Q&A: Clean and Unclean Meats, etc.

Why is the swordfish listed as unclean in the new booklet?

Because the Church in the past ruled that swordfish was "clean," according to the guidelines of God's food laws, some members were surprised to see it listed with the unclean animals in the chapter "Which Animals Does the Bible Designate as 'Clean' and 'Unclean'? " in the booklet, What Does the BibleThe books (Greek, "biblia" ) that are acknowledged as canonical (authoritative) by the early Christian Church. It includes both the books of the ancient Hebrew prophets and those of the apostolic witnesses to Jesus Christ. Teach About Clean and Unclean Meats?

The previous ruling was based upon the fact that juvenile swordfish has scales, although the adult does not. Subsequent research has led us to conclude differently. The most complete presentation we have found follows.

"This reply is based on several sources in halacha [the entire body of Jewish law and tradition, including the laws of the BibleThe books (Greek, "biblia" ) that are acknowledged as canonical (authoritative) by the early Christian Church. It includes both the books of the ancient Hebrew prophets and those of the apostolic witnesses to Jesus Christ., Talmud and oral law]. Most notably, extensive research by Rabbi Moshe Tendler, Chairman and Professor of the Biology Department at Yeshiva University, March, 1966.

"The halachic [status] of swordfish (xiphias gladius): it is a non-kosher fish. It has been presented to halachic giants of our generation such as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and from previous generations such as Rabbi Itzel of Ponovitz, and they have all concluded that it is not kosher.

"The biblical term for scaled kosher fish is 'kaskeses.' Nachmanides comments in Leviticus XI:9 that based on Biblical and Talmudic sources this refers to a type of structure like the nail of a human which can be removed from the skin of the fish by hand or with a knife. But if it be affixed to the skin and not separated therefrom at all (i.e. no free margins), then the bearer of these 'scales' may not be eaten.

"Ichthyologists recognize four types of fish scale. The kosher variety of scales are cycloid (round) and ctenoid (comblike). The ganoid scale found on sturgeon, or the placoid scale of the shark are specifically excluded from the Biblical term kaskeses since they are not 'removable' scales without tearing the skin from the flesh. Even an educated layman would not see any similarity between the heavy bony plates of the sturgeon or the needle-like projections on the shark skin and the classic kosher scale of the whitefish or carp.

"In Fishery leaflet #531, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Wash. D.C., it states 'swordfish during early juvenile stage of life (up to 8 inches long), have "scales" that are markedly specialized and rather unique. They are in the form of bony tubercules or expanded compressed platelike bodies. These scales are rough, having spinous projections at the surface and they do not overlap one another as the scales in most fish do. With growth the scales disappear and the adult fish including those sold commercially have no scales.'

"The Talmud (Chulin 66A) lists but two exceptions to the absolute requirements of having visible scales:

a) fish that shed their scales when netted, like the mackerel. A black cloth placed in the net beforehand can verify this;

b) fish that have scales developing later in the life cycle; consequently the juvenile fish that lack scales may be eaten since they DO have scales at maturity.

"Nowhere in the Talmud or in responsa literature is there any reference or precedent to such a deviant: a fish that has scales as a juvenile but not as an adult. Therefore, based on the above, swordfish (xiphias gladius) do not possess scales of the kosher variety and is a non-kosher fish" (www.koshersupermarket.com/rabbidavis.htm ).

Because of the scientific evidence listed here, we've listed the swordfish with other unclean animals.

Other technical questions have been raised about how some of the fish have been designated and we are doing further research.

Question: Why did you say llamas are clean? They do not have a cloven hoof.

Answer: A veterinarian and other readers provided new resources about llamas that led us to check this more closely. Further research showed that the llama is unclean. We deeply regret the error in the booklet.

Llamas chew the cud, but do they have cloven hooves? Encyclopedias list llamas as part of the order artiodactyla, which includes even-toed, hoofed mammals. However, this order includes pigs, goats, sheep, cattle, giraffes, deer and camels. Obviously, some of these are clean and some are unclean.

The llama's footprints closely resemble those of clean ruminants, giving the appearance of a cloven hoof. However, thanks to the references sent to us by a reader and additional research, we've been able to ascertain that what are sometimes called hooves on the llama in reality are two toenails from the third and fourth toes of the animals. The foot is also padded, like that of a dog, and isn't actually a hoof at all.

Since clean ruminants must have cloven hoofs (split in the front, as opposed to separate toes), llamas clearly are not clean. Llamas, along with other lamoids (alpacas, vicuñas and guanacos) are members of the Camelidae family, which includes camels. They are all unclean.

We will correct this error in future reprintings of What Does the BibleThe books (Greek, "biblia" ) that are acknowledged as canonical (authoritative) by the early Christian Church. It includes both the books of the ancient Hebrew prophets and those of the apostolic witnesses to Jesus Christ. Teach About Clean and Unclean Meats?

Question: My wife and I read the article, "Sowing in Fertile Ground" by AaronBrother of Moses, First High Priest Dean in the March/April edition of United News. The promise Mr. Armstrong gave in 1984 concerning an Ambassador College scholarship to the Thai baby was a kind and generous offer.... If there is any way possible, and if the boy desires it, I think we should keep the promise Mr. Armstrong made before God and at least offer a spot at ABC to this young man.

Answer: Thank you for your thoughts regarding my article. Others have e-mailed me as well asking what happened to the boy. I know he was being raised by a close staff member of the Queen. I am making discreet inquiries into where he is, what he has been taught, and if he speaks English. The King and Queen know about the closing of the college and the forsaking of the truth taught by Herbert W. Armstrong. As such they would not hold him to this promise.

Ambassador College, as a full liberal arts school, would have been great for the Thai young man. He would see the way of life while getting a degree, and if indeed God called him would see the truth. To invite him to what would strictly be a BibleThe books (Greek, "biblia" ) that are acknowledged as canonical (authoritative) by the early Christian Church. It includes both the books of the ancient Hebrew prophets and those of the apostolic witnesses to Jesus Christ. program at ABC would make us look like missionaries trying to gain converts and the boy would probably get lost in the intense BibleThe books (Greek, "biblia" ) that are acknowledged as canonical (authoritative) by the early Christian Church. It includes both the books of the ancient Hebrew prophets and those of the apostolic witnesses to Jesus Christ. program which would have been spread out over four years.

I too feel an obligation to keep promises made wherever possible and am looking at other options. This one might be best served by helping with tuition for this boy to go to college. If his English is good, he can be given a copy of his benefactor's book (Mystery of the Ages). If he reads it and shows an interest, then perhaps God would bring him to understanding and perhaps to ABC.

There are others in Asia who need help as well. We are trying to help them with limited resources. I do believe UCG is a continuation of the work of the true Church, although not all God's people attend with us. We can only do what we can to the best of our ability. The Council of Elders, president and staff are dedicated to God's service. These situations provide many challenges to us all.

Our biggest promise to keep for Mr. Armstrong is to the truth of God and to serve those God calls. Someday this boy will be called, but it may not be in this present situation. The royal family does know that many of us have not abandoned the truth and are "regrouping" as best we can to practice "the way of give versus the way of get." Hopefully God will give us the chance to help this boy.