Instigator / Pro
20
1546
rating
24
debates
62.5%
won
Topic

The Torah allows the eating of pork

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
6
Sources points
6
6
Spelling and grammar points
4
4
Conduct points
4
2

With 4 votes and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...

K_Michael
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
18
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Description
~ 48 / 5,000

It's all in the title. My reasoning is surprise.

Round 1
Pro
Ok, first, the relevant passage from the Torah. If you want to use a different translation, that's fine by me. 
The book of Vayikra, 11:1-8
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
11:8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
So, for an animal to be acceptable, they have to 
A. have cloven hooves, and
B. chew cud

A. is automatically satisfied for pigs, it specifically says

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted
So all I need to do here is satisfy B., that pigs chew cud by the definition of the Torah. Unfortunately, pigs aren't ruminants
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
the passage claims that rabbits chew cud, but rabbits are also not ruminants like sheep, goats, and cows are.
Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach to the mouth to be chewed for the second time. 

Ruminants are mammals that are able to acquire nutrients from plant-based food by fermenting it in a specialized stomach prior to digestion, principally through microbial actions. The process, which takes place in the front part of the digestive system and therefore is called foregut fermentation, typically requires the fermented ingesta (known as cud) to be regurgitated and chewed again. The process of rechewing the cud to further break down plant matter and stimulate digestion is called rumination.[1][2] The word "ruminant" comes from the Latin ruminare, which means "to chew over again".

Monogastric herbivores, such as rhinoceroseshorses, and rabbits, are not ruminants, as they have a simple single-chambered stomach.
Since wikipedia and the Torah disagree on what counts on chewing cud, we need a new definition that fits both ruminants and animals like rabbits. My solution (and you're free to come up with a better definition) is that when the Torah refers to animals that "cheweth the cud," it refers to animals that eat grass.
And there just so happens that there are pigs that eat grass.

They're called Large Black Hogs, a heritage breed that can live off pasture.
Large Blacks are best suited for pasture-based farming due to their strong foraging and grazing ability
B. is satisfied just as much in pigs as it is in rabbits, and the Torah claims that rabbits satisfy B., so by their own definitions and conditions, pigs both have cloven hooves, and "cheweth the cud."

Sources

Con
I honestly am not a torah expert, but I disagreed with the proposition slightly and I felt like playing Devil's advocate to the proposition.  Here it goes:


So, for an animal to be acceptable, they have to 
A. have cloven hooves, and
B. chew cud

A. is automatically satisfied for pigs, it specifically says

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted
So all I need to do here is satisfy B., that pigs chew cud by the definition of the Torah. Unfortunately, pigs aren't ruminants
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Although pigs have cloven hooves, the dispute is if they eat cud.  There are different definitions of what counts as cud.  The Jewish religion says it's grass.  Wiki said it's pre eaten food.  I would say the Jewish definition is the more relevant one to this for 2 reasons:

1) It's their religion.  They defined the word as grass eating, so it's their definition that works.

2) In those days, pig anatomy wasn't the best, so the people then I don't even think knew that a pig had 2 stomachs for consuming food separately.  It was before Christ in those days, days before people knew how a Pig's digestive system worked since the internet kindof wasn't a thing back then, so I don't think they knew Didly Squat about pig anatomy and functions back then.  


And there just so happens that there are pigs that eat grass.

They're called Large Black Hogs, a heritage breed that can live off pasture.
https://livestockconservancy.org/index.php/heritage/internal/largeblack states that Large Black Hogs aren't from Israel, but are from England, so the Torah wasn't talking about them.  Since people weren't exactly too mobile then, especially in the days before Israel and England were conquered by the same country (Rome), such Israelis don't know of this hog.  Both Israel and England were conquered by Rome significantly after this section of the Torah was written.  How could they even reference such hogs, if the writers of the Torah don't even know such hogs exist?  Also, where is the source for your quote?

I see your surprise though.  I was not expecting you to say that some pigs can eat grass.  Technicalities are fun.

Sources:

Round 2
Pro
Although pigs have cloven hooves, the dispute is if they eat cud.  There are different definitions of what counts as cud.  The Jewish religion says it's grass.  Wiki said it's pre eaten food.  I would say the Jewish definition is the more relevant one to this for 2 reasons:

1) It's their religion.  They defined the word as grass eating, so it's their definition that works.

2) In those days, pig anatomy wasn't the best, so the people then I don't even think knew that a pig had 2 stomachs for consuming food separately.  It was before Christ in those days, days before people knew how a Pig's digestive system worked since the internet kindof wasn't a thing back then, so I don't think they knew Didly Squat about pig anatomy and functions back then.  

I agree that we should use the Torah's definition.

https://livestockconservancy.org/index.php/heritage/internal/largeblack states that Large Black Hogs aren't from Israel, but are from England, so the Torah wasn't talking about them. 
Yes, I'm aware that the Torah never referred to Large Black Hogs. I'm only saying that technically, by the rules that the Torah uses, you can eat a pig without violating the law of Moses. 

Also, where is the source for your quote?
I listed it at the bottom of the debate along with my other sources. Here it is again.

Con
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
My arguments stand.
Con
Sorry, but my parents won't let me do DART.  Because of this, I don't think I can post.