StrongerBible

ḥazir

חֲזִיר

HebrewH2386pig, swine, ...

Appears 7 times · tap a cell to see the verses

Lev 11:7Deu 14:8Psa 80:13(14)Pro 11:22Isa 65:4Isa 66:3Isa 66:17
Root family
Word studykhah-ZEERnoun

What ḥazir means

a pig: the farmyard swine Israel was forbidden to eat, and also the wild boar of the forest

TranslatabilityApproximateCertaintySettled

Hebrew uses one word for the animal, tame or wild. Most of the time it is the farmyard pig that Israel is told to leave alone. Once it is the wild boar that breaks into a vineyard and roots it up. English has to pick between "pig" and "boar" at each turn; Hebrew never has to.

Five of the seven times the word appears, the pig marks a boundary. Leviticus and Deuteronomy name it as the animal that looks like it should qualify, since its hoof is split, but fails the second test, since it does not bring food back up to chew again. So it stays off Israel's table. Isaiah then uses the word three times for people who have crossed that boundary deliberately, eating pig meat at meals held among the graves and pouring out pig blood as though it were a proper offering.

That history is why the word carries a charge that "pig" does not carry in English. This was not a neutral farm animal to mention in passing; naming it put you at the edge of everything Israel was told to keep clear of. The Greek Bible keeps the same edge: the ordinary word for a pig (χοῖρος) is what a Jewish son ends up feeding once he has fallen as far as he can fall, and a separate word for a sow (ὗς) drives a proverb about washing up only to go back to the mud.

The proverb about a gold ring in a pig's snout works from the same instinct. The point is not that pigs are dirty animals. It is that something genuinely valuable has been fastened to a creature that cannot appreciate it, so the beauty is wasted and the whole picture turns ridiculous.

Nuances

1athe pig as one of the land animals the food laws put out of reach
TranslatabilityDirect
Lev 11:7Deu 14:8
1bpig meat or pig blood used in worship Israel was told to have nothing to do with
Isa 65:4Isa 66:3Isa 66:17
1cthe wild boar that gets into planted ground and tears it up
Psa 80:13(14)
1da pig as a picture of something coarse that makes whatever fine thing is set on it look absurd
Pro 11:22

Disputed

Why the pig in particular is singled out as unclean, and therefore what weight the word carries in the food laws and in the prophets.

  • majorityThe reason the text itself supplies: a clean land animal must both have a divided hoof and chew the cud, and the pig meets the first test but not the second, so it falls outside the ordered categories of the law and is excluded on formal grounds.; Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (1966); Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Anchor Bible (1991); HALOT (Koehler-Baumgartner), s.v. חזיר
  • minorityThe pig was shunned above all because of its use in the sacrificial rites of neighboring cults, especially rites addressed to the dead and to underworld powers, which is exactly the setting Isaiah gives it.; Roland de Vaux, "Les sacrifices de porcs en Palestine et dans l'Ancien Orient," in Bible et Orient (1967); G. Johannes Botterweck, "חזיר," in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT), vol. 4
  • minorityThe avoidance is economic and ecological before it is theological: pig husbandry suits neither a herding economy nor the dry hill country, so the practice came first and the written rule ratified it.; Marvin Harris, Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches (1974); Brian Hesse, "Pig Lovers and Pig Haters: Patterns of Palestinian Pork Production," Journal of Ethnobiology 10 (1990)

What scholars say about ḥazir

The lexical identification is uncontroversial: HALOT, BDB, and DCH all give Sus scrofa, domestic and wild, with Psalm 80:13 (Hebrew 80:14) as the sole clearly feral instance. Scholarly attention falls almost entirely on the rationale for the prohibition in Leviticus 11:7 and Deuteronomy 14:8. Douglas's structuralist account, refined and partly retracted in her later work, reads the pig as an anomaly against the two-part taxonomic criterion for clean quadrupeds; Milgrom largely follows the taxonomic reading while grounding it in a wider ethic of restricted slaughter. De Vaux and, following him, Botterweck in TDOT press the cultic explanation, connecting the prophetic material in Isaiah 65-66 to attested Syro-Palestinian and Anatolian swine sacrifice associated with chthonic and mortuary rites. The materialist explanation of Harris has been substantially reframed by the zooarchaeological work of Hesse and Wapnish, whose survey of faunal assemblages shows pig frequencies varying regionally and diachronically in ways that resist any single ecological or ethnic-marker reading, though the near-absence of pig remains at Iron Age highland sites relative to Philistine coastal sites remains a much-discussed datum. Isaiah 66:3 is separately debated on other grounds, over whether it condemns illegitimate sacrifice as such or the syncretistic conjunction of legitimate offerings with forbidden ones; both readings assume the same referent for the noun.

Sources

  • HALOT (Koehler-Baumgartner), s.v. חזירlexicon
  • BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs), s.v. חזירlexicon
  • DCH (Clines, ed.), s.v. חזירlexicon
  • G. Johannes Botterweck, "חזיר," in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT), vol. 4dictionary
  • Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Anchor Bible (1991)commentary
  • Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (1966)monograph
  • Roland de Vaux, "Les sacrifices de porcs en Palestine et dans l'Ancien Orient," in Bible et Orient (1967)article
  • Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish, "Can Pig Remains Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East?" in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (1997)article
  • John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, NICOT (1998)commentary

All attested forms of חֲזִיר

m s absolute

חֲזִיר

Lev 11:7, Deu 14:8, Psa 80:13, Pro 11:22, Isa 65:4, Isa 66:3, Isa 66:17