The Dietary Laws Concerning Clean and Unclean Animals

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 11:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them,

After the sad interruption to the institution of the levitical law in the last post, resulting in the immediate death of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, the Lord now spoke to both Moses and Aaron, the first being His chief magistrate and the second His high priest.  The Lord said:

(2) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth:'"

The Lord instructed Moses and Aaron to speak these words to the children of Israel, giving them dietary laws regarding what animals on the earth they could eat.  A distinction between clean and unclean animals had already been made before the flood; in Genesis 7:2, it was said that Noah took seven of every clean animal, and only two of the unclean.  The distinction between clean and unclean was now more fully explained:

(3) "'Whatever divides the hoof, and is cloven footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eat.'"

The beasts that were allowed to be eaten had to possess all three characteristics as described above.  First, they had parted "hooves", that were "cloven" or split in two, to distinguish from animals which might have parted feet like dogs or cats but were not cased with the hoof horn, or animals with single hooves like horses.  In addition to the cloven hoof, the edible animals must chew the cud.  These animals chew and chew over and over again, even bringing up food to chew again, as they have more than one stomach for rumination.  This makes the food better prepared for digestion, therefore yielding better nutrition, and makes these animals fitter for food.

(4) "‘Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;'"

As further and better explanation, the Lord described animals that might possess one or two qualities, but not the third, and were therefore not clean to eat.  The camel chewed the cud, but did not have true cloven hooves.  Google described the foot of a camel as this:  "The foot of a camel is made up of a large leathery pad, with two toes at the front, the bones of which are embedded in the foot. The padding makes the gait of a camel silent, and keeps it from sinking in the sand."  Therefore, the camel was considered unclean to eat.

(5) "'And the coney, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;'"

The coney was a species of rock rabbit, or hyrax.  It chewed the cud, but did not have true cloven hooves, but rather had stumpy toes with hooflike nails, four toes on each front foot and three on each back foot, from what I have read.  This animal was unclean to eat.

(6) "'And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;'"

The original word for "hare" here was "arnebeth".  The early commentators that I routinely study believe that "hare" was either a translation error or it may have been an extinct animal that no longer exists, "because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as 'arnebeth'” (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions).  However, many Biblical scholars since that time have explained that this was not an error or a contradiction in the Bible, but rather the term "chewing the cud" had a much broader meaning 3500 years ago than it does today in our modern man-made classification system.  One article from Answers in Genesis (I love this site!) explains it this way:

"Consider what rabbits do. They engage in an activity called cecotrophy. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes. Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.

"Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of 'cud' had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.

"But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated 'chew' is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as 'chew the cud' literally means something on the order of 'eats that which is brought forth again.'

"So is the Bible in error here? No it is not. Rabbits re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments."

Back to the scripture, even though hares chewed the cud, in a less restrictive way than we have come to know the meaning of the phrase, they did not have cloven hooves, and therefore were considered unclean.

(7) "'And the swine, though it divides the hoof and is clovenfooted, yet it does not chew the cud; it is unclean to you'"

The swine was completely cloven-footed, but because it did not chew the cud, it was unclean.  The pig seems to have always been regarded as the most unclean of all the four-legged animals.  It lives in filth and eats filthy food, and with only one stomach, there is no chewing the cud or rumination with it, so its flesh was certainly less wholesome, especially in hot climates. 

(8) "'Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.'"

The people were commanded not to eat the flesh of the animals in the preceding list, but also were commanded not to touch their carcasses, as they were unclean.  This prohibition must have only referred to the eating and handling of the dead unclean animals, as the animals were used in other ways.  They rode camels and used hogs' lard in medicines.  I don't see how you could get a hog's lard without touching a dead hog, but there were many provisions for a person who was temporarily considered unclean.  One simply could not avoid sometimes coming in contact with a dead animal, as in the instance of his camel dying on him.  Therefore, I could understand that the unclean animals might could be used in other ways; it just might be that those were unclean jobs and would require sacrificial cleansing.  However, the eating of the unclean animals was expressly prohibited.

(9) "‘These you shall eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas and in the rivers, they you shall eat.'"

Any fish that had both fins and scales, and lived in either fresh or salt water, was lawful to eat.

(10) "'And all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination to you. (11) They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.'"

All water creatures that did not have both fins and scales, whether found in fresh water or salt, were unlawful to eat.  This would include eels, catfish, etc.  It is stressed that all things that move in the waters and any living things that were in the waters (that did not have fins and scales) were unlawful to eat.  This would include small worms or leeches and any shellfish, as well as perhaps huge sea serpents.  Not only were these types unlawful to eat, but they were an abomination, things to be abhorred and detested, not only with regard to eating them, but as of touching their carcasses, as well.

(12) "‘Whatever has no fins or scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination to you.'"

I find it interesting that it was stated three times that these finless and scaleless fish were an abomination.  I think it was well established that shellfish and catfish were not to be eaten!

(13) "'And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, ossifrage, and the osprey,'"

Next began a long list of birds that were not to be eaten and were to be considered an abomination.  There was no general description of what types of birds were allowed to be eaten, as with cloven-hoofed cud-chewing beasts, and finned and scaled fish, but just a list of the birds that were considered an abomination and not to be eaten.  In general, the list seems to contain scavengers and birds of prey.  It began with the eagle, the ossifrage, and the osprey.  The original word for "ossifrage" was "peres" which meant "claw" from the word "paras" which meant "break into pieces".  "Ossifrage" is a combination of two words, "osseous" and "fraction" and literally meant "bone-breaker".  Whatever it was, it was a bird that tore apart its food with its claws, and Brown-Driver-Briggs defined it as a bird of prey.  The "osprey" is a fish hawk, a large hawk that feeds on fish.

(14) "'And the vulture, and the kite after its kind;'"

The original word for "vulture" here is "daah" which means "to dart, to fly rapidly".  This is the only place in the Bible this particular word is used as a noun describing a bird, and that has led some Bible scholars to think it may have been, if not mistranslated, then reversed, and the verse should have read "...the kite, and the vulture after its kind..."  In Job 28:7, the word is "ayah" that is transcribed as "vulture", and that is the word that is translated as "kite" in the above verse, Leviticus 11:14.  Strong's defines "ayah" as "the screamer", or "a hawk, kite, or vulture"; Brown-Driver-Briggs defines it as "hawk, falcon, or kite".  Both appear to be birds of prey, darting rapidly and screaming.

(15) "'Every raven after its kind;'"

Also considered an abomination and not to be eaten was the raven, the general term for scavenger birds of this kind, including the crow and magpie and other similar birds.

(16) "'And the owl, the night hawk, the cuckoo, and the hawk after its kind;'"

The words translated as "owl" were actually two words that look like "daughters of the owl".  Some Bible scholars believe this might be rather the ostrich, since the owl is mentioned again later. The original word translated as "night hawk" was "tachmas" which comes from a root word meaning "to be violent" which Strong's says indicates it was some unclean bird of prey.  The word translated as "cuckoo" was "shachaph" from an unused root word that meant "to peel, that is, emaciate", and therefore indicated a slight lean bird.  The cuckoo is generally a slender bird, which led Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, to conclude, "A fowl which, from its natural constitution or manner of life, is incapable of becoming plump or fleshy, must always be unwholesome; and this is reason sufficient why such should be prohibited."  However, the cuckoo's diet and dietary habits are not particularly repulsive or abominable, which has led some scholars to believe that the sea mew or mew gull was more likely meant.  I don't see that the mew gull is particularly slender, but it is a small gull.  Brown-Driver-Briggs apparently wasn't completely satisfied with that translation, either, as one of their definitions was that it possibly was "an extinct bird, exact meaning unknown".  The original word for the last hawk mentioned in verse 16 was "nets" which can mean a flower or a hawk!  Once again Brown-Driver-Briggs says it's possible this was an extinct bird, but Strong's suggests that because the root word means "glare" or "brilliance", it refers to the bird's glaring or flashing speed.  Adam Clarke suggested the root actually meant something more akin to "shoot forth or spring forward" which referred to a flower, as well as the rapidity and length of flight of the hawk.

(17) "'And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl;'"

The word translated as "little owl" was "kos" and came from an unused root word meaning "hold together" or "cup".  Strong's suggested that the large cup-like cavity of the owl's eye might be why the word was also translated as "small owl".  I personally wondered if a pelican or some such bird might be meant because of the cup or pouch in its beak.  I found that some early scholars believed this was a possibility, too, but most rejected it because a later verse appears to include the pelican.  The original word translated as "cormorant" was "shalak" from a root word that means "to throw out or down, or cast".  It probably refers to a plunger or diver type bird.  The word translated as "great owl" was "yanshoph", and may be derived from the word "nesheph" meaning "twilight", the time in which owls mainly fly.

(18) "'And the swan, the pelican, and the gier eagle;'"

These words are getting almost impossible to positively translate, and I feel like I'm getting bogged down in the weeds!   The word translated as "swan" has been translated by other versions and by Bible scholars as anything from a flamingo to an owl!  The same word is translated as "mole" elsewhere, so who knows?  Brown-Driver-Briggs in one definition suffices to state that it's "an unclean animal of some kind" and also "perhaps an extinct lizard or bird, exact meaning unknown".  Here we have the word translated as "pelican"--"qaath", from the root word "qayah" meaning "to vomit", which may refer to the practice by the pelican.  The original word translated as "gier eagle" was "racham" which means "to love, be compassionate, be tender".  This is apparently a bird that tenderly cared for its young, which could mean the eagle or the vulture, or even the pelican that vomited to feed its young.

(19) "'And the stork, the heron after its kind, the lapwing, and the bat.'"

The original word for "stork" was "chasiydah", a form of the word "chasiyd" meaning "kind".  The stork seems to exemplify kindness throughout historical writings because of its tenderness to its young and its kindness in tending to its elderly parents.  The word translated as "heron" is another translated far and wide as many different words, so who knows?  "Lapwing" comes from a word admittedly of "uncertain derivation", stated by Strong's, so again, I would say it was anyone's guess as to what bird is meant.  Because Strong's only tells me that the word for "bat" is also of uncertain derivation, I will defer completely to Adam Clarke who wrote, "so called, according to Parkhurst, at, to fly, and alaph, darkness or obscurity, because it flies about in the dusk of the evening, and in the night...This being a sort of monster partaking of the nature of both a bird and beast, it might well be classed among unclean animals, or animals the use of which in food should be avoided."

(20) "'All fowls that creep, going upon all fours, shall be an abomination to you.'"

The word translated as "fowls" was "oph" which literally meant "covered with wings".  "Going upon all fours" is probably just a term that meant walking on the ground as opposed to flying in the air.  It may not literally mean only four feet or legs.  Winged creatures that walked on all fours would be an abomination.  This description would certainly include the bat mentioned before, but as far as six legged insects go, the following verses address them.

(21) "‘Yet these you may eat of every flying creeping thing that goes on all fours: those which have legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth.'"

"Legs above their feet" surely referred to the large jointed legs of the grasshopper, cricket, and locust.  Although they were actually six-legged insects, these winged creeping things with large jointed back legs, larger and jointed above their other legs that crept upon the earth, were able to leap in great bounds upon the earth, and were considered clean and lawful to eat.

(22) "‘These of them you may eat: the locust after its kind, the bald locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.'"

Apparently a continuation from verse 21, the flying creeping things with legs above their feet with which to leap, included the locust, the cricket, and the grasshopper.  It is not known exactly how a bald locust differs from a regular locust.  Also worth noting, the KJV used the word "beetle" instead of cricket, but it was the only place in scripture that particular original word was found.  The actual meaning of the word "chargol" was "leaping insect", so a beetle could not be meant, but it's understandable how a cricket might look like a jumping beetle rather than a grasshopper.  It can be safely assumed that what is meant by this verse is that all varieties of grasshoppers, crickets, and locusts, having those large jointed leaping legs, were lawful to eat.

(23) "‘But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination to you.'"

I did not previously examine the word translated as "creeping things" before this mention.  The word "sherets" means "swarming things" and was used to mean insects.  The verse refers to all other flying insects which have four feet.  Apparently, locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets, were considered having only four feet and additionally having powerful leapers.  Therefore, any other flying insect that appeared to have only four legs as described above, was considered an abomination and unlawful to eat.  But what about insects that do not fly?  What about ants?  I honestly did not find that addressed in scripture.  Most scholars feel like "creeping things" or "swarming things" covered all insects, but scripture did say "flying creeping things".  I know some ants fly, but not all six-legged bugs fly, so it seemed to me those were not addressed.  Maybe I will come across it later in scripture.  Meanwhile, I did find a good article that gave a good summary on the characteristics of clean and unclean insects:

Characteristics of Clean and Unclean Insects

"Most orthoptera (an order of insects including grasshoppers and crickets) are vegetarians. Grasshoppers, according to Hemenway, have a crop, gizzard, gastric caeca (intestines) and a stomach, in that order, from front to back. Like clean animals, grasshoppers chew their food with two powerful grinding jaws called mandibles. Unclean insects are generally scavengers, omnivores and occasionally predators. They bite and suck instead of chew thoroughly like the grasshopper. Even though bees are unclean, their honey is fit to eat, since it is converted pollen from flowers, and not actually from the bees themselves.

"Many unclean "creeping things" are notorious disease carriers. Hemenway notes that mosquitoes transmit malaria, yellow fever, and other diseases. Flies transmit tularemia, ticks can transmit germs of Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and rats host fleas which carry Bubonic plague, and can transmit numerous diseases and parasites to man."

* Note - I am assuming the Hemenway mentioned in the article above is David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Back to scripture:

(24) "'And by these you shall be unclean: whoever touches the carcass of them shall be unclean until evening.'"

"By these" following circumstances, a person was considered to be unclean.  The list began with the incident of a person who touched the carcass of an unclean animal from the ones described above; if that happened, he would be considered unclean until the evening.  In many cases, it would be necessary for someone to touch the dead carcass of an unclean animal, if only to remove it, so this was more of a ceremonial uncleanness, which prohibited the one who touched the unclean carcass to come into the tabernacle, to eat of the holy things, etc., until evening.

(25) "'And whoever carries any part of the carcass of them shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.'"

Whoever did carry any part of the carcass of an unclean animal was to wash his clothes, but still be considered ceremonially unclean until evening.

(26) "'The carcasses of every beast which divides the hoof, but is not cloven-footed nor chews the cud, are unclean to you; everyone who touches them shall be unclean.'"

A review of the type of animal that would be considered unclean--one whose hoof might be divided, but not cloven-hoofed, and one that did not chew the cud--that animal's carcass would be unclean and anyone who touched its carcass would be considered unclean until evening.

(27) "‘And whatever goes on its paws, among all kinds of animals that go on all fours, those are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening.'"

The original word for "paws", that is "kaph", was usually translated as "hands", so this would indicate animals that had hand-like feet, divided like fingers.  Those animals that walked on their paws among the animals that went on all fours, distinguishing them from perhaps birds that walk on just two feet that are divided into finger-like toes or talons, were considered unclean.  This would include animals such as dogs, cats, lions, bears, monkeys, etc.  If anyone touched the carcass of such an animal, he would be considered unclean until the evening.

(28) "'And he who bears the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to you.'"

Anyone who had occasion to carry the carcass of one of these such animals was to wash his clothes and he would be considered unclean until the evening.

(29) "'These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the weasel, the mouse, and the tortoise after its kind;'"

"Sherets", the word translated as "creeping things", usually indicated insects as it came from the root "sharats" meaning "swarm".  "Sharats" can also mean "wriggle" or "creep", and can even mean "to multiply abundantly" (as with rabbits, as they say), so "creeping things" also refers to small animals, mostly rodents that would appear to multiply and swarm.  A list of which of these kinds of creeping animals were to be considered unclean was begun, and it included the "weasel".  The original word "choled" is used only this once in scripture.  It comes from the root word "cheled" which means "to glide swiftly".  Something along the lines of a weasel was thought to be meant, although Brown-Driver-Briggs states that it was "perhaps an extinct animal, exact meaning unknown".  Mice were included in this list of unclean creeping animals, as well as the "tsab", translated in the KJV as "tortoise".  Most of the other versions translated this word as "lizard", but I tend to agree with the KJV, as the original word comes from an unused root word that meant "covered" or "canopy".  That does seem to suggest a turtle or tortoise.

(30) "'And the ferret, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole.'"

Also included in the list of unclean creeping animals was the ferret.  The original word "anaqah" was only used this once in this form.  The word as a verb form meant "shrieking, crying, groaning", and Brown-Driver-Briggs stated again that it could be "an extinct animal, exact meaning unknown"; we know it was "an unclean animal".  The word translated as "chameleon" was "koach", and meant "strength, power, vigor, might"; for this reason, most translations agree this meant a much larger more powerful lizard, perhaps even the crocodile.  "Letaah", the word translated as "lizard" is only used this once, and comes from an unused root meaning "to hide", which I suppose could refer to lizards in general, but I couldn't help but note that that might actually be the word that best defined a chameleon, rather than "koach".  Once again we have a word only used once in the word translated as "snail".  "Chomet" comes from an unused root meaning "to lie low", which sounds more like a type of lizard to me, in agreement with most other versions (other than the KJV), but could also be "perhaps an extinct animal, exact meaning is unknown".  Finally, the original word for "mole" is the same word for "swan" in verse 18 above, "tanshemeth".  Strong's states this is from the root "nasham" (I'll take their word for it), and means "properly a hard breather".  I suppose that might seem a proper description of an underground mole.  Once again Brown-Driver-Briggs said this could be an extinct animal or bird, since the exact meaning is unclear.  Although the meaning of most of the words in the last two verses are unclear, I think we can surmise that these were, for the most part, small swarming rodents and reptiles; and they were considered unclean.

(31) "'These are unclean to you among all that creep; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening.'"

In a summarizing statement, the animals listed in verses 29-30 were considered the unclean animals from the ones that creep, and whoever touched their bodies when they were dead would be considered unclean until the evening.

(32) "'And upon whatever, any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall be unclean, whether it be any vessel of wood, clothing, skin, or sack, whatever vessel it be, in which any work is done, it must be put in water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; so it shall be cleansed.'"

If the dead body of any of the above unclean creeping things fell upon an object, that object also became unclean.  Any wooden vessel or utensil, any type of clothing, any animal skin serving as a bottle, sack, or anything else, whatever item it might be that was being used at the time, if it came in contact with the dead body of one of these creeping things, it had to be put into water, and would be considered unclean until evening.  The object would be considered cleansed after it was put into water and after the evening came.  I ought to point out that although I took the above scripture to mean anything with which the dead unclean animal came in contact, Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, wrote that it only pertained to whatever instrument was made of wood, cloth, skin, or sack, as mentioned immediately before in the verse.  That is plausible as scripture goes on to describe vessels of other materials.

(33) "'And every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it.'"

If the dead body of any of the above mentioned creeping things fell into an earthenware vessel, whatever was contained within the vessel was considered unclean, and the vessel itself was to be broken.

(34) "'Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water falls shall be unclean, and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean.'"

Clean meats and drinks that were otherwise lawfully able to be consumed, were to be considered unclean if they came in contact with any contaminated unclean water that had become unclean because of an unclean animal that had fallen into it.

(35) "‘And everything on which any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean; whether it is an oven or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down, for they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you.'"

Here it does indeed say that anything upon which the dead body of one of these unclean creeping things fell, would become unclean.  Even if it was an oven or range, it was to be broken down if it came in contact with the carcass of one of these animals.  These ovens or ranges would have been temporary sorts made with stones upon which pots would be placed.  I believe the idea here would be if a rat, for instance, fell upon the stones of a stove, those stones would become unclean and must be broken, and a new set of stones would have to be prepared to act as an oven or range.

(36) "‘Nevertheless a fountain or pit, in which there is plenty of water, shall be clean, but whatever touches any such carcass shall be unclean.'"

An exception was granted in the case of an unclean creeping thing's carcass falling into a fountain or a well or cistern where there was plenty of water.  In the case of an abundance of water, the whole would not be considered unclean because of the dead thing falling in it.  However, the hand or vessel that touched the carcass to remove it, or any other thing that touched it, would be considered unclean.

(37) "'And if any part of their carcass falls upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean.'"

If the unclean carcass fell upon a seed about to be sown, that seed was still considered clean.  Perhaps that was because "such seed would not be used for man's food till it had received many alterations in the earth whereby such pollution was taken away" (John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible).

(38) "‘But if water is put on the seed, and any part of their carcass falls on it, it shall be unclean to you.'"

However, if the carcass fell upon seed that had been watered, it was to be considered unclean.  Perhaps this was because a wet seed might soak up and retain the impurities of the carcass.  Maybe a wet seed indicated one that was being prepared for planting and wouldn't have been planted until it was dried and cleansed.  Any such wet seed that was contaminated by an unclean carcass would be considered unclean and plucked away, not to be dried and used.

(39) "‘And if any beast of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening.'"

If an animal that was lawful to eat died, whoever touched the carcass would be considered unclean until evening.  I find it a little amusing to what extent some of the old commentators went to explain how certain parts of the carcass were okay to touch while others were not, to explain how skins, horns, hooves, etc. were allowed to be removed and used.  I believe they were unclean when they collected these items, and there was no horrible shame in that.  It's like the unclean menstruating woman, or the person who by necessity had to remove an unclean carcass, or any carcass, for that matter.  There were times, out of necessity, that one would become unclean, and out of reverence, respect, and obedience to the Lord, they would be considered unclean for the appropriate time, but once that time had passed, would again be considered clean and able to participate in offerings, festivals, and the things of the Lord.

(40) "'And he who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; he also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.'"

A clean animal that was lawful to eat that was killed to be offered as sacrifice and/or eaten posed no threat of uncleanness.  However, a lawful to eat clean animal that died of itself would be the one with the carcass that would make one unclean.  Any person who ate of this unclean carcass would have to wash his clothes and be considered unclean until evening.  Additionally, any person who carried the carcass would also have to wash his clothes and be considered unclean until evening.

(41) "‘And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.'"

Every creeping thing that crept low to the ground on the earth was to be considered an abomination, and expressly not to be eaten, which I suppose had not been expressly stated to this point.  We were told they were unclean, but this statement more completely tells us they were not to be eaten, and were to be considered an abomination.

(42) "‘Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has more feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth, these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination.'"

I really don't quite understand why only eight creeping creatures were mentioned before, but this does seem to answer the question about other insects and creeping things that did not seem to be mentioned in the verses above.  Whatever crawled on its belly, like snakes, worms, snails, etc.; and whatever went on all fours, certainly meant to be said of the creeping things just mentioned, which probably meant the likes of the weasel, mole, mouse, lizard, etc.; and whatever had more feet (more than four) which would include all insects, caterpillars, centipedes, etc.; these all were not to be eaten because they were considered an abomination.

(43) "‘You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, that you should be defiled by them. (44) For I am the LORD your God; you shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy, for I am holy; neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'"

The people were not to makes themselves unclean and abominable, and thus defiled, by eating or handling the dead bodies of these abominable creatures.  The reason for this was that their Lord God was a holy God and He wanted them to be a holy and separate people.  The people were to consecrate themselves, consciously choose between good and evil, observing the divine law and not defiling themselves with those things forbidden and considered unclean by God, in this case, the creeping things of the earth.

(45) "‘For I am the LORD who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; you shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.'"

The Lord reminded the people that He was the Lord who was bringing them out of the land of Egypt, He being their God and they His chosen people; and for that reason they should do their best to live holy lives to abide in the holiness of their Lord.

(46) "‘This is the law of the beasts and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, (47) To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.'"

All the preceding verses in this chapter constituted the law distinguishing between the clean and unclean animals of the earth, particularly detailing the difference between those that may be eaten and those that were forbidden to be eaten.

God called His people to be a separate people, the special people of Yahweh.  These dietary laws daily reminded them of the covenant that distinguished them from the other nations of the world.  By Jesus Christ, it was revealed to us in Matthew 15:11, that it actually wasn't what went into a man's mouth that defiled him, but rather that which came out.  The apostle Paul told us in Romans 14:17 that the kingdom of God was not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.  As I find true in all of the Old Testament, these dietary laws were symbolic and a prequel to and illustration of the coming Christ.  As Christians, we are free from such burdensome dietary observances.  However, the abominable foods are symbolic of abominable sins of which we should not partake, nor even touch.  When we do, as will necessarily happen because we are imperfect fallen humans, we can come back to God in the evening through Jesus Christ who covers our sins.   However, we must not abuse our freedom.  Peter said in 1 Peter 2:16 that we must not use our freedom as a cover for evil, but as servants of God.  The Lord has redeemed and called His people, that they may be holy, even as He is holy.  We must be separate from the world and leave the company of the ungodly, and be zealous followers of God and all good works (2 Tim 3:17 and Titus 2:14).