Were there Rabbits in Biblical Israel?

(Click here, for a revised version of this post; an earlier version appeared in Dialogue Fall 5774, No. 4)

Could the shafan be the rabbit?

R. Slifkin's answer is no. He concedes that many rishonim understood the shafan to be the rabbit, but summarily dismisses their position. He claims that, as Europeans, the rishonim were unaware of the fauna of the Middle East. On his blog R. Slifkin has written that:

The original study was by Tchernov [2000], who notes that the hare is "the only endemic species of lagomorph known from the Middle East since the Middle Pleistocene".

Lagomorphs include hares, rabbits and pikas. So the study by Tchernov claims that hare remains have been found in the Middle East, but not the remains of rabbits.  On the other hand, R. Slifkin claims that early authorities such as Rav Saadia Gaon (who lived in the Middle East) and Ibn Janach (about 100 years later) identified the shafan as the hyrax.

Traditional sources for identifying the shafan as the the hyrax include Rav Saadia Gaon (882-924CE), Ibn Janach and Tevuos Ha-Aretz. [N. Slifkin, The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax, p88, 2011, 2nd edition]

R. Slifkin thus concludes that the shafan is the hyrax. Even though the hyrax does not regurgitate its food, the Torah calls it ma'aleh geira because its chewing motion superficially resembles that of ruminants, even though the chewing action is not needed for nutrition. 

This weakened criterion poses a problem as it would apply to other animals not mentioned in the Torah's exhaustive list (e.g. the kangaroo). As a consequence, R. Slifkin is forced to assert that the Torah's list is limited to just those animals in the general region surrounding the land of Israel. This contradicts Chazal's exegesis of the applicable verses in the Torah in which the Almighty (the "Ruler of His World") uniquely identifies the four types possessing a single sign of purity (according to one opinion in the Talmud, there is a 5th species called shesuah).

What is the shafan according to Rav Saadia and Ibn Janach?

Dr. Betech's recent book (here) has raised important challenges to R. Slifkin's thesis. First, R. Slifkin erred when he wrote that Ibn Janach identified the shafan as the hyrax.  This is what Ibn Janach actually wrote:

"And the shafan". It is the wabr, an animal the size of a cat, which is found [only] a little in the East, but is abundant among us. Nevertheless the masses do not know it by that name, but by the name conilio, a Spanish name (for rabbit). [Ibn Janach, Sefer Hashorashim, translated from the Arabic]

R. Slifkin's error is significant. Ibn Janach unambiguously identifies the shafan (Arabic: wabr) as a rabbit. R. Slifkin's response is that Ibn Janach (living in Spain) did not know of the hyrax, but he did know of the rabbit, and that some people called the rabbit by the term wabr, and so he assumed that this was the meaning of R. Saadia's term.

Now, it is possible that the term wabr was used for both the hyrax and the rabbit. But, we also note that Ibn Janach was a Torah authority, a grammarian, and an expert in Arabic.  He lived soon after the times of Rav Saadia Gaon. Was he unaware of the fauna of the Middle East? Apparently not. He writes that the wabr (rabbit) is abundant where he lived (in  Spain) but scarce in the East (where Rav Saadia lived). This matches the rabbit very well, but rules out the hyrax, which is hardly found in Spain. 


This also raises the issue of what Rav Saadia meant by wabr.  R. Slifkin refers us to Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon. This was published in the 19th century with definitions taken from older Arabic dictionaries, some from the time of Rav Saadia. 

Second sub-entry in Lane:

وبر [Wbr]…

[The hyrax Syriacus; believed to be the animal called in Hebrew shafan] a certain small beast, (Lth, T, S, Mgh, Msb, K,) like the cat, (Msb, K,) or of the size of the cat, (Lth, T, M, Mgh,) or smaller than the cat, (S,) of the beasts of the desert, (M,) of a dust-colour, (Lth, T, Mgh, Msb,) or of a hue between dust-colour and white, (...) or white, (TA,) having beautiful eyes, (Lth, T, Mgh,) or having eyes bordered with black, or very black eyes, (xxx, Msb,) having no tail, (S, Msb,) or having a small tail, (Mgh,)...".

Fourth sub-entry in Lane: 

وبر [Wbr] A camel having much وبر [Wbr] [i. e. fur, or soft hair]; (S, M, A, Msb, K;) and in like manner, a hare or rabbit, and the like; (K;)…

Many of the older dictionaries are no longer available so that we cannot check the complete entry. But Lane does quote snippets from these dictionaries. The older dictionaries refer to the wabr as cat-like, a dust colour or white, and having no tail or a small tail. 

It is Lane [in the square brackets] who interprets these dictionaries to be describing the hyrax. But Lane does not state how he knows this, as the cat-like attributes may also refer to the rabbit.

In Lane's fourth-sub entry, wabr refers to animals having much hair, such as the camel, the hare or the rabbit. So, ultimately, Lane's lexicon does not rule out the rabbit. In fact, wabr as rabbit is explicitly allowed. 

As we have already mentioned, the claim that Ibn Janach had no awareness of the fauna of the Middle East is unsupported. It is one thing for R.Slifkin to conjecture that the rishonim living in Christian France and Germany had no awareness of the fauna in the Middle East. But it is quite something else to conjecture the same for the early rishonim living in Arab Spain, and living in the cultural milieu of the Arab Caliphate.

The Moorish conquest and rule of most of the Iberian peninsula and the open Moslem imposition of the Arab language and culture upon it served to open Spain to the influence of its neighbours on the shores of the southern Mediterranean. The open channels of communication to the entire Moslem world of that day acted as a homogenizing factor giving a certain sense unity to the Jewish communities in this region. Migration to and from the diverse and far-flung corners of the Arab Caliphate strengthened this tendency. [Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm, The Rishonim, Artscroll, revised edition, p16-17, 2001. Emphasis added.]

To take another example. R. Tovya ben Eliezer, author of  Lekach Tov, was originally thought to have lived in Mainz. However, according to the editor of the Vilna edition (S. Buber) of Lekach Tov, he lived in Kastoria, Greece. According to Buber, this is why he demonstrated great familiarity with the state of affairs in the Middle East. This also means that we cannot totally discount his knowledge of the fauna of the Middle East. R. Tovyah writes:

פסיקתא זוטרתא (לקח טוב) ויקרא פרשת שמיני דף כט עמוד ב: את זה תאכלו. לא הוצרכו לפרט את אלו, אלא מפני שיש להן סימני טהרה. שפן מין חיה הוא וטלפו כשל חתול, וכן הארנבת טלפיה דומות לחתול.

Shafan is a type of chaya and its foot is like that of the cat. Lekach Tov

Again we have the theme that the shafan is cat-like. Specifically, R. Tovyah writes that the distal foot of the shafan is cat-like. This is true of the rabbit. As a lagomorph, it moves about as if walking on its toes (digitigrade locomotion) like a cat. However, the hyrax has hoof-like claws (stumpy toes with four hoof-like nails on each front foot and three on each back foot) and is plantigrade. 

Thus, the early authorities such as Ibn Janach and Lekach Tov provide clear unambiguous indicators that the shafan is the rabbit (and not the hyrax). 

The high hills are for the ibex, the rocks are a refuge for the shefanim

In  his letter to Dialogue, R. Slifkin writes: "But to reiterate the main point: When David HaMelech writes that The high hills are for the ibex, the rocks are a refuge for the shefanim, he was not describing the behavior of animals from southern Africa. Instead, he was referring to the animal in the immediate vicinity of the ibex, which characteristically hides under rocks: the hyrax."

R. Slifkin believes that all the phenomena described by King David in Psalms, must have been local to the land of Israel. 

I don't see why this must be so. King David is describing the whole scope of creation with ruach hakodesh. According to the Rambam, Psalms was written with the second level of ruach hakodesh:

The second degree [of prophecy] is this : A person feels as if something came upon him, and as if he had received a new power that encourages him to speak. He treats of science, or composes hymns, exhorts his fellow-men, discusses political and theological problems; all this he does while awake, and in the full possession of his senses. Such a person is said to speak by the holy spirit. David composed the Psalms, and Solomon the Book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon by this spirit; … This class includes the seventy elders of whom it is said, "And it came to pass when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, and did not cease" (Num. xi. 25): also Eldad and Medad (ibid. ver. 26): furthermore, every high priest that inquired [of God] by the Urim and Tummim; on whom, as our Sages say, the divine glory rested, and who spoke by the holy spirit; … [Moreh Nevuchim, Friedlander translation, II:45, emphasis added]

So it is entirely possible that King David was describing rock rabbits in South Africa. But, we do not need to go all the way to South Africa for rock rabbits. Bunyoro rabbits (Poelagus marjorita) are found in rocky habitats as far north as Sudan in association with the hyrax:

Habitat and Ecology: Poelagus marjorita exists primarily in moist savanna grassland, woodlands with rocky outcrops, and less prominently in forested areas (Duthie and Robinson 1990). They often dwell in rock crevices, and are associated in some areas with hyrax habitat (Kingdon 1974). ...

Range Description: The accounts are restricted to Uganda, southern Sudan, northeastern DRC, and eastern (and possibly central) Central African Republic (Happold and Wendelen 2006). (link)

It also seems that, today, you can see the ibex, the hyrax and the rabbit in the red sea area of Egypt.

Today the area [mountain of porphyry] is uninhabited except for the occasional Ma'aza Bedouin grazing his camels. Ibex, hyrax, and rabbit live here now. Around water holes, trumpeter bullfinches, desert larks, and mourning chats flock in sayaal trees (Acacia raddiana) and the wispy-needled yasar trees (Moringa peregrina). In the fall, thousands of white storks cross overhead, riding thermal currents on their way from the Sinai to central Africa. [Via Porphyrites, Stonexus magazine, Louis Werner, Issue 5, Summer 2004, p. 64-65. Emphasis added.]

 In Egypt, there are three breeds of rabbits, Giza White, Baladi and Gabali. For Baladi rabbits, there are three strains; Baladi Red, Baladi White and Baladi Black, while Sinai Gabali and Desert Gabali are considered the two strains of Gabali rabbits. Giza White rabbits are usually called improved Giza or El-Giza El-Mohassan. These Egyptian rabbits are medium-sized breeds and used mainly for meat production. [M.H. Khalil, Rabbit genetic resources of Egypt, AGRI 1999 26: 95-111]

Dr. Betech has pointed out that some breeds of rabbits are native to Egypt. Among them the Baladi rabbit, which in Arabic means "native" rabbit and the "Sinai Gabali" rabbit which live in the Sinai and eastern and western deserts of Egypt and are raised by the Bedouins for food consumption. They are referred to by Mahmoud (1938) as native Egyptian rabbits. (See Enigma p98). R. Slifkin writes (here):

And I can give you plenty of sources that I am a native Englishman. For the last three generations! … If you want to say that they were already released and established in Egypt in Biblical times, the onus of proof is on you. Then, of course, you also have to bring evidence that they were in Israel.

I am not sure if R. Slifkin's ancestors were in England in the stone age. But it is believed that already very early on, rabbits had spread from Spain to North Africa.

The oldest anthropogenic transportation of a mammal could be the introduction of the rabbit to North Africa. The Palaeolithic material attributed to this species is represented by two questionable old findings from Algeria and Morocco (Romer, 1928; Gobert & Gaufry, 1932). The abundance of the species in Neolithic deposits (Romer 1928; Hopwood & Hollyfield 1954) suggests an early introduction from Iberia, where the species has been know since at least the Mindel. [C. Cheylan, Pleistocene turnover, current distribution and speciation among Mediterranean mammals, in Biogeography of Mediterranean Invasion, R. H. Groves, F. Di Castri (eds.), p247-248, Cambridge 1991, Emphasis added).

At the other end of the Sahara, species have travelled northwards following the Nile valley; these species are likely to be found in the Israel, sometimes reaching Lebanon and Southern Turkey: e.g.. species of Mellirova, Genetta, Herpestes, Procavia, Alcephalus, and Acomys. [ibid. p239]

So rabbits arrived on the African continent early on, and just as the ibex and the rabbit are reportedly found together in Egypt today, so too they may have been there in Biblical times. Given that there are species of rabbits (such as those in South Africa and Sudan) that live in rocky areas, rabbits (like the hyrax) may have built-in adaptability to a variety of terrains. 

Cheylan explicitly identifies a Sahara migration route, north through the Nile Valley and into Israel. One of his examples is the genus Procavia which includes the Cape hyrax. Given that the hyrax and the rabbit are found in the same habitat, this is a possible route for rabbits to get to Egypt and ultimately Israel. Even if rabbits never actually reached Israel, nevertheless, the Bnei Yisroel lived in ancient Egypt for many years and there were also established Biblical trade routes between Egypt and Israel from at least the times of the Patriarchs. So it is possible that this knowledge could have been preserved. 

The fossil record

Given that there are rock rabbits in the southern Sudan and Sahara migration routes going north, following the Nile valley to Israel we cannot rule out either knowledge, or actual presence, of rabbits in Biblical Israel. 

Thus, R. Slifkin is forced to refer us to the Tchernov [2000] paper stating that the hare is "the only endemic species of lagomorph known from the Middle East since the Middle Pleistocene". Tchernov et. al. are experts in the zooarcheology of the Levant and thus their opinion seems to count heavily in R. Slifkin's favour. 

However, we may always ask what evidence do Tchernov et. al. advance for their claim. Several months ago, Rabbi Coffer emailed Dr. Theodora Bar-El (at the Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences Hebrew University of Jerusalem) for clarification. Here is R. Coffer's letter:

I am currently doing some research in lagomorph paleontology specifically as relates to Israel and came upon your paper "Lagomorph Remains at Prehistoric Sites in Israel and Southern Sinai" which appeared in Vol. 26 N1 of the science journal Paleorient (2000). In your paper you document six locations in Israel (Hayonim Terrace, Netiv Hagdud, Ohalo II, and the Caves of Hayonim, Kebara and Nahal Hemar) where lagomorph remains were unearthed. These remains are identified in your paper as belonging to the species Lepus capensis (Cape Hare) and in your abstract you write that Lepus capensis "has been the only species of lagomorph known from this region". I'm sure you are very busy but I have two questions which relate to your presentation. I tried to contact your colleague (and collaborator on this project) Dr. Eitan Tchernov but unfortunately he has since passed away so and I would be very grateful if you managed to find some time to provide me with some clarification. The first issue relates to methodology so I'll begin with that.

1) On page 95 under the heading Materials and Methods, you write as follows: "For identification and taxonomic appraisal, bone fragments were compared with those of Lepus capensis from the Comparative Collection of Mammals at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Schmid's Atlas of Animal Bones was also referred to." My question is, were there any methods utilized to distinguish between the Leporid species Lepus capensis and other Leporid species such as, say, Lepus timidus (mountain hare) or Oryctolagus cuniculus (European rabbit)? After all, their skeletons are practically identical. In fact, although Schmid's Atlas deals specifically with eight animals (Horse, Ox, Sheep, Pig, Wolf, Bear, Beaver and Hare), the author writes that "the hare stands for all Leporidae" (pg 11, under the section Sequence of the Animals). Since all hares and rabbits fall under this category, is it possible that some of the bone fragments you found may indeed have belonged to another species from the Leporid family?

2) As mentioned earlier, you write that "Since the Middle Pleistocene the cape hare (Lepus capensis) has been the only species of lagomorph known from this region." What I am wondering is, how reliable are the results of nine locations (several of them caves) over the size of such a region (roughly 30,000 sq. kilometers)? How authoritative are the conclusions based on these results? When you write that the cape hare is the only known species in the region, do you mean to say that it is reasonable to conclude that no other species of lagomorph occupied this region in the past, or do you mean to say that as of now (the time of your paper) there are simply no other known species of lagomorph that have been documented in the strata?

Looking forward to your response, I remain
Sincerely yours,

Indeed, as Schmid states, the bones in her atlas stand for all Leporidae which includes the hare and the rabbit. Thus the atlas itself cannot be used to specifically distinguish the hare from the rabbit. No evidence is presented in the Tchernov paper that indicates how the authors made the identification that the bones they dug up were specifically that of the hare. This does not mean that they did not employ such a determination. It is just that the paper itself does not present the relevant evidence. There is thus a rather large gap between claim and evidence for the claim.


So are there methods that might be used to distinguish between the hare and the rabbit? Dr. Betech writes:

However, because of the adaption of Lepus towards fast locomotion, reflected in an enlongation of the distal parts of the hind limbs, and the digging adaptation of Oryctolagus, reflected mainly in the forelimbs (see e.g., Sych, Donard, Fladerer, Fostowicz-Frelik ) differences between the two genera in the proportions of several postcranial elements are obvious and can be used to distinguish them. [Enigma, p92]

However, given the similarity of the hare and rabbit, this determination is not always an easy task. 

 The differences between the living species of rabbits and hares are subtle, even though we have the whole animal for comparison. Since most fossil and sub-fossil finds consist of isolated teeth or small fragments of skull or other bone, the difficulties of confidently distinguishing species in the fossil record is acute.The problem is exacerbated by the burrowing ability of the rabbit and consequent difficulty of recognizing remains that have thereby been intruded into earlier strata. [“Taxonomy and origins”, G.B. Corbet, p4, in The European Rabbit: The History and Biology of a Successful Colonizer, edited by Harry V. Thompson and Corolyn M. King, Oxford University Press, 1994. Emphasis added]

As Dr. Betech writes, Wible has studied 59 osteological cranial characteristics among lagomorphs, and found that Lepus capensis (cape hare) and Pronolagus crassicaudatus (the rock rabbit) differ only in one of them, i.e. in the size and location of the sphenopalatine vacuity (SPV). [Wible J.R. "Cranial Osteology of the Lagomorpha". Bulletin Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 2007; 39:213-234.]

Thus, some of the fossils found in Biblical Israel and indiscriminately identified as fossils of Lepuscapensis, could indeed correspond to Pronolagus crassicaudatus, a species which dwells specifically in rocky habitats. 

Another major issue is that the fossil record for Lagomorphs is incomplete. Many living lagomorph genera lack a fossil record.

Only 12 genera and about 75 lagomorph species are still living in recent times, most of them almost devoid of paleontological record. (p27)

(8) Many living lagomorph genera lack a fossil record. The others are mainly recorded by extinct species, indicating a recent renewal of the lagomorph fauna. (p44, summary)

Living leporids with a palaeolagine-type p3, which appear as a natural group in some molecular phylogenies, are poorly represented in the fossil record. Among them, the Japanese Pentalagus is the only one with a fossil relative, +Pliopentalagus from the European and Asiatic Pliocene. It assesses the refugee status of the surviving insular Amami rabbit. From the remaining palaeolagine-like living taxa (Bunolagus, Pronolagus, and Romerolagus), only Pronolagus has been documented by fossil remains from South African Plio-Pleistocene.  (p. 37-38)
[The Lagomorph Fossil Record and the Origin of the European Rabbit, Nieves Lopez-Martinez, in Lagomorph Biology, Springer-Verlag, 2008, pp 27-46. Extinct taxa have a ‘+’ preceding their names. Emphasis added]

So, for example, Lopez-Martinez mentions the genus Bunolagus as lacking documentation in the fossil record. The riverine rabbit (Bunolagus monticularis), also called the bushman rabbit, is the only living member of this genus. This rare and endangered species of rabbit, living in the Karoo (in South Africa), has no fossil record. As another example, there is a rare species of rabbit in Mexico (genus Romerolagus) that has no fossils record. 

Conclusion

In summary, the hyrax is disqualified ab initio as it is not a ma’aleh geira. The hyrax is not a ruminant. It does not have an alternate regurgitation mechanism such as cecotrophy, analogous to that of ruminants. It is doubtful that the hyrax practices merycism, and certainly not as a nutritional imperative.

The fossil record is known to be incomplete and cannot be used to exclude the rabbit from Biblical Israel. There are many living species of lagomorphs for which there is no rock record. The differences between the living species of rabbits and hares are subtle, even though we have the whole animal for comparison. Since most fossil and sub-fossil finds consist of isolated teeth or small fragments of skull or other bone, the difficulties of confidently distinguishing species in the fossil record is acute. No evidence has yet been presented that appropriate measures have been taken to confidently identify lagomorph fossils as hares rather than rabbits. Even if such measures have been taken, is the sample size sufficiently large?

The most reasonable candidate for the shafan is the rabbit, as per our mesora going back to early authorities such as Ibn Janach, Lekach Tov and many others. The Talmud states that the Almighty, Ruler of His world, knows that there is no creature that is maaleh geira and is non-kosher except for the camel, hare and shafan. With the shafan now identified as the rabbit, the Torah’s list of four (or five, according to one opinion in the Talmud) exceptions is exhaustive, as identified by Chazal in their exegesis of the relevant verses in the Torah.

And if the shafan is the rabbit as per our mesora, then there were indubitably rabbits in the region of Biblical Israel, and it would indeed be expected that rabbits lived in the same habitat as the ibex. Contemporary writers describe the ibex, the hyrax and rabbit (or at least lagomorphs) occupying the same habitat in mountains in the Red Sea area. There are rock rabbits as far north as Sudan and migration routes north to the Nile valley and Israel. This fits in with King David’s description of the high mountains as the habitat of the wild goats (ibex) and the rocks as a refuge for the shafan (rabbit). At first glance, the remote and barren mountains appear to serve no purpose; but in fact they were created to provide a habitat for the ibex. Even the rocks and boulders which litter the wilderness are created with plan and purpose to protect the fragile rabbits from the predatory birds which seek to swoop down on them (see Radak).