why is a pig unkosher?

Answer 1

Because G-d has decreed it.

Answer 2

This one's a little tricky. Technically, the rule in Leviticus or wherever it is in the Old Testament of the Bible is that a mammal has to have cloven hooves (like a cow or deer) and eat vegetation. Pigs are omnivores but they could survive on only vegetable matter if you wanted them to. Pigs don't have cloven hooves, though--I think their feet are split instead of the hooves (which are specialized nails at the end of grazing animals' feet.)

Some people think that since pigs will kill animals that blunder across their path (pigs often kill rats in their pens, for example) that they are technically predators. Also, pigs are awfully close to humans in terms of anatomy--insulin used to be derived from pigs, and I've been told that baby piglets smell just like human babies. Cannibals call humans "long pigs." So maybe pigs are just too much like us to eat. But they're taboo in Judaism and Islam and they were considered unclean in Ancient Egypt, too (but archaeologists have found evidence that they were eaten there on the sly.)

Answer 3

Becuase it doesn't chew it's cud.

Kosher animals need to have two signs, split hooves and chew its own cud. Pigs only have split hooves, but they don't chew their cud. (Cows have both.)

--------
In response to the cleanliness answers given:
There have been attempts to provide empirical support for the view that kashrut laws have hygienic benefits. However, this has never been the traditional Jewish view.

It was believed by some people that kosher animals were healthier to eat than non-kosher animals. It was also noted that the laws of purity (Leviticus 11–15) not only describe the difference between clean and unclean animals, but also describe other phenomena that appear to be related to health. For instance, glatt, the requirement that lungs be checked to be free of adhesions, would prevent consumption of animals who had been infected with tuberculosis; similarly, the ban on slaughtering of an unconscious animal would eliminate many sick and possibly infectious animals from being consumed. Such a rationale seems reasonable when considering the laws prohibiting the consumption of carrion birds or birds of prey (which are advantageous scavengers), as they may carry disease from the carrion they consume; shellfish, which as filter feeders can accumulate harmful parasites or toxins; or pork, which can harbor trichinosis if not properly cooked. Thus, it was natural for many to assume that all the laws of kashrut were merely hygienic in intent and origin. One of the rabbinical authorities that mention the hygiene hypothesis is Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed.

For a number of reasons, however, this idea has fallen out of favor among biblical scholars, and has never been accepted by the majority of Jews. Fruits and vegetables may be eaten without prohibition even though there are many poisonous herbs, seeds, berries and fruits. Additionally, this hypothesis does not explain other parts of the Jewish dietary laws; for instance forbidding the consumption of fish without true scales, such as sharks and swordfish, fruit from trees which are less than four years old, or residual blood in meat.

In 1953 Dr. David I. Macht, a Johns Hopkins researcher, performed experiments on many different kinds of animals and fish, and concluded that the concentration of zoological toxins of the "unclean" animals was higher than that of the "clean" animals, and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%. (Macht D, (1953). "An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Levitcus XI and Deuteronomy XIV". Bull Hist Med 27:444-450). In addition, Dr. Macht's research indicated harmful physiological effects of mixtures of meat and milk, and ritually slaughtered meat appeared to be lower in toxins than meat from other sources (see: David I. Macht, Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184 ). The conclusions of the paper published in Johns Hopkins Bulletin of the History of Medicine was challenged in a paper by biologists written at the request of a Seventh-day Adventist Church publication.

Answer 4

Because, at the time the laws of Kashrut were being formed, it was unsafe to eat pigs. Same with shellfish.

We don't face that same problem today.

Answer 5

My thoughts: way back when people didn't cook things all the way throw and pigs did and still have parasites in them that you need to kill to eat them. God didn't always tell why but he knew this. So to keep his people healthy he said don't eat pigs.

Answer 6

Because G-d said so.
That's the ultimate answer.

However, there are numerous philosophical explanations which rabbis have offered to gain insight into the rationale.
Medical reasons offered, however, are insignificant in judaism.

Answer 7

The Kosher laws probably came about becuse certain foods -- like pork and shellfish -- can make you sick if not cooked or stored properly. It was easier to ban them completely than to determine when they are safe.

Answer 8

Old Testament Law says it is an unclean animal.
New Testament declares that nothing the God made is to be considered unclean.

Answer 9

I don't know, but for some reason you just reminded me of the Seinfeld episode--the one with shrinkage, the lobster traps and the ugly baby...remember that one? And George put lobster in Jerry's girlfriends scrambled eggs to get back at her for the shrinkage talkage...tee hee....And wasnt it Jane that was topless? Everyone saw Jane topless except for George...and it was HIS date.

Ok thanks, I've made my own day now!

Answer 10

Back in Bible days eating pork was dangerous. Dangerous food was forbidden. Now we know how to prepare pork so it is not dangerous. But it is still forbidden because some people do not believe in progress.

Answer 11

Because the pig eats and roots in his own shyte.
Who would ever consider eating such a foul beast than the fat, lazy American.