Instigator / Pro
Points: 20

The Torah allows the eating of pork

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
K_Michael
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 18
Description
It's all in the title. My reasoning is surprise.
Round 1
Published:
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

Published:
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
Published:
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.

Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
My arguments stand.
Published:
Sorry, but my parents won't let me do DART.  Because of this, I don't think I can post.
Added:
--> @K_Michael
Instead of focusing on leviticus. Take a look at deuteronomy 12:15,21-22
what is acceptable for offering vs eating
#9
Added:
I have a question: How is this book written? And how do we obey them? Like no matter how dirty the beef is we can eat it, and no matter how clean the pork is we can't eat it? WHAT?
#8
Added:
--> @Alec
Gotcha. It's unrated, so no big deal.
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @K_Michael
My parents won't let me access DART too much, so posting stuff is hard.
Contender
#6
Added:
pro stated: "...pigs chew cud by the definition of the Torah. Unfortunately, pigs aren't ruminants."
Now that round 1 is complete. let's clear the air. Pigs are not ruminants, confirmed. However, there is no confusion over the definition of "cud." What the raw material happens to be is of no consequence; grass or some other vegetation. "Cud" is any vegetation consumed that is literally regurgitated to the mouth to be re-chewed. According to the OED: "Rumination: 2.a. The action of chewing the cud; the chewing by a herbivorous animal of partially digested food from the rumen." According to the same source: "Rumen: The first and largest stomach of a ruminant, in which food (esp. cellulose) is partly digested by bacteria, and from which it may pass back to the mouth as cud for further chewing, or on into the reticulum."
Given that the Torah stipulated two conditions: cloven hoof AND chewing cud [rumination], and that both must be met, it doesn't matter that pigs eat grass, in addition to just about everything else, eating grass, alone, is not descriptive of rumination; therefore, pigs do not meet the Torah's prohibition against non-cud chewers.
#5
Added:
--> @K_Michael
I'm in.
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @Alec
Unrated now.
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @K_Michael
Make the debate unrated, and I might accept.
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Interested?
Contender
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Effectively a single round debate.
"11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you."
It was pretty hard for pro to recover from quoting a ban on eating pork. Trying to argue one breed of pig would be fine, rubs against the tradition, and needed more information (perhaps a quote from a rabbi okaying it?). An implied problem is if it would be allowed, would the Torah still call it swine? ... Another path to victory, would have been citing some special circumstance (as an example, Muslims are allowed to eat pork if hungry).
Trying to redefine cud, was an area con excelled on the defense, since we have thousands of years of one definition. It's a case where maybe translations should be updated to say grass instead of cud, but both debaters agreed on the intended meaning.
Conduct for forfeiture.
Sources lean slightly to con, but not by enough to merit the points.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Argument: in the first round, pro argued that pigs chew the cud, but ignores the verse, 11:7 which specifically states that swine do not chew the cud. pro further stated that the Torah meant, in the regard, that eating grass constituted chewing cud, but there is no reference cited for this claim, and is, therefore a fail. In Con's argument, there was no rebuttal of the "eat grass" claim, however, Con rightly argued that the "Black Hog" Pro argument was irrelevant. Points to Con
Sourcing: by Pro was nearly exclusively wikipedia, which is fine for 1st level research, but is, by its own admission, an inaccurate source. Con used much more varied, and on-point deeper sourcing. Sourcing decision should be based on "relaible" sourcing. Points to Con
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This was an interesting one, and I really felt that if this progressed the Con could muster out a win. You could certainly see he was on the right track especially when we had Pro agree to definitions based in the Torah.
Con made a few mistakes, notably the anatomical assumption of pigs, and other animals, no references to that.
He is feisty and has good logic. I hope his parents let him back here. Both made good use of references, S&G was nothing worth points, and the forfeit was not his fault.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This is an interesting one. it may have looked like Con was getting the upperhand. His point about Judaists during that period, that created the religious beliefs, probably have more understanding of their own beliefs than modern day historians, sounds plausible. Then again, Pro is looking at it from a historical perspective, the same as those from wikipedia, and not a religious one. And given Con forfeited the round, then got banned from debate.art by his parents, suggests the historical perspective is possibly more reliable.
I think also wikipedia is a better source than the Torah, for historical information.
And Pro obviously had the better conduct by continuing to debate and not forfeiting