| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Leviticus
Chapter Eleven
New King James Version (NKJV)
INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS 11
This
chapter treats of creatures clean and unclean
as fit or not fit to be eaten;
and first of beasts
whose signs are given
Leviticus 11:1 then
of fishes
which are likewise described
Leviticus 11:9
after that of fowls
and those that are not to be eaten are particularly named
Leviticus 11:13
next of creeping things
which are distinguished into two sorts
as flying
creeping things
of which those that are unclean
their carcasses are not even
to be touched
as neither the carcasses of unclean beasts
Leviticus 11:20 and
creeping things on the earth
which defile by touching
as well as eating
and
make everything unclean
upon which
being dead
they fall
Leviticus 11:29 and
these laws are enforced from the holiness and goodness of God
Leviticus 11:44 and
the chapter is concluded with a recapitulation of them
Leviticus 11:46.
Leviticus 11:1. Now
the Lord
spoke to Moses and Aaron
saying to them
YLT 1And Jehovah speaketh unto Moses and unto
Aaron
saying unto them
And the Lord spake unto Moses
and unto Aaron
.... The one
being the chief magistrate
and the other the high priest
and both concerned
to see the following laws put into execution; according to Jarchi
the Lord
spoke to Moses that he might speak to Aaron; but being now in office
and one
part of his office being to distinguish between clean and unclean
the
following discourse is directed equally to him as to Moses:
saying unto them; as follows.
Leviticus 11:2.
2 “Speak to the children of
Israel
saying
‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the
animals that are on the earth:
YLT 2`Speak unto the sons of Israel
saying
This
[is] the beast which ye do eat out of all the beasts which [are] on the earth:
Speak unto the children of Israel
saying
.... For to
them only belong the following laws
and not unto the Gentiles
as Jarchi
rightly observes; these were parts of the ceremonial law
which was peculiarly
given to them
and lay
among other things
in meats and drinks
and now
abolished; for it is not what goes into a man that defiles him; nor is anything
common or unclean of itself
but every creature of God is good if received with
thanksgiving. The sons of Noah had free liberty
without any restraint or
limitation
of using for food any living creature that moved upon the face of
the earth; in the choice of which they were left to exercise their reason and
judgment
and is the case with us now; but as men have not so nice a smell as
some animals have
and cannot distinguish by their senses so well as they what
food is most wholesome
which makes the exercise of their reason and judgment
necessary
and the people of the Jews being a special people
and for whom the
Lord had a peculiar regard; for the sake of their health
and to preserve them
from diseases they were subject to
such as the leprosy and others
and to
direct them to what was most salubrious and healthful
gave them the following
laws; and which
though they are not obligatory upon us
yet may be a direction
to us
in the use of what may be most suitable and proper food for us
the
difference of climates
and of the constitutions of men's bodies
being
considered: not that we are to suppose
that the case of health was the only
reason of delivering out these laws to the children of Israel
for other ends
besides that
may be thought to be had in view; as to assert his sovereign
right to the creatures
and his disposal of them to them according to his will
and pleasure; to lay a restraint on their appetites
to prevent luxury
and to
teach them self denial
and compliance with his will; as also to keep them the
more from the company and conversation of the Gentiles
by whom they otherwise
might be led into idolatry; and to give them an aversion to their idols
to
whom the creatures forbidden them to eat
many of them were either now or would
be sacred to them; and chiefly to excite to a care for purity
both inward and
outward
and create in the man abhorrence of those vices which may be signified
by the ill qualities of several of the creatures; and to instruct them in the
difference between holy and unholy persons
with whom they should or should not
have communion; see Acts 10:11.
these are the beasts that ye shall eat among all the beasts that
are on the earth; they are not particularly mentioned here
but they are in Deuteronomy 14:4
and they are these ten; the ox
the sheep
and the goat
the hart
and the
roebuck
and the fallow deer
and the wild goat
and the pygarg
and the wild
ox
and the chamois; of all which; see Gill on Deuteronomy 14:4
Deuteronomy 14:5
here only some general things are observed to describe them by
as follow.
Leviticus 11:3.
3 Among the animals
whatever divides the hoof
having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that
you may eat.
YLT 3any dividing a hoof
and cleaving the cleft
of the hoofs
bringing up the cud
among the beasts
it ye do eat.
Whatsoever parteth the hoof
and is cloven footed
.... That is
whose hoof is parted and cloven quite through; for there are some creatures
that have partitions in their feet
but not quite through
they are parted
above
but underneath are joined together by a skin; wherefore both these
phrases are used to describe the beasts lawful to be eaten: the Egyptians seem
to have borrowed this law from the Jews
for Chaeremon saysF24Apud
Porphyr. de Abstinentia
l. 4. sect. 7.
that they abstain from such four
footed beasts that have only one hoof
or have many partitions
or have no horns:
and so the Targum of Jonathan adds here
"which have horns
'which
though
not in the text
agrees well with the creatures allowed by this law to be
eaten
see Deuteronomy 14:4
for such are all horned cattle; nor are there any cattle horned forbid to be
eaten:
and cheweth the cud among the beasts
that shall ye eat: who having no
upper teeth cannot thoroughly chew their food at once
and therefore bring it
up again out of their stomachs into their mouths and chew it over again
that
it may be better prepared for digestion in the stomach
and so yield better
nourishment; and this makes the flesh of such creatures fitter for food: and
these creatures have more stomachs than one; the ventricles for rumination are
four; the first is the paunch
which in oxen is so big as to hold food of fifty
pound weight
the second the honeycomb
the third the tripe
the fourth the
honey tripe
and to which are helpful the pectoral muscle
the abdomen
with
the diaphragmF25Scheuchzer. Physic. Sacr. vol. 2. p. 278
279. : all
this might have a moral and spiritual meaning in it
and may be applied either
to ministers of the word; who ought rightly to divide the word of truth
and
give to everyone their part
and who should walk uprightly according to it
and
who should give themselves up wholly to the meditation of it
and thoroughly
digest it; and study to show themselves workmen
that need not to be ashamed;
or to private Christians
who have a discerning spirit in spiritual things
and
can distinguish not only morality from immorality
but spiritual things from
carnal
heavenly things from earthly
the voice of Christ from the voice of a
stranger
and the doctrines of Christ from the doctrines of men; and who also
walk as they should do
by faith on Christ
in the ways of God
and according
to the Gospel; these chew the cud
meditate on the word
feed upon it while
delivered
recall it
and have it brought to their remembrance by the divine
Spirit
and ponder it in their hearts; see Psalm 1:1.
Leviticus 11:4.
4 Nevertheless these you
shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves:
the camel
because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves
is unclean
to you;
YLT 4`Only
this ye do not eat -- of those bringing
up the cud
and of those dividing the hoof -- the camel
though it is bringing
up the cud
yet the hoof not dividing -- it [is] unclean to you;
Nevertheless
these shall ye not eat
.... To whom
one of these descriptive characters may agree but not the other:
of them that chew the cud
or of them that divide the hoof: there being
some that chewed the cud but did not divide the hoof; others that divided the
hoof but did not chew the cud
of which instances are given as follow:
as the camel
because he
cheweth the cud
but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you; and not to be
eaten
whether male or female; or rather
"though he cheweth the
cud"; and this account agrees with what naturalists give of it; so
AristotleF26De Part. Animal. l. 3. c. 14. says it has not both rows
of teeth
but wants its upper teeth
and chews as horned cattle do
and has
bellies like theirs; for they have more bellies than one
as the sheep
and
goat
and hart
and others; since the service of the mouth is not sufficient to
grind the food for want of teeth
this is supplied by the bellies
which
receive the food one after another; in the first it is undigested
in the
second somewhat more digested
in the third more fully
in the fourth
completely: and so many bellies the camel has
as a very learned searcherF1Scheuchzer.
ib. p. 280. into these things observes; the first is the biggest
the second
very small
the third much greater than the second
and the fourth equal to the
second; in the second belly between the tunics
he says
seem to be the
hydrophylacia
in which the water they drink is kept
very commodious for these
animals passing through sandy deserts
so that they can long bear thirst: PlinyF2Nat.
Hist. l. 8. c. 18. says four days: Leo AfricanusF3Descriptio Africae
l. 1. p. 75. relates a method used by travellers in the deserts of Lybia
who
being in extreme want of water kill one of their camels
out of whose
intestines they press out water; this they drink
this they carry about till
they find a well
or must die with thirst: and the account also which is given
of the feet of these creatures agrees; it parts the hoof
but not thoroughly
it is not cleft quite through
and so comes not up to Moses's descriptive
character of clean creatures; its hoof is divided in two
but so divided
as
AristotleF4Hist. Animal. l. 2. c. 1. observes
that it is but little
divided on the back part unto the second joint of the toes; the fore part is
very little divided
to the first joint of the toes
and there is something
between the parts
as in the feet of geese: and so Pliny saysF5L.
11. c. 45. it has two hoofs
but the lower part of the foot is but very little
divided
so that it is not thoroughly cleft: but though the flesh of these
creatures was forbidden the Jews
it was eaten by people of other nations; both
AristotleF6Hist. Animal. l. 6. c. 26. and PlinyF7Nat.
Hist. l. 11. c. 41. commend the milk of camels; and by the former the flesh of
them is said to be exceeding sweet; and Diodorus Siculus relatesF8Bibliothec.
l. 2. p. 137.
that what with their milk and their flesh
which is eaten
as
well as on account of their carrying burdens
they are very profitable unto
men; and StraboF9Geograph. l. 16. p. 535. says
the Nomades eat the
flesh and milk of camels; and so the Africans
according to Leo AfricanusF11Descriptio
Africae
l. 1. p. 48. l. 6. 617
620. Arab. Geogr. Clim. 1. par. 1. 3. ; and a
countryman of oursF12Pitts's Account of the Mahometans
c. 8. p.
106. Vid. Hieron
adv. Jovinian. l. 2.
who lived some time in Arabia
relates
that when a camel falls they kill it
and the poorer sort of the
company eat it; and he says that he himself ate of camel's flesh
and that it
was very sweet and nourishing: these creatures
in the mystic sense
may be an
emblem of such persons
that carry their heads high
are proud and haughty
that boast of their riches
or trust in their righteousness.
Leviticus 11:5.
5 the rock hyrax
because it
chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves
is unclean to you;
YLT 5and the rabbit
though it is bringing up the
cud
yet the hoof it divideth not -- unclean it [is] to you;
And the coney
.... Or rabbit:
because he cheweth the cud; or "though he
cheweth"; which yet
some observe
the coney or rabbit does not
it having
upper teeth
and therefore they think some other creature is meant by Shaphan
the word here used; and BochartF13Hierozoic par. 1. l. 3. c. 33.
col. 1015
1016. is of opinion
that the Aljarbuo of the Arabians
a sort of
mountain mouse
is meant
which chews the cud and divides not the hoof
and
resides in rocks
which agrees with the account of the Shaphan in Proverbs 30:26 but
this is rejected by Dr. ShawF14Travels
p. 177
348. Ed. 2.
who
takes the creature here to be the Daman Israel
or Israel's lamb
an animal of
Mount Lebanon
a harmless creature of the same size and quality with the
rabbit
and with the like incurvating posture
and disposition or the fore
teeth
but is of a browner colour
with smaller eyes
and a head more pointed
like the marmots; the fore feet likewise are short
and the hinder are nearly
as long in proportion as those of the jerboa; and though this animal is known
to burrow sometimes in the ground
yet its usual residence and refuge is in the
holes and clifts of the rocks; but a learned manF15Scheuchzer. ut
supra
(Physic. Sacr. vol. 2.) p. 281.
and very inquisitive in the things of
nature
tells us
that the "cuniculus"
coney
or rabbit
this sort
of animals do chew half an hour after eating:
but divideth not the hoof; which is well known of
this creature:
he is unclean unto you; not fit or proper to be
eaten of
but to be abstained from as an unclean animal; and may be an emblem
of timorous persons
as these creatures by AristotleF16Hist. Animal.
l. 1. c. 1. are observed to be
and it is well known they are; even of the
fearful and unbelieving
reckoned among the impure
who will have their portion
in the lake of fire
Revelation 21:8.
Leviticus 11:6.
6 the hare
because it chews
the cud but does not have cloven hooves
is unclean to you;
YLT 6and the hare
though it is bringing up the
cud
yet the hoof hath not divided -- unclean it [is] to you;
And the hare
because he cheweth the cud
.... Or
"though he chews" it:
but divideth not the hoof
he is unclean to you; and so not to
be eaten; so PlutarchF17Sympos. l. 9. c. 5. says
that the Jews are
said to abstain from the hare
disdaining it as a filthy and unclean animal
and yet was in the greatest esteem with the Romans of any four footed beast
as
Martial saysF18L. 13. Epigr. 87. : Moses
as BochartF19Ut
supra
(Hierozoic par. 1. l. 3.) c. 31. col. 977. and other learned men
observe
is the only writer that speaks of the hare as chewing the cud; though
they also observe
that AristotleF20De Part. Animal. l. 3. c. 15.
& Hist. Animal. l. 3. c. 21. makes mention of that in common with those
that do chew the cud
namely a "coagulum" or "runnet" in
its stomach; his words are
"all that have many bellies have what is called
πυετια
a coagulum or runnet
and of them that have but one belly
the hare;'only that: this creature being
prone to lust
may be an emblem of lustful persons
who give up themselves to
lasciviousness
to work all uncleanness with greediness
Ephesians 4:19.
(The "hare" is this verse may be an animal that is now is extinct but
was alive at the time of Moses. It is only other mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:7.
Editor.)
Leviticus 11:7.
7 and the swine
though it
divides the hoof
having cloven hooves
yet does not chew the cud
is
unclean to you.
YLT 7and the sow
though it is dividing the hoof
and cleaving the cleft of the hoof
yet the cud it bringeth not up -- unclean
it [is] to you.
And the swine
though he divide the hoof
and be cloven footed
.... Not only
its hoofs are parted
but cloven quite through
and so in this respect answers
Moses's first descriptive character of clean creatures; though AristotleF21Hist.
Animal. l. 2. c. 1. and PlinyF23Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 46. speak of
some kind of swine in Illyricum
Paeonia
and other places
which have solid
hoofs; but perhaps these were not properly swine
though so called:
yet he cheweth not the cud; and a learned physician
observesF24Scheuchzer. ut supra
(Physic. Sacr. vol. 2.) p. 282.
that such creatures that chew not the cud
so perfect a chyle cannot be
elaborated by them as is by those that chew the cud
and therefore their flesh
must be less wholesome; and of the swine
he saysF25Ib. p. 284.
they have but one belly
and so there is no rumination or chewing the cud by
them; wherefore they are to be placed
and are in a lower degree than the
camel
the coney
and the hare; and as they cannot digest the chyle so well as
those that chew the cud
and also live upon most sordid and filthy food
the
eating of swine's flesh
he observes
must produce many inconveniences to the
body
as especially scorbutic
arthritic
scabious
and leprous disorders: so
Manetho the Egyptian saysF26Apud Aelian. de Animal. l. 10. c. 16.
that he that eats swine's milk is liable to be filled with the leprosy; and
MaimonidesF1Moreh Nevochim
par. 3. c. 48. gives it as the principal
reason of its being forbid the Jews
because it is such a filthy creature
and
eats such filthy things:
he is unclean to you: and so it has always
been accounted by the Jews
and nothing is more abominable to them
as is even
testified by HeathenF2"Et vetus indulget"
&c.
Juvenal. Satyr. 6. "nec distare putant"
&c. Ib. Satyr. 14. Vid.
Porphyr. de Abstinentia
l. 4. sect. 11
12. writers; and in this they have
been imitated by many nations
particularly the Egyptians
who
as Herodotus
saysF3Euterpe
sive
l. 2. c. 47.
reckon swine a very filthy
creature; so that if anyone does but touch it passing by
he is obliged to
plunge himself into a river with his clothes on; and keepers of them may not go
into any of their temples
nor do the rest of the Egyptians intermarry with
them
but they marry among themselves; the reason of this their abhorrence of
swine
Aelianus saysF4Ut supra. (Apud Aelian. de Animal. l. 10. c.
16.)
is because they are so gluttonous that they will not spare their own
young
nor abstain from human flesh; and this
says he
is the reason why the
Egyptians hate it as an impure and voracious animal: likewise the Arabians
entirely abstain from swine's flesh
as Solinus saysF5Polyhistor. c.
46.
who adds
that if any of this sort of creatures is carried into Arabia
it immediately dies; and the same PlinyF6Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 52.
attests: and so the Phoenicians
the near neighbours of the Jews
would not eat
the flesh of them; hence Antoninus is said to abstain from it after the manner
of the PhoeniciansF7Herodian. Hist. l. 5. c. 16.
unless the
historian should mean the Jews; also the Gallo-Grecians or GalatiansF8Pausan.
Achaica
sive
l. 7. p. 430. ; nay
even the Indians have such an abhorrence of
it
that they would as soon taste of human flesh as taste of thatF9Ctesias
apud Aelian. de Animal. l. 16. c. 37.
and it is well known that the Mahometans
abstain from it; and they have such an aversion to it
that if any chance to
kill a wild pig
for tame they have none
they look on the merit of it to be
almost equivalent to the killing a Christian in fightF11Pitts's
Account of the Mahometans
p. 163. : now these creatures may be an emblem of
filthy and impure sinners
especially apostates
who return to their former
impurities and wallow in them
2 Peter 2:22.
Leviticus 11:8.
8 Their flesh you shall not
eat
and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.
YLT 8`Of their flesh ye do not eat
and against
their carcase ye do not come -- unclean they [are] to you.
Of their flesh shall ye not eat
.... Meaning
not of
swine only
but of the camel
coney
and hare:
and their carcass shall ye not touch; which must
not be understood of touching them in any sense; for then it would have been
unlawful for a Jew to have rode upon a camel
or to take out and make use of
hog's lard in medicine; but of touching them in order to kill them
and prepare
them for food
and eat them; and indeed all unnecessary touching of them is
forbidden
lest it should bring them to the eating of them; though perhaps it
may chiefly respect the touching of them dead:
they are unclean to you: one and all of them; for
as this was said of each of them in particular
so now of all of them together;
and which holds good of all wild creatures not named
to whom the description
above belongs
and which used to be eaten by other nations; some of which were
called Pamphagi
from eating all sorts
and others Agriophagi
from eating wild
creatures
as lions
panthers
elephantsF12Plin. l. 6. c. 30.
Solinus
c. 43.
&c.
Leviticus 11:9. 9 ‘These
you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins
and scales
whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat.
YLT 9`This ye do eat of all which [are] in the
waters; any one that hath fins and scales in the waters
in the seas
and in
the brooks
them ye do eat;
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters
.... In the
waters of the sea
or in rivers
pools
and ponds; meaning fishes; for though
some persons abstain from eating them entirely
as the Egyptian priests
as
HerodotusF13Euterpe
sive
l. 2. c. 37. relates; and it was a part
of religion and holiness
not with the Egyptians only
but with the Syrians and
Greeks
to forbear eating themF14Plutarch. Sympos. p. 730. ; and
JulianF15Orat. 5. p. 330. gives two reasons why men should abstain
from fishes; the one because what is not sacrificed to the gods ought not to be
used for food; and the other is
because these being immersed in the deep
waters
look not up to heaven; but God gave the people of Israel liberty of
eating them
under certain limitations:
whatsoever hath fins and scales
in the waters
in the seas
and
in the rivers
them shall ye eat; some render it
disjunctively
"fins or scales"F16So Bootius. ; but as
MaimonidesF17Hilchot Maacolot Asurot
l. 1. sect. 24. observes
whatsoever has scales has fins; and who also says
if a fish has but one fin
and one scale
it was lawful to eat: fins to fishes are like wings to birds
and oars to boats
with which they swim and move swiftly from place to place;
and scales are a covering and a protection of them; and such fishes being much
in motion
and so well covered
are less humid and more solid and substantial
and more wholesome: in a spiritual sense
fins may denote the exercise of
grace
in which there is a motion of the soul
Godward
Christward
and heavenward;
and scales may signify good works
which adorn believers
and protect them from
the reproaches and calumnies of men.
Leviticus 11:10. 10 But
all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales
all that
move in the water or any living thing which is in the water
they are
an abomination to you.
YLT 10and any one that hath not fins and scales in
the seas
and in the brooks
of any teeming creature of the waters
and of any
creature which liveth
which [is] in the waters -- an abomination they [are] to
you;
And all that have not fins nor scales in the seas
and in the
rivers
.... Such as eels
lampreys
&c.
of all that move in the waters
and of any living thing which is
in the waters; the former of these are interpreted by Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom
of little fishes that have but a small body
and such as are created out of the
waters; and the latter
of such as are produced of a male and female; or
as
MaimonidesF18Hilchot Maacolot Asuret
l. 1. c. 2. sect. 12. explains
it
the one signifies the lesser creatures
such as worms and horse leeches;
the other greater ones
sea beasts
as sea dogs
&c.
they shall be an abomination to you; not only unclean
and so
unfit to eat
but to be had in abhorrence and detestation
as being exceeding
disagreeable and unwholesome; and
as a learned man observesF19Scheuchzer.
ut supra
(Physic. Sacr. vol. 2.) p. 287.
to these prohibited in general
belong all those animals in lakes
rivers
or seas
which are of a slow motion
and which
because of the slow motion of their bodies
do not so well digest
their food; and for that may be compared with four footed beasts that have but
one belly
and so unwholesome as they.
Leviticus 11:11. 11 They shall be an
abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh
but you shall regard their
carcasses as an abomination.
YLT 11yea
an abomination they are to you; of their
flesh ye do not eat
and their carcase ye abominate.
They shall be even an abomination to you
.... This is
repeated again and again
to deter from the eating of such fishes
lest there
should be any desire after them:
ye shall not eat of their flesh
here mention is made of
the flesh of fishes
as is by the apostle
1 Corinthians 15:39.
Aben Ezra observes
that their wise men say
this is according to the usage of
words in those ages:
but you shall have their carcasses in abomination; not only
abstain from eating them and touching them
but to express the utmost aversion
to them.
Leviticus 11:12. 12 Whatever
in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination
to you.
YLT 12`Any one that hath not fins and scales in the
waters -- an abomination it [is] to you.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters
.... Which is
repeated that they might take particular notice of this law
and be careful to
observe it
this being the only sign given:
that shall be an abomination unto you; the Targum of
Jonathan says
that not only the flesh of such fish
but the broth
and pickles
made of them
were to be an abomination; which contradicts what PlinyF20Nat.
Hist. l. 31. c. 8. relates
that the Jews made a pickle of fishes that lacked
scales; so Grotius understands him: this law of the Jews is taken notice of by
PorphyryF21De Abstinentia
l. 4. c. 14.
who says
it is forbidden
all the Jews to eat horse flesh
or fishes that lack scales
or any animal that
has but one hoof: and PlinyF23Nat. Hist. l. 32. c. 2.
from an
ancient author
Cassius Hemina
makes mention of a law of Numa
forbidding the
use of fish that had not scales
in feasts made for the gods.
Leviticus 11:13. 13 ‘And
these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be
eaten
they are an abomination: the eagle
the vulture
the buzzard
YLT 13`And these ye do abominate of the fowl; they
are not eaten
an abomination they [are]: the eagle
and the ossifrage
and the
ospray
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among
the fowls
.... No description or sign is given of fowls
as of beasts and
fishes
only the names of those not to be eaten; which
according to
Maimonides
are twenty four; so that all the rest but these are clean fowls
and might be eaten; wherefore the same writer observesF24Maacolot
Asurot
c. 1. sect. 14
15.
that
"whoever was expert in these kinds
and
in their names
might eat of every fowl which was not of them
and there was no
need of an inquiry:'but what creatures are intended by these is not now easy to
know; very different are the sentiments both of the Jews and Christians
concerning them; and indeed it does not much concern us Christians to know what
are meant by them
but as curiosity may lead us to such an inquiry
not
thinking ourselves bound by these laws; but it is of moment with the Jews to
know them
who think they are; wherefore
to supply this deficiency
they
venture to give some signs by which clean and unclean fowls may be known
and
they are three; such are clean who have a superfluous claw
and also a craw
and a crop that is uncovered by the handF25T. Bab. Cholin
fol. 75.
1. Maimon. ib. sect. 15. ; and on the contrary they are unclean
and not to be
eaten
as says the Targum of Jonathan
which have no superfluous talon
or no
craw
or a crop not uncovered:
they shall not be eaten
they are an abomination; and they are
those that follow:
the eagle
and the ossifrage
and the ospray; about the
first of these there is no difficulty
all agree the eagle is intended; which
has its name either from the nature of its sight
or from the casting of its
feathers
or from its tearing with its bill: it is a bird of prey
a very
rapacious creature
and sometimes called the bird of Jupiter
and sacred to the
gods; and these may be the reasons why forbid to be eaten
as well as because
its flesh is hard
and not fit for food
and unwholesome; "the
ossifrage" or "bone breaker" has its name from its tearing its
prey and breaking its bones for the marrow
as the word "peres" here
used signifies
Micah 3:3 it is
said to dig up bodies in burying places to eat what it finds in the bonesF26Calmet's
Dictionary in the word "Ossifraga". : this is thought to be of the
eagle kind
as it is reckoned by PlinyF1Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 3.
though AristotleF2Hist. Animal. l. 6. c. 6. l. 8. c. 3. & l. 9.
c. 34. speaks of it as very different from the eagle
as larger than that
and
of an ash colour; and is so kind to the eagle's young
that when they are cast
out by that
it takes them and brings them up: the "ospray" is the
"halioeetus"
or sea eagle
as the Septuagint version and several
others render it; which AristotleF3Ib. l. 9. c. 32. describes as
having a large and thick neck
crooked wings
and a broad tail
and resides
about the sea and shores: PlinyF4Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 3.)
speaks of it as having a very clear sight
and
poising itself on high
having
sight of a fish in the sea
will rush down at once and fetch it out of the
water; and he also reports that she will take her young before they are
fledged
and oblige them to look directly against the rays of the sun
and if
any of them wink
or their eyes water
she casts them out of her nest as a
spurious brood. AristotleF5Ib. c. 34.
who relates the same
says
she kills them. The name of this creature
in the Hebrew text
seems to be
taken from its strength; wherefore BochartF6Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2.
c. 6. col. 188. is of opinion
that the "melanoeetos"
or black
eagle
which
though the least of eagles as to its size
exceeds all others in
strength
as both AristotleF7Ut supra
(Hist. Animal. l. 9.) c. 32.
and PlinyF8Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 3.) say; and therefore
as the latter observes
is called by the Romans "valeria"
from its
strength. MaimonidesF9Maacolot Asurot
c. 1. sect. 17. says of these
two last fowls
which we render the ossifrage and the ospray
that they are not
to be found on the continent
but in the desert places of the isles of the sea
very far off
even those which are at the end of the habitable world.
Leviticus 11:14. 14 the
kite
and the falcon after its kind;
YLT 14and the vulture
and the kite after its kind
And the vulture
and the kite after his kind. Perhaps it
might be better if the version was inverted
and the words be read
"and
the kite
and the vulture
after his kind"; and the last word is by us
rendered the vulture in Job 28:7 and very
rightly
since the kite is not remarkable for its sight
any other than all
rapacious creatures are
whereas the vulture is to a proverb; and besides
of
the vulture there are two sorts
as Aristotle saysF11Hist. Animal.
l. 8. c. 3.
the one lesser and whiter
the other larger and more of an ash
colour; and there are some that are of the eagle kindF12Aristot. ib.
l. 9. c. 32. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 3. Aelian. de Animal. l. 2. c. 46.
whereas there is but one sort of kites; though Ainsworth makes mention of two
the greater of a ruddy colour
common in England
and the lesser of a blacker
colour
known in Germany
but produces no authority for it; however
these are
both ravenous creatures: of the kite
Aelianus saysF13De Animal. l.
2. c. 42.
it is very rapacious
and will take meat out of the meat market
but not touch any sacrificed to Jupiter; the truth of which may well be
questioned; and of vultures he reportsF14Ib. c. 46.
that they will
watch a dying man
and follow armies going to battle
expecting prey; See Gill
on Matthew 24:28.
Leviticus 11:15. 15 every
raven after its kind
YLT 15every raven after its kind
Every raven after his kind. The red raven
night
raven
the water raven
river raven
wood raven
&c. this also includes
crows
rooks
pies
jays
and jackdaws
&c. The raven was with the Heathens
sacred to ApolloF15Aelian. De Animal. l. 1. c. 48. & l. 7. c.
18.
is a voracious creature
and so reckoned among unclean ones
and unfit
for food; nor does the care that God takes of these creatures
or the use he
has made of them
contradict this; see Job 38:41.
Leviticus 11:16. 16 the
ostrich
the short-eared owl
the sea gull
and the hawk after its kind;
YLT 16and the owl
and the night-hawk
and the
cuckoo
and the hawk after its kind
And the owl
.... The great and little owls being after mentioned
it seems
best
by the word here used
to understand the "ostrich" with the
Septuagint
Vulgate Latin
the Oriental versions
and the Targums of Onkelos
and Jonathan: the account which PlinyF16Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 1. Vid.
Aristot. de Part. Animal. l. 4. c. 14. gives of the African and Ethiopic
ostriches is this; that they are the largest of birds
and almost of the kind
of beasts; that they exceed the height of a horseman on horseback
and are
swifter than the horses; that their wings are given them to help them in their
running
otherwise they are not flying fowls
nor are they lifted up from the
earth. Their hoofs are like to those of harts
with which they fight
and are
cloven
and serve to gather up stones
which in their flight they throw with
their feet against them that follow them; they have a wonderful concoction
digesting whatever is swallowed down; and
according to GalenF17Apud
Bochart. Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2. c. 14. col. 226.
all the parts of them
their flesh and their eggs
are hard and difficult of digestion
and
excermentitious: Aben Ezra saysF18Pirush in Exod. xxiii. 19.
their
flesh is as dry as a stick
and it is not usual to eat it
for there is no
moisture in it; and therefore nothing can be eaten of the whole species
but
the daughter or young one
for that being a female and little
there is some
moisture in it; but not so the male when little; wherefore as the flesh of this
creature is always reckoned by the Jews as unlawful to be eaten
it may the
rather be supposed to be intended here
since if not here
it cannot be thought
to be any where observed; and yet we find that both the eggs and the flesh of
this creature have been eaten by some people: their eggs with the Indians were
reckoned delicate eating
as AelianusF19De Animal. l. 14. c. 13.
reports; and near the Arabians and Ethiopians were a people
as both Diodorus
SiculusF20Bibliothec. l. 3. p. 162. and StraboF21Geograph.
l. 16. p. 531. relate
who were called Struthophagi
from their living on
ostriches; and they eat them in Peru
where they are commonF23Calmet's
Dictionary in the word "Ostrich". ; and in several parts of Africa
as Nubia
Numidia
and Lybia
as Leo AfricanusF24Descriptio Africae
l. 6. p. 601
605
613. l. 9. p. 766. relates:
and the night hawk; which
according to PlinyF25Nat.
Hist. l. 10. c. 8.
is sometimes called "cymindis"
and is seldom to
be found in woods
sees not so well in the day time
and wages a deadly war
with the eagle
and they are often found joined together: BochartF26Ut
supra
(Apud Bochart. Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2.) c. 15. col. 235. who thinks
that the female ostrich is meant by the preceding bird
is of opinion that the
male ostrich is meant here
there being no general name in the Hebrew language
to comprehend both sexes:
and the cuckoo; a bird well known by its voice at least:
some have thought it to be the same with the hawk
changing its figure and
voice; but this has been refuted by naturalistsF1Aristot. Hist.
Animal. l. 6. c. 7. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 9. : but though it is here
forbidden to be eaten
yet its young
when fat
are said to be of a grateful
savour by Aristotle: and PlinyF2Ibid. says
no bird is to be
compared to it for the sweetness of its flesh
though perhaps it may not be
here intended: the word is by the Septuagint rendered a "sea gull"
and so it is by Ainsworth
and which is approved of by BochartF3Ut
supra
(Apud Bochart. Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2. c. 15.) col. 26. :
and the hawk after his kind; a well known bird
of
which
according to AristotleF4Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 36.
there
are not less than ten sorts: PlinyF5Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 8. says
sixteen; it has its name in Hebrew from flying
it being a bird that flies very
swiftly; see Job 39:26 the hawk
was a symbol of deity with the Egyptians
and was reverenced and worshipped by
themF6Plutarch. de Iside & Osyr. Strabo. Geograph. l. 17. p.
559
562. Diodor. Sicul. l. 1. p. 78. Clement. Alex. Stromat. l. 5. p. 566. .
Leviticus 11:17. 17 the
little owl
the fisher owl
and the screech owl;
YLT 17and the little owl
and the cormorant
and
the great owl
And the little owl
and the cormorant
and the great owl. Ainsworth
translates the words just the reverse
and takes the first word to signify the
great owl
and the last the little one; the great owl may intend the great horn
owl
called sometimes the eagle owl
which is thus described; it is of the size
of a goose
and has large wings
capable of extending to a surprising breadth:
its head is much of the size and figure of that of a cat
and has clusters of
black feathers over the ears
rising to three fingers' height; its eyes are
very large
and the feathers of its rump long
and extremely soft; its eyes have
yellow irises
and its beak black and crooked: it is all over mottled with
white
reddish
and black spots; its legs are very strong
and are hairy down
to the very ends of the toes
their covering being of a whitish brownF7Ray's
Ornithol. p. 63. apud Supplement to Chambers's Dictionary in the word
"Bubo". : and as this is called the great horn owl
others
in
comparison of it
may be called the little owl. Some reckon several species of
owls--there are of three sizes; the large ones are as big as a capon
the
middle sized are as big as a wood pigeon
the smaller sort about the size of an
ordinary pigeon--the horned owl is of two kinds
a larger and a smaller--the
great owl is also of two sorts
that is
of a larger and a smaller kindF8Calmet's
Dictionary in the word "Owl". ; it is a bird sacred to Minerva: but
though it is pretty plain that the last of the words used signifies a bird that
flies in the twilight of the evening
from whence it seems to have its name
as
Aben Ezra
Ben Gersom
and other Jewish writers observe
and fitly agrees with
the owl which is not seen in the day
but appears about that time; yet the
first is thought by BochartF9Ut supra
(Apud Bochard. Heirozoic.
par. 2. l. 2.) c. 20. col. 275. to be the "onocrotalus" or
"pelican"
which has under its bill a bag or sack
which will hold a
large quantity of anything; and the word here used has the signification of a
cup or vessel
see Psalm 102:6. The
word we render "cormorant"
the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan
paraphrase it
a drawer of fish out of the sea
so Baal Hatturim; and thus it
is interpreted in the TalmudF11Bab. Cholin
fol. 63. 1. ; and the
gloss upon it says
this is the water raven
which is the same with the
cormorant; for the cormorant is no other than "corvus aquaticus"
or
water raven; See Gill on Zephaniah 2:14. The
Septuagint render it by "catarrhactes"
which
according to the
description of itF12
resides by rocks and shores that hang over
water; and when it sees fishes swimming in it
it will fly on high
and
contract its feathers
and flounce into the water
and fetch out the fish; and
so is of the same nature
though not the same creature with the cormorant. Aben
Ezra observes
that some say this is a bird which casts its young as soon as
born; and this is said of the "catarrhactes"
that it lets down its
young into the sea
and draws them out again
and hereby inures them to this
exerciseF13Ibid. .
Leviticus 11:18. 18 the
white owl
the jackdaw
and the carrion vulture;
YLT 18and the swan
and the pelican
and the gier
eagle
And the swan
.... This is a bird well known to us
but it
is a question whether it is intended by the word here used; for though it is so
rendered in the Vulgate Latin
it is differently rendered by many others: the
Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem call it "otia"
which seems to be
the same with the "otus" of AristotleF14Hist. Animal. l.
8. c. 12. Vid. Plin. l. 10. c. 23.
who says it is like an owl
having a tuft
of feathers about its ears (from whence it has its name); and some call it
"nycticorax"
or the owl; and here
by BochartF15Ut supra
(Apud Bochard Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2.) c. 23.
and others
the owl called
"noctua" is thought to be meant; and with which agrees the account
some Jewish writers give of it
as Aben Ezra and Baal Hatturim
who say it is a
bird
which every one that sees is astonished at it
as other birds are at the
owl
are frightened at the sight of it
and stupefied. But as the same word is
used Leviticus 11:30
among the creeping things
for a mole
what Jarchi observes is worthy of
consideration
that this is "calve (chauve) souris" (the French word
for a bat)
and is like unto a mouse
and flies in the night; and that which is
spoken of among the creeping things is like unto it
which hath no eyes
and
they call it "talpa"
a mole. The Septuagint version renders it by
"porphyrion"
the redshank; and so Ainsworth; and is thought to be
called by the Hebrew name in the text
from the blowing of its breath in
drinking; for it drinks biting
as Aristotle saysF16Ut supra
(Hist.
Animal. l. 8.) c. 6. so Plin. l. 10. c. 46. :
and the pelican; which has its name in Hebrew from vomiting;
being said by Aben Ezra and Baal Hatturim to be a bird that vomits its food;
and it is observed by several naturalistsF17Aristot. Hist. Animal.
l. 9. c. 10. Aelian. de Animal. l. 3. c. 20
Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 40.
of the pelican
that it swallows down shellfish
and after they have lain some
time in its stomach
it vomits them up again; where having been heated
the
shells open
and it picks out the meat:
and the gier eagle; or vulture eagle
the "gypoeetos"
of AristotleF18Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 32.
and who says it is
called also "oripelargos"
or the mountain stork; and which PlinyF19Nat.
Hist. l. 10. c. 3. also makes to be an eagle of the vulture kind. Dr. Shaw saysF20Travels
p. 449. Ed. 2.
that near Cairo there are several flocks of the "ach bobba"
(white father
differing little from the stork but in its colour)
the
"percnopterus" or "oripelargos"
which like the ravens
about London feed upon carrion
and nastiness that is thrown without the city;
this the Arabs call "rachama"
the same with רחם
Leviticus 11:18 and
רחמה in Deuteronomy 14:17
and whatever bird is here meant
it must be one that is tender toward its
young
as its name signifies
as Aben Ezra and Baal Hatturim observe; and
though both the eagle and the vulture are rapacious birds
yet have a great
regard to their young; of the eagle see Deuteronomy 32:11
and the vulture
with the Egyptians
was an "hieroglyphic" of a
tender mother
or any merciful person; it being reported of it
that during the
one hundred twenty days its young are under its care
it very rarely flies from
them
being so solicitous of nourishing them; and that by making incisions in
its thigh
it lets out a bloody flow of milk
when it has nothing else to
support themF21. The TalmudistsF23T. Bab. Cholin
fol.
63. 1. say
that the bird "racham"
as it is here called
is the same
with "serakrak"
and is by the Targum of Jonathan
and in the Syriac
version
here rendered "serakraka"
so called from שרק
which signifies to "squall"; and
according
to MunsterF24Dictionar. Chald. p. 4. 18.
is thought by some to be
the "pica"
magpie
or rather the jay; and Dr. ShawF25Travels
p. 183. observes
that by a small transmutation of letters
that and the
"shagarag" of the Arabs are the same; which he says is of the size
and shape of a jay
though with a smaller bill
and shorter legs; the back is
brownish; the head
neck
and belly
of a light green; and upon the wings and
tail there are several spots or ringlets of a deep blue; it makes a
"squalling" noise; and
he adds
it has no small affinity both in
voice and plumage with the jay. The Septuagint version renders the word by the
"swan"; which if not intended by the first word in this text
may by
this
being kind to its young
though otherwise reckoned a cruel and unmerciful
bird
as BochartF26 observes; some think the woodpecker is meant
so
called from its love to its parentsF1Plin. l. 10. c. 33. .
Leviticus 11:19. 19 the
stork
the heron after its kind
the hoopoe
and the bat.
YLT 19and the stork
the heron after its kind
and
the lapwing
and the bat.
And the stork
..... A bird of passage
Jeremiah 8:7 it has
its name from kindness
which it exercises both to its dam
and to its young.
Various writersF2Aristot. Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 13. Aelian. de
Animal. l. 3. c. 23. & l. 10. c. 16. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 23. speak
of the kindness of these birds to their dams
which when they are old they take
care of and feed them
to which the apostle is thought to allude
1 Timothy 5:4 and
its tenderness to its young is no less manifest: when the city of Delf in
Holland was on fire
the storks were seen very busy to save their young from
the flames
and which when they could not do
threw themselves into the midst
of them
and perished with them
as Drusius from the Dutch historians relates.
It is said to feed upon serpents; and hence by VirgilF3Georgic. l.
2. to be "invisa colubris"; and JuvenalF4Satyr. 14. says
it nourishes its young with them; and which may be a reason of its being forbid
to be eaten
and is the reason given by the MahometansF5Apud
Bochart. ut supra
(Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2.) c. 29. col. 329. for the
prohibition of it; though on this account it was in great honour in Thessaly
that country being freed from serpents by it
and therefore they made it a
capital crime to kill them
as PlinyF6Ut supra. (Plin. Nat. Hist. l.
10. c. 23.) relates; formerly people would not eat the stork
but at present it
is much esteemed for the deliciousness of its fleshF7Calmet in the
word "Stork". .
the heron after her kind; this bird has its name
in Hebrew from its being soon angry
as Aben Ezra observes; and Jarchi calls it
the angry vulture or kite
as it is in the TalmudF8T. Bab. Cholin
fol. 63. 1. ; and adds
and it appears to me to be what they call the
"heron"
one sort of which named "asterias"
as there is
one sort so called by PlinyF9; it becomes tame in Egypt
and so well
understands the voice of a man
as AelianusF11De Animal. l. 5. c.
36. reports
that if anyone by way of reproach calls it a servant or slothful
it is immediately exceeding angry. There are three kinds of herons
as both
AristotleF12Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 1. and PlinyF13Ut
supra. (Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 23.) ; and by a learned man of oursF14Ainsworth's
Dictionary
in voce "Ardea".
their names are thus given
the criel
or dwarf heron
the blue heron
and the bittour; some reckon nineteen:
and the lapwing; the upupa or hoopoe; it has its name in Hebrew
according to Jarchi
from its having a double crest; and so PlinyF15Nat.
Hist. l. 10. c. 29. ascribes to it a double or folded crest
and speaks of it
as a filthy bird; and
according to AristotleF16Hist. Animal. l. 9.
c. 15. and AelianF17De Animal. l. 3. c. 26.
its nest is chiefly
made of human dung
that by the ill smell of it men may be kept from taking its
young; and therefore may well be reckoned among impure fowl. CalmetF18Dictionary
in the word "Lapwing". says
there is no such thing as a lapwing to
be seen in any part of England; but there are such as we call so
whether the
same bird with this I cannot say:
and the bat; a little bird which flies in the night
Aben Ezra says; KimchiF19Sepher
Shorash. in voc. עטלף. describes it a mouse with wings
which flies in the night
and we sometimes call it the "flitter
mouse"; it is a creature between a fowl and a beast; and
as Aristotle
saysF20De Part. Animal. l. 4. c. 13.
it partakes of both
and is
of neither; and it is the only fowl
as PlinyF21Nat. Hist. l. 10. c.
61. l. 11. c. 37. observes
that has teeth and teats
that brings forth
animals
and nourishes them with milk. It is a creature so very disagreeable
that one would think almost there was no need of a law to forbid the eating of
it; and yet it is said by some to be eatable
and to be eaten
as StraboF23Geograph.
l. 16. affirms
yea
to be delicious food. It is assertedF24Calmet's
Dictionary in the word "Bat".
that there is a sort of them in the
east
larger than ordinary
and is salted and eaten--that there are bats in
China as large as pullets
and are as delicate eating. Of these several fowls
before mentioned
some are of the ravenous kind
and are an emblem of
persecutors and covetous persons
and such as live by rapine and violence;
others are of a lustful nature
and are an emblem of those who serve various
lusts and pleasures
and give up themselves to uncleanness; others are night
birds
and are a proper emblem of them whose works are works of darkness
and
love darkness rather than the light; and others never rise higher than the
earth
and so may denote earthly minded persons; and others live on impure
things
and so fitly represent such who live an impure life; with all such the
people of God are to have no fellowship.
Leviticus 11:20. 20 ‘All
flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to
you.
YLT 20`Every teeming creature which is flying
which is going on four -- an abomination it [is] to you.
All fowls that creep
.... Or rather
"every creeping thing that flies"; for what are designed are not
properly fowls
but
as the Jewish writers interpret them
flies
fleas
bees
wasps
hornets
locusts
&c. so the Targum of Jonathan
Jarchi
Ben Gersom
and MaimonidesF25Maacolot Asurot
c. 2. l. 5. :
going upon all four; that is
upon their four
feet
when they walk or creep:
these shall be an abomination
to you; not used as food
but detested as such.
Leviticus 11:21. 21 Yet
these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those
which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth.
YLT 21`Only -- this ye do eat of any teeming thing
which is flying
which is going on four
which hath legs above its feet
to
move with them on the earth;
Yet these may ye eat
.... Which are after
described and named:
of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four; even though
it is a creeping thing that flies and goes upon four feet
provided they be
such:
which have legs above their feet
to leap withal upon the earth; there is a
double reading of this clause; the textual reading is
"which have not
legs"
and is followed by several interpreters and translators; and the
marginal reading
which we follow
is
"which have legs"; and both
are to be regarded as true
and written by Moses
as Ainsworth observes; for
locusts are born without legs
and yet creep low
as Pliny assertsF26Nat.
Hist. l. 11. c. 29.
and they have them afterwards; and it is a canon of the
Jews
that what have not legs or wings now
or have not wings to cover the
greatest part of them
but shall have after a time when grown up
these are as
free (to eat) now
as when grown upF1Maimon. ib. c. 1. sect. 23. .
Dr. Shaw thinksF2Travels
p. 420. the words may bear this
construction
"which have knees upon" or "above their hinder
legs
to leap withal upon the earth"; and applying this to the locust
afterwards
and only instanced in
he observes
that this has the two
hindermost of its legs and feet much stronger
larger
and longer than any of
the foremost. In them the knee
or the articulation of the leg and thigh
is
distinguished by a remarkable bending or curvature
whereby it is able
whenever prepared
to jump
to spring
or raise itself up with great force and
activity. And these AristotleF3De Part. Animal. l. 4. c. 6. calls
the leaping parts; and though he attributes to the locust six feet
as does
also PlinyF4Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 48.
yet he takes the two leaping
parts into the account; whereas Moses distinguishes those two from the four
feet; and so AustinF5Retract. l. 2. c. 15. observes
that Moses does
not reckon among the feet the two hinder thighs with which locusts leap
which
he calls clean
and thereby distinguishes them from such unclean flying
creatures which do not leap with their thighs
such as beetles; and so the
Jewish writers always describe a clean locust as having four feet
and two
legs
thighs
or knees. MaimonidesF6Maacolot Asurot
c. 1. sect. 22.
gives three signs of them
which are these
whatsoever has four feet and four
wings
which cover the greatest part of its body in length
and the greatest part
of the compass of it
and has two thighs or knees to leap with
they are of the
clean kind; and although its head is long
and it hath a tail
if its name is
"chagob" (a locust) it is clean.
Leviticus 11:22. 22 These
you may eat: the locust after its kind
the destroying locust after its kind
the cricket after its kind
and the grasshopper after its kind.
YLT 22these of them ye do eat: the locust after its
kind
and the bald locust after its kind
and the beetle after its kind
and
the grasshopper after its kind;
Even these of them
ye may eat
&c. The four following ones
which seem to be no other than
four sorts of locusts:
the locust after his kind; this is the common
locust
called by the name of Arbeh
from the great multiplication and vast
multitudes of them; the phrase
"after his kind"
and which also is
used in all the following instances
signifies the whole entire species of
them
which might be eaten:
and the bald locust after his kind; which in the Hebrew text
is Soleam
and has its name
as Aben Ezra suggests
from its ascending rocks:
but since locusts do not climb rocks
or have any peculiar regard for them
rather this kind of locust may be so called
from their devouring and consuming
all that come in their wayF7So R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed
fol. 88. 1.
from the Chaldee word סלעם
which signifies to
swallow
devour
and consume; but why we should call it the bald locust is not
so clear
though it seems there were such
since the Jews describe some that
have no baldness
which the gloss explains
whose head is not baldF8T.
Bab. Cholin
fol. 65. 2.
which shows that some are bald; and so
this is
described by KimchiF9Sepher Shorash. in voc. סלעם.
it has an eminence
a rising
or bunch upon it; some render it baldness
and
it hath no tail
and its head is long; and so Ben Melech:
and the beetle after his kind; which is another sort of
locust called Chargol
and should not be rendered a beetle
for no sort of
beetles are eatable
nor have legs to leap withal
and so come not under the
general description given of such flying
creeping things
fit to eat: Kimchi
says it is one kind of a locustF11Ib. in voc. חרגול.
and Hiscuni derives its name from תחד and רגל
because it strives to leap with its feet
which
answers to the above descriptive character: the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin
versions
and some others
render it by Ophiomachus
a fighter with serpents
to which the locust is an enemy
and kills them
taking fast hold of their
jaws
as Pliny saysF12Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 29.)
and so
AristotleF13Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 6. :
and the grasshopper after his kind; this is another
and the
fourth kind of the locust that might be eaten; its name is Chagab
from the
Arabic word Chaguba
"to vail"
locusts vailing the light of the sun:
and according to the Jewish doctors
it is a name which every locust fit to eat
should have;"among the locusts (fit for food) are these
who have four
feet
and four wings and thighs
and wings covering the greatest part of them
and whose name is ChagabF14Misn. Cholin
c. 3. sect. 7. ;'and
commentators sayF15Maimon. & Bartenora in ib.
it must be
called by this name
as well as have those signs: the difference between these
several sorts is with them this; the Chagab has a tail
but no bunch; Arbeh
neither bunch nor tail; and Soleam has a bunch
but not a tail; and Chargol has
both bunch and tailF16Vid. T. Bab. Cholin
fol. 65. 2. : MaimonidesF17Maacolot
Asurot
c. 1. sect. 21. reckons up eight sorts of them fit to eat; and these
creatures were not only eaten by the Jews
but by several other nations: with
the Parthians they were very agreeable and grateful food
as PlinyF18Nat.
Hist. l. 11. c. 29. relates; who also saysF19Ib. l. 6. c. 30.
that
some part of the Ethiopians live only upon them all the year
hardened in
smoke
and with salt: Diodorus SiculusF20Bibliothec. l. 3. p.
162
163. makes mention of the same
and calls them Acridophagi
locust eaters
and gives a particular account of their hunting and taking them
and preserving
them for food; and so does StraboF21Geograph. l. 16. p. 531. ; and
the same SolinusF23Polyhistor. c. 43. relates of those that border
on Mauritania; and they are still eaten in Barbary
where they dry them in
ovens to preserve them
and then either eat them alone
or pounded and mixed
with milk: their taste is said to be like shrimpsF24Sir Hans
Sloane's Natural History of Jamaica
vol. 1. p. 29. ; and BochartF25Hierozoic.
par. 2. l. 4. c. 7. Colossians 490
491. has shown
from various writers
that they were a delicious food with the Greeks
especially among the common people; and so they are with the IndiansF26Agreement
of Customs of the East Indians and Jews
art. 12. p. 60. .
Leviticus 11:23. 23 But
all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an
abomination to you.
YLT 23and every teeming thing which is flying
which hath four feet -- an abomination it [is] to you.
But all other flying creeping things
.... Excepting
the four sorts before mentioned
wherefore we rightly supply the word
"other":
which have four feet; or more; the Vulgate
Latin version adds
"only"
but wrongly; for those that have more are
unclean
and forbidden to be eaten
excepting those in the preceding verse; and
most creeping things that fly have six feet
as the locusts themselves
reckoning their leaping legs into the number; though it may be observed
that
those creatures that have six feet have but four equal ones
on which they walk
or creep; and the two foremost
which are longer
are as hands to them to wipe
their eyes with
and protect them from anything that may fall into them and
hurt them; they not being able to see clearly because of the hardness of their
eyes
as AristotleF1Ut supra. (Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 6.) observes
and particularly it may be remarked of the fly
as it is by LucianF2De
Musca.
that though it has six feet it only goes on four
using the other two
foremost as hands; and therefore you may see it walking on four feet
with
something eatable in its hands
lifting them up on high
just after the manner
of men: now all such creatures that have four feet or more
excepting the
above:
shall be an abomination
unto you; abhorred as food
and abstained from.
Leviticus 11:24. 24 ‘By
these you shall become unclean; whoever touches the carcass of any of them
shall be unclean until evening;
YLT 24`And by these ye are made unclean
any one
who is coming against their carcase is unclean till the evening;
And for these ye shalt be unclean
.... That is
for eating
them; or should they eat them they would be unclean:
whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until the
even; not only he was unclean that ate them
but he that even touched
their dead bodies was reckoned unclean; might not go into the tabernacle
nor
have conversation with men
nor eat of the holy things
which were forbid men
in any uncleanness; and though there is no mention of his washing himself
it
may be understood
this being a short or concise way of speaking
as Aben Ezra
observes; who adds
that it was necessary that he should wash himself in water;
which was typical of washing and cleansing by the grace and blood of Christ
without which a man cannot be cleansed from the least sin
and pollution by it;
and may signify that during the legal dispensation there was no proper
cleansing from sin
until the evening of the world
when Christ came and shed
his blood for the cleansing of it.
Leviticus 11:25. 25 whoever
carries part of the carcass of any of them shall wash his clothes and be
unclean until evening:
YLT 25and anyone who is lifting up [aught] of their
carcase doth wash his garments
and hath been unclean till the evening: --
And whosoever beareth ought of the carcass of them
.... That
carries them from one place to another
out of the camp
city
village
or
house or field where they may lie; and though this is done with a good design
as being offensive or infectious
yet such an one
shall wash his clothes
and be unclean until the even; from whence
both Jarchi and Aben Ezra infer
that the pollution by hearing or carrying is
greater than that by touching; since such a man
so defiled
was obliged to
wash his clothes as well as his body; so saints
that have contracted pollution
by any manner of sin
are to wash their garments and make them white in the
blood of the Lamb
Revelation 7:14.
Leviticus 11:26. 26 The carcass of any animal which
divides the foot
but is not cloven-hoofed or does not chew the cud
is
unclean to you. Everyone who touches it shall be unclean.
YLT 26even every beast which is dividing the hoof
and is not cloven-footed
and the cud is not bringing up -- unclean they [are]
to you; any one who is coming against them is unclean.
The carcasses of every beast
which divideth the hoof
and is not cloven footed
.... As the
camel:
nor cheweth the cud; though it may divide the
hoof
as the swine; and on the other hand
such as may chew the cud
and yet
not dividing the hoof
as the coney and hare; for the Scripture here
as Aben
Ezra observes again
uses a short and concise way of speaking: these
are unclean unto you; to be
reckoned by them such
and neither to be eaten nor touched:
everyone that toucheth them shall be unclean; until the
evening; and obliged to washing
though not expressed: this is not to be
understood of touching them while alive
as some Sadducees or Karaites
understand it
according to Aben Ezra; for camels
horses
mules
&c. might
be
and were rode upon
and so touched; but of them when dead
or their
carcases
as is rightly supplied in the beginning of the verse; and the Jewish
writersF3Misn. Edaiot
c. 6. sect. 3. & Maimon. & Bartenora
in ib. understand this of the flesh of the carcass only
not of the bones
horns
and hoofs
which
they say
do not defile
only the flesh: this is
repeated from Leviticus 11:8.
Leviticus 11:27. 27 And
whatever goes on its paws
among all kinds of animals that go on all
fours
those are unclean to you. Whoever touches any such carcass shall
be unclean until evening.
YLT 27`And any one going on its paws
among all the
beasts which are going on four -- unclean they [are] to you; any one who is
coming against their carcase is unclean until the evening;
Whatsoever goeth upon his paws
.... Or "the
palms"F4על כפיו
"super volas suas"
Pagninus
Montanus
"super manus suas"
Munster
Tigurine version
Drusius. of his hands; meaning such creatures
whose
feet are not divided into two parts
but into many
like the fingers of an
hand
as apes
lions
bears
wolves
foxes
dogs
cats
&c.
among all manner of beasts that go on all four; this is
added
to distinguish them from fowl
such as are clean; who walk but on two
feet
though their feet are divided into fingers or talons
and may be called
hands on which they walk:
these are unclean unto you: and as they might not be
eaten
so neither touched
as follows:
whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean until the even; See Gill on Leviticus 11:24.
Leviticus 11:28. 28 Whoever
carries any such carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until
evening. It is unclean to you.
YLT 28and he who is lifting up their carcase doth
wash his garments
and hath been unclean until the evening -- unclean they
[are] to you.
And he that beareth the carcass of them
.... Carries
it upon any account
from place to place:
shall wash his clothes
and be unclean until the even; as he that
bore the carcasses of any of the flying creeping things
Leviticus 11:25.
they are unclean to you; even the carcasses of
the one and of the other; and to all the Israelites
men
women
and children
as Aben Ezra observes.
Leviticus 11:29. 29 ‘These
also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the
earth: the mole
the mouse
and the large lizard after its kind;
YLT 29`And this [is] to you the unclean among the
teeming things which are teeming on the earth: the weasel
and the mouse
and
the tortoise after its kind
These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping
things that creep upon the earth
.... As distinguished
from those creeping things that fly
these having no wings as they; and which
were equally unclean
neither to be eaten nor touched
neither their blood
their skin
nor their flesh
as the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it: and the
Misnic doctors sayF4Misn. Meilah
c. 4. sect. 3. that the blood of a
creeping thing and its flesh are joined together: and MaimonidesF5Pirush.
in ib. observes
that this is a fundamental thing with them
that the blood of
a creeping thing is like its flesh; which in Siphre (an ancient book of theirs)
is gathered from what is said in Leviticus 11:29
"these shall be unclean"
&c. hence the wise men say
the blood
of a creeping thing pollutes as its flesh: the creeping things intended are as
follow:
the weasel
and the mouse
and the tortoise after his kind; the first of
these
"the weasel"
a creature well known; there are two sorts of
it
as PlinyF6Nat. Hist. l. 29. c. 4. says
the field weasel
and
the house weasel; the former are called by the Jewish writers the weasel of the
bushesF7Misn. Celaim
c. 8. sect. 5.
and the latter the weasel
that dwells in the foundations of housesF8T. Bab. Cholin
fol. 20.
2. ; and of the former there was a doubt among some of them whether it was a
species of the eight reptiles in Leviticus 11:29 or
whether it was a species of animalsF9Maimon. in Misn. ib. ; and
which
Maimonides says
is a species of foxes like to weasels: BochartF11Hierozoic.
par. 1. l. 3. c. 95. col. 1022. thinks the mole is intended; but the generality
of interpreters understand it of the weasel; and so Jarchi and Kimchi
and
Philip AquinasF12Sepher Shorash. & Aquinas in rad. חלד.
interpret it by "mustela"
the weasel:
however
all agree the second is rightly interpreted "the mouse";
which has its name in Hebrew from its being a waster and destroyer of fields;
an instance of which we have in 1 Samuel 6:5; see
Gill on 1 Samuel 6:5; so
that this sort may be chiefly intended
though it includes all others
who are
distinguished by their colours
the black
the red
and the white
which are
all mentioned by Jonathan in his paraphrase of the text: this animal
as a
learned physicianF13Scheuchzer. Physic. Sacr. vol. 2. p. 307.
expresses it
eats almost everything
gnaws whatever it meets with
and
among
other things
is a great lover of swine's flesh
which was an abomination to
the Jews; nor does it abstain from dung
and therefore it is no wonder it
should be reckoned among impure creatures; and yet we find they were eaten by
some people
see Isaiah 66:17
especially the dormouse; for which the old Romans made conveniences to keep
them in
and feed them
and breed them for the tableF14Varro de re
Rustic. l. 3. c. 14. apud Sir Hans Sloane's History of Jamaica
vol. 1.
Introduct. p. 24. : so rats in the West Indies are brought to market and sold
for food
as a learned authorF15Sir Hans Sloane
ib. p. 25. of
undoubted credit assures us
who was an eyewitness of it: the last in this
text
"the tortoise"
means the land tortoise; it has its name from
the shell with which it is covered
this word being sometimes used for a
covered wagon
Numbers 7:3 there
are various kinds of them
as PlinyF16Nat. Hist. l. 9. c. 10. &
l. 32. c. 4. and other writers observe
and who
as StraboF17Geograph.
l. 16. p. 532. and MelaF18De Situ Orbis
l. 3. c. 8. also
speak of
a people they call Chelonophagi
or tortoise eaters: a tortoise of the land
kind is esteemed a very delicate dish: Dr. ShawF19Travels
p. 178.
speaking of the land and water tortoises in Barbary
says
the former
which
hides itself during the winter months
is very palatable food
but the latter
is very unwholesome: the Septuagint version renders it
the "land
crocodile"
which
is approved of by BochartF20Ut supra
(Hierozoic. par. 1.) l. 4. c. 1. : and Leo Africanus saysF21Descriptio
Africae
l. 9. p. 762.
that many in Egypt eat the flesh of the crocodile
and
affirm it to be of good savour; and so BenzonF23Nov. Orb. Hist. c.
3. says
its flesh is white and tender
and tastes like veal; though some among
them
as StraboF24Geograph. l. 17. p. 558
560
561
563. asserts
have a great antipathy and hatred to them; and others worship them as gods
and
neither can be supposed to eat them; the land crocodiles are eaten by the
Syrians
as JeromF25Adv. Jovin. l. 2. affirms
for those feeding on
the sweetest flowers
as is said
their entrails are highly valued for their
agreeable odour: Jarchi says
it is a creature like a frog; he means a toad; so
Philip Aquinas and many render the word: Dr. Shaw takes the creature designed
to be the sharp-scaled tailed lizardF26Ut supra. Travels
p. 178 .
Leviticus 11:30. 30 the
gecko
the monitor lizard
the sand reptile
the sand lizard
and the
chameleon.
YLT 30and the ferret
and the chameleon
and the lizard
and the snail
and the mole;
And the ferret
.... Whatever creature is here meant
it has
its name in Hebrew from the cry it makes; and so the ferret has but one note in
its voice
which is a shrill
but small
whining cry: it is used to drive
rabbits out of their holes: the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions render
the word by "mygale"
the weasel mouse
or "mus areneus" of
the Latins
the shrew or shrew mouse: it has something of the mouse and weasel
from whence it has its name in Greek
being of the size of the one
and the
colour of the other: but BochartF2 is of opinion
that a sort of
lizard called "stellio"
an evet or newt
is meant; one sort of
which
according to PlinyF3
makes a bitter noise and screaking:
and the chameleon; this is a little
creature like a lizard
but with a larger and longer head; it has four feet
and on each foot three claws; its tail is long; with this
as well as with its
feet
it fastens itself to the branches of trees; its tail is flat
its nose
long
and made in an obtuse point; its back is sharp
its skin plaited and
jagged like a saw
from the neck to the last joint of the tail
and upon its
head it hath something like a comb; in other respects it is made like a fish;
that is to say
it has no neckF4; what is said of its living on air
and changing colour according to what it is applied
are now reckoned vulgar
mistakes: but whatever creature is here meant
it seems to have its name in
Hebrew from its strength
wherefore BochartF5 takes the
"guaril" or "alwarlo" of the Arabs to be meant; which is
the stoutest and strongest sort of lizard
and is superior in strength to
serpents
and the land tortoise
with which it often contends:
and the lizard; so Jarchi interprets the word by a
"lizard"; it has a larger letter than usual in it
that this creature
might be taken notice of
and guarded against as very pernicious
and yet with
some people it is eaten: Calmet saysF6
there are several sorts of
lizards
which are well known: there are some in Arabia of a cubit long
but in
the Indies there are some
they say
of twenty four feet in length: in America
where they are very good
they eat them: one lizard is enough to satisfy four
men: and so in the West Indies
says Sir Hans SloaneF7
I was
somewhat surprised to see serpents
rats
and lizards sold for food
and that
to understanding people
and of a very good and nice palate; and elsewhereF8
he says
all nations inhabiting these parts of the world (the West Indies) do
the same: "Guanes" or "lizards" are very common in Jamaica
and eaten there
and were of great use when the English first took this island
being
as I was assured
says he
commonly sold by the first planters for half
a crown apiece: Dr. ShawF9 says
that he was informed that more than
40
000 persons in Cairo
and in the neighbourhood
live upon no other food than
lizards and serpents
though he thinksF11
because the chameleon is
called by the Arabs "taitah"
which differs little in name from לטאה
"letaah"
here; that therefore that
which
is indeed a species of the lizard
might
with more propriety
be substituted
for it:
and the snail; so the word is rendered by Jarchi
on the
place
and by Kimchi
and Philip Aquinas
and David de Pomis
in their
lexicons; and these creatures
though forbid to the Jews
yet are not only used
for medicine
but also for food by many: snails of several kinds
we are told
are eaten with much satisfaction in Italy and France: in Silesia they make
places for the breeding of them at this day
where they are fed with turnip
tops
&c. and carefully preserved for the market; and the Romans took care
of them in the same mannerF12: BochartF13 thinks a kind
of lizard is meant
which lies in sand
called by the Arabs "chulaca"
or "luchaca"
because the word here used signifies
in the TalmudicF14
language
sandy ground:
and the mole; and so it is interpreted by Onkelos and
Jarchi here
and by David de Pomis
and Philip Aquinas
in their lexicons: the
same word is used for a certain sort of fowl
which we translate the
"swan"; Leviticus 11:18 but
here of a creeping thing: whatever is intended by it
it seems to have its name
from its breath; either in a contrary signification
if understood of the mole
which either holds its breath
or breathes not while under ground; or from its
breathing more freely
wherefore BochartF15 takes it to be the
"chameleon"; which
as PlinyF16 says
is always gaping
with its mouth for air; and it has been a vulgar notion
though a wrong one
that it lives upon it: the Targum of Jonathan interprets it by the
"salamander"; now whoever ate any of the above eight creeping things
according to the Jewish canons
was to be beatenF17.F2 Ut
supra
(Hierozoic. par. 1.) l. 4. c. 2.F3 Nat. Hist. l. 29. c. 4.F4
Calmet
in the word "Chameleon".F5 Ut supra
(Hierozoic.
par. 1. l. 4.) c. 3.F6 Dictionary
in the word "Lizard"
Vid. Hieron. adv. Jovinian. l. 2.F7 Natural History of Jamaica
vol.
1. Introduct. p. 25.F8 Ibid. vol. 2. p. 333.F9 Travels
p. 412.F11 Ibid. p. 178.F12 Sir Hans Sloane's Nat. Hist.
ib. p. 23
24.F13 Ut supra
F5) c. 5.F14 T.
Bab. Sabbat
fol. 31. 1. Gloss. in fol. 54. 1.F15 Ut supra
(Hierozoic.
par. 1. l. 4.) c. 6.F16 Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 33.F17
Maimon. Maacolot Asurot
c. 2. sect. 7.
Leviticus 11:31. 31 These are unclean
to you among all that creep. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be
unclean until evening.
YLT 31these [are] the unclean to you among all
which are teeming; any one who is coming against them in their death is unclean
till the evening.
These are unclean to you of all that creep
.... Unfit for
food
and not to be touched
at least when dead
as in the next clause
that
is
these eight sorts of creeping things before mentioned
as the Targum of
Jonathan expresses it
and these only
as Maimonides saysF18:
whosoever doth touch them when they are dead shall be unclean
until the even; for touching them while alive did not defile
only when dead;
and this the Jews interpret
while they are in the case in which they died
that is
while they are moist; for
as Ben Gersom says
if they are so dry
as
that they cannot return to their moisture
they do not defile; for which
reason
neither the bones
nor nails
nor nerves
nor skin of these creeping
things
defile; but
they sayF19
while the back bone is whole
and
the bones cleave to it
then a creeping thing is reckoned moist
and while it
is so it defiles.F18 Hilchot
Abot Hatumaot
c. 4. sect. 14.F19
Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Niddah
c. 7. sect. 1.
Leviticus 11:32. 32 Anything
on which any of them falls
when they are dead shall be unclean
whether
it is any item of wood or clothing or skin or sack
whatever item it
is
in which any work is done
it must be put in water. And it shall
be unclean until evening; then it shall be clean.
YLT 32`And anything on which any one of them
falleth
in their death
is unclean
of any vessel of wood or garment or skin
or sack
any vessel in which work is done is brought into water
and hath been
unclean till the evening
then it hath been clean;
And upon whatsoever any of them
when they are dead
doth
fall
it shall be unclean
.... Any of the above eight creeping things
that is
of their flesh
for as for their bones
nails
nerves
and skin
as
before observed
being separated from them and dry
they do not defile:
whether it be any vessel of wood
or raiment
or skin
or
sack; every wooden vessel
as the Targum of Jonathan; and all sorts of
clothes
of woollen
linen
or silk
and all sorts of skins
excepting skins of
sea beasts; for these
according to the JewsF20
received no
pollution; and also sacks or sackcloth
made of goats' hair
and the like:
whatsoever vessel it be
wherein any work is done; any tool or
instrument made use of by any artificer in his trade
or any vessel wrought by
him:
it must be put into water; dipped into it
even
into forty seahs of water
according to the Targum of Jonathan; and which is to
be understood
not of any working tool
or finished vessel only
but of any
vessel of wood
raiment
skin
or sack
before mentioned:
it shall be unclean until the even; even though put into
water and washed:
so it shall be cleansed; in the above manner
by
being put or dipped into water; or "afterwards"
as the Septuagint
when it has been dipped and the even is come
and not before.F20
Bartenora in Misn. Celaim
c. 17. sect. 13.
Leviticus 11:33. 33 Any
earthen vessel into which any of them falls you shall break; and
whatever is in it shall be unclean:
YLT 33and any earthen vessel
into the midst of
which [any] one of them falleth
all that [is] in its midst is unclean
and it
ye do break.
And every earthen vessel
whereinto any of them falleth
.... Any of
the above eight reptiles
should they by chance fall into the midst an earthen
vessel:
whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; if it only by
falling touched the outside of it
it was not unclean; but if it fell into it
then whatever was contained in it was unclean; for
as Jarchi says
an earthen
vessel does not pollute or receive pollution
but from the air of itF21
from its inside:
and ye shall break it; other vessels might be
put into water and rinsed
and so be cleansed
but earthen vessels
being of no
great value
were to be broken in pieces: an emblem this
as Ainsworth
suggests
of the dissolution of our bodies
which are as earthen vessels
and
of the destruction of sin thereby
and of the entire removal of it by death.F21
Vid. Misn. Celaim
c. 2. sect. 1. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib.
Leviticus 11:34. 34 in
such a vessel
any edible food upon which water falls becomes unclean
and any
drink that may be drunk from it becomes unclean.
YLT 34`Of all the food which is eaten
that on
which cometh [such] water
is unclean
and all drink which is drunk in any
[such] vessel is unclean;
Of all meat which may be eaten
.... Which otherwise is
lawful to eat and fit for food
whether herbs
or whether the flesh of clean
creatures:
that on which such
water cometh shall be unclean; that is
such water as is put into an
unclean vessel
become so by the fall of any unclean reptile into it; wherefore
such water poured out upon any sort of food
clean and fit to eat
or that is
put into such water
to be dressed
it becomes unclean and unfit to eat; for
the vessel
being unclean
defiles the water
and the water defiles the food:
Jarchi interprets this of water in general
which coming upon anything eatable
prepares it for uncleanness; "we learn (says he) that no food is fit and
prepared to receive defilement until water comes upon it once; and after it is
come upon it once
it receives defilement for ever
even though it becomes
dry;' but the former seems to be the true sense:
and all drink that may be drank in every such vessel shall be
unclean; whatever otherwise might be lawfully drank
yet being put into
such a vessel
into which any unclean reptile was fallen
or being in it when
it fell into it
became unclean and not fit to be drank; and those liquors
which receive uncleanness
and make meats unclean by coming on them
according
to the Misnic doctorsF23
are these seven
dew
water
wine
oil
blood
milk
and honey.F23 Misn. Machshirin
c. 6. sect. 4.
Leviticus 11:35. 35 And
everything on which a part of any such carcass falls shall be
unclean; whether it is an oven or cooking stove
it shall be broken
down; for they are unclean
and shall be unclean to you.
YLT 35and anything on which [any] of their carcase
falleth is unclean (oven or double pots)
it is broken down
unclean they
[are]
yea
unclean they are to you.
And everything whereupon any part of their carcass falleth
shall be unclean
.... Before the Scripture seems to speak of anyone of the
reptiles perfect
that falling upon anything should pollute it; but here of any
part of them
though ever so small
which should
through any accident
fall
and light upon anything
even that would render it unclean and unfit for use:
whether it be oven
or
ranges of pots; the one to bake bread in
and the other to boil flesh in
as
Aben Ezra observes:
they shall be broken down; and no more made use of
for baking and boiling:
for they are unclean
and
shall be unclean to you; were made hereby unfit for use
and should not be used: the
Jewish writersF24 explain the phrase
"to you"
to your
necessity
that which they had need of
but now should not use nor receive
advantage from; even "to you"; all men
women
and children
as
Hiskuni interprets it: all this was ordered to create in them an abhorrence of
these creatures
and to make them cautious of eating and touching them
and
careful that they come not nigh
or touched
or fell upon anything
since it
would give them so much trouble
as well as occasion loss.F24
Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Edaiot
c. 7. sect. 8.
Leviticus 11:36. 36 Nevertheless
a spring or a cistern
in which there is plenty of water
shall be
clean
but whatever touches any such carcass becomes unclean.
YLT 36`Only -- a fountain or pit
a collection of
water
is clean
but that which is coming against their carcase is unclean;
Nevertheless
a fountain or pit
wherein there is plenty of
water
.... Or
"a fountain or pit
a collection of waters"
the copulative being wanting
as some observe
Aben Ezra takes notice of; or it
may be by way of apposition
and so may explain what fountain or pit is meant
even such an one where there is a large continence of water
into which
if any
carcass of a creeping thing fell
or any part of it
yet it
shall be clean: and fit for use
either because of the
abundance of water in it
which could not be affected with the fall of such a
creature into it as where there is but a small quantity; or rather this
exception was made
because pools of water were of considerable value in these
countries
and frequently in use for bathings
&c. and therefore for the
good of men
and that they might not suffer so great a loss by such an
accident
they are declared notwithstanding to be clean and free for use: hence
you may learn
says Jarchi
that he that dips in them is pure from his
uncleanness; that a man might lawfully make use of them for a bath on account
of any uncleanness
notwithstanding the carcass of a creeping thing had fallen
into it; as a mouse
or rat
or any such creature:
but that which toucheth their carcass shall be unclean; not the
waters which touch the carcass
as Aben Ezra interprets it
for then the whole
would be defiled
and unfit for use; but either the man that touched the
carcass
laid hold upon it to pluck it out of the fountain or pit
or that
which he made use of to get it out
or both these
were unclean in a ceremonial
sense: the Targum of Jonathan is
"but he that toucheth their carcasses in
the midst of these waters shall be unclean.'
Leviticus 11:37. 37 And
if a part of any such carcass falls on any planting seed which is to be
sown
it remains clean.
YLT 37and when [any] of their carcase falleth on
any sown seed which is sown -- it [is] clean;
And if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed
that is to be sown
.... That which is selected from the other seed in order to be
sown
and which is laid by and laid up for that purpose; should the carcass
or
any part of the carcass of a creeping thing fall upon an heap of it
into a
vessel in which it was put
as a dead mouse or the like:
yet it shall be clean; be fit for
use and sown in the earth; because being cast into the earth
and dying and
quickening there
and then springing up again in stalk and ear
it would go
through various changes before it became the food of man: the Targum of
Jonathan describes it
such as is sown in its dryness
or being dry; for if it
was wetted it was unfit for use
as follows.
Leviticus 11:38. 38 But
if water is put on the seed
and if a part of any such carcass
falls on it
it becomes unclean to you.
YLT 38and when water is put on the seed
and [any]
of its carcase hath fallen on it -- unclean it [is] to you.
But if any water be put upon the seed
.... Either
accidentally or on purpose; whether on sowing seed
and with water with which
they water the field
as Aben Ezra interprets it; or on seed used for food
by
steeping it in water
as sometimes wheat is
and boiled; and whether it is
water or the rest of the liquors
and whether they are put on the seed
or the
seed falls into them
it matters not
as Jarchi says:
and any part of their carcass fall thereon; that is
on
the seed
though Aben Ezra observes
some say upon the water: the Targum of
Jonathan adds
in its moisture
or while it is wet; and so may be thought to be
more susceptible of impurity from the touch of a dead reptile
or any part of
it
and which would render it unfit for sowing or eating
until it was dried
and cleansed; yea
Jarchi says
if it falls thereon
even after it is dried:
it shall be unclean unto you; unfit for use.
Leviticus 11:39. 39 ‘And
if any animal which you may eat dies
he who touches its carcass shall be
unclean until evening.
YLT 39`And when any of the beasts which are to you
for food dieth
he who is coming against its carcase is unclean till the
evening;
And if any beast of which ye may eat die
.... Any clean
beast
as the ox
sheep
goat
deer
&c. what
if rightly killed
is very
lawful to eat of; but if it died of itself through any distemper
or was torn
by the wild beasts
so the Targum of Jonathan:
he that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the
even; not the bones
nerves
horns
hoofs
or skin
as Jarchi
observes; these might be handled
because some of them
at least
were wrought
up into one instrument or another
by artificers
for use and service
but the
flesh of them might not be touched; whoever did touch it was ceremonially
unclean
and might not go into the sanctuary
or have conversation with men
until the evening of the day in which this was done.
Leviticus 11:40. 40 He
who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. He
also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until
evening.
YLT 40and he who is eating of its carcase doth wash
his garments
and hath been unclean till the evening; and he who is lifting up
its carcase doth wash his garments
and hath been unclean till the evening.
And he that eateth of the carcass of it
.... For
though it might be eaten
if rightly killed
yet not if it died of itself
or
was strangled
or torn to pieces by wild beasts:
shall wash his clothes; besides his body
which
even he that touched it was obliged to:
and be unclean until the even; though he and his
clothes were washed
and he might not go into the court of the tabernacle
or
have any concern with holy things
or conversation with men:
he also that beareth the carcass of it; removes it
from one place to another
carries it to the dunghill
or a ditch
and there
lays it
or buries it in the earth:
shall wash his clothes
and be unclean until the even; from whence
as before observed by the Jewish writers
uncleanness by bearing is greater
than uncleanness by touching
since the former obliged to washing of clothes
not so the latter; so Jarchi here; and yet still was unclean until the evening
though he had washed himself in water
as Aben Ezra notes; and so says Jarchi
though he dips himself
he has need of the evening of the sun.
Leviticus 11:41. 41 ‘And every creeping thing
that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten.
YLT 41`And every teeming thing which is teeming on
the earth is an abomination
it is not eaten;
And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth
.... Nothing
is called a creeping thing
as Jarchi says
but what is low
has short feet
and is not seen unless it creeps and moves: and "every creeping
thing" comprehends
as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom observe
the eight
creeping things before mentioned
Leviticus 11:29 and
mention is made of them here
that they might not be eaten
which is not
expressed before; and being described as creeping things "on the
earth"
is
according to Jarchi
an exception of worms in pease
beans
and lentiles; and
as others observe
in figs and dates
and other fruit; for
they do not creep upon the earth
but are within the food; but if they go out
into the air
and creep
they are forbidden:
shall be an abomination; detested and
abhorred as food:
it shall not be eaten; it shall not be lawful
to eat such a creature. This
as Jarchi
is binding upon him that causes
another to eat
as well as he that eats
the one is guilty as the other. And
indeed such are not fit to eat
and cannot be wholesome and nourishing; for
as
a learned physician observesF25
insects consist of particles
exceeding small
volatile
unfit for nourishment
most of them live on unclean
food
and delight in dung
and in the putrid flesh of other animals
and by
laying their little eggs or excrements
corrupt honey
syrups
&c. see Ecclesiastes 10:1
and yet some sorts of them are eaten by some people. Sir Hans Sloane
after
having spoken of serpents
rats
and lizards
sold for food to his great
surprise at Jamaica
addsF26
but what of all things most unusual
and to my great admiration
was the great esteem set on a sort of
"cossi" or timber worms
called cotton tree worms by the negroes and
the Indians
the one the original inhabitants of Africa
and the other of
America; these
he saysF1
are sought after by them
and boiled in
their soups
pottages
olios
pepper pots
and are accounted of admirable
taste
like to
but much beyond marrow; yea
he observesF2
that not
they only
but the most polite people in the world
the Romans
accounted them
so great a dainty
as to feed them with meal
and endeavour breeding them up.
He speaksF3 also of ants
so large as to be sold in the markets in
New Granada
where they are carefully looked after
and bought up for food; and
says
the negroes feed on the abdomen of these creatures: he observesF4
that field crickets were found in baskets among other provisions of the
Indians.F25 Scheuchzer. Physic. Sacr. vol. 2. p. 302.F26
Nat. Hist. of Jamaica
vol. 1. Introduct. p. 25.F1 Ib. vol. 2. p.
193.F2 Introduct. ut supra.F1) Vid. Plin. l. 17. c. 24.
& Aelian. de Animal. l. 14. c. 13.F3 Ib. vol. 2. p. 221
223.F4
Ib. p. 204. Vid. Aristotel. Hist. Animal. l. 5. c. 30.
Leviticus 11:42. 42 Whatever
crawls on its belly
whatever goes on all fours
or whatever has many
feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth—these you shall not eat
for they are an abomination.
YLT 42any thing going on the belly
and any going
on four
unto every multiplier of feet
to every teeming thing which is teeming
on the earth -- ye do not eat them
for they [are] an abomination;
Whatsoever goeth upon the belly
.... Jarchi's paraphrase
is
"whatsoever goeth"
as worms and beetles
and the like to them
"upon the belly"
this is the serpent; and to go upon the belly is the
curse denounced upon it
Genesis 3:14 this
and every such creature are forbidden to be eaten; as there are others who
either have no feet
or what they have so short
that they seem to go upon
their belly; and yet
as horrible and detestable as the serpent is
it has been
the food of some
and accounted very delicious
as by a people mentioned by the
Arabic geographerF5. MelaF6 speaks of a people
who
from
their eating serpents
were called Ophiophagi
serpent eaters; and PlinyF7
says of the Troglodytes
that the flesh of serpents was their food. The
Spaniards
when they first found out the West Indies
going ashore on the isle
of Cuba
found certain spits of wood lying at the fire
having fish on them
about one hundred pound weight
and two serpents of eight feet long
differing
nothing from the crocodiles in Egypt
but not so big; there is nothing
says my
authorF8
among the delicate dishes (of the natives of that place)
they esteem so much as these serpents
insomuch that it is no more lawful for
the common people to eat of them
than of peacocks and pheasants among us; the
Spaniards at first durst not venture to taste of them
because of their
horrible deformity and loathsomeness; but the brother of Columbus being allured
by a sister of one of the kings of the country to taste of them
found them
very delicious
on which he and his men fell to
and ate freely of them
affirming them to be of more pleasant taste than either our pheasants or
partridges; and that there is no meat to be compared with the eggs of these
serpentsF9. Diodorus SiculusF11 speaks of serpents in the
island of Taprobane of great size
harmless to men
and whose flesh is eaten
and of a sweet savour:
and whatsoever goeth upon all four; that is
whatsoever creeping thing; for otherwise there are beasts that go upon all four
that are clean and fit to eat; but this is observed to distinguish this sort of
creeping things from those that go upon their belly
and from those that have
more feet
as in the next clause; Jarchi particularly instances in the
scorpion:
or whatsoever hath mere feet among all creeping things that creep
upon the earth; such as caterpillars
and particularly the Scolopendra
which
the eastern people call Nedal; so Jarchi says
this is Nedal
a reptile which
hath feet from its head to its tail
called Centipeda; and the Targum of
Jonathan is
"from the serpent
to the Nedal or Scolopendra
which has
many feet.' Some of then
have seventy two
thirty six on a side
and others
eighty four; some fewer
but all have many:
them ye shall not eat
for they are an abomination; abominable
for food
and to be had in the utmost aversion.F5 Clim. 1. par. 6.F6
De Situ Orbis
l. 3. c. 8.F7 Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 8.F8
Peter Martyr de Angleria
Decad. 1. l. 3.F9 Ib. l. 5.F11
Bibliothec. l. 3. p. 141.
Leviticus 11:43. 43 You
shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor
shall you make yourselves unclean with them
lest you be defiled by them.
YLT 43ye do not make yourselves abominable with any
teeming thing which is teeming
nor do ye make yourselves unclean with them
so
that ye have been unclean thereby.
Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing
that creepeth
.... With any creeping thing that flies in the air
excepting the
four sorts of locusts
Leviticus 11:22 and
with any creeping thing in the waters
Leviticus 11:10 or
with anything that creeps on the land
by eating any of them; which being
abominable for food
would make the eater of them so to God
he thereby
breaking a command of his:
neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them; by touching
and bearing them
as with dead beasts
so with dead flies and the like:
that ye should be defiled thereby; in a ceremonial sense.
Leviticus 11:44. 44 For
I am the Lord
your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves
and you shall be holy; for
I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing
that creeps on the earth.
YLT 44`For I [am] Jehovah your God
and ye have
sanctified yourselves
and ye have been holy
for I [am] holy; and ye do not
defile your persons with any teeming thing which is creeping on the earth;
For I am the Lord your God
.... Their Lord
and
therefore had a right to enjoin them what laws he pleased concerning their
food; and their God
their covenant God
and therefore would consult their
good
and direct them to what was most proper
convenient
and wholesome for
them:
ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves
and ye shall be holy
for
I am holy; that is
separate themselves from all other people
and be distinct
from them
by using a different diet from theirs
as their Lord and God was
different from all others
so called; and thus by observing his commands
and
living according to his will
and to his glory
they would be holy in a moral
sense
as they ought to be
who were under the peculiar care and notice of a
holy God
and so highly favoured by him; and particularly by attending to the
above laws concerning food
they would be kept from mixing with
and having
conversation with the Gentiles
and so be preserved from falling into idolatry
and continue a holy people
serving and worshipping the Lord their God
and him
only; and which seems to be a principal view as to religion
in delivering out
the above commands:
neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth; which is repeated to
keep them at the utmost distance from these things
and to fill them with an
aversion to them
that they might be careful to avoid them. There is no penalty
annexed to these laws
but the breach of them making them unclean
thereby they
were debarred the use of the sanctuary
and of holy things
and of the
conversation of men
for that day; but
according to the Jewish writers
such
transgressions were punishable with stripes. Jarchi observes out of the TalmudF12
that he that eateth "putitha" (a small water reptile) was to be
beaten four times
and if an ant or pismire five times
and if a wasp or hornet
six times.F12 T. Bab. Erubin
fol. 28. 1. Pesachim
fol. 24. 1.
Maccot
fol. 16. 2.
Leviticus 11:45. 45 For
I am the Lord
who brings you up out of the land of Egypt
to be your God. You shall therefore
be holy
for I am holy.
YLT 45for I [am] Jehovah who am bringing you up out
of the land of Egypt to become your God; and ye have been holy
for I [am]
holy.
For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt
.... He had
brought them out of it
and was now bringing them on in the wilderness towards
Canaan's land
in order to settle them there; and this is observed
to show
what obligations they lay under to him to observe his commands; for since he
had done such great things for them
it became them to be obedient to him in
all things: and the more
since his end herein was
as he observes to them
to be your God; to make it appear that he was their God
and they were his special people
whom he had chosen for himself above all
people upon the earth; that he was their King and their God
to protect and
defend them
to provide for them
and take care of them
and bestow all good
things on them proper for them:
ye shall therefore be holy
for I am holy; separate from
all others as he was
living holy lives and conversations
agreeably to his
will made known to them
in imitation or him who had chosen and called them to
be his people; for
since holiness is his nature
it becomes them who are his
house and family
his subjects and people.
Leviticus 11:46. 46 ‘This
is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that
moves in the waters
and of every creature that creeps on the earth
YLT 46`This [is] a law of the beasts
and of the
fowl
and of every living creature which is moving in the waters
and of every
creature which is teeming on the earth
This is the law of the beasts
.... Clean and
unclean
what were to be eaten
and what not
and of the fowl; Leviticus 11:2 the
unclean ones
which are particularly mentioned that they might be avoided
all
others excepting them being allowed:
Leviticus 11:13.
and of every living creature that moveth in the waters; all sorts of
fish in the sea
rivers
ponds
and pools
such as have fins and scales
these
were to be eaten
but
if they had neither
were forbidden:
Leviticus 11:9.
and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth; eight of
which are mentioned particularly
which
when dead
defiled by touching; and
all others are forbidden to be eaten
Leviticus 11:29
together with such creeping things that fly
excepting those that had legs
above their feet to leap with
Leviticus 11:20
This is a recapitulation of the several laws respecting them
though not in the
exact order in which they are delivered in this chapter.
Leviticus 11:47. 47 to
distinguish between the unclean and the clean
and between the animal that may
be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.’”
YLT 47to make separation between the unclean and
the pure
and between the beast that is eaten
and the beast that is not
eaten.'
To make a difference between the unclean and the clean
.... Whether
of beasts
fish
fowl
and flying creeping things:
and between the beast that may be eaten
and the beast that may
not be eaten; the former clause takes in all in general
this instances in a
particular sort of creatures; and the first mentioned of which
that might be
eaten
are
that part the hoof
are cloven footed
and chew the cud; and that
might not
that chew the cud
but divide not the hoof
or divide the hoof
but
chew not the cud; and now
by such like descriptions and distinctions of the
creatures treated of
the Israelites would be able to make a difference between
the one and the other
and know what was to be eaten
and what not.
──《John Gill’s
Exposition of the Bible》