Księga Powtórzonego Prawa 14:10

Biblia Gdańska

Ale wszystkiego, co nie ma skrzeli, ani łuski, jeść nie będziecie, nieczyste wam będzie.

Parallel Translations

Biblia Brzeska (1563)
Ale które skrzeli ani łuski nie mają, tych nie jedzcie, a miejcie je za nieczyste.

Nowe Przymierze Zaremba
Tego, co nie ma płetw ani łusek, spożywać nie wolno - będzie to dla was nieczyste.

Nowa Biblia Gdańska (2012)
Zaś wszystkiego, co nie ma płetw i łuski nie będziecie jadać; to jest dla was nieczyste.

Biblia Tysiąclecia
Ale wszystkiego, co nie ma skrzeli, ani łuski, jeść nie będziecie, nieczyste wam będzie.

Uwspółcześniona Biblia Gdańska
Lecz wszystkiego, co nie ma płetw i łusek, nie będziecie jeść; będzie to dla was nieczyste.

Biblia Warszawska
Lecz tego wszystkiego, co nie ma płetw i łusek, jeść nie będziecie. To jest dla was nieczyste.

Bible Verse Review
  from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge

Reciprocal: Leviticus 7:21 - any unclean Leviticus 11:9 - General

Gill's Notes on the Bible

:-

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Compare Leviticus 11:0. The variations here, whether omissions or additions, are probably to be explained by the time and circumstances of the speaker.

Deuteronomy 14:5

The “pygarg” is a species of gazelle, and the “wild ox” and “chamois” are swift types of antelope.

Deuteronomy 14:21

The prohibition is repeated from Leviticus 22:8. The directions as to the disposal of the carcass are unique to Deuteronomy, and their motive is clear. To have forbidden the people either themselves to eat that which had died, or to allow any others to do so, would have involved loss of property, and consequent temptation to an infraction of the command. The permissions now for the first time granted would have been useless in the wilderness. During the 40 years’ wandering there could be but little opportunity of selling such carcasses; while non-Israelites living in the camp would in such a matter be bound by the same rules as the Israelites Leviticus 17:15; Leviticus 24:22. Further, it would seem (compare Leviticus 17:15) that greater stringency is here given to the requirement of abstinence from that which had died of itself. Probably on this, as on so many other points, allowance was made for the circumstances of the people. Flesh meat was no doubt often scarce in the desert. It would therefore have been a hardship to forbid entirely the use of that which had not been killed. However, now that the plenty of the promised land was before them, the modified toleration of this unholy food was withdrawn.