Considerations
1. The principles of animal classification in the 20th century are different than those of Antiquity.
2. It must be studied what the Hebrews would have understood by "ruminate"


Further Thoughts on Classification

Modern zoology was able to study in detail the complex phenomenon and the physiology of rumination in certain animal species. It is obvious that ancient Hebrews and their contemporaries did not ever have access to such in-depth knowledge. The raisers of animals in Antiquity indicated with certainty that their animals, after eating a large amount of grass, sat down and ate a second time the eaten grass. They deducted that the grass had come back up from their stomach to the mouth to experience a second time of chewing. But, they saw the essential element of the exterior, that is, the long, repeated movement of the animal chewing, as in the cow or camel for example...What people noticed when they saw a hare was that his jaw (like a domestic rabbit today) is almost continually moving. From there, it is left to conclude that the hare was possibly chewing for a second time his food. (p. 7)

The hare was not domesticated at this time in Antiquity, so observation of it would have been less scrupulous than that of the cow, for example, which was in close, everyday contact with people.

Translation Recommendations
1. Search a word in the language of an animal action where the mouth is in regular movement to chew food
 2. If #1 does not exist, inevitably consider "ruminate." In this case, a note of explanation might be necessary. Something like, "The Hebrews considered hares and the rock badger as members of the class of ruminators, because they saw their mouths were often in movement."