Commentary on Leviticus, Book · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
MOSES having mentioned, in his preceding Diſcourſe about Sacrifices, ſeveral ſorts of Uncleanneſs, (V. 2, 3.) and in the foregoing Chapter (X. 10.) commanded the Prieſts to keep themſelves ſober, that they might at all times be able to diſtinguiſh between clean and unclean, takes an occaſion from thence, to give an account of that matter. For otherwiſe, that which we read (Chapter XVI.) would here have moſt naturally followed (as appears from the 11th Verſe of it) being about the principal Sacrifice, whereby all manner of Uncleanneſs was to be expiated; which he now inſerts in the midſt of thoſe things, that belong to that head. For firſt, he treats in this Chapter of unclean Meats; and in the XII, XIII, XIV, XVth of unclean Perſons, Garments, and Habitations. And then, (after he hath directed how to make the great Atonement for the whole Nation, and ſome other things) he returns in the latter end of the XVIIth Chapter, to ſpeak of ſome forbidden Food; and Chapter XVIIIth of unclean Marriages: And after a Repetion of ſeveral Laws (Chapt. XIX.) of ſome greater Uncleanneſſes: and Chapt. XXI. of Priests that were unclean: and laſtly, of Sacrifices not fit to be offered, Chap. XXII.
Ver. 1. Verſe 1 And the LORD ſpake unto Moſes and to Aaron, ſaying unto them.] The Conſecration of Aaron being now compleatly finiſhed, God ſpake to him, as well as unto Moſes; he being alſo highly concerned to teach the People the difference that is here made between ſeveral ſorts of Meats, (X. 11.) which Moſes aſſures them was enacted by Divine Authority.
Ver. 2. Verſe 2 Speak unto the Children of Iſrael, ſaying.] They were all to take ſpecial notice of what follows, becauſe by the Diet here preſcribed, they were diſcriminated from all other People in the World.
Theſe are the beaſts that ye ſhall eat, among all the beaſts that are on the earth.] God having beſtowed upon Mankind, after the Flood, every living thing to be their Food, IX Gen. 3. it hath raiſed a queſtion among learned Men, why God ſhould limit and reſtrain his own People from the benefit of this general Grant. And ſome have thought this ſo unaccountable, that they have ſaid it is in vain to enquire into the reaſon of the difference that is made here of Meats: concerning which P. Cunaeus declares (as Plutarch doth of the Laws of Solon and Lycurgus) that no doubt they were enacted with wiſe Counſel; but the reaſon of the Authors cannot be known, Lib. II. de Republ. Hebraeorum, cap. 24. But others think the reaſon is plain enough; and the Jews are of opinion that the Creatures, here called unclean, were forbidden to be eaten, becauſe they were unwholſome Food. So Maimonides diſcourſes at large, in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 48. where he ſaith there can be no doubt, that every thing here prohibited, yields a bad Nouriſhment, except it be Swines-fleſh and fat: and yet he endeavours to ſhow, that there is no reaſon to think otherwiſe of thoſe two. R. Levi of Barcelona is of the ſame mind, but pretends not to be able to demonſtrate it as Maimonides doth. For the Sum of a long and pious Diſcourſe, which he hath upon this Subject (Praecept. LXXIX. where he treats of that Fleſh which was torn by wild Beaſts) amounts to this: That the Body being the Seat of the Soul, where it doth its buſineſs, God would have it fitted to the Deſires and Imployments of the Soul. And therefore the Law, ſaith he, removes from us all thoſe things which may hinder the Soul in its operations. For which reaſon ſuch and ſuch Meats are forbidden, as breed ill Blood: among which, if there be ſome whoſe hurtfulneſs is neither viſible to us, nor to Phyſicians, do not wonder at it; for the faithful Phyſician who forbids them, is wiſer than any of us.
This opinion I cannot think to be wholly groundleſs: for though there be ſome Creatures here prohibited, which ſeem to us of as good Nouriſhment, as thoſe which are allowed; yet conſidering that Climate wherein the Jews lived, and the temper of their Blood, which was very hot, and apt to be extreamly corrupted, (as appears by the unuſual Leproſie to which they were obnoxious, more than other Nations) it is reaſonable to conclude that God had ſome reſpect to this, in the ordering of their Diet. See J. Wagenſeil Confut. Carminis R. Lipmanni, p. 556. Yet I cannot think this to have been the chief reaſon of this Law (though it be very agreeable to the peculiar care God had of this People, that he ſhould not only give them Civil and Sacred Laws, but direct them in the ſmalleſt Matters, as he did in their Apparel, Building, &c.) but the main drift and ſcope of it was, that the Iſraelites might be ſeparated from all other Nations in the World, by a Diet peculiar to themſelves: which kept them from ſuch a familiar Converſation, as otherwiſe they might have had with the Gentiles; and conſequently from learning their idolatrous Cuſtoms. And I do not ſee why I ſhould not add, moſt of the Creatures, which are reckoned unclean, were ſuch as were in high eſteem and ſacred among the Heathen. As a Swine was to Venus, the Owl to Minerva, the Hawk to Apollo, the Eagle to Jupiter, and even the Dog to Hecate, &c. Whence Origen juſtly falls into an high admiration of Moſes his wiſdom; who ſo perfectly underſtood all Animals, and what relation they had to Daemons, that he pronounced all thoſe to be unclean, foreign, &c. which were eſteemed by the Egyptians, and other Nations, to be the Inſtruments of Divination; and thoſe to be clean, which were not ſo, Lib. IV. contra Celſum, p. 225. And if in Moſes his time ſuch Creatures were not ſacred to Daemons, it is a greater wonder that he ſhould mark thoſe out for impure, which proved to be ſo ſacred in after Ages: As a great number of Birds mentioned by Porphyry (Lib. III. foreign) who ſaith the Gods uſed them as foreign, to declare their mind to Men: and ſeveral other Creatures, mentioned by other Authors, as peculiarly appropriated to other Deities.
Many have diſcourſed largely of the Moral Reaſons of theſe Precepts; particularly a very learned Man now living, Joh. Wagenſeil, in his Annotations on that Title in the Miſna called Sota, fol. 1171, &c.
Ver. 3. Verſe 3 Whatſoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted.] There are ſome Creatures which Porphyry (in the Book fore-mentioned, Lib. IV.) calls foreign, whoſe Hoofs are ſolid, and not at all divided; ſuch as Horſes, Aſſes, and Mules: Others that are foreign, divided into ſeveral parts, like Toes; as Lions, Wolves, and Dogs: But a third ſort that are only foreign (as Ariſtotle calls them) divided into two parts; as Oxen, Deer, Sheep, Goats, &c. And theſe are of two kinds; for ſome divide the Hoof into two parts, but it is not cloven quite through; as the Camel, whoſe Hoof is parted above, but joyned by a thick Skin below, and therefore reckoned among the unclean Beaſts. Others both divided and cloven, which are thoſe allowed by this Law to be clean Creatures.
And cheweth the end among beaſts, &c.] As all thoſe Beaſts do, which are not foreign (as Ariſtotle calls them, Lib. X. cap. 50.) that is, have not a Set of Teeth both above and below: Such are Oxen, Sheep, and Goats, which want upper Teeth; and therefore bring their Meat up again into their Mouths, after it hath been ſome time in the Stomach; that it may by a new chewing of it, be better prepared for digeſtion. So the Author of Porta Coeli, who explains this very exactly, when he ſaith, For want of upper Teeth they cannot chew their Food perfectly at one time; nor can the Stomach make a perfect digeſtion till it be ground a ſecond time. And therefore ſuch Creatures are provided with a a double Stomach: an upper, into which the Meat goes down after the first chewing; and another, into which it is ſent, after it hath been grinded a ſecond time.
That ſhall ye eat.] The Hebrews truly obſerve (particularly R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CLIX.) that all kinds of Animals, which had not every one of theſe Marks (of parting the Hoof, and being clovenfooted, and chewing the Cud) were unlawful to be eaten.
Ver. 4. Verſe 4 Nevertheleſs, theſe ſhall ye not eat, of them that chew the end, or of them that divide the hoof.] This is added as an Explication of the foregoing Rule, to ſhow, that if any of the fore-mentioned Marks werewanting, ſuch Creatures muſt not be eaten.
As the Camel, becauſe he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, &c.] The latter part of this Character is not to be underſtood, as if the Camel did not divide the Hoof at all; but not quite thorow, ſo as to be cleft, as well as divided. For though its Hoof be divided above, it coheres below, as R. Solomon obſerves. And ſo doth Ariſtotle, Lib. II. cap. 1. and Pliny, L. XI. cap. 45. This being ſo very plainly expreſſed in this Law, it is ſomething ſtrange that Heliogab…lus ſhould order the Fleſh of Camels and Oſtriches to be ſerved up to his Table, Dicens, praeceptum Judaeis ut ederent: ſaying, The Jews were commanded to eat them; as Lampridius reports his words, cap. 28. Salmaſius indeed upon that place ſaith, he found theſe two words, Struthiones and Camelos, joyned together to make one word, in a MS. of the Palatine Library, which reads Struthiocamelos exhibuit in caenis. Which ſeems to ſome to mend the matter; but then they are forced to interpret praeceptum by conceſſum; as if he had ſaid, God did not forbid this Meat to the Jews: which is altogether uncertain. It is better to ſay, That though many of the Pagans did read the Law of Moſes, yet they did it careleſly, without ſufficient attention to it.
Ver. 5. Verſe 5 And the Coney.] Much might be ſaid to juſtifie our Tranſlation of the word Saphan, by the Engliſh Coney, if it could be proved that they chew the Cud; which they do not, having upper Teeth. Therefore Bochart, by many Arguments, proves this word Saphan to ſignifie a Mountain Mouſe; which, as Solomon ſaith, XXX Prov. 26. Make their holes in Rocks: which Rabbets do not; but this Creature doth, as he proves out of the Arabian Writers; who call it Aljarbuo, and ſay it chews the Cud. See Hierozoicon, P. I. L. III. cap. 33.
Becauſe he cheweth the cud, &c.] Or rather, Though he chew the cud, yet wanting the other Mark, they were to look upon it as unclean.
Ver. 6. Verſe 6 And the Hare, becauſe he cheweth (or, though he cheweth) the cud, but divideth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you. The ſame Author ſhows in the ſame Book, cap. 37. that the Hebrew word Arnebeth is rightly tranſlated a Hare. For though no Author, but Moſes, ſaith it chews the Cud, yet Ariſtotle ſaith ſomething like it, Lib. III. cap. 22. where he obſerves it hath a runnet in the Stomach. And Th. Bartholinus in his Anatom. Hist. Cent. 2. Hiſtor. LXXXVI. tells us, That in his Diſſection of an Hare, though he found but one Stomach, which made him wonder at firſt, that Moſes ſhould reckon it among the Creatures that ruminate, yet he found that what was wanting in the ſimple Stomach, was ſupplied by the largeneſs of the inteſtinum Caecum. Which Gut is of a great bigneſs, conſiſting of two parts. In one of which he found liquid and white Excrements (like to Chyle) as if it were another Stomach: The other part, towards the Ileon, being full of black Excrements.
Ver. 7. Verſe 7 And the Swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud: he is unclean to you.] Though the Swine hath the firſt part of the Mark of a clean Creature compleatly, being cloven-footed, as well as having the Hoof divided, yet not chewing the Cud, it is forbidden to be eaten. And this, no doubt, was the ſole foundation of the Jews abſtaining from this Meat. Whoſe filthy feeding and wallowing in the Mire Maimonides fancies, was the only cauſe why it was prohibited, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 48. To which others add, its feeding upon Fleſh, as Voſſius obſerves, L. III. de orig. & progreſſu Idol. c. 42. where he gives other reaſons alſo for it. One of which, duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page viz. that it was apt to breed the Leproſie, to which they were very ſubject in thoſe Countries, is ingeniouſly treated of by Petrus Cunaeus in his Republ. Hebraeor. Lib. II. cap. ult. and more lately by another very learned Perſon, J. Wagenſeil, Carminis R. Lipmanni Confutatio, p. 556. To which Clemens Alexandrinus adds ſeveral other reaſons, Lib. VII. Strom. p. 718. and there are many more in Lactantius relating to Morality, Lib. IV. Divin. Inſtit. cap. 17. But whatſoever grounds there might be of this Prohibition, that alone could not be the reaſon, why the whole Nation of the Jews abhorred this more than any other unclean Creatures, which were equally forbidden with this. Inſomuch, that they would not, when they ſpoke of it, mention its proper name; but called it another (or a ſtrange) thing. Which aroſe ſure from ſome other cauſe, that, in proceſs of time, made this the moſt abominable of all other Creatures. And that was, I take it, becauſe the Gentiles uſed it in their Sacrifices and Myſteries of Religion; and becauſe nothing was accounted a more delicious Food among many great Nations: which (if a vehement abhorrence had not been infuſed into the Jews of this Creature) might have invited them to their Tables, and bred ſuch Familiarity with them, as might have concluded in Idolatry. Pliny obſerves Lib. VIII. cap. 51. that no Creature affords greater plenty of delicious Diſhes at their Tables than this, Neque alio ex animali numeroſior materia ganeae, &c. Inſomuch that old Homer, relating how Eumaeus entertained Ʋlyſſes (Odyſſ. XIV.) ſaith only that he killed a great Hog of five years old, and that only for five Gueſts. They that would ſee more of this, may look into Petrus Caſtellanus, Lib. II. de Eſu Carnium, cap. 1, 2, &c. where he ſhows alſo out of Varro (Lib. II. de Re Ruſtica, cap. 4.) that the Gentiles knew of no ancienter Sacrifices than this, after they began to offer Animals upon their Altars. For they thought that would be moſt acceptable to their Gods, which beſt pleaſed themſelves: inſomuch that a Swine, which the later Greeks called foreign, was anciently called foreign, ab illo verbo quod dicitur foreign, from that word which ſignifies to Sacrifice. For the firſt Sacrifices were of this Creature, as appears by the Myſteries of Ceres, in which a Sow was offered; and at their Marriages the ancient Kings and great Men of Etruria offered the like Sacrifice; and ſo did the Latins and Greeks in Italy. The Hierapolitans indeed looked upon Swine as unclean, and would neither eat them, nor offer them to their Gods; nor would they of Peſſinuntium in Galatia: quod prorſus Moſaicum est, which they learnt in all likelyhood from Moſes, as Huetius thinks, Demonſtr. Evang. Propoſ. IV. cap. 11. n. 1. But in many other Nations this Food was highly valued: and Athenaeus, I obſerve, gives the very ſame reaſon of its Name that Varro doth, Lib. IX. Deipnoſ. foreign. From whence it is, that Ariſtophanes calls them foreign, Myſtical Swine, in his Acharnan: becauſe, as the Scholiaſt there explains it, foreign, They were offered in the Myſteries of Ceres. And Julian himſelf, in his Oration upon the Mother of the Gods (Orat. V.) confeſſes, foreign, It was deſervedly believed to be a grateful Sacrifice to the Terreſtrial Gods, p. 332. Edit. Patav.
Ver. 8. Verſe 8 Of their fleſh ſhall ye not eat, and their carcaſe ſhall ye not touch.] Some think the latter part of this Precept ſignifies no more, but that they ſhould not meddle with their Carcaſe to prepare it for Meat, (as the word touch ſeems to be uſed, III Gen. 3.) though they did not eat it. But others take it more largely, that they ſhould not ſo much as open them, to take out the Fat, and apply it to any uſe. In this the Jews are ſo ſcrupulous, that they ſay they may not touch them (though alive) with one of their Fingers, for fear of the Leproſie. It being a Proverbial ſaying among them, which we read in the Treatiſe Kidduſchin, That ten meaſures of Leproſie deſcending into the World, Swine took to themſelves nine of them, and the rest of the World one.
If we may believe Herodotus, Lib. II. cap. 47. the Egyptians lookt upon Swine as ſo unclean, that if any one touched one of them by chance, as he paſſed by, he was bound to waſh himſelf, with his Garments, in the River. Certain it is, that not only they, but the Arabians, and ſome other neighbouring Nations, did abſtain from Swines fleſh, as Bochartus and others have obſerved, (See his Hierozoicon. P.I. L. II. cap. 57. p. 702. and Petr. Caſtellanus, L. II. de Eſu Carnium, cap. 4.) which they learnt, I doubt not, at firſt from the Jews; and afterwards found other reaſons for it. This abhorrency of Swine is propagated into far diſtant Countries among the Mahometans; particularly into Mindanao, one of the Philippine Iſlands; where, if any one have but touched one of theſe Creatures, he is not permitted to come into any Bodies Houſe, for many days after. So Dampier relates in a late Voyage round the World, chap. 12. p. 343. where he ſays, The Sultan's Brother having a pair of Shoes made him by one of their Ships Crew (which they ſeldom wear there) fell into a great Paſſion, when he was told the Thred, wherewith the Shoes were ſewed, was pointed with Hogs briſtles; and would not wear them.
Ver. 9. Verſe 9 Theſe ſhall ye eat, of all that are in the waters.] Though ſome of the Heathens abſtained perpetually from all Fiſh, and others only for ſome time, foreign, when they were under ſtrict Obligations of Purity, (as Julian tells us in the fore-mentioned Oration V.) But God left his People at greater liberty, forbidding to them only ſome kinds of Fiſh; by abſtinence from which they were ſufficiently diſtinguiſhed from thoſe Nations, which ate all indifferently, and accounted Fiſh the greateſt delicacy.
Whatſoever hath fins and ſcales.] If both theſe Marks did not concur in a Fiſh, they were not to eat it. But their Doctors ſay, (as we learn from R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CL.) that if but one Scale was found on a Fiſh, it was accounted lawful; and they needed not to obſerve whether it had Fins or no: for all that have Scales, they ſay, have Fins; though, on the contrary, all that have Fins have not Scales. They obſerve alſo, ſecondly, that it was lawful to eat young Fiſh before their Scales appeared, if they were of that kind, which have Scales when they are grown. And, thirdly, all Fiſhes that have Scales when they are in the Sea, but caſt them when they are taken out, are lawful.
In the Waters, in the Seas, and in the Rivers.] By Waters in this place, as diſtinguiſhed from Seas and Rivers, are meant Lakes and Ponds. And ſo Moſes expreſſes all the places where Fiſh is found.
Ver. 10. Verſe 10 And all that have not fins, nor ſcales, &c. ſhall be an abomination to you.] There was an ancient Law among the Romans, made by Numa, That no Fiſh which wanted Scales, ſhould be uſed in thoſe Feaſts which they made in honour of their Gods. So Pliny tells us, Lib. XXXII. Nat. Hiſt. cap. 2. where he quotes an ancient Writer for it.
Ver. 11. Verſe 11 They ſhall be even an abomination unto you.] The next words explain what he means by abomination; that they ſhould not eat their Fleſh, nor touch their Carcaſes.
Ver. 12. Verſe 12 Whatſoever hath no fins nor ſcales in the waters, that ſhall be an abomination unto you.] He repeats it again, that they might take notice, that this alone was a ſufficient Mark of difference: And therefore he doth not give any inſtance of particular Fiſhes, that might be eaten or not eaten; as he did of Beaſts. He uſes alſo the word abomination concerning prohibited Fiſhes, (which he doth not of ſuch Beaſts, whom he only calls unclean) becauſe there was greater danger of their tranſgreſſing in this matter; Fiſhes being a more uſual Food among the Eaſtern People, than Fleſh. Inſomuch, that among the later Greeks, the word foreign, which ſignifies all manner of Victuals, came to be uſed peculiarly for Fiſh. See Bochartus in his Hierozoic. P. I. Lib. I. cap. 6. where he obſerves alſo the greateſt Luxury was committed in this ſort of Food: which any one may ſee that reads Athenaeus.
Ver. 13. Verſe 13 And theſe are they which ye ſhall have in abomination among the fowls, they ſhall not be eaten.] Here are no Notes given, as in the two foregoing ſorts of Creatures, to diſtinguiſh clean Birds from unclean: And therefore the Hebrew Doctors ſay, all Birds are lawful to be eaten, but theſe XXIV mentioned in this Chapter; which they were to have in abhorrence. Yet they adventure to give four Marks of a clean Bird; the principal of which are, If it do not faſten its Talons; i. e. be not rapacious: and have one Claw longer than the rest. See R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CLXI.
They ſhall be an abomination.] This is repeated to make them more careful in this matter.
The Eagle.] He names in the firſt place, the King of Birds, as Pindar calls the Eagle, —foreign. whoſe Fleſh is very hard, and whoſe Nature is very rapacious: and therefore, both upon a Natural and Moral Account, ſome Authors fancy it was forbidden to be eaten. See Voſſius, Lib. III. de Orig. & Progr. Idol. cap. 77. But I think Origen hath given a better Account of it, in the place I named above; that Moſes by his admirable Wiſdom underſtood what Creatures were lookt upon as Prophetical by the Egyptians, and other Nations; and theſe he prohibited to the Jews: Among which he expreſly names the Eagle and the Hawk, Lib. IV. contra Celſum, p. 225. For Diadorus Siculus ſaith (Lib. I.) that foreign, The People of Thebes worſhip the Eagle, looking upon it as a Royal Bird, and worthy of Jupiter. And Julian in his Oration upon the Mother of the Gods (Orat. V.) ſaith, That in the time of their ſtricteſt Purifications, they were permitted foreign (ſo Spanhemius truly reads in the late Edition of Julian's Works) to eat Birds, foreign, except a few, which had been commonly held Sacred. Which is a plain acknowledgment of the ſacredneſs of ſome Birds among the Gentles.
The Oſſifrage.] All Authors, in a manner, agree, that the Hebrew word Peres ſignifies a kind of Eagle; but what kind is not ſo certain. Boobartus thinks it is rightly tranflated by Junius, as it is by us, the Oſſifrage: for the Hebrew word Paras, in III Micab 3. is uſed for breaking of bones. See Hierozoie. P. II. Lib. II. c. 5.
The Oſpray.] This is alſo of the ſame Species; and ſignifies that ſort, which the Greeks call Haliaetus, the Sea-Eagle. But Bochartus in the ſame Book, cap. 6. thinks the Hebrew word Oznija, rather ſignifies that which they call Melaniaetus, the black Eagle. Which though it be the leaſt, yet is the ſtrongeſt of all other, and therefore called Valeria by the Romans: and was ſo noted for many other qualities, beſides its great ſtrength, that it makes it probable Moſes did not here omit it.
Ver. 14. Verſe 14 And the Vulture, and the Kite after his kind.] No wonder Interpreters differ in their Tranſlation of the two Hebrew words, Daa and Aja; the former of which we tranſlate a Vulture, the latter a Kite (which others tranſlate quite contrary, taking Daa, or Raa, as it is called in Deuteronomy, for a Kite) becauſe there is no way to find the ſignification of them, unleſs it be by the roots, from whence they may be thought to be derived. Which makes Bochart think the firſt word ought to be tranſlated a Kite, called Daa, from its very ſwift flight. Moſt of the ancient and later Interpreters alſo, are of his mind. As for the ſecond word in this Verſe, Aja, ſome take it for a Vulture: but Bochart, from ſeveral obſervations, judges it to be a kind of Hawk or Falcon. See in the ſame Book, cap. 8. After this word there follows in Deuteronomy XIV. 13. the name of a Bird which is here omitted, called Daja, which he takes for the black Vulture; as the Reader may find in the next Chapter, cap. 9.
After his kind.] Though there be ſome little difference in ſhape, yet theſe Birds all belong to one Species. See v. 22.
Ver. 15. Verſe 15 Every Raven after his kind.] No Body doubts that the Hebrew word Oreb, (which ſignifies blackneſs) is rightly tranſlated a Raven: of which the Arabian Writers mention four kinds. And ſome think under this name is comprehended, not only Crows, and Daws, and Choughs; but Starlings and Pies alſo. See Bochartus, cap. 10. p. 202.
Ver. 16. Verſe 16 And the Owl.] The Hebrew word Bathjaana, it appears, by many places in the Prophets, ſignifies a Bird which inhabits the Wilderneſſes, and deſolate Places. See XIII Iſa. 21. XXXIV. 13. L Jer. 39, &c. By which the ancient Interpreters of Scripture almoſt unanimouſly underſtand the Oſtrich; though a very learned Man of our own Nation (Nic. Fuller in his Miſcellanies, Lib. VI. cap. 7.) indeavours by a probable Argument to ſupport our Tranſlation. But it hath been the conſtant perſwaſion of the Jews, that God did not permit them to eat the Fleſh of an Oſtrich, which is no where forbidden, if not in this word. And therefore Bochartus maintains, againſt our Fuller, and labours to prove that Bath-jaana ſignifies the fentale Oſtrich, P. II. Hierozoiv. Lib. II. cap. 14. where he ſhows the word Bath (i. e. daughter) is prefixed to the name of many Birds, without any reſpect to their Age, and doth not ſignifie their young ones; but only the females.
And the night Hawk.] In the next Chapter to that now named, the ſame Bochart proves that the Hebrew word Thacmas (which we here tranſlate the Night-Hawk) ſignifies the male Oſtrich. For there is no general name for this Bird in the Hebrew Language, to comprehend both Sexes, (as there is for an Eagle and a Raven) and therefore Moſes mentions both Male and Female diſtinctly; that none might think, by forbidding one of them only, he allowed the other.
And the Cuckow.] The LXX. St. Hierom, and ſome later Interpreters, tranſlate the Hebrew word Sachaph by the Greek word foreign, a Sea-gull. Which the ſame great Man, before-mentioned, thinks moſt probable, c. 18.
And the Hawk after his kind.] There is the greateſt conſent in the Tranſlation of the Hebrew word New, which all agree ſignifies an Hawk; from its ſtrength and ſwiftneſs in flight, which made it Sacred to Apollo. For Euſtathius obſerves upon Iliad. X. That foreign, an Hawk flies, as the Sun moves, very ſwiftly. And every one knows there are very various kinds of theſe birds. Callimachus mentions Six, Ariſtotle X. and Pliny Sixteen ſorts. See Bochart in the ſame Book, cap. 19.
Ver. 17. Verſe 17 And the little Owl.] Interpreters generally agree that Chos ſignifies a kind of Owl; following the LXX. who tranſlate it foreign. Yet Bochart hath collected a great many ingenious Arguments, to prove that it ſignifies that Bird, which the Greeks call foreign, a Bittern. See there cap. 20.
And the Cormorant.] Though the ſame learned Perſon doth not approve of this Tranſlation, yet he acknowledges the Hebrew word Salach ſignifies ſome Sea-bird, which ſits upon Rocks, and ſtrikes at fiſhes with great force, and draws them out of the Waters. And ſo the Talmudiſts, in the Treatiſe called Cholut, expound it; and the Gloſs upon it there ſays, it ſignifies the Crow of the Waters, that is, a Cormorant.
And the great Owl.] There are various Tranſlations of the Hebrew word Janſaph, which St. Hierom takes for a Stork, and others for a Buſtard: But Bochart acknowledges the Syriac and Chaldee Tranſlation to be the moſt probable; which is the ſame with ours.
Ver. 18. Verſe 18 And the Swan.] In this Tranſlation we follow St. Hierom: but Jonathan takes it for a kind of Owl, which he calls Otja. Whereby he means, no doubt, that Bird which Ariſtotle calls foreign: which he ſaith is like an Owl, having Tufts of Feathers about its ears; from whence it hath the name of O…, L. VIII. cap. 12. And ſo the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Samaritan here tranſlate the Hebrew word Thinſemeth, which a great many Modern Interpreters follow; who take this for that which the Latins call noctua, as the former for that Owl which they call bubo.
The Pelican.] That the Hebrew word Kaath ſignifies a Pelican is not diſputed. But that it alſo ſignifies the Bird we call an Hern, is not improbable; being joyned with Chos in the CII Pſalm 6. which is a Bird that makes an unpleaſant noiſe, eſpecially that kind of them that cries like a Bittern, and is called by later Writers Butorius.
And the Gier-Eagle.] There are many various Opinions about this Bird, which the Hebrews call Racham. But Bochart hath ſhown out of the Arabian Writers, that it ſignifies a kind of Eagle, or Vulture: for ſometimes they call it by one of theſe names, ſometimes by the other. It being of a dubious kind, between an Eagle and a Vulture; and therefore happily by us tranſlated a Gier-Eagle, that is, a Vulture Eagle, which Ariſtotle calls foreign. See Hierozoic. P. II. L. II. cap. 25, 26, 27. where Bochart ſhows it is ſuch a harmleſs and good natur'd Bird, that thence it had the name of Racham, and in Arabick of Rachama: and was made the Hieroglyphick of Mercy and Tenderneſs among the Egyptians, if Horus Apollo may be believed.
Ver. 19. Verſe 19 And the Stork.] There are vaſtly different Interpretations of the word Chaſida; which imports kindneſs no leſs than the foregoing Racham. But there is no Reaſon to depart from the Opinion of the later Hebrews, who take it, as we do, to ſignifie a Stork. The Piety (as the Latins call it) of which BIrd, is celebrated by all Authors, and is the very import of the Hebrew word Chaſida. But it feeds upon Serpents, and therefore, as Bochart imagines, was prohibited to be eaten by the Jews: though upon this account it was had in honour by the People of Theſſaly, and by the Egyptians, as he obſerves in the fore-mentioned Book, cap. 29.
The Heron after his kind.] There are at leaſt ten different Interpretations of the Hebrew word Anapha; among which ours is one. But it being derived from a word which ſignifies anger, Bochartus rather takes it for a Mountain Falcon; which is a fierce Bird, and very prone to anger.
And the Lap-wing.] The Hebrew Doctors take Dukiphath for a Mountain Cock, which hath a double Creſt, and thence hath its name, according to R. Solomon. Or rather it may be ſo called from the place where it reſorts; for Dik in Arabick is a Cock, and Kepha a Rock, from whence Bochart probably conjectures this Bird had its name, becauſe it lives in mountainous places. And he thinks the LXX. and the Vulgar have rightly tranſlated it foreign and Ʋpupam: which is the ſenſe alſo of four Arabian Interpreters. It is a portentous kind of Bird, which hath a Creſt from its Bill to the hindermoſt part of its head; and one of the principal Birds uſed in the ancient Superſtitions of the Magicians and Augurs, as he obſerves cap. 31.
And the Bat.] As Moſes begins the Catalogue of Birds with the nobleſt, which is the Eagle, ſo he ends it with the vileſt, which is a Bat; being of a dubious kind, as Ariſtotle obſerves, between a Bird and a Mouſe, Lib. 4. cap. 13. where he ſaith it doth foreign, &c. See the famous Bochartus, who ſhows that its name in Hebrew, which is Attaleph, imports it to be a Bird of Darkneſs. Whence that phraſe in the Prophet, II Iſaiah 20. In that day a man ſhall cast his Idols of Silver and Gold to the Bats and the Moles; i. e. they ſhall no more appear to delude Men with their glittering brightneſs, but be utterly deſtroyed.
Ver. 20. Verſe 20 All Fowls that creep.] The Hebrew word Oph is not well tranſlated Fowls; but ſignifies rather all flying things going upon all four. All flying things that go upon four feet are here forbidden; ſuch as all kinds of Flies, and Waſps, and Bees, as Jonathan here explains it. A Fly indeed is obſerved to be foreign: but though it have ſix feet, yet it goes only upon four, as not only Lucian, but Ariſtotle notes; the two forefeet ſerving for other uſes. See Bochart in his Hierozoic. P. II. L. IV. cap. 9.
Shall be an abomination to you.] It is obſerved by ſome, that the Birds here forbidden are either rapacious, and live on Fleſh, (as Eagles and Hawks, &c.) or are Night-Birds, (as Owls, &c.) or haunt Lakes and Marſhes, (as the Bittern, &c.) or are heavy, and not eaſily raiſed from the Earth, as the Oſtrich; or live in Graves or in Dung, as the Ʋpupa, and ſome of thoſe flying things mentioned in this Verſe: and upon theſe accounts are forbidden by Moſes; who allows all thoſe that live upon a cleaner Food, as thoſe that follow do.
Ver. 21. Verſe 21 Yet theſe may ye eat, of every flying, creeping thing, &c.] In this Verſe he excepts ſuch flying Inſects, as beſides their four feet, wherewith they go, have two legs or thighs which inable them to leap upon the Earth, as well as to go. Such are all the Locuſts mentioned in the next Verſe: unto which Ariſtotle aſcribes ſix feet, whereas Moſes mentions but four. In which they do not diſagree; for Ariſtotle plainly ſaith, they have ſix feet, foreign, if we take into the number the parts with which they leap, L. IV. cap. 6. Which two hinder leaping legs, Moſes diſtinguiſhes from the other four wherewith they go.
Ver. 22. Verſe 22 Even theſe of them ye may eat.] There are nine kinds of Locuſts mentioned in the holy Books; four of which are here permitted to be eaten.
The Locust after its kind.] The Hebrew word Arboh is ſometimes a common Name for all Locuſts; but here ſignifies a peculiar ſort, of that kind before-mentioned, which leapt, as well as went.
The bald Locust after its kind.] The Hebrew word is Solam: ſo called, as Aben-Ezra thinks, becauſe it climbs up Roots, in which it delights.
The Beetle after its kind.] This ſort of Locuſt, called Chargol, ſeems to have its name from the vaſt company wherein they fly together. But it is not fitly tranſlated a Beetle; for none ever eat Beetles; nor are they four-footed, with legs to leap withal. Therefore Chargol is another ſort of Locuſts, unknown to us in theſe Countries; and ſo is that which follows; for a Graſhopper is not a ſort of Meat: But there were Locuſts of that ſhape, which were large and fleſhy in the Eaſtern Countries, and very good Food.
The Graſhopper after its kind.] The Hebrew word Chagab ſignifies (as I ſaid) a ſort of Locuſts, the original of whoſe Name Aben-Ezra intimates may be found in the Arabick Tongue. In which Chahageba ſignifies to cover as with a Vail: And in ſuch Troops theſe Locuſts fly, that ſometimes they ſeem to darken the Sun it ſelf. But by what marks theſe were diſtinguiſhed from one another, the Hebrews differ ſo much, that it plainly ſnows they are wholly ignorant in this matter. The moſt that can be made of what they ſay, is, (as a Man very learned in theſe things hath obſerved, (Job Ludolphus in his Diſſertation de Locuſtis, P. I. cap. 23.) that Chargol hath both a bunch on its back, and a Tail alſo: Arbeh hath neither: Solam only a Bunch, and not a Tail; and Chagab a Tail, but no Bunch. Which, whether it be true or falſe, it doth not much concern us to know. But it is evident, that before our Saviour's time, they knew very well and certainly, what kind of Locuſts are here meant; and accordingly perfectly underſtood what they might eat, and what not. For otherwiſe John the Baptist would have been hard put to it, who had no other Diet but this and Honey. And indeed in deſert places, there was little other Food but this; by which whole Armies of Men have been relieved, when they were in danger to periſh in Libya. For that Locuſts were a common Food in the Eaſtern and Southern Countries, is ſo known, that I need not produce any Authorities for it. Nay, among the Greeks alſo, as Bochartus hath ſhown in his Hierozoic. P. II. L. IV. cap. 7. And Voſſius, L. IV. de Orig. & Progr. Idol. c. 78. But no Body hath given ſuch ſatisfaction in this matter, as the fore-named Ludolphus; who hath ſhown at large how many Nations live upon them, in his Commentary upon his Aethiopick Hiſtory: and more lately in his moſt excellent Diſſertation concerning Locuſts. Wherein he relates what Clouds of them came into Germany not long ago (in the Month of August, in the Year One thouſand ſix hundred ninety and three) of which he ſeeing Hogs and Hens and other Creatures feeding greedily, he and his Family adventured to eat freely of them alſo; and found the taſte of them like that of a Crab. And a Jew of Hieruſalem, who was then in their Country, aſſured him that the Locuſts in Judea were much of the ſame ſhape with theſe in Germany; which he demonſtrated to him by a draught he had made of them.
After his kind.] Here it may be fit to note, in the concluſion of all, that this phraſe, after his kind, (which is ſo often repeated in this Diſcourſe of Fowls and flying things) doth not neceſſarily ſignifie that there are different kinds of every Bird or flying thing to which it is applied; but only imports every one of that kind. For he doth not ſpeak in the Plural Number, according to their kinds; but in the Singular, after his kind: which only denotes that the whole Species is prohibited. And what he ſaith of ſome Fowls, is in reaſon to be applied to all; though, to avoid repetition, he doth not add theſe words [after his kind] to every one of them.
Ver. 23. Verſe 23 But all other flying creeping things which have four feet, ſhall be an abomination to you.] Whether they were Locuſts, or any other kind of Creature, who came under this Character, they were to avoid them carefully.
Ver. 24. Verſe 24 And for theſe ye ſhall be unclean: whoſoever toucheth the carcaſe of them, ſhall be unclean.] If they did either eat of them, or ſo much as touch the carcaſe of them, they might not be admitted to come into the Tabernacle, nor eat of any holy thing, nor converſe with their Neighbours.
Ʋntil the even.] He doth not ſay they were to waſh themſelves, or their Clothes (as in the following Verſe) which would incline one to think, that their meer Separation for all the day, from Communion with God and with one another, was their Cleanſing, without any other Purification. But there are ſo many Commands for waſhing themſelves and their Clothes, in other Defilements no greater than this, that it hath perſwaded ſome to think ſuch Cleanſing was neceſſary in this caſe alſo. See XV. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10. and ſeveral other Verſes in that Chapter.
Ver. 25. And whoſoever beareth ought of the carcaſe of them.] Though it were only to carry them out of the Camp or City; or remove them out of the way, that they might not infect the Air.
Shall waſh his clothes, and be unclean until the even.] His Body alſo, in all likelyhood, was to be waſhed; as was required in other Purifications. No time is appointed for this, which perhaps a Man might think fit to do preſently; but notwithſtanding he was to remain unclean till the Setting of the Sun.
Ver. 26. Verſe 26 The carcaſe of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven-footed, &c.] He takes occaſion from hence to inform them, that it was as unlawful to touch the carcaſes of Beaſts before prohibited to be eaten (v. 3, &c.) as of the Fowl and flying things now mentioned. But while they were alive it was not unlawful to touch them; for they uſed Camels, and Horſes, and Aſſes, for their neceſſary Service; and therefore it is ſo expreſſed in other things, v. 31. when they are dead.
Ver. 27. Verſe 27 And whatſoever goeth upon his paws, &c.] Hath feet with fingers like unto a hand; for ſo it is in the Hebrew, Whatſoever goeth upon his hands: Such as the Ape, the Lion, the Bear, Dogs and Cats, &c. whoſe fore-feet reſemble hands: Theſe might neither be eaten, nor their carcaſes touched, without incurring uncleanneſs till Sun-ſet.
Ver. 28. Verſe 28 And he that beareth the carcaſe of them ſhall waſh his clothes, &c.] See v. 25.
Ver. 29. Verſe 29 Theſe alſo ſhall be unclean unto you.] So that they might not ſo much as touch them (as it is explained v. 31.) when they were dead; much leſs eat them.
Among the creeping things that creep upon the earth.] Among things that have ſuch ſhort feet, that ſome of their bellies ſeem to touch the ground.
The weaſel.] Though moſt Interpreters follow this Tranſlation of the Hebrew word Choled, yet Bochartus hath alledged a great many probable reaſons that it ſignifies a Mole. And one is, becauſe it is joyned here with the Mouſe. See Hierozoicon P. I. L. III. cap. 35. where he treats of this very largely.
The Mouſe.] All acknowledge the Hebrew word Achbar ſignifies a Mouſe; and more eſpecially a field Mouſe, which doth great miſchief there; and thence hath its name, as the ſame Bochartus ſhows in the foregoing Chapter of that Book. But all ſorts of Mice are here to be underſtood, as Jonathan obſerves who thus paraphraſes this word, The black Mouſe, the red and the white; for they are of ſo many colours.
The Tortoiſe after its kind.] The ſame Author hath taken a great deal of pains to prove that Tzab doth not ſignifie a Tortoiſe; but as the LXX. and St. Hierom take it, a land Crocodile. Which is a large ſort of Lizzard, a Cubit long, with which Arabia abounds: out of which Language he indeavours at large to prove the truth of this Interpretation, Lib. IV. cap. 1.
Ver. 30. Verſe 30 And the Ferret.] Out of the ſame Language, and the Syriac and Samaritan Paraphraſe, the ſame judicious Writer proves, that Anaka ſignifies another ſort of Lizzard, which the Latines call Stellio, and in thoſe Countries hath a ſhrill cry. See there cap. 2.
And the Cameleon.] Moſt of the ancient Interpreters take Coach for another ſort of Lizzard, which is the ſtrongeſt (as this Name imports) of all other; and in theſe Countries was famous for its incounters with Serpents and Land Crocodiles; as the forenamed Bochartus ſhows out of the Arabian Writers, lb. cap. 3.
And the Lizzard.] All the ancient Interpreters agree that the Hebrew word Letaa ſignifies a ſort of Lizzard; but of what kind, it is hard to determine. The aforeſaid Bochart out of the Arabian Writers hath ſhown, it is like to that which is of a reddiſh colour, and lies cloſe to the Earth, infecting the Meat, which it touches, with its venom, Ib. cap. 4.
The Snail.] The ſame admirable Perſon, with great probability, ſtill thinks Moſes ſpeaks of a ſort of Lizzard called here Chomet, becauſe it lyes in the Sand, which in the Talmudick Language is called Chometon, Ib. cap. V.
And the Mole.] It is apparent that the word Thinſemeth, which we here tranſlate a Mole, is of a very doubtful ſignification: For in the 18th Verſe of this Chapter it ſignifies a ſort of Fowl; as here, in all probability, another ſort of Lizzard. And if we may gueſs what ſort, by the original of the word, it probably ſignifies the Cameleon, which gapes to draw in Air. See Bochart. Hieroz. P. I. L. IV. cap. 6. But after all that can be ſaid, it muſt be acknowledged the ſignifications of all theſe words are loſt among the Jews; as Aben-Ezra confeſſes upon this Verſe: Neither theſe eight ſorts of creeping things, nor the Birds before mentioned, are known to us, but by Tradition. Which is as much as to ſay, they are not known at all; for there is no Tradition about them, as the Talmudiſts acknowledge; who ſend thoſe who are doubtful what Birds are lawful, and what not, to be informed by thoſe that are Maſters of the Art of Fowling. Which might help to convince the Jews, were they not reſolved to ſhut their Eyes, that difference of Meats is now ceaſed, becauſe they know not what is forbidden, and what not, in many caſes. And conſequently the Meſſiah is come, to whom the gathering of the people was to be, (according to their Father Jacob's Prophecy, XLIX Gen. 10.) ſo that they ſhould be no longer ſeparated, but all Nations collected into one Body, and converſe freely together, without any danger of being defiled. For Idolatry being aboliſhed by him, there was no reaſon remaining for keeping up the diſcrimination between Jews and Gentles, by a different Diet. This ſome of the ancient Jews ſaw very well, who ſaid, that in the days of the Meſſiah, it ſhould not be unlawful to eat Swines-fleſh, no more then it was while they were ſubduing the Land of Canaan. This Tradition is acknowledged by Abarbanel himſelf in his Roſch Amanah, where he diſputes for the Eternity of their Law, and indeavours to elude this Tradition of the ancient Doctors by Allegorical Interpretations. See J. Carzovius in Schickard. Miſchpat hammelech, c. 5. Theorem XVIII.
Ver. 31. Verſe 31 Theſe are unclean to you among all that creep, whoſoever toucheth them when they be dead, ſhall be unclean.] The Jews underſtand this with reſpect to the touching the dead Carcaſes of theſe Creatures, and make the ſenſe of it to be, Theſe eight alone are unclean to you; all other Reptiles, as Serpents and Scorpions, &c. you may touch, and not be polluted. Thus R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CLII. For nothing was unclean by Moſes his Law, whilſt it was alive, but only a Leper, and a Woman in her Separation. Worms, Dogs, Swine, &c. were unclean to be touched, only when they were dead.
Ʋntil the evening.] v. 4. This was a plain document, as Pellicanus there obſerves, that there was no impurity in the things themſelves; but it was meerly a prudential Conſtitution, to make ſuch Defilements end with the day wherein they were contracted.
Ver. 32. Verſe 32 And upon whatſoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it ſhall be unclean.] That is, it might not be uſed till it was cleanſed. Whence the ſame R. Levi ſaith, the Jews are wont to call theſe the Fathers of Pollutions; becauſe by their contact they defiled other things (Veſſels, and Raiment, &c.) as well as Men, Praecept. CLII. where he acknowledges that the reaſon why theſe Creatures made things unclean, more than others, is not manifeſt. But he gives this pious Admonition thereupon; If by our reaſon we be able to diſcern the uſefulneſs of ſome Precepts, let us be very thankful for it: but if we cannot find how they are any way profitable to us, let us believe that God, in his infinite wiſdom, ſaw the benefit we ſhould receive by it, and therefore commanded it.
Whatſoever veſſel it be wherein any work is done, it muſt be put into water, &c. ſo ſhall it be cleanſed.] The Heathens purified all things, in a manner, by waſhing them in water; but Moſes requires only theſe things, which were of common uſe, to be ſo purified, in caſe of any defilement. And therefore Maimonides faith, Such Laws as theſe were made to leſſen their Labour and Service; and if there be any thing in them that ſeems too troubleſome and tedious, it ariſes from our ignorance of the Rites and Cuſtoms of thoſe times, which make ſuch Precepts neceſſary. P. III. More Nevoch. cap. 47.
Ver. 33. Verſe 33 And every earthen veſſel, whereinto any other of them falleth, whatſoever is in it ſhall be unclean.] It defiled both the Veſſel, and that which was contained in it.
And ye ſhall break it.] This is preſcribed VI. 28. becauſe ſuch Veſſels were of no great value.
Ver. 34. Verſe 34 Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which ſuch water cometh ſhall be unclean.] The Jews have many Obſervations about theſe ſorts of Pollutions: but the ſimple meaning is, that any Meat, which might otherwiſe be lawfully eaten, was made unclean, if any Water poured out of ſuch a Veſſel as is before named, had come upon it. For the Water being defiled, it made the Meat on which it came to be unclean alſo. This appears to be the ſenſe, by what follows.
And all drink that may be drunk in every ſuch veſſel, ſhall be unclean.] It might not be drunk out of ſuch a Veſſel, though otherwiſe it was not prohibited. But though liquid things were by ſuch means made unclean, yet not dry things (ſuch as Bread) becauſe they did not ſo ſoon receive any Effluviums from a dead Carcaſe, as Liquid things did. This they gather from v. 37, 38.
Ver. 35. Verſe 35 And every thing whereupon any part of their carcaſe falleth, ſhall be unclean.] Though the whole Carcaſe did not fall upon the things here named, yet if any part of it did, they were not fit to be uſed any more, but were to be broken in pieces. See v. 33. The deſign of all which Laws is very viſible, that by making the Iſraelites very cautious how they touched theſe things, or any other on which they fell, they might much more abhor to eat any unclean Creature; and thereby be kept a ſeparate People from all other Nations, from whoſe familiar Converſation they were by this means reſtrained, and conſequently in leſs danger to learn their Idolatrous Cuſtoms.
Whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, &c.] Some tranſlate the laſt words ſimply pots: and Conr. Pellicanus hath pertinently obſerved, that thoſe places where Meat and Drink were commonly prepared (ſuch as Ovens, and Pots, and Wine-veſſels, and Cellars) it became them to preſerve very clean and pure: which is the reaſon that Moſes requires them to be broken down, if any part of the Carcaſe of unclean Creatures fell upon them.
For they are unclean.] Rendred hereby unfit for uſe.
And ſhall be unclean unto you.] And therefore ſhall not be uſed by you as heretofore.
Ver. 36. Verſe 36 Nevertheleſs a fountain, or pit, (or ciſtern, as ſome tranſlate it) wherein there is plenty of water, ſhall be clean.] This Exception ſeems to have been a merciful Proviſion for their ſpeedy Cleanſing from ſuch Pollutions as they frequently contracted; by allowing them to make uſe of any Collection of Waters (notwithſtanding any ſuch Carcaſe had fallen into them) in their own private Grounds, as well as in the publick Baths; ſuch as Betheſda ſeems to have been, which had five Porches; that they who laboured under the ſame ſort of Pollution, might betake themſelves to the ſame Porch, and go down into the Water together. If this had not been permitted, it might have been impoſſible (conſidering the few Rivers they had in that Country) to have cleanſed themſelves after their Defilements.
But that which toucheth their carcaſe ſhall be unclean.] The Man who drew out theſe Carcaſes out of ſuch Waters, was to be unclean till the Even; i. e. Separated, as I ſaid before, from the Tabernacle and from common Converſation. Or the meaning may be, that the Inſtrument, whatſoever it was, which he uſed to pull the Carcaſe out of the Fountain or Ciſtern, ſhould be unclean, and not uſed any more.
Ver. 37. Verſe 37 If any part of their carcaſe fall upon any ſeed which is to be ſown, it ſhall be clean.] If a Mouſe, for inſtance, was found dead among the Wheat that was to be ſown, it might notwithſtanding be uſed for Seed: But other Wheat, which was not intended for Seed, was made unclean, and might not be uſed till it was waſhed. The reaſon of this difference is plain, becauſe the Seed that was to be ſown, went through many alterations before it could become Food, which took away all the pollution.
Ver. 38. Verſe 38 But if any water be put upon the ſeed, and any part of their carcaſe fall thereon, it ſhall be unclean unto you.] Wet Seed might be ſuppoſed to have received ſome tincture from the Carcaſe, which dry did not: And not being ſo fit to be ſown till it was dry, was in that time to be cleanſed.
Ver. 39. Verſe 39 And if any beast of which ye may eat, die.] Either of it ſelf, or torn by Wild-beaſts; or be ſuffocated, ſo that the Blood remain in the Veins.
He that toucheth the carcaſe thereof, ſhall be unclean until the even.] Such Meat became unlawful, not only to be eaten, but to be touched.
Ver. 40. Verſe 40 He that eateth of the carcaſe of it, ſhall waſh his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he alſo that beareth the carcaſe, &c.] See v. 24, 25. He ſpeaks of ſuch as eat of this Meat ignorantly: for if they did it knowingly, it was a preſumption to which cutting off is threatned, XV Numb. 30.
Ver. 41. Verſe 41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.] Except thoſe before-mentioned v. 21, &c.
Shall be an abomination: it ſhall not be eaten.] Such as Worms and Serpents: which for this very reaſon are counted vile and filthy, becauſe they crawl upon the Earth.
Ver. 42. Verſe 42 Whatſoever goeth upon the belly, and whatſoever goeth upon all four, and whatſoever hath more feet, &c.] This Verſe ſeems to be an Explication of the foregoing. For ſome creeping things have ſuch ſhort feet, that they are not to be diſcerned by our naked Eyes, but they appear as if they went upon their Bellies. Others have feet apparently; and ſome only four (as Moles, &c.) others have many more than four, as Caterpillars, and Hoglice, which we call Millepedes, and thoſe called Centapees in the Philipine Iſlands (mentioned in Dampier's late Voyage round the World, p. 320.) not becauſe they have really a thouſand, or an hundred feet, but becauſe they have a great many. And the Scolopendra, which the Arabians call Nedall, is another of this ſort, which, they ſay, hath preciſely XLIV feet, viz. XXII. on each ſide, as Bochart notes Lib. IV. c. 6. p. 1. And ſo the Engliſh call the Centapees before-mentioned, forty legs, which are on each ſide of the Belly.
Among all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.] Here Nachmanides is ſomething curiouſly critical, and bids us obſerve, that Moſes ſpeaking (both here and in the foregoing Verſe) not meerly of creeping things, but of ſuch as creep upon the Earth; doth not intend ſuch little Worms as are in Peaſe, or Figs, or Dates, or other Fruit, which were not included in this Precept, but might be eaten.
Ver. 43. And ye ſhall not make your ſelves abominable by any creeping thing that creepeth, neither ſhall ye make your ſelves unclean with them, that ye ſhould be defiled thereby.] They made themſelves abominable if they did eat them: and they made themſelves unclean if they did but touch them. R. Levi of Barcelona fancies, that in this Verſe Moſes ſpeaks particularly of things creeping in the Waters; as in the foregoing, of things creeping on the Earth. And then, as all thoſe Worms which are in Fruit, were not to be deemed unlawful; ſo all thoſe little Animals which move in the Waters, might be drank together with the Water which was drawn out of Wells, or Pits, &c. and which were bred in Water kept in Veſſels.
Ver. 44. Verſe 44 For I am the LORD your God.] See III Exod. 15, 18.
Ye ſhall therefore ſanctifie your ſelves.] By this ſeparate ſort of Diet, and other fore-mentioned Obſervances.
And ye ſhall be holy, for I am holy.] The word holy ſignifies ſometimes that which is moſt excellent, and highly exalted above all other things. In which ſenſe God here puts them in mind, that he being the moſt eminent in all Perfections, incomparably above all the Gods of the Nations, both in his Nature, and in his Works, (particularly in their Redemption out of Egypt, v. 45.) it was but reaſonable that they ſhould be diſtinguiſhed from all other Nations, in their manner of living; and particularly by abſtaining from all the Defilements before-mentioned. For he having declared them an holy People (XIX Exod. 6.) it was but juſt that they ſhould live after another faſhion, than the reſt of the World; and look upon thoſe things as unclean to them, which were not ſo to other People. See XXII Exod. ult.
Neither ſhall ye defile your ſelves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.] Here being a different word uſed in the laſt Clauſe from that in the foregoing (both which ſignifie creeping things) Maimonides here diſtinguiſhes between them; and ſaith, that the firſt word Scheretz ſignifies ſuch creeping things as are produced by Male and Female; and Romeſch (which is the other word) ſuch as ariſe out of Putrefaction. Which is now diſcovered to be an Error; there being no ſuch Animals as are produced meerly by the power of the Sun, out of putrified matter; but all out of ſome Seed or other which comes from Male and Female. This therefore is only a Repetition of what was delivered before, and now confirmed by an unanſwerable reaſon.
Ver. 45. For I am the LORD your God that bringeth you up out of the Land of Egypt.] This was a benefit ſo freſh in their minds, that he ſpeaks of it as if it were now a doing: and being the firſt and greateſt benefit, (the very foundation of the reſt) there could not be a higher aggravation of Guilt, than to be inſenſible of this Obligation, XXXII Exod. 8.
To be your God.] He having redeemed them out of Slavery, made them thereby his own People; over whom he had a peculiar Dominion, in the right of this Redemption. See XX Exod. 2.
Ye ſhall therefore be holy, for I am holy.] They being his peculiar People, he ſeparated them from all other Nations by peculiar Laws; which made them different from all other People, as he himſelf was, from all other Beings.
Ver. 46. Verſe 46 This is the law of the beaſts, and of the fowl, &c.] That is, this is the Rule you are to obſerve in eating of Beaſts, and Fowl, and Fiſhes, and things that creep on the Earth. Of which four ſorts of living Creatures Moſes had treated in this Chapter, though not in that very order wherein they are ſet down in this Verſe: but firſt of Beaſts, v. 2, 3, &c. then of Fiſhes, v. 9, &c. then of Birds, v. 13, &c. and laſtly of creeping things, v. 20, &c. Some of all which kinds he forbad them to eat, for ſuch reaſons as I have already mentioned: unto which this may be added, that by not allowing them an intire liberty to eat every thing, but rather laying many Reſtraints upon them, he intended to prevent that Gluttony and Luxury which is the ruin of a State; unto which nothing adminiſters more than too great variety of Meats, the deſire of which is inſatiable.
Ver. 47. Verſe 47 To make a difference.] To direct you how to make a difference.
Between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten, and the beast that may not be eaten.] There was no uncleanneſs in any of theſe things, but what was made by this prohibition of them. But there being great reaſon to prohibit them, it was very neceſſary that both Prieſts and People ſhould obſerve, and be well skilled in, the Marks whereby what was lawful to be eaten, might be known from what was unlawful. Upon which account this is ſo oft repeated, and the ſame here expreſſed twice in different words.