![\"\"](\"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/wp-content\/uploads\/HP-Hase-extra.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nThroughout the entire Near East, rabbit species have never been native \u2013 and although the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus<\/em>) is an invasive species that has conquered the entire western Mediterranean region and has also colonized the island of Crete, it has so far been unable to gain a foothold in Israel. Reports of sightings are usually based on confusion with the rock hyrax (Procavia capensis<\/em>), which will be discussed later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Hebrew designation arnebet<\/em> (Lev 11:6; Deut 14:7) can clearly be assigned to the hare. Its fertility is legendary. A healthy female produces about twelve offspring each year, which themselves become sexually mature after only a few months. If natural enemies are absent, the population can virtually explode. In European countries, lagomorphs usually make up more than half of the animals taken (in hunting terminology: the \u00abbag\u00bb).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the hare was not permitted to be eaten in Israel and is also very shy, it was insignificant as an animal of the field. Agriculturally, too, it was of no importance, as it does not cause major damage to fields or harvests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There would probably be nothing more to say about the biblical background of the hare if it were not for the note in the Law of Moses \u2013 in the two verses in which the hare is mentioned \u2013 that it is a ruminant. Generations of rabbis and theologians have puzzled over how this could be understood \u2013 for it is obvious that hares have a completely different anatomy from the ruminant suborder of even-toed ungulates, known biologically as Ruminantia. The most widespread explanation was that, in Old Testament times, the \u00abmunching\u00bb of the hare had simply been misinterpreted and confused with the chewing movements of the even-toed ungulates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well into the modern era, theologians played down this problem with convoluted formulations: \u00abBut natural science has long since demonstrated that the hare is not a ruminant. In ancient times it was regarded as such because, when resting, it makes movements with its mouth that are reminiscent of rumination. Against such popular classification based on obvious characteristics, science itself has no objection\u00bb (Alfons Schulz), and \u00abThey (the writers of the Bible) did not, however, teach these false notions as such, but merely employed them in order to give vivid, didactic expression to the religious idea of the creation of the universe by their God, to his omnipotence and his beauty, his goodness and his wisdom\u00bb (Albrecht Peters).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet this apparent contradiction was resolved almost 150 years ago. In \u00abGrzimek\u2019s Animal Life\u00bb, a standard German reference work, it is described as follows: \u00abIn 1882, Morot published his observations on the mucus-coated \u201cstomach pellets\u201d of rabbits in a French veterinary journal. In addition to the normal solid droppings, these animals produce a second form of feces \u2013 soft, poorly formed pellets, which they ingest immediately after excretion and swallow without chewing. These accumulate at a specific site in the stomach (in the cardiac region) and are digested again. In this way, part of the food passes through the intestine twice and is thus more thoroughly broken down. This double digestion resembles, in a certain respect, the rumination of most families of even-toed ungulates. The soft feces (caecotrophs) are formed in the cecum and are there strongly enriched with vitamin B1; according to the studies of Scheunert and Zimmermann, they contain four to five times the amount of vitamins compared with normal feces. For lagomorphs, the \u201ccecal\u201d or \u201cvitamin feces\u201d are vital; they presumably also help them to survive longer periods of fasting under unfavorable weather conditions\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On closer inspection, the Bible is even very precise in its wording. It does state that the hare chews the cud (the expression contains the word for \u00abbringing up\u00bb), that is, it takes up already digested food a second time \u2013 which is correct; but it does not say that it is a \u00abruminant\u00bb in the sense of a taxonomic classification. One can therefore say: the hare chews again, although (biologically speaking) it does not belong to the ruminants. One cannot expect a theologian to be familiar with biological specialties such as caecotrophy. But before attributing an error to the Bible, one should test one\u2019s thesis against the current state of science \u2013 only to find that the inerrancy of Scripture also applies to seemingly marginal aspects such as statements about natural history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sources<\/strong>:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Gehrisch, B: Lepusculus Domini, Erotic Hare, Meister Lampe \u2013 Zur Rolle des Hasen in der Kulturgeschichte<\/em>. Wettenberg (VVB Laufersweiler) 2005; http:\/\/geb.uni-giessen.de\/geb\/volltexte\/2005\/2398\/pdf\/GerischBirgit-2005-06-30.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Gorzalczany, A; Avissar, M; Torg\u00eb, H: Lod, the Lod Mosaic: Preliminary Report<\/em>. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 2016; 128. https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/26679195<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/a>