The “Swan, Geese, and Ducks”: Clean or Unclean?

By Rafael J. Carado MA-R

Leviticus 11 records the laws that divide all the animals into two groups such as
the clean and unclean animals. The clean animals are suitable or fit for God’s people to
eat, while the unclean animals are unsuitable or unfit for food. The description of clean
and unclean living creatures in Lev 11 is divided into three categories as follows: (1) land
creatures (11:2-8); (2) water creatures (11:9-12); and the air creatures (11:13-23). Under
the last category, unclean birds were enumerated but no distinguishing features are given
as it does in the case of beasts and fishes. Thus, the identification between clean and
unclean birds today is quite difficult, particularly those birds that are not mentioned in the
Bible.
Among the unclean birds mentioned in Leviticus 11 as rendered in King James
Version (KJV) is “swan,” which consequently forbidden as an article of diet. The KJV
rendition as “swan” caused some members of the Seventh-day Adventist to ask question
whether “swan,” “geese,” and “ducks”1 are unclean. This question was answered by
some renowned SDA theologians and was printed in some prominent SDA magazines.
In 1934, LeRoy E. Froom commented that “the identity of the bird cannot be--fixed with
certainty,”2 but did not clearly declared that swan is clean. In 1958, Don F. Neufeld
concluded that “no dogmatic conclusions can be drawn from Leviticus 11:18 with regard
to the classification of ducks and geese in the category of clean and unclean animals.”3 A
year later, W.E. Read declared:
In the light of these considerations from the Bible, Jewish writings, and other
sources we conclude that fowls, chickens, ducks, geese, guinea fowls, doves,
pigeons, and the like are clean according to the Levitical law.4
The question about “swan” in Lev 11:18 was again asked in the year 1984 and
answered by Frank B. Holbrook in These Times magazine. Holbrook stressed that the
“Orthodox Jews regard the duck and goose as lawful,” and presumed that “Only unclean
fowl are listed. Those not identified thus are presumed to be edible.”5 From this period,
many Seventh-day Adventist members started to eat swan, geese, and ducks even here in
the Philippines.
Today, despite of those previous researches, many Seventh-day Adventist
Christians are still wondering whether “swan” mentioned in Lev 11:18 (KJV), including
“geese and ducks,” is clean or unclean birds. Thus, this paper seeks to further clarify this
issue and hoping to suggest probable solutions.
The Placement of Tinšeºmet
1
“Swans, genus Cygnus, are birds of the family Anatidae, which also includes
geese and ducks.” See the online Encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan
2
LeRoy E. Froom, The "Swan" of Leviticus I I Ministry Magazine, April 1934.
3
Don F. Neufeld, Is Goose Unclean? The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald,
Vol. 135, No. 21 May 22, 1958.
4
W. R. Read, Ducks and Geese; Are They Unclean? The Advent Review and
Sabbath Herald Vol. 136, No. 8 February 19, 1959.
5
Frank B. Holbrook, [Is the duck "unclean"?] These Times February, 1984, p.28.
1
 The word Tinšeºmet is tris legomenon.1 First, in Lev 11:18 the word Tinšeºmet
is used in the context of the unclean “air creatures,” while in Lev 11:30, a word
Tinšäºmet is used in the context of the “creeping creatures.” The third usage of the
word Tinšäºmet is in Deut 14:16, which is again in the context of the “air creatures.” If
Tinšeºmet is an “air creature” in Lev 11:18 and Tinšäºmet in Lev 11:30 is mentioned
among the land creatures, and Tinšäºmet in Deut 14:16 is an “air creature,” therefore, it
is interesting to observe that this word is obscure even among the expert morphologists
and translators. Notice the table below.

Lev 11:18 Lev 11:30 Deut 14:16

Tinšeºmet Tinšäºmet Tinšäºmet
“air creature” “land creature” “air creature”
“porphuriôna” (LXX) aspalax (LXX) ibin (LXX)

As observed in the table above, the LXX rendition of the word Tinšeºmet in Lev
11:18 is porphuriôna, aspalax in Lev 11:30, and ibin in Deut 14:16. The LXX usage of
the three different words to translate the same Hebrew word is a clear indication of the
uncertainty of the word. Since the LXX did not use the Greek word “kuknon” “swan” to
translate Tinšeºmet, therefore, the LXX translators do not identify Tinšeºmet as
“swan.” Moreover, because the word Tinšeºmet is tris legomenon, its meaning could
hardly be understood in its own context.

The Meaning of Tinšeºmet

The morphology of the word Tinšeºmet is obscure among the lexicographers.
Some scholars suggest that Tinšeºmet derives from the Hebrew verb ~vn meaning “to
pant, of the deep and strong breathing” which “can apply to the sound of breathing, or
hissing, snorting made by a bird, so that it may mean some kind of owl (night-owl; long-
eared owl; white owl; screech owl).” 2 Other scholars said that this Hebrew word derives
from the Akkadian word “tašlamtu” a “a type of lizard.”3 Moreover, other scholars
suggest that the word Tinšeºmet derives from the root ‫“ ּתָ נַׁש‬to breath,” which is related
to the Arrabic word faḫḫāḫ meaning “snorter” which may refer to a Chamelon.4 The

1
Which means that the word is used only three times in the Bible. See
BibleWorks 7, BDB.
2
Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M.E.J Richardson and Johann Jakob
Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Volumes 1-4 Combined
in One Electronic Edition., electronic ed. (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999, c1994-
1996), 1765.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid. See also Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius'
Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, Translation of the
Author's Lexicon Manuale Hebraicum Et Chaldaicum in Veteris Testamenti Libros, a
Latin Version of the Work First Published in 1810-1812 Under Title: Hebräisch-
2
same scholars who suggested various etymological derivatives declared that “this
identification is not certain.” Thus, etymologically, the identification of the word
Tinšeºmet remains uncertain.

The Problem of Translation

The Hebrew text of Lev 11:18 says:
‫וְאֶת־הַּתִ נְׁשֶמֶת וְאֶת־הַּקָָאת וְאֶת־ה ָָרחָם‬
wü´et-haTTinšeºmet wü´et-haqqä´ät wü´et-häräHäm

The word “swan” rendered in the KJV derives from the Hebrew word Tinšeºmet.
Notice how this word is translated by the different versions.

Tinšeºmet Hebrew

porphuriôna (purple or scarlet bird) LXX Greek

Cygnus Vulgate
Swan KJV, DRA, RWB, YLT
Ibis NJB
Horned owl ASV, CJB, ERV, JPS
Water hen BBE, NRS, RSV
White owl CSB, NAS, NAU, NET, NIB, NIV, NKJ, TNK
Barn owl ESV, NAB, NLT
Redshank GNV
Red-bill LXE
kuwagong tila Ang Biblia (Tagalog)
kuwagong parang may sungay Magandang Balita Biblia
Kalamon Ang Biblia-Bugna
may sungay-sungay nga bukas Ang Biblia-Hiligaynon
itik
V Ang Bag-ong Maayong Balita (Cebuano)
Maayong Balita Biblia

As noted above, the Hebrew word Tinšeºmet is translated variously in the

English versions and even in the Filipino versions. The KJV, DRA, RWB, and YLT
translated the word Tinšeºmet into “swan,” while other English versions suggest
different kinds of birds such as ibis, horned owl, water hen, white owl, barn owl,
redshank, and red-bill. It is interesting to note, that the KJV translation did not follow the
LXX translation which is porphuriôna (purple or scarlet bird) but rather follow the
Vulgate which is Cygnus “swan.”1 In Filipino versions, only the Cebuano version
adopted the KJV translation from “swan” to “itik,” while the Tagalog and Illongo

Deutsches Handwörterbuch Des Alten Testaments.; Includes Index. (Bellingham, WA:

Logos Research Systems, Inc, 2003), 869.
1
The reason why the KJV follows the translation of the Vulgate rather than the
LXX is not explained. Probably, King James of England intentionally translated
Tinšeºmet as swan because swan was preserved as decorations in the lakes, and eating of
swan was prohibited (this is just my personal opinion).
3
followed the other English versions. These various translations of the Hebrew word
Tinšeºmet show that the correct meaning of this word is uncertain and problematic.
Furthermore, commentaries and lexicons have different views concerning the
meaning of the word Tinšeºmet: (1) “possibly the glossy ibis or the water hen”; 1 (2)
“some kind of night bird”;2 (3) “barn, screech owl”;3 (4) “the ibis, water-hen, πορφυρίων
or species of owl”;4 (5) “an unclean, aquatic bird”;5 and (6) “ceremonially unclean
animal, hence not eatable: winged creature; likely a kind of owl, or a water-bird”.6
Despite of the uncertainty, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia dogmatically
concluded that “A bird of the duck family wrongly placed among the abominations in old
versions of the Bible.”7 However, I concur with Don F. Neufeld who says that “no
dogmatic conclusions can be drawn from Leviticus 11:18 with regard to the classification
of ducks and geese in the category of clean and unclean animals.”8
Jewish Way of Indentifying Clean and Unclean Birds
If it is impossible to identify the exact meaning of Tinšäºmet, then how did the
early scholars of the church conclude that “swan, geese, and ducks” are clean or fit for
food? W. R. Read answers this question in his article using the Jewish Encyclopedia and
Talmud.9 To fully understand them, I intended to see these sources myself and found out
the four Jewish way of identifying clean and unclean animals such as (1) a bird that
seizes its prey with its claws and eat on the air is unclean; (2) one which has an extra
talon, is clean; (3) with a crop, and a gizzard which can easily be peeled away, is clean;
1
Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA:
Logos Research Systems, 2000), 675.
2
Hartley, J. E. (2002). Vol. 4: Word Biblical Commentary : Leviticus. Word
Biblical Commentary (160). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
3
Levine, B. A. (1989). Leviticus. English and Hebrew: commentary in English.;
Title on half t.p.: Leviticus. The JPS Torah commentary (68). Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society.
4
Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-
Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Strong's, TWOT, and GK references Copyright
2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc. (electronic ed.) (675).
5
Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius' Hebrew and
Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research
Systems, Inc, 2003), 869-70.
6
James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains :
Hebrew (Old Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.,
1997).
7
Gene Stratton-Porter , International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, BibleWorks 7,
sv. “swan.” “White and gray swans spend their winter migratory season on the waters of
the Holy Land. They are among the most ancient birds of history; always have been used
for food; when young and tender, of fine flesh and delicious flavor; so there is no
possibility that they were ever rightfully placed among the birds unsuitable for food.
Their feeding habits are aquatic, their food in no way objectionable.”
8
See page 1.
9
Read, 10.
4
and (4) if both side of the egg are pointed, it is unclean (See Hulin 59a-67b). In the light
of this extra-biblical consideration, some of our scholars dogmatically taught and
preached that “swan, geese, and ducks” passed the above Jewish criteria and believed that
these birds are clean.

Did Ellen G. White Eat Ducks?

In my study, I found one page about Ellen G. White and her family eating ducks
in 1873, before she received the vision about “health reform.” She said:
Our provisions have been very low for some days. Many of our supplies have
gone. . . . We expected supplies three days ago certainly, but none has come.
Willie went to the lake for water. We heard his gun and found he had shot two
ducks. This is really a blessing, for we need something to live upon."
A few weeks after the duck eating experience in the Rockies in October 1873,
Elder and Mrs. White were in California and she on February 15, 1874, reported
that since they had been in that state they had dropped meat entirely, having
"bought meat once for May Walling while she was sick, but not a penny have we
expended for meat since."--Letter 12, 1874, p. 1. {7MR 346.4}

Conclusion
The following conclusion is drawn after a careful investigation of the passage. (1)
The contextual, linguistic, and morphological study affirmed the uncertainty of the
meaning of the word Tinšeºmet; (2) the KJV rendition of Tinšeºmet as “swan” should
not be taken as translation; (3) the basis of other Adventist scholars’ teaching that “swan,
geese, and ducks” are clean is not biblical, but rather based on the way the Jewish people
identify the clean or unclean birds; (4) no dogmatic conclusions can be drawn from Lev
11:18 with regard to the classification of swan, ducks and geese in the category of clean
and unclean animals.

Recommendation:
1. As the remnant people in these last days, it is better not to eat “uncertain” things
to be safe in our conscience (Rom 13:5).
2. Among those who are waiting for the coming of the Lord, meat eating will
eventually be done away; flesh will cease to form a part of their diet. {CG 383.2}