Leviticus · Chapter 11

V. 1. From the laws concerning the priests, he now comes to those which belong to all the people. God spake to both of them, because the cognizance of the following matters belonged to both: the priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed, where any doubt or difficulty arose; and the magistrate was to see the direction followed.

Verse 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses] In the preceding chapter the priests are expressly forbidden to drink wine; and the reason for this law is given also, that they might be able at all times to distinguish between clean and unclean, and be qualified to teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord had spoken, Leviticus 10:10, 11; for as inebriation unfits a person for the regular performance of every function of life, it must be especially sinful in those who minister in holy things, and to whom the teaching of the ignorant, and the cure of souls in general, are intrusted. Scheuchzer has remarked that no Christian state has made any civil law against drunkenness, (he must only mean the German states, for we have several acts of parliament against it in England,) and that it is only punished by contempt. “Custom,” says he, “that tyrant of the human race, not only permits it, but in some sort authorizes the practice, insomuch that we see priests and ministers of the Church ascend the pulpit in a state of intoxication, judges seat themselves upon the benches, physicians attend their patients, and others attempt to perform the different avocations of life, in the same disgraceful state.”-Physic. Sacr., vol. iii., p. 64. This is a horrible picture of German manners; and while we deplore the extensive ravages made by this vice, and the disgrace with which its votaries are overwhelmed, we have reason to thank God that it very rarely has ever appeared in the pulpit, and perhaps was never once seen upon the bench, in our own country.

Having delivered the law against drinking wine, Moses proceeds to deliver a series of ordinances, all well calculated to prevent the Israelites from mixing with the surrounding nations, and consequently from being contaminated by their idolatry. In chap. xi. he treats of unclean MEATS. In chap. xii., xiii., xiv., and xv., he treats of unclean PERSONS, GARMENTS, and DWELLINGS. In chap. xvi. he treats of the uncleanness of the PRIESTS and the PEOPLE, and prescribes the proper expiations and sacrifices for both. In chap. xvii. he continues the subject, and gives particular directions concerning the mode of offering, &c. In chap. xviii. he treats of unclean matrimonial connections. In chap. xix. he repeats sundry laws relative to these subjects, and introduces some new ones. In chap. xx. he mentions certain uncleannesses practised among the idolatrous nations, and prohibits them on pain of death. In chap. xxi. he treats of the mourning, marriages, and personal defects of the priests, which rendered them unclean. And in chap. 22. he speaks of unclean sacrifices, or such as should not be offered to the Lord. After this, to the close of the book, many important and excellent political and domestic regulations are enjoined, the whole forming an eccleslastico-political system superior to any thing the world ever saw. Bishop Wilson very properly observes that, “by these laws of clean and unclean animals, &c., God did keep this people separated from the idolatrous world: and this is a standing proof, even to the present day, of the Divine authority of these Scriptures; for no power or art of man could have obliged so great and turbulent a nation to submit to such troublesome precepts as the Jews always have submitted to, had they not been fully convinced, from the very first, that the command was from God, and that it was to be obeyed at the peril of their souls.”

Verse 1. The Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron — This charge is given to them jointly; to the one, as chief governor, and to the other, as high-priest; both being greatly concerned in the execution of it. The priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed, and the magistrate was to see the direction followed.

V. 2. These are the beasts-Though every creature of God be good and pure in itself, yet it pleased God to make a difference between clean and unclean, which he did in part before the flood, Genesis 7:2, but more fully here for many reasons; as,

1. To assert his own sovereignty over man, and all the creatures which men may not use but with God’s leave.

2. To keep up the wall of partition between the Jews and other nations, which was very necessary for many great and wise purposes.

Verse 2. Speak unto the children of Israel — From the laws concerning the priests, he now comes to those which belonged to all the people; and in this chapter treats of clean and unclean meats; in the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th, of unclean persons, garments, and dwellings; in the 17th, of the principal sacrifices, whereby all manner of uncleanness was to be expiated; in the 18th, of unclean marriages; and after a repetition of sundry laws in the 19th, the 20th speaks of some greater uncleannesses. These are the beasts which ye shall eat — Although every creature of God be good and pure in itself, yet it pleased God to make a difference between the clean and unclean. This indeed he did, in part, before the flood, (as appears from Genesis 7:2,) and it is probable that the distinction was observed, more or less, at least among the descendants of Shem, from the time that Noah and his sons were permitted to eat animal food. God, however, was now pleased to give his peculiar people more particular directions on this subject. 1st, To assert his sovereignty over them and over all the creatures, which they might not use but with his leave. 2d, To accustom them to bridle their appetites in things in themselves lawful, and some of them very desirable, that they might be better prepared and enabled to deny themselves in things simply and grossly sinful. 3d, For the preservation of their health. Maimonides, the celebrated Jewish rabbi, was of opinion that the creatures here called unclean were all forbidden to be eaten by the Jews, because they were (for them at least) unwholesome food. “As the body is the seat of the soul,” says another of the rabbis, “God would have it a fit instrument for its companion, and therefore forbids all such meats as breed ill blood; among which, if there be some whose hurtfulness is neither manifest to us nor to physicians, wonder not at it, for the faithful Physician who forbids them is wiser than any of us.” Agreeably to this opinion, the learned author of the Medicinal Dictionary, Dr. James, in the article Alkali, after some curious observations about the nature of alkalescent aliments, and their effects upon the body, in altering the juices, so as to be productive of distempers, observes: “From what has been said, one reason, at least, will appear why it pleased God to forbid the Jews the use of many sorts of animals as food; and why they were enjoined to take away the blood from those they were allowed to eat. If we, even in our cold climate, would conform to these rules, longevity would be more frequent among us, as we should be much less subject to epidemical disorders, and acute diseases of all sorts, which carry off at least two-thirds of mankind.” Some of the animals here prohibited are apt to breed the leprosy, a disease to which the Jews were very liable. But a 4th, and still more important reason of these prohibitions was, to keep up, till the coming of the Messiah, the wall of partition between the Jews and other nations, which was very necessary, as for divers other great and wise purposes, so especially to prevent their imitating the superstitions, and being infected with the idolatry of the Gentiles, which God foresaw would be occasioned by a too great intercourse and familiarity with them. This reason of the institution is particularly mentioned, Leviticus 20:24. And it probably contributed more than any other thing to keep them thus distinct and separate; for when men cannot eat together, they have little inclination to enter into any close intercourse with one another. 5th, One reason more, however, may be given for this distinction of meats, which is also suggested in the passage referred to in chapter 20. It was intended to inculcate moral purity, and to teach them to abhor that filthiness, and all those ill qualities, for which some of those creatures, here termed unclean, are noted.

Verse 2. The beasts which ye shall eat. The Talmud calls this chapter the Thirteenth class of Prohibitions. From the beginning of the world there was a distinction between clean and unclean beasts, as was intimated to Noah, when he received into the ark seven of the clean for one of the unclean. The reasons for this distinction are in the first place such as regard health. Cattle which feed on grass and chew the cud, are allowed to be the most salubrious for food. Dr. Buchan says that scrophulous diseases are mostly predominant in large towns, where children live very much on greasy ailments. Vegetables are supposed to grow to the same perfection as in the first ages after the creation: to live therefore on fruits and vegetables must have a tendency to perfect the stature and vigour of man, while in large cities it is too apparent that the population diminish both in muscular strength and in character.—In the distinction which the scriptures make on the subject of meats, there is also a spiritual designation. The Lord had a right to appoint the animals that should be offered on the altar, and to say, amidst the cattle on a thousand hills, which would be best for the food of his people. The Israelites being at that time especially a rude uncultivated people, these distinctions would keep them apart from the idolatrous feasts of the gentiles, and so render them a peculiar people. It must however be confessed that several of the birds and beasts here mentioned, afford much exercise for critics, as to the distinction of the several species. Vide Poli Synop.—The ancient fathers at the same time amuse us with moral improvements, on unclean birds and beasts. By the hawk they designate those who prey on their weaker neighbours; by the vulture, those who delight in war; by the raven, unnatural parents; by the ostrich, the specious hypocrite; by the owl, the solitary works of darkness.

2. These are the beasts which ye shall eat — See Genesis 7:2, note.

3. That by bridling their appetite in things in themselves lawful, and some of them very desirable, they might be better prepared and enabled to deny themselves in things simply and grossly sinful.

Verse 3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed] These two words mean the same thing-a divided hoof, such as that of the ox, where the hoof is divided into two toes, and each toe is cased with horn. Cheweth the cud] Ruminates; casts up the grass, &c., which had been taken into the stomach for the purpose of mastication. Animals which chew the cud, or ruminate, are provided with two, three or four stomachs. The ox has four: in the first or largest, called the ventriculus or paunch, the food is collected without being masticated, the grass, &c., being received into it as the beast crops it from the earth. The food, by the force of the muscular coats of this stomach, and the liquors poured in, is sufficiently macerated; after which, formed into small balls, it is thrown up by the œsophagus into the mouth, where it is made very small by mastication or chewing, and then sent down into the second stomach, into which the œsophagus or gullet opens, as well as into the first, ending exactly where the two stomachs meet. This is what is termed chewing the cud. The second stomach, which is called the reticulum, honeycomb, bonnet, or king’s hood, has a great number of small shallow cells on its inward surface, of a pentagonal or five-sided form, exactly like the cells in a honey-comb; in this the food is farther macerated, and then pushed onward into the third stomach, called the omasum or many-plies, because its inward surface is covered with a great number of thin membraneous partitions. From this the food passes into the fourth stomach, called the abomasum, or rede. In this stomach it is digested, and from the digested mass the chyle is formed, which, being absorbed by the lacteal vessels, is afterwards thrown into the mass of blood, and becomes the principle of nutrition to all the solids and fluids of the body. The intention of rumination, or chewing the cud, seems to be, that the food may be sufficiently comminuted, that, being more fully acted on by the stomachs, it may afford the greatest possible portion of nutritive juices. The word cud is probably not originally Saxon, though found in that language in the same signification in which it is still used. Junius, with great show of probability, derives it from the Cambro-British chwyd, a vomit, as it is the ball of food vomited, or thrown up, from the first stomach or paunch through the œsophagus into the mouth, which is called by this name. Those who prefer a Saxon derivation may have it in the verb [Anglo-Saxon] whence our word chew; and so cud might be considered a contraction of chewed, but this is not so likely as the preceding.

Verse 3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof — That is, divides it into two parts only; or, is cloven-footed — As is here expressed. These qualities are not assigned as reasons why such animals are proper for food, but merely as marks whereby to distinguish them. In some animals the hoofs are solid, and not divided at all, as horses, asses, and mules; in others they are divided into several parts like toes, as in lions, wolves, dogs, (of which see verse 27;) in a third sort, they are cloven or divided into two parts, as oxen, deer, sheep, goats. These last are of two kinds; for in some the hoof is divided, but not cloven quite through, as the camel; in others it is both parted and cloven, which are those allowed by this law to be clean creatures. And cheweth the cud — Some creatures, such as oxen, sheep, and goats, for want of the upper fore-teeth, cannot chew their food perfectly at once; nor can the stomach make a perfect digestion till it be ground a second time. Therefore such animals are provided with a double stomach; an upper, into which the food goes down after the first chewing; and another, into which it is sent after the second. Such creatures as chew the cud are reckoned more wholesome, because they grind and digest what they eat better, and consequently yield a lighter and more nutritious food than others. Under the prohibition of eating beasts which do not answer this description, all beasts of prey, and those which eat flesh, are included, whose juices, Dr. James observes, are highly alkalescent, and injurious to health. All animals of the horse and ass kind are here also prohibited, and it is well known that the flesh of these is difficult to be digested, and that the juices are rank and unwholesome.

3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof — There is here no limit to the number of divisions, but in Deuteronomy 14:6 we find the words “cleft into two claws.” Thus also the Seventy in this verse. And cheweth the cud — Literally, Causeth what has been chewed to come up. This describes the method of rumination. The ruminant is endowed with four stomachs. The first receives the vegetables coarsely bruised by a first mastication, which pass into the second, where they are moistened and formed into little pellets, which are brought up again to the mouth to be chewed again, then swallowed into the third stomach, from which they pass into the fourth, for final digestion. The qualities required in this verse exclude all carnivorous, but do not include all graminivorous, animals.

4. For the preservation of their health, some of the creatures forbidden being, though used by the neighbouring nations, of unwholesome nourishment, especially to the Jews, who were very obnoxious to leprosies. To teach them to abhor that filthiness, and all those ill qualities for which some of these creatures are noted.

V. 3. Cloven-footed-That is, divided into two parts only: This clause is added to explain and limit the former, as appears from Leviticus 11:26, for the feet of dogs, cats &c. are parted or cloven into many parts. And cheweth the cud-Heb. and bringeth up the cud, that is, the meat once chewed, out of the stomach in the mouth again, that it may be chewed a second time for better concoction. And this branch is to be joined with the former, both properties being necessary for the allowed beasts. But the reason hereof must be resolved into the will of the law-giver; though interpreters guess that God would hereby signify their duties, by the first, that of discerning between good and evil; and by the latter, that duty of recalling God’s word to our minds and meditating upon it. V. 4. The camel-An usual food in Arabia, but yielding bad nourishment. Divideth not the hoof-So as to have his foot cloven in two, which being expressed, Leviticus 11:3, is here to be understood. Otherwise the camel’s hoof is divided, but it is but a small and imperfect division.

Verse 4. The camel — A usual food in Arabia, but yielding bad nourishment; for though its food is only vegetables and water, the fibres of its flesh are hardened, and rendered in a great measure indigestible, and the salts highly exalted, by its habitual and great exercise. This prohibition cut off all familiar intercourse between the Jews and Arabians.

4. The camel — Some think that this beast is not to be eaten because of his extraordinary usefulness as “the ship of the desert.” But Jehovah pronounces him unclean, and for this reason commands his people to abstain from his flesh, a food much esteemed by the Arabs. Many attempts have been made to explain the grounds of this interdict of camel flesh, none of which is satisfactory. Divideth not the hoof — He does not fully divide the hoof into two equal parts, the front part only being cleft; he was excluded by the very terms of the definition. Since the number of camels in the East is immense, and their flesh is very palatable — according to Tristram’s taste less savoury than horse flesh — their prohibition was a great privation. The Jews, no doubt, ate camels’ milk, which is excellent. Jacob presented Esau with thirty milch camels. Genesis 32:15.

V. 5. As for the names of the following creatures, seeing the Jews themselves are uncertain and divided about them, it seems improper to trouble the unlearned readers with disputes about them.

Verse 5. The coney] שפנ shaphan, not the rabbit, but rather a creature nearly resembling it, which abounds in Judea, Palestine, and Arabia, and is called by Dr. Shaw daman Israel, and by Mr. Bruce ashkoko. As this creature nearly resembles the rabbit, with which Spain anciently abounded, Bochart supposes that the Phœnicians might have given it the name of hynpc spaniah, from the multitude of שפנים shephanim (or spanim, as others pronounce it) which were found there. Hence the emblem of Spain is a woman sitting with a rabbit at her feet. See a coin of Hadrian in Scheuchzer.

Verse 5. The coney — Hebrews ˆpv, shapan. It is doubted whether we translate the word right; Bochart takes it to be a large species of rat, somewhat between a coney and a rat, which was common both in Egypt and Palestine. This animal, it appears, chews the cud, but divides not the hoof, and therefore answers to the description here given. It is also frequent in those countries, and dwells in rocky places, as the shapan is represented to do, Psalm 104:18; Proverbs 30:26; but which the coney does not, but burrows in the ground. Nor does the coney appear to have been anciently known in Judea, but to have been peculiar to Spain.

Ver. 5. The coney; so all the versions read. But Dr. Shaw, who spent a considerable time in oriental travels, thinks that the shaphan, or saphan, as an animal of mount Libanus, and common in Syria. It burrows like the rabbit, and takes refuge in the cliffs and rocks. Hence he thinks that the saphan is not the jerboa, as some have thought, because it burrows in a stiff loamy soil.

5. The coney — The shaphan, erroneously translated coney, is a gregarious, thick-skinned animal, living in caves and clefts of the rocks in Palestine. Its scientific name is hyrax Syriacus. Aside from this verse and its concordant, Deuteronomy 14:7, it is mentioned only in Psalm 104:18 and in Proverbs 30:26. It is scarcely of the size of the cat, timid, yet easily tamed, gray on the back, white on the belly, with long hair, a very short tail, and round ears. It resembles the Alpine marmot, and is not now very common in Palestine, though occasionally seen among the hills. It is singular in its structure and anatomy, being neither a ruminant nor a rodent, but is classed by naturalists between the hippopotamus and the rhinoceros. See Robinson, 3:387. Because he cheweth the cud — From the motion of their jaws both the hyrax and the hare were long supposed to ruminate, even by Linnaeus and other eminent naturalists. It is the opinion of modern scientists that they are only apparent, not real ruminants. The popular view is evidently given here. The mention of rumination is merely incidental, since it was not sufficient to classify them as clean. According to Revelation J.G. Wood the coney and the rabbit are rodents, and have to be working their chisel-like incisive teeth continually, to keep them sharp and from growing too long.

Verse 6. The hare] tbnra arnebeth, as Bochart and others suppose, from hra arah, to crop, and byn nib, the produce of the ground, these animals being remarkable for destroying the fruits of the earth. That they are notorious for destroying the tender blade of the young corn, is well known. It is very likely that different species of these animals are included under the general terms שפנ shaphan, and tbnra arnebeth, for some travellers have observed that there are four or five sorts of these animals, which are used for food in the present day in those countries. See Harmer, vol. iii., p. 331, edit. 1808. Some think the mountain rat, marmot, squirrel, and hedgehog, may be intended under the word shaphan.

Verse 6. The hare, because (rather, though) he cheweth the cud — He has a runnet in his stomach, as those animals have which chew the cud, and therefore is said to chew it. The hare is extremely timorous, and therefore uses a great deal of exercise, by way of precaution, when it goes to seek its food, and at the approach of danger, either real or imaginary. This probably contributes to the exaltation of the salts. Hence it has a very high taste, even in our cold climate, which is an evidence that the animal flesh which gives it is strongly inclined to alkaline putrefaction.

Ver. 6. The hare, or arnebeth, he thinks, is the Daman-Israel, because it is a harmless creature of the same size as the rabbit, and with the like incurvated posture of the foreteeth. But it is of a browner colour, with smaller eyes, and a head more pointed, like the marmot. Whatever doubts may be entertained of the species, the whole genus or class was undoubtedly forbidden.

6. The hare — This is probably the species lepus Sinaiticus, seen by modern travellers in the Sinaitic Peninsula and in Mount Lebanon. Hares are hunted in Syria with falcon and greyhound. Only the Arabs eat their flesh.

Verse 7. And the swine] ryzj chazir, one of the most gluttonous, libidinous, and filthy quadrupeds in the universe; and, because of these qualities, sacred to the Venus of the Greeks and Romans, and the Friga of our Saxon ancestors; and perhaps on these accounts forbidden, as well as on account of its flesh being strong and difficult to digest, affording a very gross kind of aliment, apt to produce cutaneous, scorbutic, and scrofulous disorders, especially in hot climates.

Verse 7. And the swine — This animal is remarkable for filthiness, and for feeding on all manner of ordure, even carrion if it falls in its way, and therefore a sow wallowing in the mire is set forth as an emblem of impurity, by writers sacred and profane. And Maimonides alleges its filthiness as the chief reason of its flesh being prohibited. Vossius, however, adds another, namely, that it had a tendency to breed the leprosy, a disease incident to those countries. And, according to the author of the Medicinal Dictionary, it is the only animal in the creation subject to the leprosy, and to something very like the king’s evil, called in Latin scrofula, from scrofa, a sow. The flesh, therefore, of this animal could not but be highly improper, as an aliment, for a people subject to leprosies, as the Jews appear to have been, and who were inhabitants of a warm climate, which renders every thing more inclinable to putrefaction.

Ver. 7. The swine; that is, every species of the hog was forbidden. The Egyptians would not eat of it, from a notion that it occasioned disease.

7. The swine — The Jews are not alone in their abhorrence of swine’s flesh. It was forbidden to the Egyptian priests, disallowed by the Koran, and rejected by the Phenicians, Ethiopians and other Eastern nations. At the present day a hog is scarcely ever seen in Palestine. Native Christians abstain from pork out of a prudential regard for the scruples of their Moslem and Jewish neighbours. Besides being a non-ruminant it is probable that the swine was excluded from the diet of the Hebrew on hygienic grounds, as liable to induce cutaneous diseases, especially the leprosy. The intimate connexion between disorders of the skin and the eating of pork is found in the derivation of the word scrofula, from the Latin scrofa, a breeding-sow.

CONCERNING FISHES, 9-12.

No species of fish are here mentioned; the possession of both fins and scales is the line of demarcation between the clean and the unclean. It excludes from the table of the Hebrew all the eel genera, or snake-like fishes, whose scales are very minute and slimy; all the genus silurus, the scaleless fishes found in the inland waters of Europe, all the amphibious saurians, like the alligators, being finless, and all shellfish, whether testaceous, as the oyster, or crustaceous, as the lobster, since they have neither scales nor fins. Numa forbade the Romans offering scaleless fishes in sacrifice. The modern Egyptians regard them as unwholesome.

V. 8. Ye shall not touch-Not in order to eating, as may be gathered by comparing this with Genesis 3:3. But since the fat and skins of some of the forbidden creatures were useful, for medicinal and other good purposes, and were used by good men, it is not probable that God would have them cast away. Thus God forbad the making of images, Exodus 20:4, not universally, but in order to the worshipping them, as Christian interpreters agree.

Verse 8. Ye shall not touch — Not in order to eating. But the fat and skins of some of the forbidden creatures were useful, and might be used by them.

Ver. 8. Their carcase shall ye not touch, after they are dead: any creature unclean to eat might be touched while alive, as horses, dogs, &c. The carcase of a clean beast did not defile, unless it died of itself. Most of the birds and beasts here forbidden, often fed on putrid prey; to eat them must then be as injurious to health, as the idea is revolting to the mind.

V. 9. Fins and scales-Both of them; such fishes being more cleanly, and more wholesome food than others. The names of them are not particularly mentioned, partly because most of them wanted names, the fish not being brought to Adam and named by him as other creatures were; and partly because the land of Canaan had not many rivers, nor great store of fish.

Verse 9. Whatsoever hath fins and scales] Because these, of all the fish tribe, are the most nourishing; the others which are without scales, or whose bodies are covered with a thick glutinous matter, being in general very difficult of digestion.

Verses 9, 10. Whatsoever hath fins and scales — Both of them. Such fishes being more cleanly and more wholesome food than others. All that have not fins nor scales shall be an abomination — A late commentator, by a strange mistake, probably of the press, says here: “Fish with scales sooner incline to putrefaction than those that are without.” The fact is exactly the reverse. These are what medicinal writers call pisces molles, the soft kind of fish. And, as all sorts of fish, according to Dr. James, “are very subject to an alkaline putrefaction, so those without scales incline sooner and more to putrefaction than those furnished with them, and shell-fish most of all. And it may be laid down as a certain rule, that, of all sorts of animals, whether terrestrial or aquatic, those which putrefy soonest, incline the juices of our bodies most to putrefaction, when used as food, and so are least fit for ailment.”

Verses 9, 10. Whatsoever hath fins and scales — Both of them. Such fishes being more cleanly and more wholesome food than others. All that have not fins nor scales shall be an abomination — A late commentator, by a strange mistake, probably of the press, says here: “Fish with scales sooner incline to putrefaction than those that are without.” The fact is exactly the reverse. These are what medicinal writers call pisces molles, the soft kind of fish. And, as all sorts of fish, according to Dr. James, “are very subject to an alkaline putrefaction, so those without scales incline sooner and more to putrefaction than those furnished with them, and shell-fish most of all. And it may be laid down as a certain rule, that, of all sorts of animals, whether terrestrial or aquatic, those which putrefy soonest, incline the juices of our bodies most to putrefaction, when used as food, and so are least fit for ailment.”

V. 11. Unto you-This clause is added to shew that they were neither abominable in their own nature, nor for the food of other nations; and consequently when the partition-wall between Jews and Gentiles was taken away, these distinctions of meat were to cease.

V. 13. Among the fowls-The true signification of the following Hebrew words is now lost, as the Jews at this day confess; which not falling out without God’s singular providence may intimate the cessation of this law, the exact observation whereof since Christ came is become impossible. In general, this may be observed, that the fowls forbidden in diet, are all either ravenous and cruel, or such as delight in the night and darkness, or such as feed upon impure things; and so the signification of these prohibitions is manifest, to teach men to abominate all cruelty or oppression, and all works of darkness and filthiness. The ossifrage and the osprey-Two peculiar kinds of eagles, distinct from that which being the chief of its kind, is called by the name of the whole kind.

Verse 13. And these-among the fowls-the eagle] rvn nesher, from nashar, to lacerate, cut, or tear to pieces; hence the eagle, a most rapacious bird of prey, from its tearing the flesh of the animals it feeds on; and for this purpose birds of prey have, in general, strong, crooked talons and a hooked beak. The eagle is a cruel bird, exceedingly ravenous, and almost insatiable.

The ossifrage] Or bone-breaker, from os, a bone, and frango, I break, because it not only strips off the flesh, but breaks the bone in order to extract the marrow. In Hebrew it is called srp peres, from paras, to break or divide in two, and probably signifies that species of the eagle anciently known by the name of ossifraga, and which we render ossifrage. Ospray] hynz[ ozniyah, from ˆz[ azan, to be strong, vigorous; generally supposed to mean the black eagle, such as that described by Homer, Iliad. lib. xxi., ver. 252.

Aietou oimatJ ecwn melanov, tou qhrhthrov,

JOv qJ ama kartistov te kai wkistov petehnwn.

“Having the rapidity of the black eagle, that bird of prey, at once the swiftest and the strongest of the feathered race.”

Among the Greeks and Romans the eagle was held sacred, and is represented as carrying the thunderbolts of Jupiter. This occurs so frequently, and is so well known, that references are almost needless. See Scheuchzer.

Verse 13. All such fowls and birds as are rapacious, and live upon prey, as the eagle, and its several kinds, hawks, kites, vultures, ravens, &c., are forbidden, and probably on a moral as well as a natural account, their flesh not only being not so good in itself as that of others, but not so fit to be used by a people that was consecrated to God, and professed greater innocency, justice, and purity, than the rest of the world. For, being all either ravenous and cruel, or such as delight in the night and darkness, or such as feed upon impure things, it seems evident that the prohibition of them was intended to teach men to abominate all cruelty and oppression, and all works of darkness and filthiness. The eagle — Whose flesh is hard, and whose nature is very rapacious. The ossifrage — From the Latin, ossifragus, a kind of eagle, so called from breaking the bones of its prey, which it does by carrying them up on high, and then letting them fall upon a rock. The ospray — Another kind of eagle, probably the paliætus, or sea eagle, as it is here rendered by the Seventy. Bochart, however, thinks it rather means the melanætus, or black eagle, which Homer mentions (Iliad, 21:252,) as the strongest and swiftest of birds.

CONCERNING FOWLS, 13-19.

In the case of fowls no general principle of classification is laid down, but twenty unclean species are specified. From an inspection of the list we discover that it is composed almost exclusively of birds of prey, never eaten by civilized man. Thus Mosaism did but sanction by legislative enactment that which the instinct of cultivated man has, in all ages, approved. The passerine birds, game and poultry groups, the duck tribe, and most of the waders, except only the herons and storks, were clean. It will be found that in the Authorized Version many of them have been translated erroneously. This results from the fact that they are found only in the catalogue given in Leviticus and repeated in Deuteronomy. Thus practically many of them are cases of only once mentioned terms. In these cases the translator must resort to the meaning of the radical form from which the term was derived, to its cognate in the kindred languages, to the most ancient versions, and to the opinions of the wisest Jewish rabbins. After all his care he may fall into a mistake which advancing scholarship and research may expose. Since birds, insects, and the smaller animals are quite permanent in their habitat, the studies of modern ornithologists and entomologists throw much light upon this subject. Unclean birds and insects which are now abundant in Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula would naturally find a place in the catalogue, while those not now found in those regions would be omitted. Of the twenty names in this catalogue of unclean birds nine are found only in the catalogues and seven are improperly rendered in the Authorized Version. We can harmonize the twenty-one species named in Deuteronomy 14:12-18, “by assuming a slight error of transcription. The Hebrew daah and raah, vulture and glede, differ only in their initial letters d and r. On this hypothesis, if we drop the superfluous daah (omitted in the Samaritan, the Septuagint, and several MSS.) rendered vulture, the discrepancy vanishes.” — Haley.

13. The eagle — The Hebrew nesher here denotes a particular species of the falconidae, namely, the griffon or great vulture, as distinguished from other raptorial birds of the same genus. Four kinds of eagles have been observed in Palestine — the golden, the spotted, the imperial, and the ospray. The eagle is large, strong, swift, fierce, and rapacious. His cry is the terror of every wing. His eye is large, dark, and piercing; his sight keen and directly at the sun; his beak powerful and hooked; his wings are broad and powerful; and his claws long and sharp. The ossifrage — The English term signifies the bone-breaker, the Hebrew peres, the breaker. This bird is spoken of only here and in the parallel passage Deuteronomy 14:12. His habits are indicated by his name, for not only does he push kids and lambs, and even men, off the rocks, but he takes the bones of animals denuded of their flesh by other birds of prey high up into the air, and lets them fall upon a stone to crack, and render more digestible for even his enormous powers of deglutition. “I have repeatedly watched a pair of Lammergeirs, which had an eyrie close to our camp, pass and repass in front of our tents for hours at a time, invariably dropping something upon a smooth ledge of rocks hard by. For several days we imagined that these were sticks they were carrying to their nest; for prompt as we were in endeavouring to reach the spot first, the birds swooped down like lightning and seized their quarry again. At length we caught a serpent writhing and dislocated, which we had taken for a stick, and found that our imagined stones were tortoises, which had to be dropped a dozen times before the shell was sufficiently shattered.” — Tristram. The ospray — The Hebrew ozniyyah. It is difficult to identify this bird. Some think that the fish-eating haliaeetus is intended, others, the melanaeetus, or black eagle of Aristotle; while other writers identify the ospray with the hatiaeetus albicilla, or white tailed sea-eagle. Tristram suggests that it is the very abundant circaetos gallicus, which feeds upon reptiles.

Verse 14. The vulture] had daah, from the root to fly, and therefore more probably the kite or glede, from its remarkable property of gliding or sailing with expanded wings through the air. The had daah is a different bird from the hyd daiyah, which signifies the vulture. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 195.

The kite] hya aiyah, thought by some to be the vulture, by others the merlin. Parkhurst thinks it has its name from the root hwa avah, to covet, because of its rapaciousness; some contend that the kite is meant. That it is a species of the hawk, most learned men allow. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 192.

Verses 14-16. The vulture and the kite — Known birds of prey. Every raven — All interpreters agree that the Hebrew word br[, gnoreb, signifies raven, from gnereb, evening, on account of its colour. After his kind — Including crows, rooks, pyes. The owl — The original word, literally daughter of the echo, signifies a bird which inhabits desolate places, as appears from Isaiah 13:21; Jeremiah 50:32, where the same word occurs. This description agrees well to the owl. It must be observed, however, that there is great uncertainty as to the meaning of several of the Hebrew names here used, the Jews themselves acknowledging the meaning of many of them to be now lost. Add to this that the animals in the eastern countries differ greatly from those of our climate, and for want of a better knowledge of them, it is probable that in giving them the names of such animals as we are acquainted with here, we often greatly err. This consideration might convince the Jews of the absurdity of pretending still to adhere to the law of Moses; since it is evident, in many cases, they know not what is forbidden, and what is not.

14. The vulture — The Hebrew dayyah is found only here. Since the parallel word in Deuteronomy 14:13 is rayyah, milvius in the Vulgate, some Hebraists regard this as the black kite, but we are inclined to sustain the accuracy of the Authorized Version. The griffon vulture is universally distributed in all the mountainous and rocky districts of Palestine. Its favourite breeding places are between Jerusalem and Jericho and all around the Dead Sea. By a peculiar instinct it follows armies, vast numbers having congregated in the Crimea in the Russian war, although previously they had been rarely seen in that peninsula. Job 28:7, note. The kite — Hebrew ayyah, translated vulture in Job 28:7, and kite in the only other passage, Deuteronomy 14:13. Of all the birds of prey this has the keenest vision. See reference in Job. Its habitat is near to cities, and its food is moles, rats, mice, frogs, the young of game birds, offal, and dead birds. Pigeons associate with him without harm. This bird was common in London in the seventeenth century.

V. 15. After his kind-According to the several kinds, known by this general name, which includes, besides ravens properly so called, crows, rooks, pyes, and others.

Verse 15. Every raven] br[ oreb, a general term comprehending the raven, crow, rook, jackdaw, and magpie.

Verses 14-16. The vulture and the kite — Known birds of prey. Every raven — All interpreters agree that the Hebrew word br[, gnoreb, signifies raven, from gnereb, evening, on account of its colour. After his kind — Including crows, rooks, pyes. The owl — The original word, literally daughter of the echo, signifies a bird which inhabits desolate places, as appears from Isaiah 13:21; Jeremiah 50:32, where the same word occurs. This description agrees well to the owl. It must be observed, however, that there is great uncertainty as to the meaning of several of the Hebrew names here used, the Jews themselves acknowledging the meaning of many of them to be now lost. Add to this that the animals in the eastern countries differ greatly from those of our climate, and for want of a better knowledge of them, it is probable that in giving them the names of such animals as we are acquainted with here, we often greatly err. This consideration might convince the Jews of the absurdity of pretending still to adhere to the law of Moses; since it is evident, in many cases, they know not what is forbidden, and what is not.

15. Every raven — This bird derives his name in Hebrew from his blackness. It is allied to the crow, which is after his kind, only smaller. It abides in solitary valleys. Proverbs 30:17. Since it feeds on carrion it is very unclean.

Verse 16. The owl] היענה tb bath haiyaanah, the daughter of vociferation, the female ostrich, probably so called from the noise they make. “In the lonesome part of the night,” says Dr. Shaw, “the ostriches frequently make a very doleful and hideous noise, sometimes resembling the roar of the lion; at other times, the hoarser voice of the bull or ox.” He adds, “I have heard them groan as if in the deepest agonies.”-Travels, 4to edition, p. 455. The ostrich is a very unclean animal, and eats its own ordure as soon as it voids it, and of this Dr. Shaw observes, (see above,) it is remarkably fond! This is a sufficient reason, were others wanting, why such a fowl should be reputed to be unclean, and its use as an article of diet prohibited.

The night hawk] smjt tachmas, from smj chamas, to force away, act violently and unjustly; supposed by Bochart and Scheuchzer to signify the male ostrich, from its cruelty towards its young; (see Job 39:13-18;) but others, with more reason, suppose it to be the bird described by Hasselquist, which he calls the strix Orientalis, or Oriental owl. “It is of the size of the common owl, living in the ruins and old deserted houses of Egypt and Syria; and sometimes in inhabited houses. The Arabs in Egypt call it Massasa, the Syrians Bana. It is very ravenous in Syria, and in the evenings, if the windows be left open, it flies into the house and kills infants, unless they are carefully watched; wherefore the women are much afraid of it.”- Travels, p. 196.

If this is the fowl intended, this is a sufficient reason why it should be considered an abomination.

The cuckoo] ãjv shachaph, supposed rather to mean the sea mew; called shachaph, from tpjv shachepheth, a wasting distemper, or atrophy, (mentioned Leviticus 26:16; Deuteronomy 28:22,) because its body is the leanest, in proportion to its bones and feathers, of most other birds, always appearing as if under the influence of a wasting distemper. 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.

And the hawk] xn nets, from the root hxn natsah, to shoot forth or spring forward, because of the rapidity and length of its flight, the hawk being remarkable for both. As this is a bird of prey, it is forbidden, and all others of its kind.

Verses 14-16. The vulture and the kite — Known birds of prey. Every raven — All interpreters agree that the Hebrew word br[, gnoreb, signifies raven, from gnereb, evening, on account of its colour. After his kind — Including crows, rooks, pyes. The owl — The original word, literally daughter of the echo, signifies a bird which inhabits desolate places, as appears from Isaiah 13:21; Jeremiah 50:32, where the same word occurs. This description agrees well to the owl. It must be observed, however, that there is great uncertainty as to the meaning of several of the Hebrew names here used, the Jews themselves acknowledging the meaning of many of them to be now lost. Add to this that the animals in the eastern countries differ greatly from those of our climate, and for want of a better knowledge of them, it is probable that in giving them the names of such animals as we are acquainted with here, we often greatly err. This consideration might convince the Jews of the absurdity of pretending still to adhere to the law of Moses; since it is evident, in many cases, they know not what is forbidden, and what is not.

16. The owl — This is the ostrich, literally, the daughter of the howl, from its doleful cry. It is correctly translated in Lamentations 4:3. It is the largest of all known birds, and the swiftest of all cursorial animals. To capture one costs the lives of two horses. Its strength and voracity are enormous. From its habits of indiscriminately gulping down almost anything, even glass or stone, it is obviously unclean. Its cry by night, Tristram says, resembles the hoarse lowing of an ox in pain; others compare it to the roar of the lion. The nighthawk — The Hebrew tachmas, found only in Deuteronomy 14:15 and Isaiah 34:11, cannot with certainty be identified. The conjectures are, that it is the male ostrich, the swallow, and the owl. As the Seventy and the Vulgate agree in the last named bird, and since it is very common, with Tristram we adopt it as the true rendering. The cuckoo — There is no authority for this translation. The thachaph,

leanness, is supposed to be a bird of the genus gull, probably the stormy petrel, commonly called Mother Carey’s chicken, which abounds in the Levant. The hawk — There are in Palestine several species of the falcon, most of which are summer visitors from the South. See Job 39:26. The smaller species are the kestrel and hobby. Of the larger kinds, the falco sacer is the most magnificent.

Verse 17. The little owl] swk cos, the bittern, night-raven or night-owl, according to most interpreters. Some think the onocrotalus or pelican may be intended; for as the word swk cos signifies a cup in Hebrew, and the pelican is remarkable for a pouch or bag under the lower jaw, it might have had its Hebrew name from this circumstance; but the kaath in the following verse is rather supposed to mean this fowl, and the cos some species of the bubo or owl. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 272. The cormorant] Ëlv shalach, from the root which signifies to cast down; hence the Septuagint katarrakthv, the cataract, or bird which falls precipitately down upon its prey. It probably signifies the plungeon or diver, a sea fowl, which I have seen at sea dart down as swift as an arrow into the water, and seize the fish which it had discovered while even flying, or rather soaring, at a very great height.

The great owl] ãwvny yanshuph, according to the Septuagint and the Vulgate, signifies the ibis, a bird well known and held sacred in Egypt. Some critics, with our translation, think it means a species of owl or night bird, because the word may be derived from ãvn nesheph, which signifies the twilight, the time in which owls chiefly fly about. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 281.

17. The little owl — Hebrew cos. The Authorized Version is evidently correct, though Bochart argues that cos means pouch, and hence that the pelican is intended. But Psalm 102:6 decides that it is an owl of some kind. The little owl, to which species Tristram assigns cos, is by far the most abundant of all owls in Palestine. He is a grotesque and comical-looking little bird. The cormorant — Hebrew shalac. Since it occurs only here and in the parallel passage, Deuteronomy 14:17, it is difficult to identify. The Seventy render it by katarakthv, the plunger, which Furst says is a species of pelican, which precipitates itself from high crags into the water after fish. The cormorant is, however, closely allied to the pelican, being of the same family group, so that our translators were not far astray. The common cormorant is very common on the coast, and comes up the Kishon, visiting also the Sea of Galilee. The great owl — Hebrew yansuph. Aside from the two catalogues of unclean birds, it is named but once, in Isaiah 34:11, in the prophetic desolation of Edom. The Chaldee and Syriac are in favour of some kind of owl, but the Seventy and Vulgate have ibiv, Ibis religiosa, the sacred bird of Egypt. “But the passage in Isaiah plainly puts this interpretation out of the question, for the ibis is strictly a bird of the reedy marshes and mud flats, the very last to be thought of among the ruins of Petra.” It is doubtless the Egyptian eagle-owl, a large and noble-looking bird, that is signified in these passages, found in great numbers in the rock tombs of Petra. Tristram thinks that it is the Egyptian eagle owl.

Verse 18. The swan] tmvnt tinshemeth. The Septuagint translate the word by porfuriwna, the porphyrion, purple or scarlet bird. Could we depend on this translation, we might suppose the flamingo or some such bird to be intended. Some suppose the goose to be meant, but this is by no means likely, as it cannot be classed either among ravenous or unclean fowls. Bochart thinks the owl is meant.

The pelican] taq kaath. As taq kaah signifies to vomit up, the name is supposed to be descriptive of the pelican, who receives its food into the pouch under its lower jaw, and, by pressing it on its breast with its bill, throws it up for the nourishment of its young. Hence the fable which represents the pelican wounding her breast with her bill, that she might feed her young with her own blood; a fiction which has no foundation but in the above circumstance. Bochart thinks the bittern is meant, vol. iii., col. 292.

The gier eagle] רחם racham. As the root of this word signifies tenderness and affection, it is supposed to refer to some bird remarkable for its attachment to its young; hence some have thought that the pelican is to be understood. Bochart endeavours to prove that it means the vulture, probably that species called the golden vulture.-Bochart, vol. iii., col. 303.

18. The swan — Hebrew tinshemeth. It is found only in the two catalogues. The Samaritan version sustains the Seventy in rendering it porfuriwn, Vulgate, porphyrio ibis, the purple water-hen. Tristram thinks that these versions are right. Furst insists that it is an owl, perhaps the screech-owl; Onkelos, the horn-owl; the Jerusalem Targum favours the owl; the Syriac, the night owl, which is followed by Rashi and Kimchi. The weight of authority is for the owl of some species. It is not probable that the swan was sufficiently known to the Israelites to obtain a place in this list, nor is it an unclean bird. The pelican — It derives its Hebrew name, kaath, from vomiting the shells and fish it has stored in its capacious pouch, to feed its young, or to enable it to fly when suddenly alarmed. It abides in the swamps of the desert and on the sea-shore. The gier eagle — Hebrew racham. It occurs only in the catalogues, and is identical in reality as it is in name with the racham of the Arabs, the Egyptian vulture, or Pharaoh’s hen, which, according to Tristram, is common in Palestine, and breeds prolifically in the valley of the Kedron. It is an efficient scavenger.

Verse 19. The stork] hdysj chasidah, from dsj chasad, which signifies to be abundant in kindness, or exuberant in acts of beneficence; hence applied to the stork, because of its affection to its young, and its kindness in tending and feeding its parents when old; facts attested by the best informed and most judicious of the Greek and Latin natural historians. See Bochart, Scheuchzer, and Parkhurst, under the word dsj chasad. It is remarkable for destroying and eating serpents, and on this account might be reckoned by Moses among unclean birds.

The heron] hpna anaphah. This word has been variously understood: some have rendered it the kite, others the woodcock, others the curlew, some the peacock, others the parrot, and others the crane. The root pna anaph, signifies to breathe short through the nostrils, to snuff, as in anger; hence to be angry: and it is supposed that the word is sufficiently descriptive of the heron, from its very irritable disposition. It will attack even a man in defence of its nest; and I have known a case where a man was in danger of losing his life by the stroke of a heron’s bill, near the eye, who had climbed up into a high tree to take its nest. Bochart supposes a species of the eagle to be meant, vol. iii., col. 335.

The lapwing] tpykwd duchiphath, the upupa, hoopœ, or hoop, a crested bird, with beautiful plumage, but very unclean. See Bochart, and Scheuchzer. Concerning the genuine meaning of the original, there is little agreement among interpreters.

The bat] ãlc[ atalleph, so called, according to Parkhurst, from c[ at, to fly, and ãl[ alaph, darkness or obscurity, because it flies about in the dusk of the evening, and in the night: so the Septuagint nukteriv, from nux, the night; and the Vulgate vespertilio, from vesper, the evening. 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.

Verse 19. The bat — Moses begins his catalogue of birds with the noblest, and ends it with the vilest, which is the bat, an animal of a dubious kind, between a bird and a mouse. It feeds on insects, as Dr. James observes, and so is improper food for the inhabitants of very warm climates.

19. The stork — Its Hebrew name, chasidah, signifies kindness, of which it has been in all ages the type. The white stork is one of the largest and most conspicuous of land birds, with jet black wings and bright red beak and legs. It devours all kinds of offal. Both white and black storks abound in Palestine, arriving in the latter part of March, and, year after year and generation after generation, occupying the old nest. The heron — Hebrew anaphah. It occurs only in the two catalogues, and hence it is quite uncertain what bird or genus is intended, since the words after her kind are subjoined. The Hebrew radical signifies “to snort in anger.” Hence Furst says it is the parrot. The Arabic version renders it a kind of eagle; the Seventy call it the sandpiper. The swallow has been suggested. The point on which Hebraists agree is, that it is not the heron. Tristram insists that it is the heron. The lapwing — Hebrew, dukiphath, mountain-cock. It is found only in the catalogues. The Sadducees believed it to be the common fowl, which they refused to eat. Commentators generally agree with the Seventy and Vulgate that the hoopoe is intended, called by AEschylus “the bird of the rocks,” which answers well to the Hebrew name. Its appearance is so remarkable that it cannot fail to attract notice wherever seen. The Arabs have a superstitious regard for it, and use it in their charms. The bat — The Hebrew atalleph indicates a night-bird. Although in modern natural history the bat is not a bird, but a true quadruped or mammal, in Hebrew oph, “fowls,” literally a wing, might be applied to any winged creature. Many travellers have noticed the immense number of bats that are found in the East, especially in caverns and dilapidated idol temples.

CONCERNING WINGED INSECTS, 20-25.

These, as a class, are all forbidden, with a few exceptions.

V. 20. All fowls-Flying things that crawl or creep upon the earth, and so degenerate from their proper nature, and are of a mongrel kind, which may intimate that apostates and mongrels in religion are abominable in the sight of God. Upon all four-Upon four legs, or upon more than four, which is all one to the present purpose.

Verse 20. All fowls that creep] Such as the bat, already mentioned, which has claws attached to its leathern wings, and which serve in place of feet to crawl by, the feet and legs not being distinct; but this may also include all the different kinds of insects, with the exceptions in the following verse. Going upon all four] May signify no more than walking regularly or progressively, foot after foot as quadrupeds do; for it cannot be applied to insects literally, as they have in general six feet, many of them more, some reputed to have a hundred, hence called centipedes; and some a thousand, hence called millipedes; words which often signify no more than that such insects have a great number of feet.

Verses 20, 21. All fowls that creep — The original word signifies any animal or moving creature, especially of the reptile or insect kind, (Genesis 1:20, and 7:21,) and ought to be rendered every winged reptile, or, every flying, creeping thing that goeth upon four, as in verse 21, upon four legs, or upon more than four, which is all one as to the present purpose. Which have legs above their feet to leap withal — This is a description of the locusts, which, besides four smaller feet, have two larger ones, by means whereof they leap about.

Verse 21. Which have legs above their feet] This appears to refer to the different kinds of locusts and grasshoppers, which have very remarkable hind legs, long, and with high joints, projecting above their backs, by which they are enabled to spring up from the ground, and leap high and far.

Verses 20, 21. All fowls that creep — The original word signifies any animal or moving creature, especially of the reptile or insect kind, (Genesis 1:20, and 7:21,) and ought to be rendered every winged reptile, or, every flying, creeping thing that goeth upon four, as in verse 21, upon four legs, or upon more than four, which is all one as to the present purpose. Which have legs above their feet to leap withal — This is a description of the locusts, which, besides four smaller feet, have two larger ones, by means whereof they leap about.

21. Legs above their feet — These are a pair of hind legs to spring with, in addition to the four for walking. The word above indicates the upward projection of these distinct springing legs, as seen in the grasshopper at rest. The prohibition of every creeping thing that flieth, Deuteronomy 14:19, is thus harmonized with this verse by Keil: “The edible locusts are passed over because it was not the intention of Moses to repeat every particular of the earlier laws in these addresses.” Deuteronomy is synoptical.

V. 22. The locust-Locusts, though unusual in our food, were commonly eaten by the Ethiopians, Lybians, Parthians, and other eastern people bordering upon the Jews. And as it is certain the eastern locusts were much larger than ours, so it is probable they were of different qualities, and yielding better nourishment.

Verse 22. The locust] hbra arbeh, either from bra arab, to lie in wait or in ambush, because often immense flights of them suddenly alight upon the fields, vineyards, &c., and destroy all the produce of the earth; or from hbr rabah, he multiplied, because of their prodigious swarms. See a particular account of these insects in the notes, See “Exodus 10:4”. The bald locust] µ[ls solam, compounded, says Mr. Parkhurst, from [ls sala, to cut, break, and µ[ am, contiguity; a kind of locust, probably so called from its rugged, craggy form. See the first of Scheuchzer’s plates, vol. iii., p. 100.

The beetle] lgrj chargol. “The Hebrew name seems a derivative from grj charag, to shake, and lgr regel, the foot; and so to denote the nimbleness of its motions. Thus in English we call an animal of the locust kind a grasshopper; the French name of which is souterelle, from the verb sauter, to leap”-Parkhurst. This word occurs only in this place. The beetle never can be intended here, as that insect never was eaten by man, perhaps, in any country of the universe.

The grasshopper] bgj chagab. Bochart supposes that this species of locust has its name from the Arabic verb [Arabic] hajaba to veil; because when they fly, as they often do, in great swarms, they eclipse even the light of the sun. See the notes on “Exodus 10:4”, and the description of ten kinds of locusts in Bochart, vol. iii., col. 441. And see the figures in Scheuchzer, in whose plates 20 different species are represented, vol. iii., p.

100. And see Dr. Shaw on the animals mentioned in this chapter. Travels, p. 419, &c., 4to. edition; and when all these are consulted, the reader will see how little dependence can be placed on the most learned conjectures relative to these and the other animals mentioned in Scripture. One thing however is fully evident, viz., that the locust was eaten, not only in those ancient times, in the time of John Baptist, Matthew 3:4, but also in the present day. Dr. Shaw ate of them in Barbary “fried and salted,” and tells us that “they tasted very like crayfish.” They have been eaten in Africa, Greece, Syria, Persia, and throughout Asia; and whole tribes seem to have lived on them, and were hence called acridophagoi, or locust-eaters by the Greeks. See Strabo lib. xvi., and Pliny, Hist. Nat., lib. xvii., c. 30.

Verse 22. The locust after his kind — The Hebrew word hbra arbeh, is sometimes a common name for all locusts, but here signifies a peculiar sort of them The name derived from hbr rabah, to multiply, imports a multitude, no animal being more prolific. The bald locust — As it is not easy to determine what species of locust this is, and as it has not any name in modern languages, it might be better, in a translation, to retain the original name µ[ls solgnam, which, in the Chaldaic, signifies to consume. The beetle — As none ever eat beetles, and they are not four-footed with legs to leap withal, it is the opinion of good critics that the Hebrew word lgrj chargol is not properly translated. It is rather to be taken for another sort of locust unknown to us. The grasshopper — Another species of locust, the Hebrew name of which is derived, according to Bochart, from an Arabic word, which signifies to veil, because they fly in such swarms as sometimes to veil or darken the sun. But how to distinguish these locusts from the rest is difficult, if not impossible to us. They were, however, well known of old in the eastern countries. For locusts, though unusual food with us, were commonly eaten by the Æthiopians, Lybians, Parthians, and other eastern people bordering upon Judea. And as it is certain the eastern locusts were much larger than ours, so it is probable they were of different qualities, and yielded better nourishment.

22. The locust — The Hebrew arbeh. All the Bedawin of Arabia — but only the poorest beggars in Egypt and Nubia — eat locusts. Scalded in boiling sea water, dried, and deprived of their heads and wings, they are sold by measure in Arabian towns. See Exodus 10:4, note. The bald locust — The Hebrew salam. It occurs only in the catalogues, hence all that can possibly be known of it is, that it is some kind of straight-winged, leaping insect, good for food. “From the statement of the peculiar characteristic of the head, the name may with some reason be assigned to the genus truxalis, very common in the Holy Land, and which has a long, narrow, smooth head, and straight sword-shaped antennae.” — Tristram. The beetle — Hebrew chargol. It occurs only here. It certainly is not the beetle, which is not a leaping insect, nor is it fit to be eaten. Rosenmuller pronounces all attempts to identify the chargol “merae conjecturae.” The Revised Version has cricket instead of beetle. The grasshopper — The Hebrew chagab is four times translated grasshopper and once locust. 2 Chronicles 7:13. It is utterly impossible to distinguish this species of locust from the arbeh, though according to the Talmud it contains eight hundred kinds. Tristram thinks that the chagab was a small species, and that grasshopper is as near a translation as could be given.

V. 23. All other-That is, which have not those legs above and besides their feet mentioned, Leviticus 11:21.

Verses 23-25. All other — That is, which have not those legs above and beside their feet, mentioned verse 21. For these ye shall be unclean — If they did either eat, or so much as touch the carcasses of them, they were not, for that day, to come into the tabernacle, to eat of any holy thing, or to converse freely with their neighbours. And as a sign of this legal uncleanness, (verse 25,) they were to bathe in water, which was the usual rite of purification in such cases. Until the even — They were to keep apart by themselves all that day: for their day began in the evening. “The uncleanness continued only till the evening,” says Henry, “to signify that all ceremonial pollutions were to come to an end by the death of Christ in the evening of this world.” And we must learn by daily renewing our repentance every night for the failings of the day, and by a fresh application to the blood of sprinkling, to cleanse ourselves from the pollutions which we contract by them, that we may not lie down in our uncleanness.

V. 24. Unclean-And such were excluded both from the court of God’s house, and from free conversation with other men.

Verses 23-25. All other — That is, which have not those legs above and beside their feet, mentioned verse 21. For these ye shall be unclean — If they did either eat, or so much as touch the carcasses of them, they were not, for that day, to come into the tabernacle, to eat of any holy thing, or to converse freely with their neighbours. And as a sign of this legal uncleanness, (verse 25,) they were to bathe in water, which was the usual rite of purification in such cases. Until the even — They were to keep apart by themselves all that day: for their day began in the evening. “The uncleanness continued only till the evening,” says Henry, “to signify that all ceremonial pollutions were to come to an end by the death of Christ in the evening of this world.” And we must learn by daily renewing our repentance every night for the failings of the day, and by a fresh application to the blood of sprinkling, to cleanse ourselves from the pollutions which we contract by them, that we may not lie down in our uncleanness.

24. Unclean until the even — The slighter degrees of uncleanness were merely “until even,” and were removed by bathing and washing the clothes at the end of it; meanwhile the person was excluded from certain religious privileges. See Leviticus 5:2, note.

CONCERNING LARGER ANIMALS, 26-28.

This section contains a prohibition of all quadrupeds not dividing the hoof and chewing the cud, together with the penalty for touching their carcasses. It is a summary of verses 1-8, with the prohibition of whatsoever goeth upon his paws.

V. 25. Beareth-Or, taketh away, out of the place where it may lie, by which others may be either offended, or polluted.

Verses 23-25. All other — That is, which have not those legs above and beside their feet, mentioned verse 21. For these ye shall be unclean — If they did either eat, or so much as touch the carcasses of them, they were not, for that day, to come into the tabernacle, to eat of any holy thing, or to converse freely with their neighbours. And as a sign of this legal uncleanness, (verse 25,) they were to bathe in water, which was the usual rite of purification in such cases. Until the even — They were to keep apart by themselves all that day: for their day began in the evening. “The uncleanness continued only till the evening,” says Henry, “to signify that all ceremonial pollutions were to come to an end by the death of Christ in the evening of this world.” And we must learn by daily renewing our repentance every night for the failings of the day, and by a fresh application to the blood of sprinkling, to cleanse ourselves from the pollutions which we contract by them, that we may not lie down in our uncleanness.

Verse 26. The carcasses of every beast, &c., are unclean — They were prohibited from touching their dead bodies, but not their bodies when alive: for they used camels, horses, asses, &c., for necessary service, verse 31.

V. 27. Upon his paws-Heb. upon his hands, that is, which hath feet divided into several parts like fingers, as dogs, cats, apes, and bears.

Verse 27. Whatsoever goeth upon his paws] wypk cappaiv, his palms or hands, probably referring to those animals whose feet resemble the hands and feet of the human being, such as apes, monkeys, and all creatures of that genus; together with bears, frogs, &c.

Verse 27. Upon his paws — Hebrew, upon his hands; that is, which hath feet divided into several parts, like fingers, as dogs, cats, apes, lions, bears.

Verse 29. The weasel] dlj choled, from chalad, Syr., to creep in. Bochart conjectures, with great propriety, that the mole, not the weasel, is intended by the Hebrew word: its property of digging into the earth, and creeping or burrowing under the surface, is well known.

The mouse] rbj[ achbar. Probably the large field rat, or what is called by the Germans the hamster, though every species of the mus genus may be here prohibited.

The tortoise] bx tsab. Most critics allow that the tortoise is not intended here, but rather the crocodile, the frog, or the toad. The frog is most probably the animal meant, and all other creatures of its kind.

CONCERNING CREEPERS, 29-47.

This section includes not only reptiles, but some of the small mammals. Reptiles are not mentioned as a collective group in the Bible, but are divided into the moving creatures of the sea, (classed with the fishes, Genesis 1:20,) and the creeping things of the land mentioned with mammalian quadrupeds, but distinct from them.

29. The weasel — The choledh is found only in this catalogue, and seems to include the weasel, ichneumon, and the mole. They are all remarkably abundant in Palestine, especially the last two. The mouse — The akbar — field ravager — comprehends any destructive rodent. Tristram found twenty-three species of this group in Palestine. Field mice sometimes become multitudinous in Syria, and cause great destruction to the grain lands. They were eaten by idolaters, and probably used in their sacrifices or incantations. They were regarded as a great delicacy by the Romans, and were carefully kept and fattened for food. See Isaiah 66:17. The tortoise — R.V. (“great lizard.”) The Hebrew tsafh occurs in Numbers 7:3, where it is translated covered, (wagons,) and in Isaiah 66:20, litters. As the name of an animal it occurs only here, and, from a similar word in Arabic, signifies a large kind of lizard, doubtless the land-waron or the land crocodile of Herodotus, (iv, 192.) “It sometimes attains the length of two feet. I kept one tame for some months, and it was very docile, coming at my call, and sleeping in the sun. It is eaten by the Bedouin.” — Tristram.

Verse 30. The ferret] hqna anakah, from qna anak, to groan, to cry out: a species of lizard, which derives its name from its piercing, doleful cry. See Bochart, vol. ii., col. 1066.

The chameleon] jk coach. Bochart contends that this is the [Arabic] waril or guaril, another species of lizard, which derives its name from its remarkable strength and vigour in destroying serpents, the Hebrew jk cach signifying to be strong, firm, vigorous: it is probably the same with the mongoose, a creature still well known in India, where it is often domesticated in order to keep the houses free from snakes, rats, mice, &c. The lizard] hacl letaah. Bochart contends that this also is a species of lizard, called by the Arabs [Arabic] wahara, which creeps close to the ground, and is poisonous.

The snail] cmj chomet, another species of lizard, according to Bochart, called [Arabic] huluka by the Arabians, which lives chiefly in the sand.-Vol. ii., col. 1075.

The mole.] tmvnt tinshameth, from נשם nasham, to breathe. Bochart seems to have proved that this is the chameleon, which has its Hebrew name from its wide gaping mouth, very large lungs, and its deriving its nourishment from small animals which float in the air, so that it has been conjectured by some to feed on the air itself.-Vol. iii., col. 1073. A bird of the same name is mentioned Leviticus 11:13, which Bochart supposes to be the night-owl.-Vol. iii., col. 286.

Verse 30. And the mole — The Hebrew word is the same with that which (verse 18) we translate swan. But it is plain, that there it signifies a sort of fowl, as, in all probability, it here does a sort of lizard. All the reptiles here mentioned, according to Dr. James, are extremely subject to putrefaction, as are reptiles of almost every kind; and the smell of these, when putrefied, is extremely offensive; from whence we must conclude that their salts are highly exalted, and their juices alkalescent to a great degree.

30. The ferret — Hebrew anakah. It is agreed on all sides that “the ferret” is not intended. The Septuagint translates it mugalh, “shrew-mouse,” common in Galilee. There is good reason for the rendering “lizard” or “gecko,” a species of lizard. It is supposed to be the wailing lizard. Onkelos and the rabbins identify it with the hedgehog, abounding in all parts of Palestine, but certainly not to be classed with creeping things. The chameleon — Thus the Seventy and Jerome translate the Hebrew coach, literally signifying strength. Since it is used only here as the name of an animal it is impossible to tell its meaning. Bochart accepts the Arabic reading, “the monitor of the Nile,” a large, strong reptile common in Egypt and other parts of Africa. The land monitor is found in Southern Judea and in the Jordan valley, and is eaten by the natives. The lizard — This seems to be correctly translated, and, from the meaning of the Hebrew letaah, points to the adhesive or fanfoot lizard,

which can run over the smoothest surfaces, even in an inverted position, like the house-fly on a ceiling. The number of species of lizard in Palestine is very great. There are land lizards and water lizards in abundance. The Revised Version has translated verse 30 thus: “And the gecko, and the land crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand lizard, and the chameleon,” and adds in the margin, “words of uncertain meaning, but probably denoting four kinds of lizards.” The snail — The Hebrew chomet occurs only here. Hence we have no grounds for any opinion. The Seventy and Vulgate understand some kind of lizard. Two Arabic versions render it chameleon. The Veneto-Greek and the rabbins agree with the Authorized Version, and render it “snail.” Modern Jews, with all other Orientals, eat snails, not accounting them as unclean. Tristram argues that chomet is the sand-lizard of the Sinaitic Peninsula, the wilderness of Judea and the Jordan valley. “The snail” in Psalm 58:8 is from another Hebrew word. The mole — The Hebrew tinshemeth occurs in verse 18 as an unclean bird. The chameleon, in the opinion of Bochart and Tristram, is intended here. The mole will be found in verse 29. See note.

CONCERNING CREEPERS, 29-47.

This section includes not only reptiles, but some of the small mammals. Reptiles are not mentioned as a collective group in the Bible, but are divided into the moving creatures of the sea, (classed with the fishes, Genesis 1:20,) and the creeping things of the land mentioned with mammalian quadrupeds, but distinct from them.

29. The weasel — The choledh is found only in this catalogue, and seems to include the weasel, ichneumon, and the mole. They are all remarkably abundant in Palestine, especially the last two. The mouse — The akbar — field ravager — comprehends any destructive rodent. Tristram found twenty-three species of this group in Palestine. Field mice sometimes become multitudinous in Syria, and cause great destruction to the grain lands. They were eaten by idolaters, and probably used in their sacrifices or incantations. They were regarded as a great delicacy by the Romans, and were carefully kept and fattened for food. See Isaiah 66:17. The tortoise — R.V. (“great lizard.”) The Hebrew tsafh occurs in Numbers 7:3, where it is translated covered, (wagons,) and in Isaiah 66:20, litters. As the name of an animal it occurs only here, and, from a similar word in Arabic, signifies a large kind of lizard, doubtless the land-waron or the land crocodile of Herodotus, (iv, 192.) “It sometimes attains the length of two feet. I kept one tame for some months, and it was very docile, coming at my call, and sleeping in the sun. It is eaten by the Bedouin.” — Tristram.

Verse 32. Any vessel of wood] Such as the wooden bowls still in use among the Arabs. Or raiment, or skin-any trunks or baskets covered with skins, another part of the furniture of an Arab tent; the goat-skins, in which they churn their milk, may be also intended. Or sack-any hair-cloth used for the purpose of transporting goods from place to place.

32. Vessel… must be put into water — This explains the baptism of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, (Mark 7:4,) and “divers washings” mentioned in Hebrews 9:10, as characteristic of the Jews.

Verse 33. And every earthen vessel] Such pitchers as are commonly used for drinking out of, and for holding liquids. M. Deuteronomy la Roque observes that hair-sacks, trunks, and baskets, covered with skin, are used among the travelling Arabs to carry their household utensils in, which are kettles or pots, great wooden bowls, hand-mills, and pitchers. It is very likely that these are nearly the same with those used by the Israelites in their journeyings in the wilderness, for the customs of these people do not change.

33. Earthen vessel… ye shall break — This indicates not only that earthenware was in use in the wilderness, but also that it was abundant. We who are accustomed to strong stone-ware of considerable value can scarcely conceive how thin and brittle, how abundant and cheap, is the pottery of Palestine. For the reason for breaking the earthen vessel see 15:12, note. That the Hebrews were potters in Egypt is evident from Psalm 81:6. The wall-paintings minutely describe the process, which agrees exactly with the descriptions found in the Old Testament. For the form of

the vessels see Numbers 5:17, note. Ranges for pots — The Hebrew kerayim is explained as a pot or pan with its cover. Furst defines it as a cooking furnace consisting of two ranges of stones so laid as to form an angle. The Talmud rendering is a trough for pressing olives. Jahn thinks that it is an oven consisting of a hole dug in the ground, its sides being coated with clay and the bottom with pebbles; but the dual number is an objection to this view.

V. 34. That on which such water cometh-That flesh or herbs or other food which is dressed in water, in a vessel so polluted, shall be unclean; not so, if it be food which is eaten dry, as bread, or fruits; the reason of which difference seems to be this, that the water did sooner receive the pollution in itself, and convey it to the food so dressed.

Verse 34. That on which such water cometh — That flesh, or herbs, or other food which is dressed in water, in a vessel so polluted, shall be unclean: not so, if it be food which is eaten dry, as bread, or fruits; the reason of which difference seems to be this, that the water did sooner receive the pollution in itself, and convey it to the food so dressed. All this was intended to teach them to avoid carefully every thing that was polluted in their common actions. Not only the vessels of the sanctuary, but every pot in Jerusalem and Judah must be holiness to the Lord, Zechariah 14:20. The laws in these cases were very critical, and the observance of them would be difficult, and the exceptions also were very nice: but it was all designed to exercise them to a constant care and exactness in their obedience. And we, who by Christ are delivered from these burdensome observances, are hereby taught not to be less circumspect in the more weighty matters of the law. We ought as industriously to preserve our precious souls from the pollutions of sin, and as speedily to cleanse them when they are polluted, as they were to preserve and cleanse their bodies and household goods from these ceremonial pollutions.

CONCERNING CREEPERS, 29-47.

This section includes not only reptiles, but some of the small mammals. Reptiles are not mentioned as a collective group in the Bible, but are divided into the moving creatures of the sea, (classed with the fishes, Genesis 1:20,) and the creeping things of the land mentioned with mammalian quadrupeds, but distinct from them.

29. The weasel — The choledh is found only in this catalogue, and seems to include the weasel, ichneumon, and the mole. They are all remarkably abundant in Palestine, especially the last two. The mouse — The akbar — field ravager — comprehends any destructive rodent. Tristram found twenty-three species of this group in Palestine. Field mice sometimes become multitudinous in Syria, and cause great destruction to the grain lands. They were eaten by idolaters, and probably used in their sacrifices or incantations. They were regarded as a great delicacy by the Romans, and were carefully kept and fattened for food. See Isaiah 66:17. The tortoise — R.V. (“great lizard.”) The Hebrew tsafh occurs in Numbers 7:3, where it is translated covered, (wagons,) and in Isaiah 66:20, litters. As the name of an animal it occurs only here, and, from a similar word in Arabic, signifies a large kind of lizard, doubtless the land-waron or the land crocodile of Herodotus, (iv, 192.) “It sometimes attains the length of two feet. I kept one tame for some months, and it was very docile, coming at my call, and sleeping in the sun. It is eaten by the Bedouin.” — Tristram.

Verse 35. Ranges for pots] To understand this, we must observe that the Arabs dig a hole in their tent, about a foot and a half deep; three-fourths of this, says Rauwolff, they lay about with stones, and the fourth part is left open for the purpose of throwing in their fuel. This little temporary building is probably what is here designed by ranges for pots; and this was to be broken down when any unclean thing had fallen upon it. See Harmer, vol. 1., p. 464.

CONCERNING CREEPERS, 29-47.

This section includes not only reptiles, but some of the small mammals. Reptiles are not mentioned as a collective group in the Bible, but are divided into the moving creatures of the sea, (classed with the fishes, Genesis 1:20,) and the creeping things of the land mentioned with mammalian quadrupeds, but distinct from them.

29. The weasel — The choledh is found only in this catalogue, and seems to include the weasel, ichneumon, and the mole. They are all remarkably abundant in Palestine, especially the last two. The mouse — The akbar — field ravager — comprehends any destructive rodent. Tristram found twenty-three species of this group in Palestine. Field mice sometimes become multitudinous in Syria, and cause great destruction to the grain lands. They were eaten by idolaters, and probably used in their sacrifices or incantations. They were regarded as a great delicacy by the Romans, and were carefully kept and fattened for food. See Isaiah 66:17. The tortoise — R.V. (“great lizard.”) The Hebrew tsafh occurs in Numbers 7:3, where it is translated covered, (wagons,) and in Isaiah 66:20, litters. As the name of an animal it occurs only here, and, from a similar word in Arabic, signifies a large kind of lizard, doubtless the land-waron or the land crocodile of Herodotus, (iv, 192.) “It sometimes attains the length of two feet. I kept one tame for some months, and it was very docile, coming at my call, and sleeping in the sun. It is eaten by the Bedouin.” — Tristram.

V. 36. Of this no reason can be given, but the will of the law-giver and his merciful condescension to men’s necessities, water being scarce in those countries; and for the same reason God would have the ceremonial law of sacrifices, give place to the law of mercy.

Verse 36. A fountain or pit, &c.] This must either refer to running water, the stream of which soon carries off all impurities, or to large reservoirs where the water soon purifies itself; the water in either which touched the unclean thing, being considered as impure, the rest of the water being clean.

Verses 36, 37. Nevertheless, a fountain or pit shall be clean — Of this no reason can be given, but the will of the Lawgiver, and his merciful condescension to men’s necessities, water being scarce in those countries; and for the same reason God would have the ceremonial law of sacrifices give place to the law of mercy. Seed — Partly because this was necessary provision for man, and partly 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.

36. A fountain… shall be clean — Living water, the means of purity, must be incapable of defilement, or pollution may become universal.

V. 37. Seed-Partly because this was necessary provision for man; and partly 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.

Verse 37. Any sowing seed] If any part of an impure carcass fall accidentally on seed about to be sown, it shall not on that account be deemed unclean; but if the water put to the seed to prepare it for being sown, shall be touched by such impure carcass, the seed shall be considered as unclean, Leviticus 11:38. Probably this may be the meaning of these passages.

Verses 36, 37. Nevertheless, a fountain or pit shall be clean — Of this no reason can be given, but the will of the Lawgiver, and his merciful condescension to men’s necessities, water being scarce in those countries; and for the same reason God would have the ceremonial law of sacrifices give place to the law of mercy. Seed — Partly because this was necessary provision for man, and partly 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.

37. Sowing seed — Since this contained an inherent principle of life it is also incapable of pollution. “The seed is the word,” the instrument of sanctification, and the great antiseptic for the world’s corruption.

V. 38. If any water-The reason of the difference is, because wet seed doth sooner receive, and longer retain any pollution and partly because such seed was not fit to be sown presently, and therefore that necessity which justified the use of the dry seed, could not be pretended in this case.

Verse 38. If any water be on the seed, &c. — Bishop Kidder observes, the meaning is, If water be put upon the seed to prepare it for food; thus distinguishing it from seed that was intended to be sown. But others have thought the reason of the difference to be, partly that wet seed sooner receives, and longer retains, any pollution than dry, and partly because such seed was not fit to be sown presently, and therefore that necessity which justified the immediate use of the dry seed, could not be pretended in this case.

CONCERNING CREEPERS, 29-47.

This section includes not only reptiles, but some of the small mammals. Reptiles are not mentioned as a collective group in the Bible, but are divided into the moving creatures of the sea, (classed with the fishes, Genesis 1:20,) and the creeping things of the land mentioned with mammalian quadrupeds, but distinct from them.

29. The weasel — The choledh is found only in this catalogue, and seems to include the weasel, ichneumon, and the mole. They are all remarkably abundant in Palestine, especially the last two. The mouse — The akbar — field ravager — comprehends any destructive rodent. Tristram found twenty-three species of this group in Palestine. Field mice sometimes become multitudinous in Syria, and cause great destruction to the grain lands. They were eaten by idolaters, and probably used in their sacrifices or incantations. They were regarded as a great delicacy by the Romans, and were carefully kept and fattened for food. See Isaiah 66:17. The tortoise — R.V. (“great lizard.”) The Hebrew tsafh occurs in Numbers 7:3, where it is translated covered, (wagons,) and in Isaiah 66:20, litters. As the name of an animal it occurs only here, and, from a similar word in Arabic, signifies a large kind of lizard, doubtless the land-waron or the land crocodile of Herodotus, (iv, 192.) “It sometimes attains the length of two feet. I kept one tame for some months, and it was very docile, coming at my call, and sleeping in the sun. It is eaten by the Bedouin.” — Tristram.

V. 39. If any beast die-Either of itself, or being killed by some wild beast, in which cases the blood was not poured forth, as it was when they were killed by men either for food or sacrifice.

Verses 39-42. If any beast die — Either of itself, or being killed by some wild beast, in which cases the blood was not poured forth, as it was when they were killed by men either for food or sacrifice. He that eateth — Unwittingly, for if he did it knowingly, it was a presumptuous sin against an express law, (Deuteronomy 14:21,) and therefore punished as such. Every creeping thing — Except those expressly excepted, verses 29, 30. Upon the belly — As worms and snakes. Upon all four — As toads and divers serpents.

39. If any beast… die — The prohibition of the flesh of clean animals which have died is founded on sanitary grounds. When the blood is not drawn from the veins the flesh becomes corrupt and poisonous.

V. 40. He that eateth-Unwittingly, for if he did it knowingly, it was a presumptuous sin against an express law, Deuteronomy 14:21, and therefore punished with cutting off.

Verses 39-42. If any beast die — Either of itself, or being killed by some wild beast, in which cases the blood was not poured forth, as it was when they were killed by men either for food or sacrifice. He that eateth — Unwittingly, for if he did it knowingly, it was a presumptuous sin against an express law, (Deuteronomy 14:21,) and therefore punished as such. Every creeping thing — Except those expressly excepted, verses 29, 30. Upon the belly — As worms and snakes. Upon all four — As toads and divers serpents.

CONCERNING CREEPERS, 29-47.

This section includes not only reptiles, but some of the small mammals. Reptiles are not mentioned as a collective group in the Bible, but are divided into the moving creatures of the sea, (classed with the fishes, Genesis 1:20,) and the creeping things of the land mentioned with mammalian quadrupeds, but distinct from them.

29. The weasel — The choledh is found only in this catalogue, and seems to include the weasel, ichneumon, and the mole. They are all remarkably abundant in Palestine, especially the last two. The mouse — The akbar — field ravager — comprehends any destructive rodent. Tristram found twenty-three species of this group in Palestine. Field mice sometimes become multitudinous in Syria, and cause great destruction to the grain lands. They were eaten by idolaters, and probably used in their sacrifices or incantations. They were regarded as a great delicacy by the Romans, and were carefully kept and fattened for food. See Isaiah 66:17. The tortoise — R.V. (“great lizard.”) The Hebrew tsafh occurs in Numbers 7:3, where it is translated covered, (wagons,) and in Isaiah 66:20, litters. As the name of an animal it occurs only here, and, from a similar word in Arabic, signifies a large kind of lizard, doubtless the land-waron or the land crocodile of Herodotus, (iv, 192.) “It sometimes attains the length of two feet. I kept one tame for some months, and it was very docile, coming at my call, and sleeping in the sun. It is eaten by the Bedouin.” — Tristram.

V. 41. Every creeping thing-Except those expressly excepted, Leviticus 11:29,30.

Verses 39-42. If any beast die — Either of itself, or being killed by some wild beast, in which cases the blood was not poured forth, as it was when they were killed by men either for food or sacrifice. He that eateth — Unwittingly, for if he did it knowingly, it was a presumptuous sin against an express law, (Deuteronomy 14:21,) and therefore punished as such. Every creeping thing — Except those expressly excepted, verses 29, 30. Upon the belly — As worms and snakes. Upon all four — As toads and divers serpents.

CONCERNING CREEPERS, 29-47.

This section includes not only reptiles, but some of the small mammals. Reptiles are not mentioned as a collective group in the Bible, but are divided into the moving creatures of the sea, (classed with the fishes, Genesis 1:20,) and the creeping things of the land mentioned with mammalian quadrupeds, but distinct from them.

29. The weasel — The choledh is found only in this catalogue, and seems to include the weasel, ichneumon, and the mole. They are all remarkably abundant in Palestine, especially the last two. The mouse — The akbar — field ravager — comprehends any destructive rodent. Tristram found twenty-three species of this group in Palestine. Field mice sometimes become multitudinous in Syria, and cause great destruction to the grain lands. They were eaten by idolaters, and probably used in their sacrifices or incantations. They were regarded as a great delicacy by the Romans, and were carefully kept and fattened for food. See Isaiah 66:17. The tortoise — R.V. (“great lizard.”) The Hebrew tsafh occurs in Numbers 7:3, where it is translated covered, (wagons,) and in Isaiah 66:20, litters. As the name of an animal it occurs only here, and, from a similar word in Arabic, signifies a large kind of lizard, doubtless the land-waron or the land crocodile of Herodotus, (iv, 192.) “It sometimes attains the length of two feet. I kept one tame for some months, and it was very docile, coming at my call, and sleeping in the sun. It is eaten by the Bedouin.” — Tristram.

V. 42. Upon the belly-As worms and snakes, Upon all four-As toads and divers serpents.

Verse 42. Whatsoever goeth upon the belly] In the word גהונ gahOn, the vau holem, in most Hebrew Bibles, is much larger than the other letters; and a Masoretic note is added in the margin, which states that this is the middle letter of the law; and consequently this verse is the middle verse of the Pentateuch.

Whatsoever hath more feet] Than four; that is, all many-footed reptiles, as well as those which go upon the belly having no feet, such as serpents; besides the four-footed smaller animals mentioned above.

Verses 39-42. If any beast die — Either of itself, or being killed by some wild beast, in which cases the blood was not poured forth, as it was when they were killed by men either for food or sacrifice. He that eateth — Unwittingly, for if he did it knowingly, it was a presumptuous sin against an express law, (Deuteronomy 14:21,) and therefore punished as such. Every creeping thing — Except those expressly excepted, verses 29, 30. Upon the belly — As worms and snakes. Upon all four — As toads and divers serpents.

CONCERNING CREEPERS, 29-47.

This section includes not only reptiles, but some of the small mammals. Reptiles are not mentioned as a collective group in the Bible, but are divided into the moving creatures of the sea, (classed with the fishes, Genesis 1:20,) and the creeping things of the land mentioned with mammalian quadrupeds, but distinct from them.

29. The weasel — The choledh is found only in this catalogue, and seems to include the weasel, ichneumon, and the mole. They are all remarkably abundant in Palestine, especially the last two. The mouse — The akbar — field ravager — comprehends any destructive rodent. Tristram found twenty-three species of this group in Palestine. Field mice sometimes become multitudinous in Syria, and cause great destruction to the grain lands. They were eaten by idolaters, and probably used in their sacrifices or incantations. They were regarded as a great delicacy by the Romans, and were carefully kept and fattened for food. See Isaiah 66:17. The tortoise — R.V. (“great lizard.”) The Hebrew tsafh occurs in Numbers 7:3, where it is translated covered, (wagons,) and in Isaiah 66:20, litters. As the name of an animal it occurs only here, and, from a similar word in Arabic, signifies a large kind of lizard, doubtless the land-waron or the land crocodile of Herodotus, (iv, 192.) “It sometimes attains the length of two feet. I kept one tame for some months, and it was very docile, coming at my call, and sleeping in the sun. It is eaten by the Bedouin.” — Tristram.

43. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable — Hebrew, your souls. See Leviticus 4:2.

V. 44. Ye shall be holy-By this he gives them to understand, that all these cautions about eating or touching these creatures was not for any real uncleanness in them, but only that by diligent observation of these rules they might learn with greater care to avoid all moral pollutions, and to keep themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and from all familiar and intimate converse with notorious sinners.

Verse 44. Ye shall-sanctify yourselves] Ye shall keep yourselves separate from all the people of the earth, that ye may be holy; for I am holy. And this was the grand design of God in all these prohibitions and commands; for these external sanctifications were only the emblems of the internal purity which the holiness of God requires here, and without which none can dwell with him in glory hereafter. See at the conclusion of this chapter. THE contents of this chapter must furnish many profitable reflections to a pious mind.

1. From the great difficulty of ascertaining what animals are meant in this part of the law, we may at once see that the law itself must be considered as abrogated; for there is not a Jew in the universe who knows what the animals are, a very few excepted, which are intended by these Hebrew words; and therefore he may be repeatedly breaking this law by touching and being touched either by the animals themselves or their produce, such as hair, wool, fur, skin, intestines, differently manufactured, &c., &c. It therefore appears that this people have as little law as they have gospel.

2. While God keeps the eternal interests of man steadily in view, he does not forget his earthly comfort; he is at once solicitous both for the health of his body and his soul. He has not forbidden certain aliments because he is a Sovereign, but because he knew they would be injurious to the health and morals of his people. The close connection that subsists between the body and the soul we cannot fully comprehend; and as little can we comprehend the influence they have on each other. Many moral alterations take place in the mind in consequence of the influence of the bodily organs; and these latter are greatly influenced by the kind of ailment which the body receives. God knows what is in man, and he knows what is in all creatures; he has therefore graciously forbidden what would injure both body and mind, and commanded what is best calculated to be useful to both. Solid-footed animals, such as the horse, and many-toed animals, such as the cat, &c., are here prohibited. Beasts which have bifid or cloven hoofs, such as the ox and sheep, are considered as proper for food, and therefore commanded. The former are unclean, i.e., unwholesome, affording a gross nutriment, often the parent of scorbutic and scrofulous disorders; the latter clean, i.e., affording a copious and wholesome nutriment, and not laying the foundation of any disease. Ruminating animals, i.e., those which chew the cud, concoct their food better than the others which swallow it with little mastication, and therefore their flesh contains more of the nutritious juices, and is more easy of digestion, and consequently of assimilation to the solids and fluids of the human body; on this account they are termed clean, i.e., peculiarly wholesome, and fit for food. The animals which do not ruminate do not concoct their food so well, and hence they abound with gross animal juices, which yield a comparatively unwholesome nutriment to the human system. Even the animals which have bifid hoofs but do not chew the cud, such as the swine, and those which chew the cud but are not bifid, such as the hare and rabbit, are by Him who knows all things forbidden, because he knew them to be comparatively innutritive. In all this God shows himself as the tender Father of a numerous family, pointing out to his inexperienced, froward, and ignorant children, those kinds of aliments which he knows will be injurious to their health and domestic happiness, and prohibiting them on pain of his highest displeasure. On the same ground he forbade all fish that have not both fins and scales, such as the conger, eel, &c., which abound in gross juices and fat which very few stomachs are able to digest. Who, for instance, that lives solely on swine’s flesh, has pure blood and healthy juices? And is it not evident, in many cases, that the man partakes considerably of the nature of the brute on which he exclusively feeds? I could pursue this inquiry much farther, and bring many proofs founded on indisputable facts, but I forbear; for he who might stand most in need of caution, would be the first to take offence.

3. As the body exists only for the sake of the soul, and God feeds and nourishes it through the day of probation, that the soul may here be prepared for the kingdom of heaven; therefore he shows in the conclusion of these ordinances, that the grand scope and design of all was that they might be a holy people, and that they might resemble him who is a holy God.-GOD IS HOLY; and this is the eternal reason why all his people should be holy-should be purified from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. No faith in any particular creed, no religious observance, no acts of benevolence and charity, no mortification, attrition, or contrition, can be a substitute for this. We must be made partakers of the Divine nature. We must be saved from our sins-from the corruption that is in the world, and be made holy within and righteous without, or never see God. For this very purpose Jesus Christ lived, died, and revived, that he might purify us unto himself; that through faith in his blood our sins might be blotted out, and our souls restored to the image of God.-Reader, art thou hungering and thirsting after righteousness? Then blessed art thou, for thou shalt be filled.

LEVITICUS

Verse 44. Ye shall be holy — By this he gives them to understand, that all these cautions about eating or touching these creatures was not for any real uncleanness in them, but only that by the diligent observation of these rules they might learn with greater care to avoid all moral pollutions, and to keep themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and from all familiar and intimate converse with notorious sinners.

44. For I am the Lord your God — All the obligations to purity are derived from the will of God, as written in nature and in revelation. Sanctify yourselves — Abstinence from every act which defileth is the human part of sanctification. 1 Thessalonians 4:3. To keep the evil tendencies of depraved nature from breaking out into open sin by the strenuous effort of the will, sustained by divine grace, is Old Testament sanctification. To kill and eradicate these depraved proclivities by the mighty inworking and abiding of the Sanctifier, applying the blood of Jesus Christ to the soul to cleanse it from all sin and keep it pure by the power of God through faith, is New Testament sanctification. In this sense we are to sanctify ourselves by availing ourselves of the office of the Sanctifier. For I am holy — The very character of God furnishes the motive and measure of holiness. Matthew 5:48. The revelation of Jehovah’s moral character is the proclamation of man’s duty to become assimilated thereto. All intelligent worship of the true God impresses his likeness upon the soul. Here is the secret of all enjoyment of God in time or in eternity. The misery of an unholy soul is as natural a consequence as the ache of a decayed tooth.

V. 45. That bringeth you up out of Egypt-This was a reason why they should chearfully submit to distinguishing laws, who had been so honoured with distinguishing favours.

Verse 45. That bringeth you up out of Egypt — This was a reason why they should cheerfully submit to distinguishing laws, who had been so honoured with distinguishing favours.

45. I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of… Egypt — Providential kindness in emancipation from the yoke of Egypt presents an additional motive to holiness. So does deliverance from the bondage of sin constitute a reason why every justified soul should be cleansed from the pollution of sin, and become perfectly holy in heart and in life.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Health and Longevity of the Jews. — The more we study the law of Moses in its relation to health, and in its various provisions which long ago anticipated the sanitary science of our day, in its system of dietetics, in its convocations and feasts, in its purifications and its varied restrictions which touch the social life at every point — we shall be amazed at the wisdom manifested in that ancient law, as exhibited in its safeguards against vice, disorder, and disease.

From its initiatory rite, the seal of the covenant, which was in itself a protection against self-abuse and disease, down to the close of life, the Jewish law sedulously guarded the physical health of the people; and even the laws concerning the dead exhibit the same divine wisdom. Dr. Gibbon, a health officer of London, reports that the life of the Jew in London is, on an average, twice as long as the life of the Gentile. The medical officer of one of their large schools has remarked that Jewish children do not die in any thing like the same ratio as the children of the Gentiles. In the district of Whitechapel, the medical officer in his report states that on the north side of High Street, which is occupied by Jews, the average death-rate is twenty-seven per thousand; while on the south side, occupied by English and Irish, the average death-rate is forty-three per thousand.

The church registers of Prussia, between the years 1823 and 1841, show that there died on an average, annually, one in thirty-four Gentiles, and only one in forty-six Jews. Of the children born among the Gentiles, forty-four and a half per cent. reached the age of fourteen, but among the Jews fifty per cent. reached that age. Among the Gentiles only twelve per cent. reached the age of seventy, while among the Jews twenty per cent. reached that age. These conclusions are carefully drawn from reliable statistics, and accord with the statements of Dr. Pressel, and show that the learned French physician, Dr. M. Levy, is abundantly justified in concluding that while the average term of life among the Gentiles is twenty-six years, among the Jews it is thirty-seven.

“Hence, while the beer-drinking, whiskey-loving, pork-eating Gentile dies, on an average, at the age of twenty-six, the Jew, giving heed to the teachings of Moses, adds nearly one-half to the length of his days, having an average of eleven years longer to enjoy life, attend to business, and acquire property. Is it any wonder that, as a rule, Jews excel the Gentiles in whatever they undertake?” — H.L. Hastings.

Further, not only is the death rate less among the scattered nation, but the birth rate is greater — fifty-five per one thousand, to thirty-eight of Gentile births; while the still-born Jews out of one hundred thousand were only eighty-nine to one hundred and forty-three still-born Gentiles. Carefully prepared statistics show that infant mortality is nearly twice as great among Gentiles as among the Jews, being in Frankfort, Germany, two hundred and forty-one to one hundred and twenty-nine per one thousand. Under the hygienic laws of Moses there are no Jewish paupers nor drunkards, and very few insane.

In Great Britain, where scepticism widely prevails, and “the mistakes of Moses” are discussed in club-rooms, beer-shops, and gin-palaces, one person in every eleven is said to be a lunatic, a criminal, a pauper, or a drunkard. Would not the teachings of Moses, in spite of all his alleged “mistakes,” go far to remedy the wreck and ruin which have been wrought there by intemperance, vice, and crime?

(2.) “The animals that are permitted and that are forbidden had hardly any existence in the wilderness in which the immediate life of Israel was then being spent. The people might have said, Why permit us to eat animals which are not at hand? Why forbid us to eat food which is not within our reach? Why, in a great desert, lay down rules and regulations about the fish in the sea? Here is the solemn lesson that we are to provide for all life, for all the possibilities of life, for all the yet unknown contingencies of life, as far as they can be forecast and ruled by inspired prudence.” — Joseph Parker.

V. 46. This is the law-It was so, as long the Mosaic dispensation lasted. But under the gospel we find it expressly repealed by a voice from heaven, Acts 10:15. Let us therefore bless God, that to us every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused.

Verse 46. This is the law of the beasts, &c.–It was to them a statute as long as that dispensation lasted, but under the gospel we find it expressly repealed, by a voice from heaven to Peter, (Acts 10:15,) as it had before been virtually set aside by the death of Christ, with other ordinances that perished in the using, Touch not, taste not, handle not, (Colossians 2:21, 22,) and now we are sure that meat commends us not to God, (1 Corinthians 8:8,) and that nothing is unclean of itself, Romans 14:14. Nor doth that defile a man which goes into his mouth, but that which comes out from the heart, Matthew 15:11. Let us therefore, 1st, Give thanks to God that we are not under this yoke, but that to us every creature of God is allowed as good, and nothing to be refused. 2d, Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and take heed of those doctrines which command to abstain from meats, and so would revive Moses again, 1 Timothy 4:3, 4. 3d, Be strictly and conscientiously temperate in the use of the good creatures God has allowed us. If God’s law has given us liberty, let us lay restraints upon ourselves, and never feed ourselves without fear, lest our table be a snare. Set a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite, and be not desirous of dainties or varieties, Proverbs 23:2, 3. Nature is content with a little, grace with less, but lust with nothing.

CONCERNING CREEPERS, 29-47.

This section includes not only reptiles, but some of the small mammals. Reptiles are not mentioned as a collective group in the Bible, but are divided into the moving creatures of the sea, (classed with the fishes, Genesis 1:20,) and the creeping things of the land mentioned with mammalian quadrupeds, but distinct from them.

29. The weasel — The choledh is found only in this catalogue, and seems to include the weasel, ichneumon, and the mole. They are all remarkably abundant in Palestine, especially the last two. The mouse — The akbar — field ravager — comprehends any destructive rodent. Tristram found twenty-three species of this group in Palestine. Field mice sometimes become multitudinous in Syria, and cause great destruction to the grain lands. They were eaten by idolaters, and probably used in their sacrifices or incantations. They were regarded as a great delicacy by the Romans, and were carefully kept and fattened for food. See Isaiah 66:17. The tortoise — R.V. (“great lizard.”) The Hebrew tsafh occurs in Numbers 7:3, where it is translated covered, (wagons,) and in Isaiah 66:20, litters. As the name of an animal it occurs only here, and, from a similar word in Arabic, signifies a large kind of lizard, doubtless the land-waron or the land crocodile of Herodotus, (iv, 192.) “It sometimes attains the length of two feet. I kept one tame for some months, and it was very docile, coming at my call, and sleeping in the sun. It is eaten by the Bedouin.” — Tristram.

CONCERNING CREEPERS, 29-47.

This section includes not only reptiles, but some of the small mammals. Reptiles are not mentioned as a collective group in the Bible, but are divided into the moving creatures of the sea, (classed with the fishes, Genesis 1:20,) and the creeping things of the land mentioned with mammalian quadrupeds, but distinct from them.

29. The weasel — The choledh is found only in this catalogue, and seems to include the weasel, ichneumon, and the mole. They are all remarkably abundant in Palestine, especially the last two. The mouse — The akbar — field ravager — comprehends any destructive rodent. Tristram found twenty-three species of this group in Palestine. Field mice sometimes become multitudinous in Syria, and cause great destruction to the grain lands. They were eaten by idolaters, and probably used in their sacrifices or incantations. They were regarded as a great delicacy by the Romans, and were carefully kept and fattened for food. See Isaiah 66:17. The tortoise — R.V. (“great lizard.”) The Hebrew tsafh occurs in Numbers 7:3, where it is translated covered, (wagons,) and in Isaiah 66:20, litters. As the name of an animal it occurs only here, and, from a similar word in Arabic, signifies a large kind of lizard, doubtless the land-waron or the land crocodile of Herodotus, (iv, 192.) “It sometimes attains the length of two feet. I kept one tame for some months, and it was very docile, coming at my call, and sleeping in the sun. It is eaten by the Bedouin.” — Tristram.