YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL COMMENTARY ON LEVITICUS. PART II. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. A HISTOEICAL AND CKITICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTA MENT WITH A NEW TRANSLATION: Vol. I. GENESIS — Hebrew and English. 18 ». Abridged Edition. 12 s. Vol. II. EXODUS — Hebrew and English. 15 s. Abridged Edition. 12 s. Vol. III. LEVITICUS, PART I — Hebrew and English. 15 «. — Abridged Edition. 8 s. s A HEBREW GRAMMAR WITH EXERCISES : PART I. The Outlines of the Language, with Exercises, being a practical Introdxiction to the Study of Hebrew. Revised. Edition. 12 s. G d. PART II. The exceptional Forms and Gonstructions, preceded by an Essay on the History of Hebrew Grammar. 12 s. G i, A KEY to the Exercises of the First Part. 5 s. LONDON: LONGMANS AND CO. A HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT, WITH A NEW TRANSLATION, M. M. KALISCH, Phil. Doc, M. A. sop-1-LEVITICUS. PART II. Containing Chapters XI to XXVII, With Treatises. LONDON: LONGMANS, GREEN, READER, AND DYER. 1872. Yale Divinity Library LEIPZIG , PRINTED BY W. DRUGULIN. PREFACE. Little remains to be added to the introductory observations of the preceding volume. The same mode of treatment has been adopted in this concluding Part of Leviticus. Here also the text has been illustrated in a threefold manner — by explanatory notes from the Biblical point of view, by a critical analysis, and byva survey of the results considered in the Hght of science and history. These different features prevail, respec tively, in the general notes of the Commentary, in the Philological Remarks, and in the Treatises. The con clusions at which the author has arrived, tend to con firm the opinions which he ventured to express before, and which he has here endeavoured to support by fresh proofs and arguments. He may be permitted to refer especially to the "Essays on the laws of Diet, of Matrimony, and the Festi vals, and to the remarks on the Sabbatical year and the Year of jubilee. VI PREFACE. As in the course of these enquiries he has heen led to discuss and to explain nearly all the legislative por tions of the Pentateuch, he hopes to be able to con dense the remaining Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy into one volume. Of this Part also an Abridged Edition is published embodying results, but omitting references and philo logical criticisms. Convinced that the strife and confusion of conflict ing creeds can only be removed by a careful examina tion of our religious sources , the author has con scientiously approached the difficulties with which this portion of the Pentateuch abounds; and he would feel amply rewarded, if he should have succeeded, however slightly, in smoothing the path of future investigation. London, November 30, 1871. Referenc3 Library -OK- Biblical Literature, Yale University. CONTENTS, Page Preliminary Essay : On the Dietary Laws of the Hebrews 1 I. The Prohibition of Blood 2 II. Meat out out of a living Animal (-m fa las) 9 III. The Prohibition of Fat 12 IV. Meat of Animals that died of themselves (rriss) .... 14 V. Meat of Animals torn by wild beasts (ns^1?) 20 VI. The Sciatic Nerve (H'iiar. -na) 24 VII. Seething the Kid in its Mother's Milk 28 VIII. Clean and Unclean Animals 40 IX. Supplementary Chapter on the New Testament in reference to the Ceremonial Law 113 Chapter XI: Clean and unclean animals 122 Treatise on the Laws of Purification 187 Chapter XII: Ordinances concerning women in childbirth .... 201 Chapter XIII: On leprosy of persons and garments and its treatment .214 Chapter XIV: Ceremony of purification for a leper after recovery, and leprosy of houses 238 Chapter XV: On running issue (ait), and nocturnal accidents of a man; on sexual intercourse ; on woman in her courses ("i), and prolonged or irregular issue of blood (on ait) on her part 253 Treatise on the Day of Atonement: Its Origin, and its Place in the System of Hebrew Festivals 266 Treatise on the Doctrine of Angels and spirits, or the Monotheism of the Bible 283 I. The Ante-Babylonian Time 284 II. The Post-Babylonian Time 287 IH. The New Testament 299 IV. The Talmud and the Midrashim 305 VIII CONTENTS. Page Chapter XVI: The ordinances of the Day of Atonement 320 Chapter XVII: Supplementary laws on sacrifices and diet 342 Essay on the Matrimonial laws of the Bible and their later de velopment 354 Chapter XVIII: Matrimonial and other laws 383 Chapter XIX: Miscellaneous moral and ceremonial precepts .... 403 Chapter XX: Ordinances on idolatry and incest 439 Chapters yyt and XXTT: Supplementary laws on the priesthood and sacrifices 453 Chapter XXIII: The Sabbath and the festivals 487 Chapter XXTV : Supplementary laws on the service of the Sanctuary, the holiness of God, and the inviolability of persons . ... 519 Chapter XXV: On the Sabbatical year and the Year of jubilee . . . 533 Chapter XXVI: Blessings and curses 578 Chapter XXVII: Laws on votive offerings and tithes 613 On the Economy, Date, and authorship of the Book of lEviticus 636 n. PRECEPTS RESPECTING PURITY IN DIET AND PERSON. CHAPTERS XI TO XV. A. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. CHAPTER XL PRELIMINARY ESSAY. ON THE DIETARY LAWS OF THE HEBREWS. Scattered throughout the Pentateuch, and occasionally in other portions of the Hebrew Canon, are found dietary rules and suggest ions* not recommended as measures of expediency from considerations of health, but invested with the solemnity of religious observances and the binding power of moral duties. The dietary laws appear, there fore, to be intimately allied to the system of Hebrew theology; in deed both derive light from each other; and it is highly instructive to trace the connection into which spiritual ideas were brought with practical life, and thus to prove how, by wonderful consistency and energy of mind, the distinctive doctrines of "Mosaism" were made a reality by their concrete embodiment in the ordinary course of existence. In surveying this subject, the following questions are forced upon our attention. How far did the ideas prompt the enactments, and to what extent did practice precede the formation of general principles ? Did the latter modify the customs, or did the customs influence the teaching? It will, therefore, .he necessary to follow the dietary laws from their origin to th^eir complete develop ment in the Hebrew code, and not only to weigh each ordinance as it is set forth in the Pentateuch, but also to search for its reason, B 2 DIETARY LAWS. deeper import, and religious bearing; and above all to pursue its history from the beginning down to the time when it was finally fixed and adopted. Under these different aspects the commands will be viewed in the following treatise; they will, moreover, be carried on through their Talmudic and Rabbinical expansions, and will be compared with analogous laws or habits of the nations of antiquity and of modern times. I. THE PROHIBITION OP BLOOD. The connection between blood and health or life was discovered at an early period ; to shed blood and to destroy life soon became equivalent terms; and the maxim was currently and almost pro verbially adopted, that "The blood is the soul" or "the life" K Prom remote ages, therefore, a reluctance was felt to eat the blood of animals, especially as a certain cosmic relation was supposed to exist between man and the animal kingdom2. When, fatigued by their pursuit of the defeated Philistines, the Hebrews killed cattle and ate the meat with the blood, Saul reproached them with "sinning against the Lord", and guarded against a repetition of the offence3. Nay, according to a thoughtful narrative embodied in the Pentateuch, man, in the pri mitive time of his innocence, content with vegetables, and unwilling to disturb the harmony of nature by the agonies of death, abstained entirely from animal food4; but when, depraved and corrupted by sin, he was, after the Deluge, permitted to kill animals for his sub sistence as unreservedly as he had before been permitted to eat all produce of the soil, he was still commanded, "But flesh with its soul, which is its blood, you shall not eat"5. So firmly did the teachers of the nation cling to this theory, and so anxious were they to enforce the awe of blood, that they fostered and disseminated the ideal hope, that, as once in the time of Paradise , so also in the age of the Messiah, when peace shall again pervade the world, no creature will bleed and die in the service of man, and that even the animals themsel ves now fierce and sanguinary, will "eat grass like the ox" 6. It may be that they deemed, besides, the eating of blood detrimental to gentle- i Deut. XII. 23 WEsn Kin tnn; Gen. 3 1 Sam. XIV. 32, 33. IX. 4; Lev. XVII. 11 (aia ifflan wbs), 4 Gen. I. 29, 30. 14 (Kin lata i»n iioa V= IDE: and is v$: 5 Gen. IX. 3, 4 ; comp. Joseph. Ant. Kin Itoi iwa); comp. the p'agan analo- I. in. 8; Comm. on Gen. pp. 78 79 gies in Comm. on Levit. I. 126 — 128. 215, 216 -; and infra Sect, viii init. Comp. Gen. II. 18—20. 6 Issi. XI. 7. I.. PROHIBITION OF BLOOD. 3 ness and humanity7, injurious to health 8 , and, if taken largely, even dangerous to life; nor is it improbable that they saw with disgust the nefarious abuse made of it by heathens for the sealing of oaths and treaties 9, or for seeking the alliance and aid of demons either by drink ing the blood itself, the supposed nourishment of evil spirits, or by con suming the sacrificial meal near the blood, as did the Zabii, who believed that they fraternised with the demons by eating with them at the same table 10 : all these reasons combined may have operated to confirm men of intelligence in their hostility to blood as food. But their efforts remained long unsuccessful ; not only was their injunction unheeded in the time of Saul, as has been observed ; but even in so late an age as that of Ezekiel, we hear the bitter and well-deserved complaint, "Thus says the Lord God, You eat with the blood11, and lift up your eyes towards your idols, and shed blood" 12. Undaunted and by no means discouraged, because too well accustomed to hard struggles with the people's obstinacy, the legislators continued and increased their exertions. For, in the course of time, another motive for the sanc tity of blood was added, a motive more powerful and commanding i Comp. Philo , De Concup. c. 10 ; Maimon. Mor. Nev. III. 49 ; Lipmann, Sepher Nitsachon on Lev. XVII. 10, 11, "If any one eats the blood of an animal, his rational soul takes the nature of that animal"; Bechai on Lev. XVH, fol. 46a ed. 1864, "Our na ture should be mild and compassio nate, and not cruel, but eating blood would engender in our souls coarse ness and ferocity;" therefore the Rabbins made Satan the originator of the custom of eating blood (see Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. II. 620); comp. also Trusen, Sitten, Ge- brauche und Krankheiten der alten Hebraer, p. 77, "Bei dem Verbot des Blutes lag die moralische Absicht zu Grunde, dass das Blut als die Quint- essenz und das eigentliche Substrat des thierischen Lebens dasselbe un- mittelbar in das menschliche Leben ubertriige und den Menschen zum Thiere mache." 8 Comp. .Galen. De Aliment. Fa- cult. HI. 23, 86an:£7iTov S'la-ci xal ire- PIttoj[aotixov Sitav cujj-a, xof}' 8v av atixo Tpoirov axeudoiji -us; and Mishn. Mace. III. 15, uss nsj? bin Vb nusaiu am. Similarly the early Greeks seem to have loathed the brains of animals, though some ancient writers thought they abstained from them as being "the seat of nearly all sensation" (8ia To-rds a'aft-^asis dTidsas IvaiiTi^elvat); Athenjl. 72 ; Plut. Sympos. VH. ix. 3. 9 Comp. Comm. on Levit. I. 123, 128, 231 note 19. When a Scythian had killed the first enemy, he drank his blood {Herod. IV. 64). 1° Maim. Mor. Nev. IH. 46; comp. c. 41; "Wisd. XII. 5; Kimchiem 1 Sam. XIV. 32 , aiao qiVsiko ai-i»b oinaitn pn wb inat3 Lev. XVII. 13 i£J>a inoai; comp. death, or utter exclusion from the Talm. Chull. 83b, and the Rabbinical holy community : it was menaced with regulations in Yor. Deah § 28. reference to blood and fat, not be- "Comp. Gen. IV. 10, 11; Isai. XXI. cause partaking of either "does not 26; Ezek. XXIV. 7,8; Job XVI. 18; do much harm", nor "because men Comm. on Lev. I. p. 39. Maimonides feel no strong temptation in that re- supposes that the reason of this com- spect" (so Maim. Mor. Nev. HJ. 41). mand also was "to prevent the Isra- 8 Lev. XVII. 3 — 9 ; see Comm. on elites from assembling round the Lev. I. p. 39. blood in order to hold meals." 6 DIETARY LAWS. the Hebrews only, and his fondest expectations seem realised if he can induce them to act upon his warning ; but the author of the Levi tical ordinance boldly includes in its operation the non- Israelites who happen to live in the Hebrew territory ; he uncompromisingly proclaims the law, "No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall the stranger that sojourns among you eat blood" ; he menaces with ex cision equally the one and the other in case the command is trans gressed * ; and he declares the obligation binding "as an eternal statute for all generations throughout all dwellings" 2. The pro gress in the conception of the law is manifest ; it appears natural and organic — provided the relative age of the component parts of the Pentateuch is rightly estimated. But now a difficulty arose. As according to the Levitical writer, the chief reason for abstaining from blood, was its connection with the work of atonement, the law could consistently apply to the sacrificial animals only, the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the pigeon, and the turtle-dove, since no other served for expiation. This is indeed the logical consequence. But such restriction would have shocked the feeling and consciousness of the nation, which had long since been taught to avoid the blood of every eatable beast, such as the roe buck and the hart 3 ; and it would have been abhorred by no one more strongly than by the Levitical author himself; he, therefore, so gla ringly ignored the perplexing dilemma into which he had been pressed by his new principle, that immediately after its statement he urged, "You shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh"4: he seems indeed to have been aware of the untoward difficulty, since, in order to evade it, and to support the universal injunction, he deemed it ne cessary to fall back upon the old and time-honoured maxim', "For the life of all flesh is its soul"- Yet the Levitical view prevailed so far, that the blood of quadrupeds and birds only, but not the blood of fishes, was prohibited5, evidently because fishes were never offered as sacrifices6, though primitively their blood also seems to have been shunned as representing the soul or the life 7. The Levitical theory obtained still greater force through Jewish tradition which considering the subject from every aspect, permitted the blood of clean locusts also 8, unconcerned at the palpable violation of the i Lev. XVH. 10, 12, 13. & Lev. VII.'26,~n»na^^ 2 Lev. III. 17; VII. 26; comp. 6 SeetheprobablereasonsinComm Exod. XII. 14, 20, 24. on Lev. I. p. 81. 3 Comp. Deut. Xn. 15, 16; XV. 7 Gen. IX. 4; comp. ver*. 2, 3 22> 23- 8 Lev. XI. 22 ; comp. mShn.K^ith * Lev. XVH. 14, lissn vb iwa is Bi. v. 1. I. PROHIBITION OF BLOOD. 7 fundamental principle that "the blood is the soul"; and starting from the maxim, "The blood by which the life departs atones, the blood by which the life does not depart, does not atone"9, Talmudism estab lished the distinction, consistent from the later Levitical, untenable from the earlier physical point of view, between "the blood of the soul" and "the blood of the limbs"10, the former being that which flows out of the killed animal , the latter that which issues from a wound ; and it was decreed that eating the one is punishable by exci sion, but eating the other merely by stripes as a simple trespass (1Kb) J 1 — which is doubtless against the spirit of the Biblical precept12. But Talmudists and Rabbins, measuring the importance of the command by the dread punishment threatened for its neglect, and believing that, in the time of the Temple, even its unintentional transgression required a sin-offering13, busily compiled rules and devised precautions to preclude the possibility of even the smallest particle of blood being eaten. With this view they saw fit to fix a most precise method of slaughtering, which partially aimed at allowing the blood to flow out freely and fully14; they prescribed incredibly minute regulations for soaking and especially for salting the meat, so that the blood might be thoroughly drawn out15; and they or dered the veins and blood-vessels of the beast to be most carefully removed16. Some Rabbins, shrinking from no excess, forbid certain parts of clean quadrupeds, because the complex ramification and great delicacy of their veins render a complete removal of them dif ficult. Those who, in our time, insist upon this rigorous demand, im pose upon themselves a heavy responsibility, and they blindly provoke a warfare between the past and the present, the issue of which cannot be doubtful; yet their narrow-minded obstinacy promotes progress in spite of them; for it causes educated Jews to feel more strongly, how utterly incompatible the superstitions and pagan traditions of untutored ages are with the demands of a purer civilisation; for to them the blood possesses neither a cosmic nor a religious sanc- 9 -]iKtt) bi lEsa 13 nKSii asanas bi >s Comp. Mishn. Kerith. I. 1; see ibss laiK 13 rtssv wsan, Talm. Pesach. Comm. on Lev. I. 270 note 1. 65b; Mishn. Kerith. v. 1. 14 See Comm. onLev. I. pp. 187, 188. i° 1 trri n»n33. tlm Hebrews was simply the eating 12 Comp.J/a/m.Mor.Nev.HI.48, "It of the blood with the flesh of the accustoms men to cruelty." In Athens slaughtered animals; comp. Kimchi a person was punished who had flay- in loc. , who justly insists upon the ed a ramalive(i7wtf.DeEsuCarn.1. 7, literal sense of the words, in oppo- 6 Trpos cpiAocvOpiuTtiav £$ts[j.6s 06 Soxet sition to the Talmudical explanations Oauttaoxov elvai). adopted by Rashi (ymi anuij? BiisiK 13 Gen. IX. 4 ; see Talm. Sanh. 57a, P11*33 D")> Ralbag (am iaas), a,, o. 59a;- Pesach. 22b. 16 na 13a wsb saw or iiap» 'ss 'aw i4Deut.XII.23,iW3nBjin>£anVsKriKii; na 133 )rrh, Talm. Avod. Zar. 2b. 10 DIETARY LAWS. disobedience to the laws and authorities (^3^), blasphemy (HWi Ksia), idolatry (mi mat), incest (rfl*w ^a), murder (ow tflSWB), and plun der (SIS)1; these prohibitions, forming a primitive code of natural ethics, were considered to have been binding upon all men even before the Mosaic revelation2; and they were also compulsory on the heathen "strangers of the gate" (151B lis) who lived among the Hebrews3. Yet there can be no doubt that the practice was, and is still, in dulged in by savage tribes, as those of Abyssinia and Syria, the Esquimaux and Samoiedes, and it prevailed among the Atticoti of ancient Britain, who considered such meat a delicious dainty4. The execrable inhumanity of the custom, which can hardly be attributed to the Hebrews at the time of the Elohist, appears from an account of Bruce5 relating what he witnessed on his journey from Axum to the river Tacazze, an account often disputed and long ques tioned, but subsequently verified by other trustworthy travellers6. "The drivers suddenly tript up the cow, and gave the poor animal 1 Talm. Sanh. 56, 57 (where the seven laws are curiously derived from, or are at least, to aid the memory, re ferred to, the words of Gen. H, 16, 1511 'si issi Disn is> BiniK nini); comp. also Yoma 67b; Beresh. Rabb. XXXIV. 2 ; Cuzari HI. 73; Bechai on Gen. n. 16, p.23a ed.Lemb.; Selden, de Jure Nat- etGent. I. 10 (pp. 118—129); VII. 1 (pp. 783, 784) ; Heilpren B»n i-iisa fol. 100, 101; Comm. on Exod. p. 433. Some doctors included in these laws the mere eating of raw flesh with blood (inn p am ia>), even if the beast had been duly slaughtered; others again advocated additional inter dictions, as BiKis, BiEiua, and 011ns.* 2 It was supposed that six of them were already enjoined upon Adam, to which the prohibition of inn p 13K was added in the time of Noah ; see Talm. Sanh. 56*> ; Maimon. De Regib. IX. 1, comp. 10—12; VIII. 10; and in general cc. IX, X; De Cib. vetit. V. 1 — 9 ; Albo, Ikkar. Part HI. u. 14 init. 3 It is difficult to express surprise too strongly at finding even re cent writers deduce these Rabbini cal subtleties from the text in Genesis (IX. 1—7), and assert that "the se ven laws were considered as Noachic already by the narrator" (So, f. i., Furst, Geschichte der Biblischen Li- teratur, I. 115). 4 Hieron. Adv. Jovinian. II. 7 (H. p. 335 ed. Valarsi) : Quid loquar de caeteris nationibus cum ipse adoles- centulus in Gallia viderim Atticotos (al. Scotos), gentemBritannicam, hu- manis vesci carnibus, et cum per sil- vas porcorum greges et armentorum pecudumque reperiant, pastorum na tes et feminarum papillas solere abscindere, et has solas ciborum de- licias arbitrari. 5 Travels, pp. 213, 214, ed. Lon don 1841. 6 As Antes, Salt, Jones, and others, see Rosenm. 1. c. pp. 42, 309 — 311. The currency of the term inn p las in the Talmud is sufficient to prove the existence of the custom; and Maimonides observes (Mor. Nev. HI. 48), that informer times "pagankings acted thus", and that "it was also an idolatrous rite to cut off a certain member of a quadruped and to eat it." II. MEAT CUT OUT OF A LIVING ANIMAL. 11 a very rude fall upon the ground . . . One of them sat upon her neck, holding down her head by the horns, the other twisted the halter about the fore-feet, while the third, who had a knife in his hand, instead of taking her by the throat, got astride upon her belly before her hind-legs, and gave her a very deep wound in the upper part of her buttock ; . . . then they cut out two pieces, thicker and longer than our beef- steaks ; . . . it was done adroitly, and the two pieces were spread upon the outside of one of their shields. One of the men still continued holding the head, while the other two were busied in curing the wound ; the skin which had covered the flesh that was taken away, was left entire, and flapped over the wound, and was fastened to the corresponding part by two or more small skewers or pins; . .. they prepared a cataplasm of clay, with which they covered the wound: they then forced the animal to rise, and drove it on before them to furnish them with a fuller meal in the evening." — To this may be added a short extract from Salt's narra tive7 : "A soldier, attached to the company, proposed 'cutting out the shulada' from one of the cows they were driving before them ; . . . they laid hold of the animal by the horns, threw it down, and pro ceeded without further ceremony to the operation. This consisted in cutting out two pieces of flesh from the buttock near the tail, which together... might weigh about a pound; the pieces so cut out being called 'shulada', and composing, as far as I could ascertain, part of the two 'glutei maximi' or larger muscles of the thigh8. As soon as they had taken these away, they sewed up the wounds, plaistered them over with cow-dung, and drove the animal forwards, while they divided among their party the still reeking steaks." — Formerly, Arab tribes not unfrequently drew blood from a live camel, poured it into a gut, and ate it boiled — a black pudding (moswadd), which naturally vanished from the list of Arab delicacies in consequence of Mohammed's law against blood 9. Nor is our own time free from similar horrors : the ingenious Chinese delight in ducks' feet roasted by forcing the wretched birds to walk over red-hot sheets of iron till the feet fall off; civilised France rejoices in frogs' legs torn from of the living animals ; in order to enlarge the liver of geese for the Strasbourg pate de foie gras, the geese are confined in hot ovens ; while the Romans sewed up the eyes of cranes and swans which they 7 A Voyage to Abyssinia (1814), 9 See supra p. 8; comp. Pococke, pp. 295, 296. Spicileg. p. 320; Sale, Koran, Prelim . 8 See Freytag, Lex. Ar. n. 447. Discourse, p. 91. 12 DIETARY LAWS. fattened in dark cells or cages'; some English butchers draw, at intervals, small quantities of blood from live calves which during the time suffer agonizing fits, because by this process the flesh becomes more delicately white; some poulterers pluck the feathers from fowls while alive to make the birds appear plumper when sent to market2; and lobsters, crabs, and sometimes eels, are boiled alive. IU. THE PROHIBITION OF FAT. The fat of victims , being naturally valued among the richest parts, was from early times devoted to the deity on the altar, both by the Hebrews and other nations3. Yet among the former, it was for long periods not interdicted as food4. The Deuteronomist rejected it by no law: in three different passages, in which he mentions and permits the slaughtering of animals for food away from the national Sanctuary, he denies to the owner the blood only, and nothing else — "only you shall not eat the blood"5; and in the last "Song of Moses" fat- is even enumerated among the choicest dainties 6. But in course of time, fat, like blood, was currently believed to represent the life and strength of the animal, and therefore to involve its "soul" or principle of existence. Hence, in the Book of Leviticus, the prohibi tion of the one was repeatedly joined with that of the other: "You shall eat neither any fat nor blood"7. Both were enforced with equal severity, threatened with the same awful punishment of "excision"8, and ordained as "eternal statutes" to be observed by the Israelites "for their generations throughout all their dwellings"9. But here the analogies ended. The prohibition of fat resulted from the con sistent development of Levitical theories; it was from the very beginning brought into connection with the advanced sacrificial system; it was never extended to the free and untamed species of 1 Plut. De Esu Cain. II. 1; Plin. tious, injures digestion, and pro- H. N. X. 23 or 30. duces cold and thick blood" (Mor. J 2 The Times of April 6, 1868, re- Nev- m- 48> comP- 41>> was not sha" "¦ porting a conviction for this cruelty, red ^ the an<=ient world. records that one poulterer in Salop = Deut. XII. 16, 23; XV. 23. alone killed in that way between 5000 c_ e Deut. XXXH. 14 ; comp Comm. and 6000 fowls a week. on Lev- L p. 132 note ^ 3 1 Sam. II. 15, 16; comp. Comm. 7 Lev. HI. 17; VH. 23—27. on Levit. I. p. 320. a t o„ -b-tt or _i_^ * 8 Lev. VII. 25, nissn vtiTi nnissi 1 The opinion of Maimonides that ni»s>». "the fat of the entrails is too nutri- 9 Lev. III. 17. HI. PROHIBITION OF FAT. 13 the clean quadrupeds (ITTi)10, but was always restricted to those set apart for lawful victims11 — to the ox, the sheep, and the goat12; it was more especially confinedto the fat and the fat parts burnt on the altar as "an offering made by fire of a sweet odour to the Lord" 13, and therefore described more frequently than the blood as "the food of the Lord" 14, namely, the net of fat spreading over the intestines, and the fat found between the guts and easily detached from them, the two kidneys with their fat, the great lobe of the liver, and, of sheep of the kind ovis laticaudata, also the fat tail by which that spe cies is distinguished15; while the remaining fat, imbedded in the flesh and requiring to be cut out, was probably permitted to be eaten 16, unless the animal had died of itself, or had been torn by wild beasts17, in which cases the whole carcase was rendered unclean, though the fat could be used for any purpose except food18. The apparently universal principle and injunction, "All the fat belongs to the Lord"19, and "You shall not eat any fat" 20, are not in contra diction to the more limited command, "You shall not eat any fat of ox or of sheep or of goat"21; for they cannot be misunderstood in a code which treats exclusively of sacrificial laws. The Levitical wri - ter, content with giving practical reality to his theories, ordered all sacrificial, animals, even those destined for food, to be killed as victims at the common altar22 , and he declared their fat to be too holy for m Comp. Talm. Chull. 59b ; Maimon. Lev. VHI. 25 nii.vn ainn, and not as De Cib. Vet. I. 9; etc. our text niiKni ainn); see Comm. 1. n n»K nass anpi i»k nsnsn p 3in u- P- 494; comP- also Geiger, Jiid. -n-pi,, Zeitschr. I. 134, 135; Fiirst, Gesch. ,„T „.TT „„ .. des Karaerthums, 1.84,85. The ar- 12 Lev. VII. 23, 25. • 13 Lev. IH. 5, 11, 16; XVII. 6. Suments ^ whlch Ebn Ezra (on Lev. VH. 23) professes to have con- 14 Lev. HI. 11, 16; Ezek. XLIV. 7 ; yinoed a Karaite of ^ lawfulness comp. Comm. on Levit. I. p. 7 notes of eating ^ &t ^ ^ by nQ 22' 23- means tenable. 15 Comp. Comm. on Levit. I. pp. 489 — 493. But Jewish tradition deci ded, with very questionable jus tice, that the tail of sheep was 17 nsita aim niaa ain. "called fat only withrespect to sacri- is -issia isi ntoi, Lev. VII. 24; flees" (Yoreh Beah § 64. 5), but was see infra Sect. iv'v. not interdicted as food, because the . 19 jjev_ jjj 16 -^-,1, ai,tt !,3i tail of no other quadruped was de- „„ T TTT „_ . 711 ,,„„,, . . 2° Lev. HI. 17, lissn xi ain ia. manded for the altar — an opinion not shared by the Karaites and 21 Lev- VI1- 23> ™* "™ ^ ^ opposed by the Samaritan codex wsn k> tsi. (which reads in Exod. XXIX. 22 and 22 Lev. XVII. 3 sqq. is See Comm. on Lev. I. p. 133 note 7. 14 DIETARY LAWS. human consumption: he left out of sight the fat of other clean ani mals withdrawn from the control of the priesthood '- IT. MEAT OF ANIMALS THAT DIED OF THEMSELVES (nia?). The aversion generally felt to partaking of the flesh of animals that have died of themselves (!"&aj) 2, is so natural , that we may suppose something like a regular custom to have in this respect been fixed from very early times among most nations that passed beyond the first and ruder stages of culture. Pythagoras taught that, in order to obtain purity (ocyvsioi), it was above all necessary to keep aloof from the flesh of beasts that have died of themselves3 . The Ro mans declared, that "Every thing that dies of itself bears the character of sad gloom" 4 ; hence their priests were forbidden to wear shoes or sandals made of the skins of animals that had not been regularly slaugh tered or sacrificed 5. Sanitary motives, no doubt, helped to strengthen the antipathy; for the flesh of such beasts is often unwholesome, it was certainly deemed difficult of digestion 6. But no people embodied and perpetuated their feeling of reluctance so consistently as the Hebrews7. As soon as their principal notions with respect to legi- i The subject is more fully dis- (Chull. 94», etc.) nns; Ralbag(onDeut. cussed in Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 39, XIV. 21) nnsia nsnan sin nias; see 129 — -133, to which we refer. The Comm. on Lev. I. 553; comp. infra infinitesimal Rabbinical regulations, p. 15 note 9. mainly aiming at the removal of 3 Biog. Zaert. VHI. 33, i.izlyz<;%o.i certain vessels and skins (-pain #VT|aei5(iuv xpeuiv ; Aelian, Var. Hist. flisiipi), in order to obviate the eating IV. 17, djte^eadai . . . t<5v OvqaeiSicuv of the very least particle of blood or rav-ros [J-SMov. fat), may be seen in Yoreh Beah § 64 ; * Feslus sub Mortuae pecudis : sua comp. Maimon. De Cib. vet. c. VII ; morte extincta omnia funesta sunt. Mitsv. Hashem fol. 24b, § nsp. 5 Fesi_ j, c. Mortuae pecudis coris calceos aut soleas fieri flaminicis 2 From iaa cognate with i-;a (comp. nefas habetur, sed aut occisae alio- Jer. IX. 21; Ezek. XXIX. 5), and quin aut immolatae. Talm. therefore kindred in meaning with Chull. 94a "a man must not sell ni|3 carcase (Judg. XIV. 8 ; comp. sandals made frQm ^ skin rf afeeast 2 Ki. IX 37; Lat. mortua pecus); that died of itself, as if they came it_ is rendered by the Septuagint from an animal dul kmed„ ^ gee ™,,«, vexpov, ^o^tfov: by the BernaySj Ueber das p ' Vulg.mortacinum;theKoran(n.l68; Gedicht, p. XXIX. ' V.jt ; etc.) «..*)! ; Josephus (Ant. III. 6 Maim. Mor. Nev, III. 48. xl!" 2) xpimi tou Te*vT]x6Tos aijTop.d- 7 See Lev. XVU. 15, 16- XXII 8- ™? [Cciou; Pseudo-Phocylides (ver. Deut. XIV. 21; comp. Ezek. IV 14- 139) -/.t-7)vo? Ov-fjTiv; the Talmud XLIV. 31. IV. MEAT OF ANIMALS THAT DIED OF THEMSELVES (niaa). 1 5 timate and forbidden food had been settled, they connected meat of animals that died of themselves, whether quadrupeds or birds8, with the injunctions relating to blood , and thus clearly marked the meat as condemned by a sacred principle of religion. They considered such animals as suffocated in their blood, which, prevented from flowing out, and settling in the body, precluded the free and normal depar ture of life9. On these grounds the law was no doubt based in ear lier times. But gradually, as theocratic views prevailed, it was refer red to another principle of even deeper importance and still wider application in the system of Hebrew theology, the principle of the holiness of Israel, the chosen people of a holy God: "You shall not eat of anything that dies of itself, . . . for thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God" 1 °. The animal dying prematurely of itself no doubt harbours within it the germ of dissolution; even while living itpar- s Comp. Ezek. XLIV. 31, tfisn p nsnan pi. 9 Hence the New Testament usu ally expresses niaa by iivivctov suffo cated (Acts XV. 20, 29; XXI. 25); the affinity between niaa and blood appears clearly in Tertullian (Apol. c. 9): "qui propterea quoque suffo- catis et morticinis abstinemus, ne sanguine contaminemur vel intra viscera sepulto" ; Pseudo - Clemens (Recogn. rv. 36) even explains "mor- ticinum quod est suffocatum". The Koran (V. [4) includes, therefore, among the forbidden meat that of animals strangled (&2a»*J I) and kill ed by a blow or fall, and the general rule among Mahommedans is , "It is forbidden to eat any quadruped or bird which has shed no blood in dy ing" (comp. supra p. 8 ; Jiiebuhr, Be- schreib. v. Arab. p. 179). From this point of view the Talmud(Pesach.22b) justly classes among niaa the flesh of the [goring ox that has been stoned to death (comp. Exod. XXI. 28, 29); but the flesh was prohibited for food not merely as niaa , but as that of an animal accursed for having destroyed a human life (comp. Maim. De Cib. vet. IV. 22); although con sidered from another side, the ox may be regarded as nsita, since it was possibly a healthy animal (see infra). However, it appears that the term niaa was gradually, against its original and etymological meaning, extended to the flesh of all unclean and of all clean beasts that had not been slaughtered in the customary manner, yet not to the flesh of those that had actually been torn by wild beasts (which extension of mean ing may be traceable even in the Old Testament itself); while, on the other hand, in the later Talmudical phraseology, the word neia is applied to unlawful meat or food of whatever kind, especially to beasts wounded or afflicted with an organic defect (hence the maxim n-n msa pos is nsiB, Mishn. ChullinIH.1 ; o,om$.Talm. Chull. 42"-, n-n nais nsiB, see infra; Elias levit. Tishb. 39a, sin . . . nail: ano na ifflso i"ti pi . • ¦ nsiB3» nsna iwa niisKS iii&ik iKffli nisian -pi): both words, therefore, approached each other in meaning (comp. Maim. De Cib. vetit. IV. 8, 9, 17 fin.; Mor. Nev. HI. 48, sin niaa ninn nsiB), and both were employed to represent all uncleanness in food. io Deut. XIV. 21. 16 DIETARY LAWS. takes of death; and when it expires, it may be considered in a state of unnatural decay. Eating of such flesh was, therefore, nothing less than contamination, sinful for a people which owes allegiance to the God of eternal life. "That which dies of itself... the priest shall not eat to defile himself therewith; I am the Lord"1. It was deemed so utterly incompatible with the character of the "kingdom of priests", that the commands were step by step made more stringent and more universal. In DeTiteronomy, the law is still limited to the Israelites ; and these werepermitted to sell the meat of niaa, nay to offer it for food, to the strangers living within the Hebrew communities themselves2- But in Leviticus, the prohibition appears in an infinitely more decided form: it was extended to the stranger, and in every respect equalised with regard to the Hebrew and the non-Hebrew; both were, in cases of transgression, subjected to the same rules of purification and the same penalty. "And every soul that eats that which died of itself, . . . whether it be one of your own people or a stranger (nsai nntxa), he shall both wash his garments and bathe himself in water, and be unclean till the evening; then he shall be clean; but if he does not wash them nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity"3. This was the case even if the beast was by the Law permitted for consumption*. Then such meat was regarded as inherently unclean; its very touch caused defilement, which did not cease before the end of the day, whether the animal belonged to a lawful species 5 or to the prohibited kinds 6 ; and carrying the carcase engendered a higher degree of uncleanness, to be removed by washing of the garments.7 With regard to certain pre-eminently loathsome animals, the Law ordained even more rigorous rules: all objects upon which their dead bodies fell — as vessels of wood or metal, skins, textures of wool or goats' hair — were declared unclean, they were for purification to be placed in water till the evening; i Lev. XXII. 8, na nKSBi; comp. the Carthagenian priests, is more Ezek. IV. 14. Pseudo-Phocylides in- than doubtful (comp. Movers, Opfer- troduces our command (Mt) xty^vou? wesen der Karthager, p. 117). #vt)toio Pop-?jv xaxd M-rpav ilt]oii, 2 Deut. XXV. 21, -pywa IMS ui where Bernays 1. c. p. XXVHI pro- nisKl naann ; comp. Talm. Pesach. 21b ; poses to read xatd (j^-rpov) by the Chull. 114b. solemn warning ' Efx.pa.xks -^Top 3 Lev. XVH. 15, 16. l/etv, Tdiv Xo^xfiiv S'diufyeo&cu 4 Lev. XI. 40 ; see notes in loc. (ver. 145). Whether the words bikh 5 Lev. XI. 39. nana in the 17** line of the sacri- « Lev. XI. 8, 24,26,27,31,36; Deut. ficial tablet of Marseilles, imply a XIV. 8. similar interdiction with respect to 7 Lev. XI. 25 28. IV. MEAT OF ANIMALS THAT DIED OF THEMSELVES (niaa). 17 but if they fell into an unglazed earthen vessel, which, from its po rous nature, easily absorbs fluids, not only the whole contents of that vessel became unclean, but the vessel itself was to be broken in pieces, lest it be again used; and if by chance a liquid had come into any such utensil, whether earthenware or not, or if moist food had been put into such earthen utensil , the liquid and the food became unclean and unlawful. Ovens or stoves , because made of earthen ware, were subjected to. injunctions of similar severity; they were to be broken if any part of a carcase had fallen upon them; while other and scrupulously minute ordinances prove the punctilious care with which the matter was treated 8. Thus any food, though per mitted in itself, might be rendered unlawful by contact with impure objects ; and the same was the case, if a vessel without lid or cover ing was allowed to stand in a room in which a man had died within seven days 9. And as a last step , rigorous Levitism enforced a sin- offering, when unclean carcases had even accidentally and unwit tingly been touched, which, in cases of intentional contact, implies the penalty of spiritual excision — an enactment excessive in seve rity and all but impracticable 10. That the law concerning ilia: was, not even in the time of the Deuteronomist, prompted by merely sa nitary considerations, is evident from the permission granted to sell such meat to the stranger "that he might eat it" 1 • : a code evidencing the most considerate humanity towards strangers, and enjoining "Thou shalt love the stranger as thyself ' 2, would not have assigned to him food injurious to health, and for this reason to be shunned 8 Lev. XI. 29 — 38; see notes in loc. can be understood as "more lenient" 9 Num. XIX. 14, 15. The food thus than those of Deuteronomy (Graf, contingently disqualified is by the Gesch. Biich. des A. T. p. 67 ; comp. Talmud called ytts/a ¦pisiK, in contra- Riehm in Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 360). distinction to niiiOK misss or food ' Some Karaite authorities, as Anan, unconditionally forbidden; comp. the taking the term niaa to mean a corn- analogous laws of the Hindoos (Yaj- plete carcase, but not parts of it, con- navalkya I. 167 — 169; Manu IV. sider defilement to be wrought only 207—211) : the Brahmin is to abstain by touching the former, but not by from food that has turned sour, has touching the latter: otherwise the been touched by a dog, looked at by Karaites are particularly strict with a fallen beast, or approached by a respect to niaa (see infra). woman during her menstruation. u jjeut_ xiV. 21 nisKi. 1° See Lev. V. 2, and notes in loc; also Comm. on Lev. I. 41, 42. It is, i2 Lev. XIX. 34; comp. Talm. Pe- therefore, difficult to see how the sach. 21b, in-mni niss nnK u, derived laws of Leviticus concerning niaa from Lev. XXV. 35, -jbs -m awini -a. C 18 DIETARY LAWS. by the Israelites '. All who lived in the Promised Land were more and more decidedly included in the holy community , and made to share its attributes and its duties. The "perfect" life in God de manded perfection in every creature that helped to support that life. The prohibition of niaa was, therefore, repeated by Ezekiel, especially with reference to the priests2; it was, by apostolic coun cil, retained in the early Christian Church3, and adopted by the second "Trullian" synod4; it was enforced by Mohammed5, and labo riously developed by Jewish tradition. The Sadducees, and like them the Samaritans and the Karaites, were particularly scrupulous in neither touching nor applying to useful purposes any kind or part of niaa and nana, such as skins or bones ; whence they shrank even from taking up Greek books, because the parchments were made from the skins of unlawfully killed animals 6. The Pharisees, less strict on these points, limited the interdiction, as a rule, to the flesh only, and like the Koran, permitted even the flesh of animals killed when near their natural death7, though they indeed considered it meritorious not to hasten the slaughter of such suspected beasts 8. But they fixed i Yet some Rabbins object to sell ing niaa or nsiB to a non-Jew, first because the latter might be misled to the belief that it is clean and law ful food, and then because he might sell it again to a Jew (Talm. Chull. 94b, iitni ss» insi mams© iass ins ins isifflii naiasii) ; see, however, Ei- senmenger, Entd. Judenth. II. 632 — 635, 638. 2 Ezek. XLIV. 31; comp. XV. 14; see Talm. Menach. 45a, where the ap parent restriction of the command to the priests is declared hopeless ly perplexing (i»ra> in-is it nois naini). 3 Acts. XV. 20, 29; XXI. 25 (ttvix- TOV). 4 See supra p. 9. 5 Koran H. 168 ; V. 4 ; VI. 146 ; XVI. 116; ax**) |. The heathen Arabs were in the habit of eating meat of beasts that had died of themselves, which practice was strongly opposed by the sect of the Hanyfe (comp. Sprenger, Leben und Lehre des Mohamm. H. 476). 6JfM^«.Yad.IV.6;7'a/»».Shabb.l08a.- 7 That is, of nasios "beasts in dan ger", also called ois-ois "kill, kill!" s Talm. Chull. 37 , 44b ¦ Syr. Vers. in Ezek. IV. 14 (syis, a sick or weak animal) and XLIV. 31 (xiaws id.); Maimon. De Cib. vet. IV. 12. — La ter Rabbins specified fearful punish ments sure to befall the person eat ing nisa, such as the banishment of his soul into the body of a dog or other animals; for they considered both nisa and nsiB as "strickenby the power of destruction" (ninaan ns), or Satan (Bechai on Ex. XI. 7 , fol. 31b ed. 1864; comp. Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenth. II. 617, 638— 640). SeeKoran V. 4 ("except what you kill yoursel ves", i. e. if the beast was duly killed while still alive"); Lane, Mod. Egypt. I. 132 ("when game has been struck down by any weapon, but not kiUed, its throat must be immediately cut; otherwise it is unlawful food"); Nieb. Beschr. v. Arab. p. 180 (fishes also are usually killed by cutting them near the head, before they die of themselves); comp. Geiger, Jiid. ie.it- TV. MEAT OF ANIMALS THAT DIED OF THEMSELVES (niaa). 19 eighteen defects which were alleged to have been pointed out by God to Moses9, and which, if discovered at the examination of the slaugh tered animal, were supposed to bring it under the category of niaa, and to render it unlawful for food, in as much as they were deemed sure to cause its death within one year. Those defects are — If the gullet (own) is perforated, however small the hole, or the wind-pipe (nisnan) is torn crossways for the greater part ; if the membranes (the dura mater or pia mater) of the brain (man) or the ventricle (liin rVa) of the heart is pierced; if the spine (nviiDn)is broken or its ligaments are torn; if the liver (lasn) is entirely or nearly wanting; if the lungs (nxinn) are perforated or defective in the lobes ; if the sto mach, or the gall-bladder (nian), or any part of the viscera (yplfi), or the abdomen, is perforated, or the outer skin which covers the lat ter is torn for the greater part ; if the paunch (&ban) and the "fourth stomach" (nibian ma) 10 are damaged so that they are visible from without ; if the beast has fallen from the roof of a house ; if the great er part of its (twenty-two) ribs are broken; and if it has been struck by the claws of a wolf or lion, or, in the case of a fowl, by a bird of prey ' '. In fact, the general rule was established, that "Every animal is unlawful, which is afflicted with a defect of such a nature, that no beast of the same species could live under similar circumstances'' 12. We have enumerated the cases — which of course require revision and correction as the science of pathology advances — because they convey a good notion of the anxious attention bestowed upon this matter by the Jews — a scrupulousness highly laudable in so far as it ensures wholesome meat, and commendable by its undeniable and excellent results in times of epidemics13, but exaggerated espe cially by the Talmudical and Rabbinical additions, which increase the number of fatal blemishes to seventy14, and are practically op pressive by their excess15: those who read, for instance, the com plicated rules setting forth, how the slaughtered animal must kick and palpitate in order to be lawful ' 6, will admit that here again schrift II. 21 — 24 ; TV. 54 ; Hechaluz 13 Comp. Kayserling, Die rituale IV. 18 sqq.; Zeitschr. der Deutsch. Schlachtfrage, pp. 18, 19. morgenl. Gesellsch. XVI. 717 sqq. u See the overwhelming details in 9 Talm. Chull. 42a; see infra p. 23. Yoreh Beah §§. 29—60. io"HvuoTpov; comp..4mfctf.DePar,t. 15 Comp. Comm. on Lev. I. p. 188. Anim. HI. 14; Aristoph. Equit. 356, 16 Maim. De Cib. vet. IV. 13, 14: 1179. "The kicking must take place at the 11 Jfo^ Chull. IH.l; comp. *S^«» end of the slaughtering; at the be- fol. 48b ed. Schlossb. ginning, it is of no value. Now, of 12 nsiB nin mas fsv is iisn nt. what nature must the palpitation C2 20 DIETARY LAWS. Jewish tradition defeated a valuable principle by frivolous play fulness 1. Y. MEAT OF ANIMALS TORN BY WILD BEASTS (n&na). In nearly every respect analogous to the meat of animals that have died of themselves (niaa) is, with regard to motive, law, and history, the meat of animals, whether quadrupeds or birds2, torn by beasts of prey (n&na) 3. Both therefore are repeatedly mentioned and treated of together4; for both were primitively avoided partly from an in stinctive feeling of disgust, partly from fear of unwholesomeness, men naturally recoiling from "sharing a feast with untameable beasts, and thus becoming almost fellow-revellers in their carnivorous festi vals"5. Both were proscribed by the religious legislators of the He brews with a consistency attempted by no other nation; for the nana also was probably rejected because the animal's death was attended with an imperfect efflux of blood ; it was, in the Levitical code, like wise regarded as causing defilement 6 and hence deserving detesta tion from the people of God , "You shall be holy men to Me , and you shall eat no flesh that is torn by beasts in the field, you shall cast it to the dogs"7; it was equally prohibited to the native Israe- be? If a small domestic quadruped, 14, laceratum a bestiis ; comp. Comm. or a larger or smaller beast of the on Exod. p. 441. — The prohibition forest, stretches a fore-foot forward was, later, naturally extended to and draws it back , or if it stretches beasts killed at any place and by a hind- foot forward, though it does whatever act of violence (nsnsn is not draw it back, or if it merely bends ma iiii finis nKiasn nss nsian) ; comp. a hind-foot, it has kicked in the law- Hotting. Jus Hebr. pp. 99 — 103. ful way, and is permitted for food: * Lev. XVH. 15; XXn. 8; comp. but if it only stretches a fore-foot Ezek. IV. 14; XLIV. 31. forward and does not draw it back, 5 Comp. Philo De Concupisc. c. 10: it is forbidden" ; etc. etc. to p-ev we, oi 8lov xotvtoveiv rpair^a? 1 Comp. Talm. Chull. 32b ; Zevach. dv&pioircuv dn&daaois ftvjptoi? , p.6vov 69; Maim. De Cib. vet. IV. 1 — 5, oii ouveuiu^oiSnevov Tat? aapxo* Koran V. 4. 22 DIETARY LAWS. two principal modes of killing, one by cutting the throat next the head, when the windpipe, the gullet, and carotid arteries must be tho roughly divided'; and the other more approved method, espe cially employed in killing camels, by spearing the beast in the hol low of the throat near the breast-bone 2. During the act of slaughter the words, "In the name of God, God is most great" must be pro nounced, or some similar terms, but never the phrase, otherwise so common, "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful," since it is considered cruel mockery to allude to attributes of mercy, while inflicting severe sufferings upon an animal. Tame birds must be killed in the same manner as cattle; the wild species, like the hare, the rabbit, the gazelle, and other game, may be shot, or killed by a dog ; but in the latter case, the name of God must be uttered by the per son while discharging the arrow or spear, or while slipping the dog 3- That the Old Testament never prescribes any special mode of s laughtering, needs no repetition in this place4. One observation may suffice. Animals killed in the chase, utterly unlawful as nana accord ing to the Rabbins, were, according to the Pentateuch, considered law ful, not only by the patriarchs, as Isaac, who before bestowing his pro phetic blessing, commanded Esau, "Take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver, and thy bow, and go out to the field, and hunt for me some venison"5; but even by the latest and most advanced Levitical legislator, who merely demanded, that the blood of the hunted ani mal should be carefully poured upon the ground and covered with dust, without forbidding the game itself6. Now those not initiated in Talmudical deductions might well consider it incredible, that a system of most complicated rules should be derived from the text 1 This is termed ^j. untauglich machen, mit keiner Syl- 2 Termed .sii ; and so Mishn. Chull. be"). Anan and all later Karaites V. 3 (imam); VI. 2; Talm. Chull. 17a; considered the slaughtering ritual see Hamilton's transl. of The Hedaya as a mere traditionary inheritance or Guide , a comment, on the Musul- (n»ni iat or npnn) from their ances- man's laws, IV. 72. tors (comp. Frirst, Karaerth. I. 52). 3 Zane, Modern Egypt. I. 131, 132. Yet even Rabbis of our time have the * See Comm. on Lev. I. 187—189; courage to declare that ritual to be comp. Geiger, Wissensch. Zeitschr. "a law founded in Scripture" (Kay- VI. 67 ("auch die Schlachtregeln ha- serling, Die rituale Schlachtfrage, ben nicht die geringste Begrfindung 1867, p. 93; comp. p. 17, "das mosai- in dem Bibelwort") ; Jud. Zeitschr. I. sche Gesetz, das Thier nach bestimm- 171 ("Von dem Schlachten spricht tenrituellenVorschriftenzuschlach- die heilige Schrift mit keiner Sylbe, ten" !). von den Fehlern, welche sonst zum 5 Gen. XXVH. 3. Genusse erlaubte Thiere und VSgel e Lev. XVII. 13; see supra p. 5. V. MEAT OF ANIMALS TORN BY WILD BEASTS (nsiB). 23 of Deuteronomy, "Thou shalt kill of thy herd and thy flock. ..as I have commanded thee"1, which words, it is contended, imply that God on mount Sinai taught all those rules orally to Moses, who then explained them to the elders , to be handed down by them to their successors, till they were finally reduced to the written form as now found in the Mishnah and the Talmud8. But even the most sceptical will cease to marvel, if they consider that, in another place, the Talmud gravely concludes from the words of Leviticus, "These are the beasts which you shall eat"9, that God actually took up to heaven specimens of each of the clean animals to show them to Moses for his instruction and the guidance of the Hebrews 10; though the Rabbins should be leniently judged, since they hardly did more than apply a principle sanctioned by the Pentateuch itself, in which we read, that God showed to Moses "on the mountain the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its instruments" ' '. It is cheerfully admitted that the rules laid down by Jewish tra dition were chiefly suggested by a humane desire of causing death in the easiest and least painful manner, in the shortest time, and with" un failing certainty 12, and that, in these respects, among the three usual methods of slaughtering — viz. stunning or crushing the head by a blow, stabbing the neck in the region of the spine, and cutting the throat — the last named, uniformly employed among the Jews both for small and large cattle, possesses superior claims to recommend it, and 7 Deut. Xn. 21, -jniis hbks. isifflii); Rashi on Lev. XI. 2; Mai- 8 Comp. Tafrw.Menach.29a (.—sin tis mon. Kidd. Hachod. I. 1, with respect naina), leaning on Exod. XXIX. 38, to ntn oinn in Exod. XII. 2, "God rwir\ i»s nil. It is equally impossible showed to Moses by prophetic vision to found a proof upon Exod. XXI. 28i (nsisan nsiss) the image of the moon" where the words 1103 ns issi Kii are (comp. Talm. Rosh. Hash. 20a). merely added for emphasis, and do u Exod. XXV. 9, 40, ias i-cs iss not permit the inference that, under 'si piaan niasn ns -nis nsia ; comp. other circumstances, that is, in case Talm. Menach. 29a, "an ark of fire, of legal slaughtering, the flesh of the and a table of fire, and a candlestick ox would be lawful (comp. Talm. Pe- of fire descended from heaven, and sach. 22b, niios nisai nisa s"nwni; 10 Called Mesta (rwi'wi) in Spain. com$.August. Quaest.mExod.XC,Quo- • i See especially Abarbanel on Exod. 30 DIETARY LAWS. who taught that fruitfulness and sterility are in the hand of God alone, and that He sends the one or the other according to His decrees and the deserts of men, should have looked with severe disapproval upon a heathen usage that attributed reality and effect to vain super stition? That goats played an important part in the worship of idols and the history of demons needs not be repeated in this place l. But from very early times the connection between our prohibition and the preceding portions was supposed to relate to the sacrifices offered on the three chief festivals , on which occasions a kid seethed in its mother's milk, such as pagans were perhaps wont to present to their gods, was declared to be an abomination. This view is already found in the Samaritan text2, it occurs in some copies of the Septua- XIX. 23 fol. 82a(ed. Amsterdam 1768), pta aiiiis miay iiaw nasaa nintu nsios pta ains anian iwai . . . an-siap 'si aninisi laz-.m nta-o aaisni nisiann (thoughinfol. 130b, onExod.XXXIV- 26, he lays stress on eating ania aina diiaas, adding that eating meat with cheese or milk is the custom of idolaters), and Cudworth, De vera Notione Coenae Domini, cap. II §. 7 (ed. Moshem. II. p. 849), quoting from an anonymous manuscript work of a Karaite who observes, "Moris erat antiquis populis, qui Deum verum ignorabant, messe prorsus et frugi- bus omnibus collectis,hoedum in mi- tris suae lacte coquere, et postea ma- gico ritu (ns»5 -pi) lacte illo omnes arbores suas, campos, hortos, arbo reta aspergere : sperabant enim fore ut fertiliores inde fierent agri et ar bores, plusque fructuum consequenti anno redderent"; and then Grotius, Clericus, Bochart (Hieroz. I. 639, 640), Spencer (Legg. Hebr. Ritt. H. ix. 2, pp.335— 340, who adduces from the work -pii nra these words, mystu Bisiaianian bisbi aina nuapinuaa iiniu ins pi>a i»itapa vn niaVsn p-eis i-rosi 'si ainna a» ppiiiai a>it), a. o.; see Comm. on Exod. p. 460. Maimon. also (Mor. Nev. DX 48) remarks , however vaguely, that as our command is, in two passages , joined with that con cerning the annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, it may possibly be some how connected with idolatry; meat boiled in milk was perhaps eaten at some superstitious ceremony or at one of the pagan festivals; though he admits that he never heard or read anything of a similar abuse. i Comp. Levit. XVn. 7; 2 Chr. XI. 15; Isai. XHI. 21; XXXIV. 14; Mai mon. Mor. Nev. IH. 46 ("certain sects of theZabii who worshipped demons, believed that these took the form of he-goats which name they, therefore, gave to the demons"); Spencer 1. c. III. viii. 7; see Comm. on Lev. I. p. 368 notes 1 and 2, and infra the treatise on the Day of Atonement: but to identify Atys, the god of the sun, with una) (Bochart 1. c. p. 647; Spencer 1. c. p. 336), is more than pre carious (comp. Arnob. Adv. Nat. V. 42, Attidem cum nominamus, solem significamus). 2 It has the following addition after the command in Exod. XXIH, (1. -p-,D or yp») nss nats nst rm -s aps>i inisi sin niasi, "he who does this acts as if he sacrificed a reptile , and this is an offence to the God of Ja cob" (Clericus explains nsa, without. probability, invenlum nempe cadaver, which would at least require nstua; Bochart, for ens macrum; Hottinger VH. SEETHING THE KID IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK. 31 gint3, and has been adopted by many and even modern interpreters 4. But irrespective of the extreme doubtfulness and questionable autho rity of these glosses , the section of which our command forms the conclusion in both passages of Exodus , does not treat of the gifts presented on the festivals, but of the general character of the latter ; for the firstfruits might be offered at any other time. It is true that goats were sacrificed by heathen nations on various occasions : the Greeks carried in their processions at the festival of the Diony- sia, a pitcher filled with wine, bunches of grapes, and a basket of figs, a goat, and other symbols of fruitfulness5; goats were offered by the Athenians once a year to Minerva, and by the Romans com monly to Bacchus , because they damage by their bite the vine and the olive tree, though with all their viciousness they are unable to destroy either the one or the other6; and hence at Athens, on the festival of the Ascolia in honour of Bacchus, people showed their contempt by jumping over greased and inflated goats' skins7, when the spectators delighted in the stumbling or fall of the jumpers 8; the Romans believed that they gained the favour of Bacchus by slaugh tering goats on his altars and thus diminishing the number of his ene mies 9 ; and a she-goat was at Rome deemed acceptable to Faunus ' °. Again, milk was frequently used for libations, not only to the deities and powers of the nether world11, but also to the nymphs of the for est12, to Silvanus after the completion of the harvest13, to Pales'4 and the forgotten sheaf ox nns» Lev. XIX. s Suidas 1. c; Virg. Georg. H. 384 9 ; Spencer rem abominandam, etc.). (unctos saluere per utres). 3 °0« fW Ttoiet touto tbael isTzd- 9 c°mP- Varro, De Re Rust. I. 2 ; Xaxa 8-uoei,'8ti p^vip-d (s. p.(asp.d) eoti Ovid, Fast I. 349— 361 ; Virg. Georg. T 361> Cornipedi 6 Hence the old and cruelly ironi- Fauno caesa de more capella. cal distich, RJjv p.e ydfQi litl jMCccv, n Aeschyl. Pers. 611; Soph. Electr. 8p.uK 8'Iti xapitotpopifctu , Ossov iiti- 895; Eurip. Orest. 115; Slrab. XV. Xetyal ool, TpdYe, ftuop-evw (Suidas s. IIIg u, p. 733; Sil. Hal. Xin. 434; daxos, I. 795 ed. Bernhardy); or si- ^K^.Praep.Ev.IV.20; comp. Comm. milarly Ovid (Fast I. 357, 358, Rode, on Levit. I. p. 231 note 22, p. 232 caper, vitem! tamenhinc cum sta- note 6. bis ad aram, In tua quod spargi cor- 12 Zongus, Pastoral. II. 22. nua possit erit). 13 ffor. Bpist. H. 1. 143. 7 Which' was called dBa); irni-a -jiaiia nVssi saani; Pesach. 82b ; Judg. VI. 19 ; XHI. 15 ; 1 Sam. XVT. Maim. De Cib. vetit. IX. 2 ; Ralbag 2(> ; etc. on Exod. XXIII. 19, livoaa nyaa nimn 5 Comp. Virg. Eel. II. 40—42- Ju- miiss na>aao w"si niissn misni sine ; ven. XI. 65—69 (Hoedulus . . ! qui Bechai 1. c. where the reasons why plus lactis habet quam sanguinis); the Pentateuch uses the word i»an .4tf«i.IX.66(gpupontoix(Xia« ioxeuao- and not issn are summed up in the p.s'voi . . . omves ou t-^v TuZouaav -fiSo- Rabbinical spirit. Gramberg (Relig. v?)v napetyov tjiuv. VII. SEETHING THE KID IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK. 33 as particularly wholesome even to patients and invalids6; nay of all young quadrupeds the kid only was deemed fit for consumption on account of its dryness7, whereas the remainder were avoided on account of their excessive humidity8; therefore, the kid only was boiled in milk, "because its flesh is not moist, but warm (larr), even when the animal is very young"9; yet it is well known that the Be douins very rarely boil any meat in water, but, to make it the more tender and palatable, they generally use labbin or sour milk 10; for they by no means deem meat boiled in milk "very heavy food, productive of an excess of blood"11. Nor could the compiler experience much difficulty in finding an appropriate reason for prohibiting the flesh of the kid boiled in its mother's milk. He probably regarded it as re volting cruelty to prepare the young beast with the very milk which nature had destined for its nourishment12, as a perversion of the eternal order of things , and as a culpable contempt of the relation that God ordained to exist between the mother and her young13. He, 6 Ebn Ezra on Exod. XXIH ("all physicians agree that there is no meat like it for wholesomeness , they per mit it, therefore, for sick people; so they do in Spain and Africa, Pales tine, Persia, and Babylon"); Bo chart, Hieroz. I. pp. 633, 634. 7 Isidorus (Etymol. Lib. XH. u. Ii no 13) goes so far as to connect hoe- dus with edere, "hoedi ab edendo vo- cati, parvi enim pinguissimi sunt, et saporis jucundi . . . unde et edullium vocatur, quasi appellari mereatur edullium xoct' eio/Yjv". 8 Galen. De attenuante Vict. Rat. c. 8 (agnorum esus propter insignem hurhiditatem est fugiendus) ; Kimchi Rad.Lib.subma : an-an issi nin aanaa aiKiuna inii ; Bochart 1. c. p. 637. <*Ebn Ezral. c; thus at present milk is used for basting hares and other game, and veal. i« Comp. Rosenm. Morgenl. VI. 258. n Maim. Mor. Nev. IH. 48. 12 Comp. Philo, De Humanit. c. 18, ¦ndvu ydp &7teXaj3ev eTvai Seivov tt)v Tpotp-f]V £cuvtoc TJ8uap.a Yevec&ai xal napdpToaiv dvaipeOevTos xtX. ; Clem. Alex. Strom. H. p. 401. (ed. Sylburg), p.T) ydp Y'veafrci) -fj tou £<3vto? Tpotp-fj -f]8uap.a tou dvaipefl-^VTos £b ipsi niiitssn nis iioni; Bechai, 1. u. "it hardens the heart, since the milk is formed of blood, and therefore engen ders cruelty and an evil disposition of the soul, the more so as it does not change and assimilate in the body like other food" etc.; Aramah mips pnsi on Exod. XXHI (fol. 34a, ed. Frankf. a/O. 1785); comp. also Bo chart 1. o. p. 638, whose remarks and historical illustrations anticipate and refute the dogmatic and one-sided as sertion of Spencer (1. c. H. rx. 1, p. 334), "haec omnia rhetorem magis quamlo- gicum decent . . . cum animal occisum nullo sensu tangatur, quacunque ratione carnes illius elixentur". 13 Comp. Philo 1. c. tt)v 81 tujv dv- SptuTiiuv dxpaciav toooutov siu(3Tjvai, D 34 DIETARY LAWS. therefore, denounced the practice as abhorrent to the aspirations of the Israelites, who were to be "a holy people to the Lord their God." The solemnity of this appeal proves also that he was not merely guided by sanitary motives ' ; he did not "forbid the eating of so tender an animal as unwholesome food"2, for in the opinion of the Arabs a kid seethed in its mother's milk is particularly tender and savoury3. But it cannot be doubted, that the only pos sible translation of the Hebrew words is, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." Many other renderings have been proposed, of which it may suffice here to adduce a few. "Thou shalt not seethe the kid which should still be in its mother's womb and nourish ed by her milk"4: this refers to the iniquitous usage of causing abortion, especially of the sow, by striking her womb and dugs with the heels, "in order to mix together, in the moment of labour, blood, milk, and the mash of the crushed litter, and then to con sume the most inflamed parts of the animal" 5 ; but that usage existed, as far as we know, only in Rome at thejAime of its utmost degeneracy. Or, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid during the first seven days after its birth"6, or "as long as it is sucking its mother's milk"7; or, by way cos Tip ttjs Ccdtj? aMip xocTa^pYjaaaftai xal rcpos TT|V tou utcoXoCttou GCOLiaTO? dvdXoioiv; Spencer 1. e. p. 336, quid enim ab ordine naturae magis alie- num fingi potest quam' ut mater ad foetus sui perditionem instrumen- tum administrare . . . cogeretur; see also Keil on Exod. p. 485; Archaol. §§. 99 (note 8), 156. i Comp. Targ. Jonath. who adds s»pi sail 1131113151 ii»3isi itan sjpni sii 'si sins imiin, "lest My anger wax strong, and I boil your food, corn and chaffboth together"; which gloss may conceal a reference to that fruitful ness which was vainly expected from the kid seethed in its mother's milk. 2 As Vater believes. 3 On Ex. XXHI sin ts mw mimnsa 3ia> inii; comp. Nachman. on Deut. XIV. 21, 3s>na issa 1331s. * Clem. Alex. 1. c, comp. Ebn Ezra 1. u. , ut lias isKi bis snaa pKtu 1135)31 iaK sina nan isusi no* ; Aramah 1. c. fol. 33b- 5 Plut. De Esu Carn. II. 1, o[ 8' oS- #occi ouoiv Itutoxcov evaXXopevoi xal XaxT{£ovT£c, Eva atp.a xal fd\a xal X6- $pov epppurov 6p.ou aup.cp&ap£vT nin\ 7 Luther; that is, kids for three months and lambs for four; comp. Varro R. R. II. i; fere ad quatuor menses a mamma non dijunguntur agni,hoedi tres,porci duo — whether VH. SEETHING THE KID IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK. 35 of hypallage, "Thou shalt not seethe the kid together with its mo ther", so that it would be kindred in spirit to the prohibition of slaughtering a beast and her young on the same day8, or of taking a bird and her young ones together from a nest9. But all these in terpretations would involve an ellipsis or construction without par allel in Hebrew, while others are too fanciful to be entertained even for a moment.10 Quadrupeds were indeed considered unfit for sacri fice before their eighth day 1 ', yet in earlier times they were even offered as holocausts while still nourished by their mothers ; thus Samuel presented as an acceptable burnt-offering a sucking lamb ' 2, although this is in opposition to the later Levitical regulation13. These were the vicissitudes of the ordinance within the time and compass of the Pentateuch ; but they were infinitely multiplied by later Judaism. "The kid" was understood merely as an instance or illus- the flesh was considered unwhole some, or the practice cruel. s Lev. XXII. 28. 9 Deut. XXII. 6, 7; comp. Theodor. Quaest. in Exod. XXHI. 19, "nam hac ratione videtur quodam modo matrem etiam coquere". id As the typical explanations pro posed or quoted by St. Augustine (Quaest. XC in Exod.) with reference to the child Christ, whom Herod sought to kill when he was still at his mother's breast, or who suffered — was "seethed" — at Passover, the same season of the year when he was conceived ("dicuntur enim feminae ex quo conceperint lac colligere" !) ; or the mystical view of Bechai (1. u. 88b, 'si 'ia>ai 'isas tail isan sinni isan), or the moral one of Aramah (1. c. foi. 33a) ; or the metaphorical one of the Karaites alluded to by Abarbanel (1. c. 82b), "thou shalt not make grow (ins nan iiaa, comp. Gen. XL. 10) the kid by its mother's milk", that is, thou shalt not allow the firstborn animal to suck beyond the seventh day, but offer it on £he eighth (si» fii-syn as> nisn sia-'.m) — an explana tion which Abarbanel justly cha racterises D"a>ir»r -tsa-'si ian, though he is far too confident with regard to the traditional view (i"tn nisp -pi iiaan pavtn Kin). No less strange is the conjecture mentioned and refuted by EbnEzra (1. a), that nj is kindred with ias, which was understood to mean fruit (Vulg. always poma), whereas it signifies a precious gift or object (comp. Deut. XXXIH. 13, 16 ; Cant. IV. 16 ; VH. 14) ; Michaelis (Mos. R. IV. §. 205) indeed under stands the precept to be directed "against cooking or roasting meat with butter", but defends his conceit that it was intended to encourage among the Hebrews the use of olive oil instead of butter, to promote the careful cultivation of the olive-tree in Palestine, and thereby at once to endear to them their own home which so plentifully provides them with such a delicacy, and to counteract their possible desire of returning to Egypt! (see also §. 191, and De legg. Mos. Israelitis Palaestinam caram facturis §..10, in Commentt. Soe. Reg. Gott. IV). n See Comm. on Lev. I. p. 98. 12 sin nio, 1 Sam. VII. 9, 10; comp. Sir. XLVI. 16, 17. '3. See Comm. on Lev. I. p. 36. D2 36 DIETARY LAWS. stration, because representing the most common case1, in the same manner as, in other passages, the ox 2 or the ass 3 is used; especially as goats are distinguished by abundance of milk4, which does not fail even in climes of excessive heat and drought fatal to nearly every other animal5. It was contended, that the word kid (ins) includes throughout the calf and the lamb also6, or at least the latter7, nay that it signifies "any young animal of tender age" 8 (an unfounded assertion) 9, and that, therefore, the law applies to clean animals in general ' °. Indeed, one doctor of the Mishnah, R. Jose of Galilee, wish ed to restrict the prohibition to mammals, and not to extend it to birds, because these "have no mother's milk" ' '; another, Rabbi Akiva, desired to exclude the clean animals of the forest (filin), as stags and roes , because the threefold and distinct exemplification of the kid appeared to him to confine the law to clean domestic quadrupeds'2; but the arguments both of the one and the other were overruled; and the principle prevailed, "If one teacher and many differ, the law is in conformity with the opinion of the many" 13. It was certainly admitted, that milk, boiled and eaten with the flesh of birds and clean beastB of the forest, was not forbidden by the law of the Pentateuch ; but it was i Ebn Ezra 1. c. is) isii niinn anaa ninn; Kimchi Rad. Lib. s. ma; etc. 2 Exod. XXI. 35. 3 Exod. XIH. 13 ; XXIH. 5. 4 Kimchi 1. c. sin aita> ainnw isi ninn is> sinsn iai ia nsnan; comp. Prov. XXVH. 27; Talm. Shabb. 19b ('si nnrai inn nsini ts>); Bab. Mets. 64a. 5 Comp. Talm. Bezah 25b (piy 'a npi nanss t» B|K ... p) ; Voigt, Lehr- buch der Zoologie, I. 416. The fresh milk of goats, especially of the white species, was considered a remedy for consumption (see Talmud Temur. 15b; Shabb. 109,J). *Talm. Chull. 113b, issaw alpa is aiaiuaa inn nis liisrc ano na. 7 Kimchi 1. c., p pi na slpi ppn Bits>i na -so nnia anoasn p 113 BH3>n ; the Septuagint renders nam all three passages under consideration dpva, and not as usual Ipitpov, and so con sequently is the word taken by Philo (DeHumanit. c. 18; comp. ibid. &t]W sr as ain ii); Talm. Chull. 116a; Shabb. 130a; Rashi on Exod. XXXIV. 26. 12 Mishn. Chull. VIII. 4, si ias:«J sjwii n-ni bib b-bss iaia 11a iaisn nssa nanai. 13 o-3is nsin B-311 iini. VH. SEETHING THE KID IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK. 37 prohibited by the "command of the scribes" or the Rabbins ' 4, ever watchful to "make a fence to the Law" ' 5, till the Law was impenetrably hedged in and made all but inaccessible ' 6. "Our sages", observes Abar banel 17, "have prohibited every and any kind of meat mixed with milk, in order to prevent sinners from saying, What is the difference be tween the one and the other?'" Again, it was gravely urged that most people do not keep their own cattle, but buy their milk in the mar ket; thus a person might purchase the milk of the very animal whose young he intends to cook and to dress'8; therefore, in order to exclude any chance and possibility of such a contingency, the Jews were strictly enjoined not to boil together any milk and meat whatsoever19. Yet this view was but very gradually adopted. It is remarkable that it was not known or entertained by Philo, who wrote at Alexan dria about the beginning of the Christian era: for after denouncing the unnatural barbarity of using the mother's milk for the preparation of her own young, he observes, "But if any one should desire to dress flesh with milk 2 °, let him do so without inhumanity and without impiety ; there are everywhere innumerable herds of cattle, that are each day milked by the shepherds, ... so that the man who seethes the flesh of any beast in its own mother's milk, exhibits a heinous perversity of disposition, and an utter want of that feeling which of all others is most indispensable to a rational soul — as it is most nearly akin to it — compassion"2'. Philo, therefore, objecting to meat boiled with the milk of the animal's mother, but not with milk in general, still adhered to the plain sense of the precept as probably conveyed in Deuteronomy22. But already the Targum which bears the name of Onkelos, and which was commenced only a few generations later, though completed centuries afterwards in the schools of Babylonia23, explained rather than translated that command, "You shall not eat meat with milk"24: it is uncertain whether this meaning had been 14 anBlO ilaia or issna. 20 E( 8e Td ev Y«XaxTi xpea auviij'siv 15 Mishn. Avothl. 1, mini jib noy; dgio!. comp. HI. 13, mini ano nnoa. 21 philo De Humanit. c. 18. i, though not of fishes or clean locusts. *Mishn. Sanh. XI. 3, dusio nsis lam nun H3is; comp. Talm. Chagig. 10a, "if a man appeals from the decision of the Talmudists (nsin isia) to the Scriptures, he has no peace". 4 Talm. Gitt. 60b, nns n'spn ms si ns issta aiiai i-sas sis isisi dj> ; comp, Bab. Mets. 33a, "those who study the Law do something that is meritorious and not meritorious ; those who study the Mishnah, perform a meritorious act, for which they are rewarded; but those who study the Gemara do something that is the greatest of all merits" (1ta nilia fit* -ji ^K ; alsoinDerech.Er.Sut.25b). TheLaw was compared to water, the Mishnah to wine, and the Talmud to spiced wine (llBnaip, conditum) ; or the one to salt , the other to pepper , and the third to spices (oisroa; Talm. Sopher. c. 15, fol. 16b); till at last it was de clared, that a person who neglects the Talmud and studies the Law only ought to be shunned (Bechai Kad Hakkem. fol. 77), nay that "he is without God" (mis ii ptio ias, Shaar- Zedek fol. 9), and that "even the common talk of the sages (pirn nmss pin) is equivalent to the wholeLaw" (Midr. Prov.). 5 nosi insi niiss iiosi ins bibs>b 'a ii»3 iiosi insi nsan, Talm. Chull. 115b, and compare in general Mishn. Chull. VHI; Talm. Chull. 104—117; Kiddush. 57b; Pesach. 24,25; and the very numerous midrashic interpre tations in Mechilta on Exod. XXHI. 19 (fol. 108, 109a ed. Weiss), also Si- phre on Deut. XXV. 21 (fol. 95 ed. Friedmann); Talm. Sanhedr. 4b; Na- zir 37a; Comm. on Exod. pp. 460— 462. But it was conceded that those kinds of "meat with milk" not for bidden in the Pentateuch but only by the Rabbins (see supra p. 36) were not withdrawn from profitable dis posal (niinn p hok' iai»«> aim i»a is nsans inia). Maimonides, in his Sepher Hammitsvoth , enumerates the law as the 186th- aU(i 187th prohibition (sins iwa isiai si» and liua issi siia»n *bs) VH. SEETHING THE KID IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK. 39 cept upon precept, rule upon rule," though not "here a little and there a little", but everywhere and with full hands, till they encom passed the whole life of the Jews with bonds and fetters, burdened it with oppressive restrictions , and rendered hospitable intercourse with non- Jews all but impossible; and in doing this they sup posed that they secured to their people the means of salvation and of God's special favour6. Any one may judge for himself by reading, in the original or in a literal translation, a few chapters of that book, which has been universally adopted by orthodox Judaism as the unalterable and eternal rule of practice , the Schulchan Aruch (pit!) "pis), a digest of the laws and decisions of Mishnah, Talmud, and Geonim, and of their early commentators7, compiled by R. Joseph ben Ephraim Karos, augmented not long afterwards by glosses, mostly recommending greater severity, by R. Mose ben Israel9, and superseding all previous attempts at codifying the vast and ever ac cumulating materials — those of Simon of Kahira i ° andR.HaiGaon11, of R. Isaac ben Jacob Alfasi12, and even of Maimonides , whose stu pendous work, Yad Chazakah, though surpassing all others in luci dity, order, and compactness, authoritatively states the laws without proofs and reference to sources, and of R.Jacob benAsher13, whose arrangement in four divisions (dinia sanx) in many respects remained the foundation of Karo's work. A few pages of this Shulchan Aruch on the subject under discussion will show the reader at a glance the fruits of Talmudical exegesis14; he will probably find that a Bibli cal ordinance, which originally bore no reference whatever to the laws of food, and later but a very slight one, was made to yield a mass of hairsplitting minutiae, which it is difficult to survey without and including nsan in niiss. In nisa i° About A. C. 900, author of Ha san it is the 92ad and. 114th precept lachoth Gedoloth. (sins iiusnsa iwa issi sia>). — All la- u pr0m 969 to 1038. ter Rabbis also permitted to cookand 12 -Born 1013i eatfishes and clean locusts with milk u ^^ ^ ^ m()_ 6 Comp. Mishn. Mace. HI. 16, "God , . , , , . „ /-.s,!.-. i* See Yoreh Deah (forming the desired to save and favour (mats) "cc _ „.,„,, Israel, therefore He multiplied their laws.' second division — ¦ 11B — of the Shul chan Aruch) §§. 87—97; comp. Mai- 7 With the exception, however, of *«•¦ Issur- Maaoh- ch- IX- XIV- XV! those ordinances which ceased to be also R. Isaac of Buren sin ¦**,, with applicable after the destruction of the comments of R Israel Tsserlein ,, _ , sin n5>s ninan; R. Mos. Isserels nun the Temple. _ , ' s Born A. C. 1388, died 1475. ™*r''> Salomon benAderethrem nun; 9 Called Isserels or s"te», died 1573. Buxtorf, Synag. Jud. c. 26. 40 DIETARY LAWS. mingled amazement, pity, and regret, and in which religion , if its mission be truth and love, has certainly no share. YHI. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. If we follow the oldest Hebrew sources, man, like the rest of the animal creation, lived originally upon vegetable food only *. To what extent and during what periods this was really the case, we have no means of ascertaining even approximately. As far as histo rical accounts enable us to judge, the statements in Genesis would seem to have simply resulted from a religious or philosophical theory of a primitive state of human innocence in a Golden Age, or a Parar dise, free from the pangs of death and the sin of bloodshed, and em bracing the entire animate creation in a bond of common concord2; a theory which found its counterpart in the hope of an ultimate Messianic time expected to realise a similar condition of universal harmony3- It is indeed a mythos in the strictest sense; it recalls the analogous belief of the Parsees, that men, in their original state of moral perfection, did not eat at all, and that at the end of all things they will return to the same absolute freedom from physical wants 4- It is true, the idea of a higher purity attaching to vegetable nourishment is discoverable in various well-founded facts : it is mani fest in the preference given, in some instances, to bloodless over animal sacrifices5, and in the reluctance evinced by several ancient sects to animal food. But the practice was in both respects so unsettled or rather so inconsistent, that a positive conclusion, even within a very limited sphere, would be entirely unwarranted. "With regard to the first point — the bloodless and animal sacrifices — the fluctuations, almost amounting to confusion, have been point ed out in another place6. The Parsees alone seem, as a rule, to have presented none but bloodless oblations7, and when they exceptionally i Gen. I. 29, 30; comp. II. 5, 6, 15, 3 Comp. Isai. XI. 6—8; LXV. 25; 16; IH. 17, 18. see Comm. on Genes, pp. 78, 79. 4 Comp. Bundehesh c. XXXI init.; 2 Comp. Hesiod, Op. etD. 108 — 119 . Spiegel, Avesta, I. 34, 234. Theocr. XXIV. 85, 86 ; Virg. Georg. i! 5 See Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 11, 12. 125—159; Eel. IV; V. 60, 61; Hor. 6 L. c. pp. 11—13. Epod. XVI. 41—62; Ovid. Metam. I. 7 See Spiegel, Avesta, II. p. LXXI; 89—112; XV. 96—103; Tibull. I. in. comp., however, Rhode, Heilige Sage 35—50; Plut. Sympos. VHI. viii. 3; der Baktrer etc. pp. 506—508; He- Lactant. Instit. VH. 24, oi 8e Xuxoi rodotus (I. 140) observes, "The Magi ouv fipveo' iv o'jpeoiv dp.iXXouvTai xtX. kill animals of all kinds with their etc- own hands, excepting dogs and men." VIH. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 41 sacrificed animals, they devoted to the gods no portion of them what ever : but this arose from tenets peculiar to the Zend religion, and was unconnected with notions of the inviolability of animal life; for the victims could fitly neither be creatures of Ormuzd, under whose pro tecting care they stood, nor much less the detested productions of the evil and dangerous Ahriman. But as regards the second point — abstinence from animal food — it will suffice briefly to allude to the vague and conflicting doctrines of the Hindoos and the Pythagoreans. Among the former, it would, at the first glance appear, that the "twice-born" at least, or the members of the two highest castes, were expected to live merely upon "pure fruits and roots and such corn as hermits eat"8, and strictly to avoid all flesh, both of quadrupeds and birds, and all fishes9. The broad principle was established that, as flesh-meat can not be procured without injury to animals, and "the slaughter of beasts obstructs the path to beatitude", man should abstain from flesh-meat10; a principle which, if it did not originate in, derived strength from, the belief in the migration after death of human souls into the bodies of animals, yet also into plants and minerals 1 *. That rule was almost enlarged into a comprehensive system: "He who consents to the death of a beast, he who kills it, and he who cuts it to pieces, he who buys it and he who sells it, he who dresses, serves, and eats it — these are the eight chief associates of murder" i2. It was subsequently extended with such rigour to the meanest animals by a portion of the Hindoos, as those of the Oswal tribe, that their priests carried besoms to sweep the ground, and covered their mouths with gauze, lest they crushed or inhaled an insect possibly harbouring a human intelligence. A Brahmin who had by design , or even by accident, killed a cat, a dog, or an ichneumon, a frog or lizard, an owl or a crow, was obliged to perform the ordinary penance required for the death of a sudra; though in the second alternative lighter acts of expiation were permitted in cases of illness or debility '3. Porthe murder of other animals, a heavy fine or multiplied restitution was ordained 14. Eating meat was considered the act of a "bloodthirsty demon", abstaining from it, a pledge of prosperity and a safeguard against disease ' 5 ; the punishment of the former was that of being 8 Manu V. 54. 12 Ibid. V. 51. s ManuV. 15 ;Ydjnavalky a e&.Stenz- 13 lud. XL 132, 133. ler'i175' JO „.. T QO ll Ibid. co. 134-138. i° Manu V. 48 ; comp. Yajnav. I. 33. 1 1 Manu I. 50 ; IV. 243 ; V. 49. 15 Ibid. V. 50 ; comp. 31 . 42 DIETARY LAWS. devoured in the next world by the animals whose flesh had been eaten in this i ; the merit of the latter was looked upon as not less glorious than the annual offering, during a hundred years, of the greatest and noblest of all gifts, the Aswamedha2 or the horse-sacrifice3. Thus the prohibition of animal food might be supposed positive and absolute, nay it was curiously enjoined, that if a man should feel an irresistible desire after such food, he should conquer and expiate it by shaping the image of the longed for animal out of dough or of clarified and compressed butter4. However, on the other hand, the Hindoo codes permit or imply so many exceptions, that the ordinances are not only valueless as laws, but almost too wavering for customs. A number of precepts, marking an intermediate stage, are qualified or circumscribed by cautions and restrictions. Some kinds of fish and some parts of all fishes, were law fully placed before the guests at repasts in honour of the gods or of departed souls 5. The eating of flesh was held to be a rule of "gigantic demons", not under all circumstances, but only if indulged in uncon nected with sacrifice, while in the latter case it was deemed a godly practice 6. He who, after showing due veneration to the gods and the departed spirits, ate flesh, whether acquired by purchase or received as a present, was held free from sin7. A man was threatened with de struction, in the next world, by the beasts he had eaten in this, not un conditionally, but if he had eaten the flesh without paying reverential worship to the gods or shades, or without having been compelled by "urgent distress"8. "Flesh-meat, the food of gods", was to be shun ned — unless it had previously been touched during the recital of holy texts, or been blessed and sanctified by prayers (mantras) from the holyVedas9; but it was to be eaten once only, and at the bidding of a priest, and if there was danger of life 10. "As many hairs as grow on the body of the beast, so many deaths shall the slayer of it endure ' in the next world from birth to birth" — yet only if he slew it "for his own satisfaction" or "against the ordinance", that is, not in association with holy observances"; just as, according to Herodotus12, the i Manu V. 55 ; this idea was even 6 Ibid.V.31,3i ; comp.Lev.XVn.3,4. traced to the etymology of the word 7 Manu V. 32, 52 ; comp. Yajnav. I. mansa flesh; comp. V. 33 ; XI. 216. 179. 2 See Comm. on Lev. I. 89 note 7. 8 Manu V. 33. 3 Manu V. 53, comp. 54 ; II. 118 and 9 Ibid- T- 7> 36. Jones in loc. ; Yajnav. I. 181. io Ibid. V. 27. 4 IUd- v- 37- n Ibid. V. 38 ; Yajnav. I. 180. 5 lb**- V. 16. 12 Herod. I. 140, VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 43 Egyptian priests made it a point of religion "not to kill any animals except those which they offered in sacrifice". Beasts were not to be in jured — except in the cases sanctioned by the sacred writings. ' 3 There was no disgrace in eating animal food — in accordance with the law, though a virtuous abstinence from it ensured signal rewards14. But other permissive precepts are more and more unrestricted, and others again entirely unconditional. The "twiceborn" were to avoid , not all meat in general , but meat kept at a slaughter-house, dried meat, and the meat of certain distinct classes of birds and quadrupeds, with the exception again of those species expressly allowed by the Vedas or otherwise sanctioned by lawgivers and sages, or by weighty precedent 15. The maxims were proclaimed that Brahmah brought forth the entire animal and vegetable king dom for the sustenance of the spirit of life , and that this spirit is entitled to consume everything whether it moves or is motionless ' 6. Whoever regulates his diet according to the law, commits no sin, were he even every day to eat the flesh of animals which are allowed to be eaten, since both these animals and the persons who feed upon them were created by the great Bramah t7. Nay passing to an extreme, the law of Manu declared, that whosoever refuses to eat meat at a solemn feast in honour of a guest or in connection with sacrifices or other sacred ceremonies performed for the gods or the departed souls, will in the other world be degraded into the state of a beast for twenty-one births ; while he who partakes of meat on such occasions only, and who understands the meaning and the principles of the Veda, "elevates both himself and the cattle to the summit of beatitude" 1 8. Therefore, all facts point to the conclusion that the Hindoos, for long periods partaking of all food indifferently, only began to look upon vegetable sustenance as more commendable, when they developed their theological systems of metempsychosis, and that hence abstinence from meat, at all times but very partially adhered to, and only by the more rigid sects19, was suggested by subtle and refined speculations of a later age. Quite analogous were the doctrines and the practice of Pytha goras , as far as inferences can be drawn from our available sources . 13 Manu V. 43. of the Hindoos, in Asiat. Res. VH. li Ibid. V. 56. 271 ("others not only eat meat at ob- 15 Ibid. V. 11 — '14, 17, 18, 22, 23. sequies and solemn sacrifices, but 16 /bid. V. 28. make it their common diet, in direct 17 Jbid. V. 30. breach of the institutes of their reli- 18 Ibid. V. 35, 41, 42. gion"); Bohlen, Alteslndien, II. 160 — 19 Comp. Colebrooke, Relig. Cerem. 163. 44 DIETARY LAWS. On the one hand, we have a few isolated statements, that he enjoined upon his followers, absolutely to abstain, as he himself did, from all animate beings whatsoever1. But on the other hand, we have more copious testimonies of much less decided principles. According to- one authority2, he permitted the slaughter, for food, of all animals, with the exception only of rams, and of oxen used in agriculture3; according to another, he recommended total abstinence only to those who aspired to philosophic speculation, while to the rest he allowed certain animals, though not the heart and the brain, because these are the organs of life and intelligence4. He taught that man "should avoid too much flesh" 5 ; he allowed meat to others , and even recom mended it to those desirous of excelling in bodily strength, though he himself avoided it, being content with honey and honeycomb, bread and vegetables boiled or raw6; yet he sometimes ate fish7, only shunning "those that were holy"8, since he deemed it unbecoming to serve up the same animals before both gods and men ; moreover, he singled out as objectionable certain species of fish and birds, as the mullet and the white cock , and certain parts of quadrupeds , as the heart and the paunches9. Though he practised divination by means of frank-incense and not by burnt-offerings10, yet according to some i"Ep.^uy^ov ouSev ecSiovtes TiavxE- Xco;, Biog. Laert. VHI. 37; comp. Jamblich. De Vit. Pythag. 68 (ep.d;u- ^cuv diroyjf]v TtdvTiuv); Ovid, Metam. XV. 75 — 142j (Parcite, mortales, da- pibus temerare nefandis Corpora etc.); Lucian, Vitarum Auctio c. 6 ('j'uyj^tov p.£V ouSe Iv oixeopai, Ta 8' dXXa itX-?)v xudp.cuv) ; Aelian, Nat. An. V. 11 (the bee which tastes no meat oii oeiTai Ou0aY6pou aup.(3o6Xou ouSe hi); IX. 10 (the Jupiter-eagle IluOa- Yopou tou Sap^iou Staxouca? ouoev, 8[iotis eu.'|ju^uy_wi tou? Ilu9-aYop£touc, ote i5 As Aristotle andPlutarch: "Plu- S-iioiEV #eoT«. tarchus quoque . . . Aristotelem scrip- 12 Comp. Ael. N. A. X. 46. sit eadem ipsa de Pythagoricis scrip- is Plut. Symp. VHI. viii. 1, 3; comp. sisse, quod non abstinuerint edundis Horn. Od. II. 327 — 332. animalibus, nisi pauca carne qua il Gell. Noct. Att. IV. xi. 1, opinio dam." vetus falsa occupavit et convaluit i6 Plut. Is. o. 7. 46 DIETARY LAWS. by greed and daintiness, disturbing the sea and diving into its depths without a shadow of justice" ». Poseidon was supposed to have been born from the sea, whence his priests in some parts of Greece deemed it sacrilegious to eat fish. The sea, the birth-place and abode of fishes, is "dissimilar and strange to us, and in fact repugnant to hu man nature", whence it was considered "neither a part of the world nor an element, but foreign, corrupt, and diseased dregs"2 ; it was called "the tear of Saturn", as the salt was termed "the froth of Typhon" ; and captains of ships were passed unsaluted, because they obtain their livelihood from the sea 3. Again, fishes, it was said, produce humid flesh, since they do not, like quadrupeds and birds, inhale our common air4. They are no necessity but a superfluous luxury. They live upon each othen whence a fish was the hierogly phic for wickedness and impiety5. Yet, on the other hand, Pytha goras himself, in releasing and throwing back into the sea a netful of fishes which he had bought for that purpose, is by this act supposed to have signified that the fishes are our kindred friends for whom it behoved him to pay a ransom. Anaximander went so far as to make the fishes the ancestors of the human race. The Syrians con sidered them to derive their origin from the water, like men ; looked upon them as divine, because the goddess Derceto, the mother of Juno, had partially the form of a fish6; neither ate them themselves nor allowed visitors in their country to taste them, and firmly be lieved that whosoever partook of them would be afflicted with ulcers, collapse of the bowels, and other fearful diseases7; they therefore kept and fed in a deep pond near the temple ofHierapolis, dedicated to Derceto, a large quantity of tame fishes, some of which were fur nished with costly golden ornaments 8, and to which annually the pious repaired in solemn processions9; and similar rites were ob served near the temple of Venus at Paphos, where also, as at '- Plut. 1. e. II. 61 ; Biod. Sic. II. 4 ; Lucian , Syr. 2 Plut. 1. c. : ou'8e \t-ipos ou'Se otoi- Dea c. 14; Cic. Nat. Deor. IH. 15, ystov dXXd dXXotov iY£p(TTcup.a 8ie- §.39; comp. Ovid, Fast. II. 473 , 474r cpOopos xal vogcuSe?. Inde nefas ducunt genus hoc impo- 3 Plut. Symp. VIH. viii. 2. nere mensis Nee violant timidi pisci- 4 Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. VII. bus ora Syri. p. 718 ed. Sylb. 7 piut, De Superst. c. 10; Porph* 5 Horapoll. I. 44, diHp.i.Tov 8t]Xouv- Abst. IV. 15; Mart. IV. xliii. 7 (Juro te; t| xal [j-uaov, fyfluv CcuYpatpouai • • ¦ per Syrios tibi tumores). xsvoitoiov Y<*p i/#us ltd; xal dXXvjXo- 8 Lucian, Syr. Dea 45; Plin. H. N. cpdYOv; comp.alsoComm.onLev.1.81. XXXH. 2 or 8. e Xen. Anab. I. iv. 9; Porph. Abst. 9 Lucian 1. c. 46 ; comp. c. 14. VHI. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 47 Hierapolis, the doctrine of the origin of the world from water was taught ' °. So artificial and so contradictory were the reasons assigned for a practice that was never carried out with any degree of con sistency ! Advanced schools of Greek philosophy, in recommending re verence for all tame and harmless beasts not calling for man's self- defence, aimed at a regeneration of paganism by a nobler and purer life, such as is only suggested by matured and almost ideal aspira tions. Indeed they enjoined abstinence from animal food "not upon all men alike but only upon philosophers, and among these upon such only as seek their felicity in God and in the imitation of His nature" ' i. After the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, many Jewish enthusiasts scrupled to eat meat, as they refused to drink wine, because the animal could no longer be killed at the holy altar, and the priests no longer received their portions ' 2. Some of the older Karaites believed it to be a duty of the Jews not to eat meat in the countries of their dispersion ' 3 ; and the later leaders of the same sect, from conviction and inclination averse to the slaughter of ani mals, and yet finding it sanctioned by Divine permission, attempted an escape from this dilemma by the supposition, gradually raised into an article of faith , that God grants to the killed beast "com pensation" (niafi) for its pain and premature death; and this recalls the conception of those North-Americans who attribute a rational soul to the beaver, and of the South-Americans who regard the llama in the same light; the people of Kamschatka solemnly apologise to the animals they kill for the liberty they take with them ; and the Mahommedans in Egypt, when about to slaughter an animal, usually say, "May God give thee patience to endure the affliction which He has allotted to thee"14- The Japanese, it is well known, are averse to the chase; they refrain from killing or eating animals, although 10 Comp. Miinter, Der Tempel der 72; Strab.~S.YII. p. 812; Ael. Nat. An. heiligen Gottin zu Paphos, p. 28. X. 46; XH. 2; XVH. 32; Plut. Is. 72; The Egyptians held sacred to the Clem. Alex. Admon. ad Gent. p. 25 Nile the lepidotus (a scaly fish, pro- ed. Sylb.; Selden, De Diis Syr. pp. bably the benny, cyprinus lepidotus) 268 — 272. and the eel (phagrus), besides the " Porph. Abst. H. 3. oxyrhynchus, a species of sturgeon t2 Talm. Bab. Bathr. 60b, pons 131 fabled to have been produced from 'si 1W3 iissi siw isi»i3. the blood of the wounded Osiris; the 13 Comp. Eshkol Hakofer §. 236; people of Latopolis worshipped the Mivchar on Lev. XVII. 3 and Deut. latus, and the inhabitants of Elephan- XH. 21 ; etc. tine the maeotes; comp. Herod. H. 14 Lane, Mod. Eg. I. 132. 48 DIETARY LAWS. they place meat unreservedly before their foreign guests; and they look upon butchers as men who are permanently in an unclean state and ought to be excluded from the society of other classes : but all this is a result of their highly developed and humane "religion of the spirits" or "Kami" 1. Indeed the thoughtful and philosophic minds among the Greeks and Romans themselves give an account of the first stages of mankind, which materially differs from that furnished by poets and imaginative writers ; they forcibly describe the struggles and hardships, the rude fierceness and indomitable violence of the earliest generations ; and they lay due stress upon the hot and desperate warfare unceasingly carried on against noxious and rapacious beasts2. That similar con victions were entertained by the ablest men among the Hebrews, before their clear sense of historic truth was dimmed by the love of religious myths, could hardly be doubted, even if the Bible did not, in the very story of Eden, allude to garments of skins 3 . It may then be supposed that the early Hebrews, as they ad vanced in experience, availed themselves of animal food like every other nation4; and it appears that for long periods they consumed the flesh of all eatable animals indifferently, unawed by any religious restriction, and knowing no limits beyond individual dislike and sanitary precaution. This stage in the history of animal diet is em bodied in the command attributed to God at the time of Noah: "Every ' Comp. Herod. H. 37 ; Anthol. Gr. 923 sqq., 963 sqq.; Plato, Republ. H. (ed. Lips. 1829) HI. p. 77 no. 348, ih 11 (see Aristot. Polit. IV. 3, 4); etc. ftrjpuiv |3poTS p.5XXov dv/jp-Eps, -ndvTa 3 Gen. HI. 21. According to the ); comp. Yalk. Chad. la §§ 10, 11; Briider tibersetzt, Berlin 1858; Mei- lb § 29. ners 1. c. p. 220; Ersch und Gruber * In the desert, they murmured Encyol. II. xiv. 375; F. A. Luhdorf, against the manna which gave them Acht Monate in Japan nach Ab- no strength (Num. XI. 6), and longed schluss des Vertrages zu Kanagawa, for the rich fieshpots and the fishes Bremen 1857. of Egypt, though also for its excel lent vegetables (Exod. XVI. 3 ; Num. 2 Comp. Biod. Sic. I. 8 ; Lucret. V. XI. 4, 5). VIH. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 49 moving thing that lives shall belong to you for food ; just as the green herb I give you all things"5; and in harmony with this univer sal permission, the older or Elohistic document never, throughout the history of the Deluge, classifies the animals in reference to purity6. But gradually we find unmistakeable though not very striking distinctions made between clean and unclean food. Manoah's wife was commanded by the angel who announced to her the birth of her son Samson, not to eat any "unclean thing"7, and to avoid wine and strong drink (*DUj). "What were the "unclean" things referred to? If the passage does not enable us to answer this question, it is highly instructive from a historical point of view. It proves that in Manoah's time the rules of clean and unclean were still in a rudi mentary stage ; that they were not binding upon all Israelites , but like abstinence from wine and strong drink, they were recommended only to persons in an exceptional state of holiness 8 ; that, in fact, the universal and complicated dietary laws of the Pentateuch did not yet exist, and were certainly not promulgated or acknowledged : would it «lse have been necessary specially to caution the mother of a Nazarite against food which all Hebrews alike were taught to shun as an abo mination ? Yet it could not fail, on the one hand, that the aversion to "un clean" meat spread, in the course of time, among all classes of the people, and on the other hand, that the notions of clean and unclean food were more clearly and more elaborately defined. The prophet Hosea (B. C. 750) declared that the Israelites, as a just punishment for their iniquity, should "return to Egypt, and eat unclean things in Assyria" 9 ; and the Jehovistic writer of Genesis advisedly and con sistently introduced in the narrative of the Deluge that distinction between "clean and unclean animals", which in the interval that had elapsed since the age of the Elohist, had been established and eagerly developed10. Now the usage, taking deeper root, was more and more surrounded with religious sanctity, so that the Deuteronomist could "venture to attempt a systematic classification on broad and precise principles, which, still later, the compilers of Leviticus were able to employ as main pillars of their theocratic edifice 1 1. The criteria fixed upon were indeed capricious and fanciful: for granting that rumin- 5 Gen. IX. 3, is ps asi »rna . . . mai is 8 Comp. Com. on Lev. I. 700—702. 6 Comp. Gen. VI.19,20; VH. 14— 16> 9 Hos. IX. 3, liss- sau iiicssi. 21—23; VIII. 1, 17, 19; IX. 10. '° Comp! Gen. VII. 2, 8; VIH. 20; 7 kbb is or nsatt is, Judg. XIII. 4i see Comm. on Gen. pp. 183, 184. 7, 14. ' » Deut.XIV. 3—21 ; Lev. XI.2— 47. E 50 DIETARY LAWS. ants digest and assimilate their food in thecompletest manner1, and supposing that fishes with both fins and scales are the most healthy for some physiological reason2; on what natural principle can pre eminent purity be attributed to insects provided with springing legs3? Yet as these criteria, on the whole, included the animals sanctioned by usage as clean, and proscribed those long and popu larly held to be unclean , they were welcomed as lending an appear ance of scientific order to a variety of isolated instances thus spe ciously raised into a law. Por the whole animal creation 4 was commonly divided into three principal groups : (1) the inhabitants of the firm land, (2) of the water, and (3) of the air 5. Each of these three groups was again divided into two large classes, (a) one including (not consisting of) the species which struck the Hebrews as "clean", and were held by them to be fit for food ; and (b) one consisting of the species which, with one single exception, were considered unclean and un fit for food, and were designated by the general term of "creeping things"5- Now (1) the inhabitants of the firm land belonging (a) to the first class, included the large land-animals or Quadrupeds ', and were subdivided into the tame or domesticated "cattle", and the free or wild "beasts of the field"8. Those belonging (h) to the second class or "the creeping things"9, comprised those animals also that live i See notes on XI. 2—8. 8 nan3 and n-n (see Gen. VHI. 1; 2 See notes on XI. 9—12. Isai. XL VI. 1; Lev. XVn. 3; comp. 3 Deut. XIV. 6, 9, 10 ; Lev. XI. 3, 9, Galen. De Alim. Facnlt. III. 14, %spa 10, 12, 21. See notes on XI. 2 — 8. xal aYpia £tf>a); the latter are also 4 Designated as n^n is (Gen. VIH. termed yisn n-n or -ps m-n (Gen. I. 17, 19; Lev. XI. 27, 47; comp. Sifra 24, 25), or man n-n (Exod. XXIII. fol. 48a; Talm. Chull. 70b, 71a — 11; Lev. XXVI. 22; Deut. Vn. 22; n-n iiss nsnsn); or yisn mn (Gen. Hos. 11.14; etc.), or ir m-n (Ps. CIV. IX. 10) ; or n-n ass (Gen. I. 24 ; H. 1 9 ; 20) or iana m-n (Isai. LVI. 9) , and poe- IX. 10, comp. ver. 16); or nanan is tically na msna(Ps. VIII. 8). Yet in (Lev. XI. 2; Ps. XXXVL 7; comp. Is. LVI. 9, n» in-n is freely used for Sifra, Talm. 11. oc; Chull. 59a — n-n the tame cattle, in contradistinction nans iiss); or yisn ia> aai is (Gen. to 13.-3 in-n. VHI. 19); or in sin las aai is (Gen. IX. 3); or yisn is> aam las is (Gen. 9 aai (Gen. I. 24; 1 Ki. V. 13); or VI1, 21)- naisn aai (Gen. I. 25; VI. 20; VII. 5 Gen. I. 28, yisn is> nasin nin, nai 23) ; or nsisn ia> aail las is (Gen VH am, and aiaan cpy. 8) . 01. r„n ^ Win ^ (Q L sasioryia;. 30. VIII. 17; comp. IX. 2); or yia 7 nana (Gen. I. 24, 26, etc. ; 1 Ki. v. (Lev. XI. 43); or yisn is> yian via 13), or yisn n-n (Gen. I. 30; IX. 2); (Gen. VII. 21; XI. 29, 41, 42); or asa also man n-n (Gen. II. 19). y,stt i* WWl (Lev. XI. 46) VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 51 or work under the earth or in darkness, and therefore included the Insectivora, as the hedgehog, the pigmy shrew, and the mole; the Radentia, as the rat, the mouse, the hamster, and the porcupine; and the Edentata, as the sloth and armadillo; the wingless Insects, as the ants ; many Serpents and "Worms (esp. earth-worms), Mollusks and Radiata, Reptiles, Crustacea (as ;the land-crab and dog-crab), and Spiders 10. — (2) The habitants of the water included (a) in the first class, were the Pishes and some larger aquatic animals, as the Whaletribe (cetacea) 1 1. Those belonging (b) to the second class or the "creeping things of the water"12 embraced probably several species of the Rodentia with natant membranous hind-feet, as the beaver and otter ; perhaps the Seal-tribe (pinnipeda) , which, however, range under the mammalia13; nearly all the Worms, and most of the Mollusks, whether they are provided with a shell or not, and whether that shell is one entire piece or consists of two parts ; and other in vertebrates of lower organisation — the Radiata, the Acalepha or sea- nettles, and the Infusoria. — And (3) the habitants of the air belonging (a) to the first class comprised the Birds 14, among which the Bat- tribe (cheiroptera) was numbered 15. Those belonging (b) to the second class or the "winged creeping things" ' 6 were the Insects. — A complete enu meration of the animal kingdom comprehended, therefore, the following seven classes — the domesticated cattle (nana); the untamed qua drupeds (nin); birds (t)lS); fishes (bin ran); the "creeping things" of the earth (¦pan •pis) ; of the water (b^an yius) ; and of the air (c]isn ¦piB) ; though the last three were generally mentioned by the collective term "creeping things (yiffl)"'7. This division is represented in the following table. i° The land animals consisted, there- these terms comprise, like nai and fore, of three kinds — nana, yisn n-n a-ai, the clean fishes also, Gen. I. 26, and aai; Gen. I. 24, 25. 28 ; IX. 2 ; comp. Ex. VII. 18. u aiai or ain nai or a-n -ai, or wsa 13 Comp.ifam.DeCib.Vet.il. 12, 13. a-an isia las naam n-nn, or n 'n 'a 14 t|ia> or tps S]ia> or a-san spas, or-iiES a-aa (Gen. I. 21, 26, 28; IX. 2; Lev. or ep HE- (Gen. I. 21,. 26, 28, 30; VI. XI. 46 ; 1 Ki. V. 13). The ancients, it 20 ; VII. 14 ; 1 Ki. V. 13 ; Ps. CIV. 17). is well known, generally classed the t5 Lev. XI. 19, 5]?B?.. whale among the fishes (see Aristot. '6 f)wn yia, Lev. XI. 20 - 23 ; see the Hist. An. V. iv. 2 ; Plin. IX. 24 or 40, notes in loc. 50 or 74; Galen. De Aliment. Facult. 17 See Gen. I. 24, 25; II. 20; VII. III. 37). 14, 21; IX. 10; 1 Ki. V. 13; comp. 12 aiaa naam mnn esa or isi» las Ps. VIH. 8, 9; CIV. 11, 12, 14; Comm. aian, Lev. XI. 46; Gen.1. 21; although on Lev. I. p. 78 note 4. - E2 52 DIETARY LAWS. ANIMAL CREATION (ninn ii) Habitants of the Land Habitants of the Water Habitants of the Air (yisn is naain nin) (ain nai) (a-aan eps>) Quadrupeds Creeping Things Mshes and Creeping Things Birds Winged creeping (nana) fnf-isn aai) larger Aquatics of the Water (q15>) Things < - — ¦— — -* (a-n nai) (a-an yia) (nis>n yio) Cattle WildBeasts ^ . ' K ' ' \\ \ I (nana) (n-n) But the "creeping things" were, from another point of view, namely from their mode of locomotion, also divided into the four following orders : (1) "Those that go upon four feet" 1, including many of ihe fourfooted Reptiles, viz. Turtles (chelonia), Lizards (sauria), and Progs (batrachia) ; (2) "Those that have many feet" 2, among which were reckoned the Crustacea, as crab and lobster, shrimp and prawn, the Myriopoda, and the Spiders (A^achnida), with the scorpions and mites ; (3) "The winged creeping things" 3 or Insects; and (4) "Those that go upon the belly"4, comprising the Serpent-tribe and Worms (An nelida); the Mollusks, which move or crawl, either by means of flexible and expansive muscles5, or by a peculiar kind of feelers6, or by wing-like organs7; the Radiata, which are enabled to move along by singular tufts or tentacula; and the Entozoa, those wormlike, troublesome, and often dangerous intestinal parasites. Is it necessary to point out the very rudimentary and imper fect nature of all these classifications ? Each of the three great groups, nay even two of the classes of "creeping things" include mammalia; there is no trace of an analysis of structure or organisation; and superficial appearance was the only guide. , Now, out of the first two of the seven classes (nana and nin), the ox, the sheep, and the goat, of supreme importance to a nation of shepherds and agriculturists, and the stag and the roebuck", formed the ordinary staple of animal food; they were, therefore, set down as the normal clean beasts ; from them the qualifications for all lawful quadrupeds were deduced ; and thus the chewing of the cud and cloven feet became indispensable criteria. Of fishes, certain kinds, mostly fresh-water fish, were probably eaten without reluctance, while other aquatic animals, repulsive and unsightly, as the serpent- or lizard like creatures, the slimy cetacea and testacea, and similar, par- <,ai.iy-im,Lev.XI.42. . Cephalopoda, as the sepia or 2 a-iai naie, ibul. cuttle flsh- e 3 epam yia, see supra. I r^t ^ LeV' ??" 42' ' Ptel'°P°da - »« ** whale mussel 5 Gasteropoda, as the snails. or clio. VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 53 ticularly marine species, were held in aversion, though we have no detailed information on the subject 8 ; and as it was found that the for mer only are provided with both scales and fins, and the latter not — as the shark, the ray, and the sun-fish, which are destitute of scales, or the seal and walrus which were supposed to have no fins9 — scales and fins were made the tests of clean aquatics. Of the class of •plB, a few kinds of locusts only were, eaten, and hence springing legs were made the necessary qualification for permitted insects. With respect to birds, no common criteria seem to have been discovered, none at least were set forth by the legislators, who preferred to give a full enumeration of the unclean species, from which it is easy to con clude, as far as the names can be identified, that they considered as unclean all birds of prey, those that feed upon carcass, and those that shun the light of day 1 °. This being the natural and historic process by which the cri teria were arrived at, we can harilly be surprised at the singular mistakes which meet us at every step, both in the general laws and in the details. Let us first examine the principal rule concerning quadrupeds. In a series of precepts headed, "And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron saying", we read, "Whatsoever is hoofed and is clovenfooted" ' ', or "whatever is hoofed and has a too-cleft hoof", as the Deuteronomist more distinctly expresses it 12, "and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eat"13. Prom these words it would appear .that there are ruminants not bisulcate, and that there are bisulcates not ruminant; indeed the text dispels every doubt by adducing alleged instances both of the one and the other kind of quadruped. Yet such animals do not exist. It is a zoological fact, which an authority like Cuvier called "as certain as any other in physics or morals", that "all ruminants have the foot cleft, and that they only have it" ' 4. What are the obvious conclusions to be drawn from this fact? Pirst, that the Biblical rule concerning clean and ¦< unclean quadrupeds is illusory; for there ane not two independent or separate criteria, but there is only one ; the formation of the stomach is decisive for that of the foot ; all ruminants are bisulcate, and all 8 See infra. isk tradition see the notes on XI. o o -u ¦ s 13—19. 9 See, however, infra. n i-iibib 3>Ba rosai. i° See notes on XI. 15 — 19; comp. '2 niois -na a>Ba nyeai, i. a. and is also Philo, De Concup. c. 9; Porph. bisulcate. Abst. rV. 7, TtTTjvuiv 81 Sea o-apxotpaYa '3 Lev. XI. 3; Deut. XIV. 6. (dneiyovTO oi AiyuTrTioi iepeU). On I4 See Cuvier, Ossemens fossiles, the criteria attempted by later Jew- ed. 4™^ j, 164, 54 DIETARY LAWS. bisulcates are ruminant. And, secondly, every one of the four instan - ces or illustrations brought forward by the Biblical writer is neces sarily erroneous; any attempt at defending them implies an impotent struggle against science : the camel, which the Bible admits to rumi nate, is eo ipso cloven-footed; the hyrax and the hare, which the Bible admits to be devoid of a two-cleft hoof, are eo ipso no rumi nants; and the pig, which the Bible admits to be no ruminant, can eo ipso have no two-cleft hoof. We may now briefly glance at the individual cases. The hare is de scribed as a ruminant ', because, in eating, it makes with the lips a play ful and twitching movement which has the appearance as if the ani mal were chewing the cud, just as the squirrel and other rodentia are even in modern times occasionally represented as ruminants, and for the same reason 2. Yet it needs not be elaborately proved, that the hare is no ruminant , but belongs to the rodents (glires). It has a simple stomach, the structure of which, like that of the intestines, is totally distinct from that of ruminants3; and its teeth are so arranged that they appear in the upper jaw also, whereas those of ruminants seem to be in the lower jaw only4. It is futile to appeal to the vague testimonies of uneducated gamekeepers in support of a view which could prevail only in an unscientific age5. The flesh of the hare was iDeut. XIV. 7; Lev. XL 6. The the drone, the bee, the grashopper, reading of some codices of the Sep- and the beetle : all these animals tuagint 8ti oov. dvdyei p.T]pu-/aa[j.6v, either actually chew the cud or seem is a transparent and very unhappy at least to ruminate ; . . . but not these emendation, since the animals intro- alone; men themselves have been duced as illustrations are supposed often known to ruminate , and some to have at least one of the two crite- even with pleasure'' ; see also Ovid, ria (comp. ver. 4, where Michaelis Halieut. 119, scarus epastas solus qui renders the sense correctly, though ruminat escas. not the words, "folgendes aber das s Brehm, Illustrirtes Thierleben H, entweder wiederkauet oder einen ge- 60 , "the stomach of the rodents is spaltenen Fuss hat"). simple, though occasionally sepa- 2 Comp. Goldsmith, History of the rated into two parts by contraction" ; Earth and Animated Nature, HI. 5, one division serves as a crop-like re- "the rhinoceros, the camel, the horse, ceptacle for food; comp. Naturfor- the rabbit, the marmotte, and the scher, II. 391. squirrel, all chew the cud by inter- 4 Comp. Talm. Chull. 59a na3lsl -|EB vals; . . . among birds, the pelican, nis>ai a^a pi a-...; Babe on Mishn. the stork, the heron, the pigeon, and Chull. III. 1, p. 101 ; see infra p. 70. the turtle; . . . among fishes, the 5 Comp. the wavering remarks of lobsters, crabs, the dorado, the sal- Michaelis in his notes on XI. 6, and mon; of insects, the ruminating tribe the inaccurate ones of Rosenmiiller is still larger ; the cricket, the wasp, in Schol. ad Lev. XI. 6, and Bibl. Na- VHI. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 55 indeed permitted to the Hindoo priests 6, and was eaten by the Greeks and Romans and some Eastern nations, as the Arabs, who still exten sively partake of it. But the Hebrews, like many others — as the Parsees, who consider the hare the most unclean of all beasts7, the Turks, the Armenian Christians warned by Pope Zechariah8, and the ancient Britons9, — were accustomed to shun that flesh, which is soft and tasteless in the East10; perhaps they believed it to be un wholesome as engendering thick blood and somnolence l \ or they de tested the hare on account of the loathsome disorders to which it is subject,it maybe in consequence of its lasciviousness andits capacity of superfetation 1 2. Therefore the Hebrew legislator, having no other ob ject but to sanction a national custom, forbade the hare on account of the structure of its feet 1 3, though he erroneously believed it to answer to the second assumed criterion of clean quadrupeds. Utterly untenable, therefore, are all apologetic subterfuges; for instance, that the author merely desired to decide, "which animal was, for the interpretation of the Law and injure, to be considered as chewing the cud or as having divided hoofs", without influencing the convictions of naturalists14; or that "the usage of language follows external appearance rather than the searching analysis of the philosopher" 1 5 : as if the criteria were not meant to point to some peculiar organisation affecting the very nature of the animals16. Again, the camel which was forbidden on the plea that "it does turgesch. II. 212; also Lervysohn, 8tbv xiitnat); Gener. An. IV. 5 ; Plin. Zool. des Talm. p. 109. VHI. 55 or 81 (solus praeter dasypo- 6 Manu V. 18 ; Yajnav. I. 177. dem superfetat) ; Ael. Nat. An. II. 12 ; 7 Niebuhr, Reisebeschreib. n. 47. Xenoph. Cyneg. V. 6, 13 (aov8ud£eTotL 8 Epist. XH. ad Bonifacium. jaev del, 7toX6y0,|IOV &' 4otlv oBtcos &ct e 9 Comp. Caes. Bell. Gall. V. 12, le- xd |jiv tstoxe, to Se t£xtsi, td ii xuei ; porem et gallinam et anserem gus- Athen. IX. 63; Plut. Sympos. IV. v. 2, tare — Britannici — fas non putant. 3 , speaking of the Jews iu? puaa- i° Sauveboeuf, Trav. n. 91 ; Pruner, pov -m\ dxd»apTov S-jaxepaivovta; to Krankheiten des Orients, p. 52; both Cuiov); esp. Clem. Alex. Paedag. II. quoted by Knobel on Levit. p. 445. pp. 188, 190, 191 : on the prodigious n Plin. XXVin. 19 or 79; Galen, fruitfulness of the hare see Athen. I.e. De Aliment. Facult.IH. 2, tj tujv la- 13 Which are not simply divided -fuxSv cdp£ ai|j.a-o? ita/utepou -yewr]- into two 'parts, the forefeet having tixtJ ; though he recommends hare five, the hindfeet four toes. soup and the blood of the hare as >4 Michaelis, Mos. R. § 204. comparatively healthy (loc. cit. c. 23). 15 Brentano on Lev. XI. 6. 12 Comp. Herod.HI. 108 (eTttxuCoxe- "Nearly all that has here been Tat (j-ouvov itdvxojv #T]p£(ov); Arislot. remarked of the hare, applies also to Hist. An. VI. xxvin. 3 (ktixufoxovcai the rock -badger or hyrax (-]|a). 56 DIETARY LAWS. not divide the hoof" l, has in reality cloven feet ; the division extends over the entire depth of the foot, and is often wide enough to allow the hand to be passed through2: however, the toes, affording no flattened surface for the limb to bear upon, are lengthened, tipped with small hoofs only, and rest upon a large and pulpy sole or elastic pad, as upon a cushion, on which the camel treads3 ; and on account of this unessential peculiarity it was declared to have undivided feet. And why ? Simply because it was necessary to find a reason, in ac cordance with the criteria set forth, for prohibiting camel's flesh, which, though eaten by the Persians4 and many Arab tribes 5, and lawful among the Mahommedans6, was avoided as food by many eastern nations, as the Hindoos, the Zabii, and Egyptians7, as it is still disdained by the Copts8; for it was supposed to be heating and to engender cruelty and revengefulness 9, which latter quality was commonly attributed to the camel itself 10. But in reality there is no reason for the exclusion of the camel from the number of clean ani- i Lev. XL 4. 2 Arist. Hist. An. II. n. 6, ea-rt Se 8(}(-r)Aov (and then he gives a very full, but somewhat indistinct de scription of the foot) ; Plin. XI. 45 or 105, est enim bisulcum, adding how ever discrimine exiguo. 3 Aristot. 1. c. 6 Se -rto'jc ecu xd- Tcudev isap-Awhi\s , iasizzp xal oi Tdiv dpxTrov. 4 Herod. I. 133; Athen. IV. 6; An- quelil du Perron, Boundehesch c.XIV, see infra. 5 Biod. Sic. II. 54, al (j.ev -jdAa izap- ej(6|j.Evai xal xpeo XI y. oomp_ Deut_ XIy_ g_ Plin. VIII. 17 or 26 (dentium supe- riore ordine carent ut boves); XI. 37 15 Aristot. Hist. An.II.n.8, eiol Yap or 62; see infra. ev 'iXXupiot? xal Iv Ilavovia xal dMo- 12 Comp. Aristot. Hist. An. II. 11. 9, #1 jj.iuvux£? us«; Plin. XI. 46 or 106. xd (J.ev oiiv itXetaxa xuiv e^ovxcuv xe- paxa Si^TjXa xaxd tpiaiv eaxiv; Plin. XI. 45 or 105, solidas habent ungulas quae non sunt cornigera, igitur pro i'#Kx/e!/,LecturesontheElements his telum ungulae ictus est illis. of Comparative Anatomy, p. 63. is Michaelis 1. c; Kitlo on XI. 3 and 47. 58 DIETARY LAWS. the Mishnah propounded this rule — "All fishes with scales have invariably fins also ; but fishes that have fins , have not always sca les" 1 : hence Jewish tradition permitted unconditionally all fishes with scales , but declared that those which have fins must be carefully examined with respect to scales2. Not the presence or absence of fins is characteristic, but their nature or position; it is these that de cide the various subdivisions of the class, and determine their higher or lower place. It is, therefore, a strange tautology to speak of "fishes that have fins"; but as in some species, the fins are partially small and concealed, finless fishes were assumed and deemed possible. Nor were the Rabbins happier in classifying the fishes destitute of scales, for they included among them, and therefore prohibited, the eel3, which, however, undoubtedly has scales, though these are hidden in the thick skin and delicately fine: they may have disdained the eel on account of its serpent-like appearance, since its fins also are very small and fewer than the normal number4; they possibly detested it because it was revered as a most holy deity among the Egyptians5; they may, besides, have regarded it unwholesome food6, as it is still regarded by the best medical authorities7 ; but they had not to make new statutes, but to expound existing laws, and they would not have ventured to forbid the eel , had they considered it to possess the Biblical criteria of a clean fish. But even granting the propriety and correctness of the tests, the artificial character of the law is manifest from the arrangement of the details. The number ten prevails in the enumeration of the species : the Deuteronomist mentions ten clean kinds of quadrupeds 8, and 1 Mishn. Nidd. VI. 9. 7 Comp. Bur dach inErschundGru- 2 Talm. Nidd. 51b; Avod. Zar. 40a; ber's Enoycl. I. i. 15, 16, "The eel is Yor. Deah § 83. 3. rather nutritious, but difficult of di- 3 Comp. Talm. Avod. Zar. 39asnElii-, gestion; on account of its fatness, it which Rashi explains by sii-a:s, an- resists the gastricjuices, andslackens guille; Origen. Horn, in Levit. VH- the activity of the stomach; there- c. 8 ; comp. Aruch sub snais, "an un- fore , it easily engenders diseases of clean fish, thin, long, round, snake- the stomach and the intestinal canal; like, slippery"; Arab, also snais, it must be eaten cautiously and mo- though the common Arabic name for derately", etc. eel is ^JlXJi, corresponding to the 8 Theox,thesheep,andthegoat,the Greek 'ifyzUs. hart (i;s, Sept. andP/wVo, De Concup. 4 Comp. Athen. VII. 90. c.5,aa(fo? stag, Vulg.cervus, Luther 5 Herod. II. 72; Athen. VII. 55. and DeWetteHirsch),the roebuck^:?, e Comp. Galen. De Aliment. Facult. Sept. Sopxd? gazelle, Vulg. caprea, IH. 30, poyb-qpotdTq 8' euptoxexai Luther Reh, De Wette, Knobel Ga- xai t-7]? o^upatwi? tj oapg y.T)w selle)and the fallow-deer (nan-, Sept. VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 59 Leviticus twenty unclean birds9; the peculiar significance attributed throughout the Pentateuch to that number, needs not be pointed •out again i°; it was acknowledged by the later Jews, especially when they became familiar with the views of the Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonicians 1 i ; and it is, in reference to our law, expressly urged by Philo in these terms : "Ten of the quadrupeds are clean . . . For Moses always adhered to that arithmetical theory which, as he ori ginally devised it with the minutest accuracy possible, he extends to all existing things, so that he establishes no ordinances, whether important or unimportant, without employing, and as it were ad apting, this number as peculiar to the regulations which he is or daining12; since of all the numbers, beginning from the unit, the most perfect is the number ten, and, as Moses says, the most sacred ¦of all and a holy number'"3. Therefore, both the criteria and the lists of the animals are the result of a studied and deliberate plan meant to classify and to group a mass of given facts and instances. Nor is even here the progress wanting which, in all similar ordinances, the Book of Leviticus exhibits if compared with Deuteronomy. The former not only repeats the old objections to all "creeping things" (¦jniu), and introduces a new distinction between clean and unclean insects with the view of sanctioning the edible locusts characterised by the peculiar structure of their feet14, but it insists upon the reli gious or rather Levitical aspect of the dietary laws with a fulness and an intense earnestness, which leave no doubt whatever as to the J3oi{3aXo? buffalo, Vulg. bubalus, Lu- the cormorant, the pelican, and the therBiiffel, DeWette, KnobelDamm- racham, the heron, the ibis, the hirsch), the wild goat (ips, Sept. hoopoe and the bat (Lev. XI. 13 — 19; xpaYeAatpo? bearded deer, Vulg. trag- see notes in locr). On the number elaphus, Luther and De Wette Stein- of twenty-one birds specified in Deu- bock), the pygarg (fa'i-, Sept. tiu- teronomy (XIV. 12, 18) see ibid. YapYo; pygarg, Luther Tendle), the 10 See Comm. on Gen. p. 157.' wild ox (isn, Sept. cip'.>£ a kind of an- ll Comp. Lucian, Vitar. Auct. c. IV, telope, Vulg. oryx, Luther Auerochs), a cCi Soxeei; xlooapa , xaux?. Sexa eaxi and the chamois (ist, Sept xa(j.T(Ao- xal xpiY, explained by Rashi 5^T ppil cult. o. 30; comp. also Joseph. De nspi ia n-si 1-Ea ; comp. Midr. Tanch. Maccab. c. 5, ewypoaWcp xe fap i\\>.i.c, c. 12, fol. 21a ed. Stett. exoi8dcjxei, &axe TtaodSv x<5v tjSovwv QAriseas, in Frankel's Monats- xal 4iui)yp.i<5v xpaxeiv, xal dvSpeiav schrift 1858, pp. 250, 281—283. e£a5xetv xxX. 62 DIETARY LAWS. with these explanations are the conceits of Origen. "From the food", he declares, "which is mentioned as a shadow, we must ascend to that which, through the spirit, is true food" ' ; he "ruminates" who is intent upon knowledge, and meditates on the word of God day and night2, and he is wise who regulates his actions upon "the distinction" between this and the future world ; those placed in the sea of life must strive not to remain in the depth of the water, as the fishes without fins do, and they must ever be ready to lay off their old habits, like fishes with scales; while the birds of prey "point to those who eagerly look forward to the death of others, and artfully or fraudulently forge wills"3! Maimonides, interpreting not more happily or profoundly, believes that the dietary regulations are intended "to check the greedy who are bent upon dainties, and to prevent men from looking upon luxurious eating and drinking as the end of their lives"4 £he goes so far as to assert that the laws of prohibited food, like most other cere monials and even many moral precepts, are meant to provide exces sive exercises for the discipline of the heart and mind, in order to lead man, by the practice of extremes, more safely to the mean road of moderation and temperance5 — a pernicious principle which robs the laws of all intrinsic significance, and transforms them into mere instruments or "medical cures" serving extraneous ends : though such a view was natural in a Jewish scholar of the middle ages, imbued with Aristotelic tenets, it ought not to be forced upon the old Hebrew legislators, in whose eyes the ceremonies had meaning and truth for their own sakes, and who, therefore, declared them to be eternal and immutable, and strove with their utmost energy thoroughly to amalga mate them with the main ideas of their religious system6. Nor have even recent writers refrained from typical subtleties. One avers that all unclean animals "bear upon them the stamp of sin, death, and cor ruption", which pervade alike mankind and nature, though he aban dons the hope of ever being able to point out these ominous signs in 1 De cibis qui per umbram dicun- bition of pork a warning to men "ne tur, adscendamus ad eos qui per spi- vitam porcorum imitarentur , qui ad ritum veri sunt eibi; Homil. VII. in solam mortem nutriuntur" (Instit. IV. Levit. c. 4 (edit, de la Rue et Lorn- 17); and Clemens Alexandrin. obser- matzsch vol. IX. p. 300) ; comp. 1 Cor. ves with regard to the hare,x^v xAXu- X. 3, 4 ; Col. II. 16, 17. civ Tfj; eSuoStj? xou \a^w TcaiSepaaxiaj 2 Comp. Josh. I. 8; Ps.I. 2; CXIX. ep.tfaiveiv aTCOxpoT^v (Paed.II.p. 188). passim ; etc. i Maim. Mor. Nev. III. 35. 5 L. c. cc. 4—8, pp. 300—312; see 5 Shemon. Perak. c. 4, to which he also Selecta in Levit. ibid. pp. 166, refers in Mor. Nev. 1. c. 167. — Lactantius sees in the prohi- <> Comp. also Comm. on Lev. I. p. 56. VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 63 each individual animal, because "man's degeneracy" or his "ungodly and unnatural civilisation" has vitiated and darkened his "Divine con sciousness", and has "blunted his natural aversions"7. Another alludes to "the thoughtful chewing of the cud" as an emblem of reflection, and to "the coarse and insolent one-hoofed foot"8. One calls the unclean animals the "images of sin", by shunning which men were to be educated to shun sin itself*1; and another, supposing the forbid den animals to represent the heathen, the clean ones Israel, urges that the distinction between both must appear in "their spiritual life or ways" and "their spiritual food", the one typified by the cloven foot, the other by the chewing of the cud10! These and similar sin gularities which it would be unprofitable to quote at greater length, share the usual defects of all allegorical and moralising interpre tations ' K Then the question recurs — Why were certain animals set down in the Pentateuch as clean, others as unclean? Very little is gained for the real explanation of the problem by assuming, that the Hebrews, influenced by their eastern neighbours, or arriving of them selves at the same ideas, declared the creatures of the good deity Ormuzd as lawful, and prohibited those of the evil god Ahriman as obnoxious12; for it would still remain to be accounted for, why the Parsees were led to trace certain creatures to the empire of Ormuzd, 7 Keil, Archaeologie, n. 19 — 21; xexpop-^evas (j.ev xd« nve'J[j.axixd<; Comm. on Lev. pp. 83, 84; comp. xxX.) ; Strom. VII. p. 718 ed. Sylb.; Leyrer in Herzog's Real-Enc. XIV. Theodoret. Quaest. XI ad Lev. (quod 597, 598, 610, 613. piscibus est squama, hoc hominibus 8 Baumgarten , Theolog. Comm. II. est fides, etc.) ; Bechai on Lev. XI fol. 155, comp. p. 154. 27b (the permitted birds are to teach 9 Gerlach on Lev. XI. pp. 404, 408 us "that God hates wickedness and on ver. 46. cruelty , and loves kindness and hu- i° Kurtz, Opfercultus, pp. 9— 12, manity" ; or the camel, the hyrax, the 58, strangely supporting his view by hare, and the pig represent the four Lev. XX. 24 — 26. empires which successively enslaved n See Comm. onLev. I. pp. 142 sqq.; Israel, etc.) ; also Bochart, Hieroz. I. p. Epist. Barnab. 10 ("thou shalt not 699 (natura sua porous tarn mundus associate with men who resemble un- erat quam agnus, sed significatio fuit grateful pigs or rapacious birds , or diversa) ; Spencer, Legg. Ritt. I. vir. the accursed fishes that live in dark- pp. 115 sqq.; Michaelis, Typ. Gottes- ness; thou shalt not be incestuous gel. § 34; Knobel, Lev. pp. 441, 442. and debauched like the hare, nor i2 Comp. Rhode, Heil. Sage der adulterous like the hyena, nor of un- Baktrer etc. pp. 214-228, 422 ; Bleek clean mouth like the weasel" — see in Stud, und Krit. 1831, pp.498, 499; supra — etc.); Clem. Alex.Ya.eHag.il. Bohlen, Genes, pp. 88, 89; Be Wette, p. 149 (8id McuaeuK aixia? upooditxcuv Archaeol. § 188. 64 DIETARY LAWS. and others to the dominion of Ahriman. But even if this could be proved in every individual instance, we should not be aided in our enquiry, from the simple fact, often carelessly ignored \ that the clean and unclean animals of the Hebrews do not coincide with those of the Parsees. This will be evident from a brief survey of the or dinances contained on the subject in the Bundehesh; we shall confine ourselves to plain facts, and pass over all speculations 2. When the primitive bull died , Ormuzd formed of his purified semen first two animals of the same kind , one male and one fe male, and out of these he created a couple of every other clean spe cies, and placed them in Iran-vedj, where they multiplied and spread — first the goat and ram, then the camel and ox, and afterwards the horse and the ass, which animals were brought forth "for the use of the pure" ; in the next place, the hart and the roe-buck, birds (among which are specified the eagle and the crow, the owl and the raven), fishes and other aquatic animals3, the dog4 and the civet-cat5, and ten kinds of rats white from head to tail 6 ; and it is maintained that all these creatures were produced in so many distinct varieties that they finally amounted to 282 species; for instance, the goat and ram comprised 5 species each, one of which is the unicorn, the bull 15, the dog 10 species, as beaver, fox, and weasel, glutton, hedge hog7, and musc-deer, sable-marten, ermine, and others of the same class. Now, in examining these animals held pure by the Parsees, we find that a very considerable number of them are unclean accord ing to the Pentateuch, as the camel, the horse, and the ass, the eagle and crow, the dog and the civet-cat, the beaver, the fox, and the rat, the weasel and the like, the birds of prey and the fishes without fins and scales. Even the pig, though feeding on kharfesters or detested creatures of Ahriman , could be rendered a clean animal if it was prevented from eating impure things during one year, when its flesh became lawful food8. The Parsees may, from their point of view, have had good reasons for their classification; they were in- i Rhode 1. c. ; Bohlen 1. c. * Comp. Plut. 1. c. ; also Khorda-, 2 Comp. Anquetil du Perron, Zend- .<4>.o. is Ael. Nat. An. X. 31, ftepjiouftiv xouxo (j.eY« itoieuvxai — 01 MaYOi — daitiSa; Herod. H. 74; Plut. Is. c. 74. xxsfvovxes 6(j.o((u? (j.6p|j.T)xds xe xal 17 Her. II. 66, 67; Plut. Is. c. 74; 891; xxX.); Plut. Is. c. 46 (816 xal xov , Recherches sur les ' ' „ „ , ., , ' „ _, .. ' ~. 10. 10-. Var. Hist. n. 2i; Porph. Abst. IV. 6; Egyptiens et les Chm. pp. 124, 125; ',„„, „. /. , , „„ m- 1 J,, ^J Jamblich. Pythag. c.XXIV(109); Cic. comp.6to L„ c. 0;J^« Shabb. * * Gell.TY.ia. IX. 7; Shevnth II. 9 (na:an iiE). ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ xy m. ^ 12 Comp. 2 Sam. XVH. 28; Ezek.IV. XVIH. 12 or 30; Festus s. faba; Ga- 9 ; Plin. XVIII. 12 or 30 (inter quae — /ere, De Aliment. Fac. I. 19. sc.legumina — maximushonos fabae, 15 PUn. XVI. 44 or 95. quippe ex qua temptatus sit etiam ie Biog. Laert. VHI. 28, 810 xal xd panis; . . . frumento etiam miscetur muxd £o5a elvai. apud plerasque gentis etc.) ; Hor. Sat. n pi0g. Laert. 1. e. 4. "Die Talapoi- n. in. 182 ; Strabo XVII. 11. 4, p. 823 ; nen dehnen das Gebot : todte und Hotting. Hist. Orient, p. 186, with re- yerletze nicht, uberPflanzen und den spect to the Zabii, ex germinibus ni- Saamen oder die Keime von Pflan- hil nisi faba et allium conceditur. zen aus, . . . weil sie glauben, dass i3K.ud|j.oo; testiculos significare . . . alles was lebe auch beseelt sei" etc. 68 DIETARY LAWS. the later Mahommedans also did i, they were not prompted to do so by the similarity of its colour to that of the fabled demon2 ; they commonly employed the ass as a beast of burden, and in times of ur gent distress did not scruple to eat its flesh 3 ; indeed in earlier periods, and certainly in the time of the Judges, the ass seems, together with the ox and the sheep, to have been their ordinary animal food4, just as it was eaten in Persia5, and in some neighbouring districts, where it was even sacrificed to the god of war6, in northern Africa7, in Greece, in Italy, especially by the poorer classes 8, and in Rome, where at the time of Augustus young asses were considered particularly palatable9; though Galen maintains that asses' flesh, notorious for bad humours and difficult to cook, is injurious to the stomach and tough to the taste, and he denounces those who eat it with almost vehe ment irony10. And when, after the Babylonian exile, the Jews be came familiar with the dualism of the Persians, their leaders opposed it with the clearest and strongest emphasis. "I am the Lord, and there is none else", wrote the second Isaiah , "I form the light and create darkness ; I make peace and create evil ; I the Lord do all these things" 1 1 ; they did not shrink from tracing to God evil and darkness also, because they were convinced that, under His care and direction, the evil produces blessings, and darkness serves beneficent ends12. (Meiners, Geschichte der Religionen, writers who attribute to the Jews a !• 215). religious reverence for the ass (Tac. i See Weil, Mohammed der Pro- Hlst- v- 35 Pht. Is. 30, 31, 51; Sym- phet, p. 188; comp. Ruckert, Erbaul. Pos- JY. v. 2; Diod. Sic. XXXIV. 1; und Beschaul. n. 31, "Wenn ihr hort Joseph. C. Ap. II. 7 ; Flor. HI. 5), un- einenEsel schreien, Er hat gesehen less it was believed that the Jews bose Feien; bittet Gott, dass er euch must honour the animal detested by behute." theirenemies, the Egyptians : to trace 2 nan, from lan to be red, the red- lt to a ooniusea reminiscence of Gen. dish animal; comp. also Sonnini, XXXVI- 24 is MgMy improbable. It Voyage n. 361 362 is not a little curious that the same re- „ „ „. TTT „„ .. , „., proach was made to the Christians at 3 2 Ki. VI. 25 ; comp. Plut. Vit. Ar- . , , , ,, „ . , , „ least down to the third century; comp. Minuc. Felix, Octav. c. 28 (§ 7), ed. * See Judges VI. 4. m]m, inde est (viz. from the false HsfOf] T 1 ^^ „ 0J ' ¦ rumours of demons) quod audire te 6 Strabo XV. n. 14 r>. 727 *¦¦ j. • ¦ , • , _ , ^ ' y dicis, caput asini rem nobis esse di- Galen. De Alim. Facult. I. 2. yinam; quis tam stultus ut hf)c CQ. Apulems, Metam. VII. p. 349 ed. lat? quis stultior ut hQo ^ ore. Nisard. 9 Plin. Vin. 43 or dat? etc. n Isai. XLV. 6, 7; comp. LIV. 16; '°L. c; comp. supra p. 56 note 8. see also infra "Angels and Spirits" It is difficult to account for the ludi- eh. 2 sub fin. crous assertion of many heathen 12 Comp., however, infra sub fin. VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 69 Our conclusion, therefore, is that the principles of division with respect to clean and unclean animals were markedly different among the Israelites and among the Parsees or other nations. Yet they offer points of resemblance which are of the highest interest, and throw a welcome light upon the Hebrew ordinances. The Zend-Avesta distin guishes quadrupeds with cloven feet, with undivided feet or hoofs, and with five claws, all of which belong to the clean species13. The highest Hindoo castes or "the twice-born" were by the law of Manu forbidden to taste the flesh or milk of "quadrupeds with uncloven hoof" 1 4, the flesh of all "solitary animals, of unknown beasts or birds", and of "creatures with five claws", from which prohibitions, however, the hedgehog and porcupine, the tortoise, the rabbit, and the hare were excepted ' 5- They were strictly to abstain from all fishes that have no scales'6- According to later accounts, the Egyptian priests shunned all quadrupeds having "uncloven hoofs" or "many claws" or having "no horns" '7, cows, and all male animals if twins or spotted, many-coloured, deformed, or one-eyed, or tamed by labour ' 8, and all carnivorous birds : which criteria include the greater part of those set forth in the Hebrew law19. The Koran attempts no distinct principles on the subject; but it seems to be a general rule among Mahommedans to abstain from any animal that feeds upon human flesh, or that attacks men2 °. Ac cording to Cassius Hemina quoted by Pliny21, Numa, desirous of checking prodigal expense 2 2, ordained that "fishes without scales" which were bought up by speculators and, sold by them at exorbitant prices, should not be offered up as sacrifices to the gods23. As ruminants, with the exception of the camel, appear to have, though they have not 13 La premiere espece a le pied fen- Spencer Legg. Ritt. I. vii. 2 , p. 124; du, ... la seconde espece est au pied Sommer, Bibl. Abhandl. I. 284 sqq. d'ane, non fendu, . . . la troisieme 20 Comp. Mebuhr, Beschr. von Arab. espece est a cinq griffes" (Anq. du p. 178. Perron 1. a). 21 Hist. Nat. XXXII. 2 or 10. '4 Manu V. 8, 11. 22 Parsimoniam commentus. 15 Manu V. 17, 18; Yajnav. I. 177. 23 Numa constituit ut piscis qui 16 Sas aloa, Manu V. 16; comp. squamosi nonessentnipollucerent. .. Munk, Reflexions, p. 61; Jones leaves ni quid ad polluctum emerent pretio sas alca untranslated. minus parcerent eaque praemerca- 17 Mwvux« ?) iroXuniania nis-'aaia ouxe^eixousTipoalMoosiSSovxasjcomp. niintai nisai wo ni; comp. Maim. De Hist. An. n. n. 6; HI. xvi. 6. Cib. Vet. I. 3. 5 ss>iaa -pnniis is -]S3Bs nisa is; 2 Manu V. 18. The legislator hard- comP' Botttnger, Hist. Orient, p. 186. ly meant animals that have in- 6 See ^mfcas, in Frank. Monats- cisors in the lower jaw only (so schrift 1858' P- 249; comP- P" 281; Munk, Reflexions, p. 62); he evid- Wa"iehros, Alterthiimer, ch. XXX, ently shared the common error of § 21 ' HeSS in E°8enmuller's Morgen- his time. land, II. 161, 162; Rosenm. Schol. ad , ™ , . ,, . Lev. XI. pp. 58, 59 ; Brentano on Le- 3 That is, the ruminants, see p. 57. ., VT „ ... , , ' , iT , , ' * vit. XI. 2, 45 ; out on the other hand, 4 Aristot. Hist. An. H. m. 8, Sua Ewald, Alterthiimer, p. 205 note, "man (J.EV Yap eoxt xepaxotp6pa, otix dp-tfiu- verwechselt die Folge, welche aller- Sovxd eaxiv,.oUYdpe'xeixouSTrpo(ja-£ous dings die Speisgesetze immer mehr S86vxa; Inl xfii dvu> ciaYovo?; De bervorbrachten, mit ihrem Ursprun- Part. An. HI. u. 7, oio xuiv xepaxocp6- ge und ihrem ersten unbefangenen pwv o6Sev eaxiv d|j.cp6Souv, dvcu Yap Sinne." VHI. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 71 Entirely groundless, for instance, are views like these : "Moses forbade the Israelites td eat the camel, which up to his time had been con sidered clean, in order to isolate them from the Arabs, perhaps also to deter them from remaining in Arabia or settling there, at any later period, through love of nomadic cattle-breeding"7; or "God intended to enjoin upon the Hebrews the dietary laws as something peculiar, so that the holy people might be distinguished from the profane nations no less by their food than by their worship" 8. This latter remark is a fair specimen of the method, now happily obsolete among Biblical critics, of mechanically explaining pre cepts which ought to be understood by organic laws of national ity, or of intellectual and religious progress. It is vain to adduce in support of that view the words of a late Levitical legislator: "I am the Lord your God who have distinguished (ilni-an) you from other nations; you shall therefore distinguish (dtiinsrri) between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean, and you shall not make your souls abominable by beast or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creeps upon the ground, which I have distinguished (ini-DSi) for you as unclean"9. These words have a very different import ; they do not refer to external separation or distinction from heathens; but connected as they are with laws of idolatry, in cest, and unnatural depravity, they allude to a life of holiness and piety by which the Hebrews were to deserve and to justify the election by which they had been glorified through Divine grace. This is abund- 7 Michael. Mos. R. IV. § 204 (the or drink imported from a foreign following words, 1. c. p. 141, seem al- country (Porph. Abst. rv. 7, comp. most like a reductio in absurdum: "If c. 6), though this rule was rather anotherneighbouringnationhadheld prompted by motives of frugalityand the same food unclean, Moses would byaversion to luxury (uoX6^xi? o8xe .Paw®, Recherches, 1.107. can be regulated mechanically by 8 Spencer, Legg. Ritt. I. vn. 1, arbitrary prescription, and did not comp. 2, "erat nempe rationi conso- result from its habits, experience, num, ut Judaei in ipsa quasi fronte and abodes) ; comp. also § 203 passim Dei sui nomen gererent, et signo ali- ("the most intimate friendships are quo teste scirent omnes, se Deo sancto concluded at tables" etc.), and his et peculiari nomina sua tradidisse" ; notes on Lev. XI; Kitto on Lev. XI. and the artificial and frigid argu- 2; Gen. XLHI. 32 ("the Egyptians ment "singularis gentis Israeliticae cannot eat a meal with the Hebrews", dignitas et excellentia postulavit ut etc.), and Comm. in loc. ;¦ Herod. H. cibo tantum peculiari et dignitatis 41, dvT]p AfYurcxto? • •• °68e iJ-ay^aip^ alicujus spectem ferente pasceretur." dv8poe "EXXtjvo? xP'f}™™1 XT^-;' nay 9 Lev. XX. 24, 25; comp. Spencer the Egyptian priests touched no food 1. c. p. 121, 72 DIETARY LAWS. antly evident from the concluding sentence, "And you shall be holy unto Me, for I the Lord am holy, and I have distinguished you (Wasi) from other nations that you should be Mine" K Even the dietary rules of the Egyptian and Hindoo priesthood2 were but partially designed to secure a rigid seclusion from other castes or nations3, and were particularly intended as a means and symbol of superior sanctity ; but the corresponding ordinances of the Pentateuch were in no way calculated to serve the purpose of isolating the Hebrews ; for they have numerous and important points of contact with those of heathen nations ; the deep aversion against the pig which the He brews shared" with many others, especially the Egyptians, Hindoos, and Arabians4, is alone sufficient to overthrow an opinion opposed to well-established facts. Equally untenable is the assertion that the Hebrews were warned against certain creatures as unclean, in order to draw them away or to shield them from the dangers of animal worship. "Every beast is in some manner akin to a demon", observes Origen5; hence Moses declared all animals as impure from which the Egyptians and others took augu ries, while he permitted nearly all the rest6; and this curious opinion is upheld by subsequent and even by recent writers7. It is not im possible that the unlimited dominion over all beasts which, after the creation, was ^emphatically bestowed upon men8, and'to which, after the Deluge, was added a free permission to use all animals for food9, was designed to counteract the disgrace and absurdity of animal worship ' ° : but the lists of the Pentateuch , on the one i Lev.XX.26; comp.ver.7(anaipnm 4 Comp. infra. aiaip timmi), 8 (Baaipa mm 13s). De- 5 Contra Cels. IV. 93, pp. 225, 226 cidedly unjust, therefore, is the cen- e(j_ Spencer. sure of Gramberg (Rel. Id. I. 366), . n , > , ,a „ ¦. 0 » llavxa u.ev axaffapxa ecp7i*°ret- Q«est. I in Le- 2 Comp. Herod. II. 37; Pint. Is. cc. vit'; Len9erke' K^aan, I. 379, "Die 7, 8; Porph. Abst. IV. 6, 7; etc.; Manu »esetze fiber reine und unreineThiere 11.52-57; IV. 62, 205— 225; V.5— 56. fuhren auf vorangegangenen Natur- 3 Comp. Herod. II. 79 (TCaxp(oi3l Se dienst' welcllem sie entgegenwirken ypEu'jp.evoi v6u.oi.ji, dXXov oiiSeva etu- wollen • • ¦ und daraus erklaren sich xxeojvxai), 91 ('EXXtjvixoToi 8e vo- zum Theil die Speisegesetze." p-aioioi cpe6You<3t y_pdsOat . . . u-^o' dX- 8 Gen. I. 28. Xojv u.T|8au.a u.T|8ap.(5v dvi)piu7ia>v vo- 9 Gen. IX. 2, 3. p-a(oioi); see supra p. 71 note 7. 10 See Comm. on Gen. pp. 216, 217. VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 73 hand, include animals that received divine honours among hea thens, and were yet declared clean, as the bull11, the sheep12, and the goat13, since in Egypt there was hardly an animal that was not worshipped either by the whole or by a part of the country14; and on the other hand, they embrace some which, as the ass and the pig, were detested among pagans , and were yet pronounced unclean by the Hebrew legislators, as is proved by the slightest reference to the sacred animals of the Egyptians and other nations15. The matter, then, may be thus rationally explained. Many classes and species of animals were entirely out of the question, and may at once be dismissed with a few passing remarks. Who would think of eating poisonous creatures, such as snakes, adders, and vipers? Yet some species are harmless , and are indeed commonly consumed by , several tribes of northern Africa 1 e, while some, as the boas, are dan gerous not by their venom but by their enormous size and muscular and crushing strength. Nor would people look for sustenance to the infinite variety of insects, some beautiful, others repulsive, some troublesome or destructive , others innocuous or useful , though a number of these even have not been disdained as food by the Hebrews and other nations 17: nor to the Worms (Annulata, Annelida), whether red or white, though in Phrygia, in the Pontus, and elsewhere, the white fat worms with dark heads, bred in putrid wood, were an ex pensive delicacy 18; to the imperfect "radiata", inhabitants of the sea, with tuft-like appendages "radiating" round their mouth in horizon tal rows, though some species (as the holothuria edulis) is esteemed as a dainty among the Chinese; or the still more undeveloped and rudimentary classes, the Entozoa, the- Sea-nettles (Acalephae), and the plant-like Polyps , though even some kinds of the latter (as the actinia) are eatable. 'i Apis : — Herod.ll. 153 ; Diod. Sic. iS Comp. Parthey, Plut. fiber Isis, I. 84, 85; Plut. Is. c. 29; Mnevis: — I. 260 sqq.; Uhlemann, Aegypt. Alter- Diod. Sic. 1. c; Strabo XVII. i. 27, thumskunde, II. 203— 206 ; Wilkinson p. 805; the ox: — Herod. H. 41; Strab. Ancient Egypt, passim; Braun, Na- XVII. i. 47, p. 817; comp. Ael. Nat. turgesch. der Sage, n. pp. 474, 475. An. XI. 40; also the cow: — Strab. XVn.i. 35, p.809; Ael. Nat. An. X. 27. 16 Comp. £«to.DeAlim.Facult. III. 12 Herod. II. 42; Strab. XVII. i. 40, 3> £X{8va« TE xal T0"s "AXou? 8tPEl?' p. 812; comp. Plut. Is. c. 72; etc. goa T£ *<«' AtyuTtTov xal SXXa xivd 13 Herod. II. 42, 46; Strab. 1. c; ™v £&v<5v £a&Couciv. Diod. Sic. I. 88. 17 See infra 14 Comp. Herod. II. 65; Biod. Sic. I. 83—90; see Strab. 1. c, 18 See Brentano on Lev. XI, 42, 74 DIETARY LAWS. Again, we may for our present purpose disregard the animals not found in Palestine and the neighbouring countries — the Qua- drumana or ape-tribe, living in warmer regions, and like the pea cocks imported by Solomon's fleet from Ophir as a foreign curiosity *; the carnivorous "pouch" or kangaroo tribe (marsupalia), as the mar supial marten, and the opossums, most formidable enemies to poultry, yet occurring chiefly in America; the teethless species (Edentata), only found in tropical and subtropical regions, sluggish and stupid creatures with protruded maxillaries and long claws, as the singu lar "duck-billed quadruped" (ornithorhynchus paradoxus), the ant- eaters, the scaly armadillo, and the despised sloth (bradypus) ; most of the "thick-skinned animals" (Pachydermata seu Multungula) in cluding the largest, if not the strongest, of all terrestrial animals, the sagacious elephant and the unwieldy hippopotamus, the unequal- toed tapir and the impervious rhinoceros, all of which are indigenous to Africa and the warmer districts of Asia, although the swine, valued by some, abhorred by others, belongs to the same order2; again, the wild species of the "one-hoofed" quadrupeds (Solidungula), the quagga, the dauv3, and the zebra, shunning the abodes, and defying the sub jection, of man4, although the wild ass (onager)5 is by many tribes of eastern Asia preferred to any other game 6 ; the wild Ruminants, as the American llama, the new-world vicugna, and the graceful giraffe, the fleet inhabitant of African deserts, the bison, the buffalo, and aurochs (Bos urus) ; the Seal-tribe (Pinnipeda), as the Arctic phocidae, the sea dog, the seal, and the formidable walrus (trichechus rosmarus) with its terrible tusks ; and the huge Whale-tribe (Cetacea), mostly inhabiting the Northern and the Southern Ocean, comprising the most colossal animals in existence, the Greenland whale, up to 80 feet long and 60 tons in weight, with its dangerous fringes of horny fibres instead of teeth, and the spermaceti whale (physiter) attaining even a length of 100 feet, the rapacious narwhal and the dolphin, living, like the preceding, upon polyps, mollusks, and fishes, the herbivorous Arctic and Atlantic sea-cow , and the Indian mer maid; many of the "Swimming birds" (Natatores), as the polar-divers (colymbidae) , the penguins of the Southern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans; and the similarly formed fishes of the tropical seas of the ' 1 Ki. X. 221; 2 Chr. IX. 21. 5 Also called Kulan by the Tartars, 2 See infra. or Gurkur; see Brehm 1. c. p. 363. 3 Hippotigris Buchellii ; see Brehm, Illustrates Thierl. H. 375. 6 Comp. Martial. XIH. Ep. 97, 100; 4 See Comm. un Gen. pp. 378, 379. Plin. VIII. 43, 44 or 68, 69. VHI. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 75 order Pectognathi, as the hedgehog fish, the thornback, and the uni corn fish, distending their bodies and then appearing like floating globes7. The Hebrews, moreover, may be well supposed to have instinct ively spared many birds which delighted them either by their beautiful plumage or their melodious voice (the Canores and Sylvidae), and which they deemed too harmless to be persecuted, especially those of the order of Incessores, including the thrushes (merulidae) and the linnet, the fieldfare and the blackbird, the lark and nightingale, the ham mer and ortelan , the red-breast and the wren , swifts and swallows, the finches and the sparrow, the cuckoo, the parrot, and the peacock; though many of these birds fell and fall a prey to Sybarites in all climes8. And lastly, some animals were probably left untouched, because, being more useful by their labour than by their death, it was deemed inexpedient to diminish them by untimely slaughter9; to this category we may count the horse and the camel, the ass and the mule, invaluable, if not indispensable, in the East both for agri culture, travel, and commerce, though even these animals were, as they still are, killed for food by various nations 10, just as the ox, so serviceable to the husbandman, was eaten by the Hebrews and nearly every other people J l. Now leaving all these creatures out of view, we may suppose that, at first, a natural aversion induced men to abstain from some animals which inspired them with disgust either by their appearance or their habits. It was probably for this reason of mere loathing that many avoided, nay abhorred, the dirty and mire-loving swine, which soon 7 On the Fauna of Palestine, which 11; Herod. I. 189; VH. 40; Xen. Cy- include some Indian andmanyEthio- rop. YJII. in. 12; Herodian. V. 6; pic types, especially among the mam- Tacit. Germ. c. 10 ; Galen. De Aliment. malia, pointing to an early immigra- Facult. IH. 2; Justin. I. 10; Kleuker, tion, see Naturforscher, I. 282 sqq. Zend Avesta, II. 264; Boch. Hieroz. (notes of a Lecture delivered by Tris- I. n. 10; Meiners, Gesch. der Belig. tram, in the Royal Society). I. 224—226; it is eaten by some Ma- 8 Comp. Galen. De Aliment. Facult. hommedan sects (comp. Niebuhr, Be lli. 19; Celsus, De Medic. H. 18. schreib.v. Arab. p. 178), the Bedouins 9 See Comm. on Lev. I. 96, 97. * of southern Arabia (Burckhardt, Be ll On the camel see supra p. 56, the duinen, p. 196), and there are, as is ass p. 68; on the mule being eaten well known, at present many hippo- comp. Joseph. Antiq. XH. hi. 4 ; on phagi in various parts of the con- the horse as food see Joseph. 1. c; tinent. Herod. I. 133 (the Persians); Plut. "Comp. 1 Ki. XIX. 21; see, how- De Sollert.Anim. c.2; Comm. onLev. ever, supra p. 68 note 10, I. p. 89 notes 11, 12; also 2 Ki. XXHL 76 DIETARY LAWS. became the very type of uncleanness ', and all Reptiles2, which, though highly developed in their muscular system, are partly repulsive by the clammy sliminess of their bodies, and partly detestable on account of their lurking rapaciousness, and which include the only venomous ani mals, the serpents, laden by legend with the curse of eternal and deadly enmity against man, and not unnaturally identified with the principle of physical and moral evil, with disaster and sin3. Dislike, in fact, caused many to shun "every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, whatsoever goes upon the belly, and whatsoever goes upon all four"4. Most people have, it is true, reconciled themselves to the turtle-tribe (Cheloniae), especially on account of the Edible Tortoise (chel. esculenta) dear to many — even to Hindoo priests5 — for the famous turtle-soup , if not on account of the giant tortoise (chel. mydas) yielding the beautiful tortoise-shell; some feast with zest on the hind legs of the green water-frog; while others justly delight in keeping the green tree-frog (hyla arborea) in their hou ses, and trust to it as a weather-prophet : yet who can be surprised that the Hebrews, supposing them even to have been acquainted with these animals and their qualities, were nevertheless disinclined to deviate from the general principle of viewing every reptile as "an abomination" (y|5tfj) 6 ; that they prominently kept in view such species of the class as the predatory and gluttonous river-tortoise (aspidonectes); associated even with the most tempting frog the plump and sluggish, ugly and tuberculated toad equally offensive to sight and smell ; and eagerly shunned every lizard-like animal that exhibits the slightest affinity to the terror-inspiring croco dile, though the people of Nubia and of Upper Egypt eat the croco dile7, and the Hindoos did not refrain from the alligator8? Again, physical aversion no doubt prompted the Hebrews to keep aloof from most of the Invertebrate animals, endowed with organs so rudimentary and imperfect, that for a long time their very right to a place in the animal kingdom was disputed ; for those creatures lack i See infra. of reptiles, the four-footed turtle 2 Reptilia, Amphibia. (chelonii), the lizards(sauri) and frogs 3 See Comm. on Gen. pp. 117, 118; (batrachiae) , and the feetless ser- oomp. Bechai on Lev. XI. fol. 29a, "the pents, though a few of the sauri and serpent is the root of all uncleanness of the batrachiae have two or no feet. and dirt" (sann); Yalk. Chad. la, § l,ed. 5 ManuY. 18; Yajnav. I. 177. Lemb. sanit na insn nin Vj ana saa 113 « Lev. XI. 41, 42. (i.e. menstruation, seeonXV.19— 24), 7 Burckhardt, Reisen in Nubien, 4 Lev. XI. 41, 42, which words aptly p. 57 (Germ. Transl.). describe the four principal divisions s Manu, Yajnav. 11. cc. VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 77 even the faculty of sensation which secures communion with the ex ternal world, some consisting merely of a series of soft alimentary ca nals or a stomach, others possessing sanguineous vessels and centres of nerves, while none are provided with the entire osseous, muscular, and nervous systems that distinguish the higher classes, and impart to them a variety of shape, beauty, motion, and intelligence ; they were, moreover, for the most part, considered repulsive in several respects, for they include those myriad swarms of vermin which , however in dispensable !in the great chain of organic life, constantly prey on man's rest, his comfort, and his property, compel him to an unceasing warfare of offence and defence, and are hence in many Eastern cos mogonies described as productions of the sinister or destructive power in nature, of Ahriman or Typhon: among them are the pre- daceous and- insidious spider, though at all times men have been found who ate spiders even with a relish9; the louse, the flea, and the disgusting bug bred by uncleanness ; the voracious caterpillar; the mischievous moth — the cloth- and fur-moth, and worse than all the corn-moth, often a pest in granaries; the fly in its endless varieties, harassing and tormenting, spoiling and destroying — the carrion-, chamber-, cherry-, stubble-, leaf-, fungus-, and horse-fly; the beetle tribe with their larvae or grubs doing incalculable injury to our corn vegetables, and trees, though we must acknowledge the medicinal utility of the poisonous Spanish fly (lytta vesicatoria) ; the hemiptera with their swarms of scale-insects ; the plant-lice damaging to rose- trees and other shrubs, though one single species, the coccus cacti which feeds on the fig-cactus, serves the use of man by the charming carmine colour which it yields, the basis of scarlet; the angry wasp and the revengeful hornet with their numerous sub-tribes, among which, however, the cynips (cynips quercus), by stinging certain plants, produces the valued gall-nut, the chief substance of ink and black dyes ; the gad- or bot-fly (oestrus) , a plague to our cattle by the eggs which it deposits on their shoulders and backs, and thus in directly introduces into their stomachs and intestines ; the scorpion with its hollow sting inflicting wounds often mortal, always painful, and its poison-bladder; and the unnumbered hosts of Worms, some of which, as the common earth-worm (lumbricus terrestris), are in jurious to the tender radicles of plants, though the leech has long stood in high repute as useful in numerous ailments. Hence the Hebrews rejected also the crustaceous or shelled animals, untempted by the 9 See Brehm, Illustrirtes Naturleben, VI. pp. 567 sqq. 78 DIETARY LAWS. dainties of lobster and crab, of prawn and shrimp, counting them rather among the "creeping things with many, feet" which they held in abomination (yffo) \ and coupling them with the troublesome and tormenting fish-parasites, the wood-louse tribe — the water-flea and the barnacle, the armed glomeris and the milliped. They even left untouched all Mollusks : these indeed, on account of their perfectly developed vital organs, have been justly compared with the trunk of the higher classes of animals deprived of head and limbs; in many cases they live in beautiful and finely convoluted shells, applicable to various useful and ornamental purposes, as the pearly and the paper nautilus, the large cowrie, the fiery oven, and the trumpet snail, and in other instances they yield an admirable purple-coloured juice formerly employed in dying the most costly stuffs 2, or they furnish precious pearls and the glittering mother-of-pearl, as the fresh-water and the marine pearl-mussel (mya margaritifera) ; yet they are hardly inviting as food on account of the soft and slimy mantle that covers most of them like a sack, whether they have a shell3, or not, as the slugs, and whether that shell is one entire piece, as in the snail, or consists of two parts, as in the mussels; they include such monsters as the great cuttle-fish (octopus vulga ris, the polypes of the ancients), which, possessing most formidable tentacula no less than twelve feet long, probably gave rise to the fiction of huge sea-monsters (Kraken) so frequently introduced in northern legends. Therefore it can well be understood, that many na tions, and among them the Hebrews, remained insensible to the reputed delicacy and nutritiousness of the oyster, the edible snail (helix pomatia), the cockle, and the large class of conchifera4. Next to physical dislike, a regard for health naturally guided the early generations in the selection of food ; but just as it is impos sible for us to measure the former by our present notions, so it would be uncertain to estimate the latter by our present knowledge and experience. In primitive and unscientific times, the one no doubt exercised no mean influence upon viewing the other; for that wich is externally repulsive, unclean, or clammy, was commonly suspected as unwholesome and injurious5. Let us, instead of all other instances, ' Lev. XI. 42. with respect to mollusks in general 2 See Comm. on Exod. pp. 486, 487. (1. c. c. 35), axX-rjpoaapxa 8' esxl xal 3 Testacea or Conchylia. 8uc7ieitxa xal (3paj(uv ev eauxot? rcepl- 4 Comp. Galen. De Aliment. Fa- ey_ovxa xov dXuxov yup^ov. cult. IH. 3, xoy_XCa« 6oif)p.epai Ttdvxes 5 Comp. Rashbam on Lev. XI. 3, EXX-rjve? eaiHouotv ; but he observes the forbidden animals "are disgust- VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 79 consider the case of the Swine , highly instructive in more than one respect: we shall here at once treat of the subject fully, in order to obviate the necessity of returning to it again, though by so doing we may seem to interrupt our present enquiry. The unclean habits of the swine struck the Hebrews so strongly, that they gave rise to the saying, "The snout of the pig resembles ambulant dirt"6; swine were considered as the fit habitations of "un clean spirits" or "devils", driven out of possessed persons7; a man wallowing in the last and most disgusting stage of drunkenness was compared with the swine8; Maimonides believed that "the principal reason why the Law held the pig in abomination, was because this animal is the filthiest of all and feeds on the filthiest refuse", and he added with pardonable exaggeration, that it would have been a strange anomaly if the Hebrews, upon whom the most scrupulous cleanli ness was enjoined even with respect to their camp9, had been permit ted to rear pigs, whereby "the streets of their towns, nay their very houses must become more foully offensive than privies, as is at pre sent seen in the countries of the Pranks" i °. The Egyptians, it is well known, regarded the pig as hateful to sun and moon; they deemed it so singularly contaminating by its "uncleanness", "unholiness", and "all-devouring voracity, unsparing even of its own young and of men"'1, that any person who had accidentally touched a pig, was ing, and injure and heat the body" ; iimnsipsnsaiunnna) ; aomp.Lactant. see also Rosenm. Schol. ad Lev. XI. Instit. IV. 17; Arist. Hist. An. VIII. pp. 59, 60, the legislator "iis maxime 8; Plin. Vin. 51 or 77; Ael. Nat. victus animalis generibus Israelitis An. V. 45 ; Varro, R. R. II. 4 ; Co- interdixit, quae oiteriore corruptione lum. VH. 9, 10 ; Spencer, Legg. Ritt. vitiantur", etc. !• P- 135, "Porous non tam inrmun- 6 Talm. Berach. 25a, nsisa -fan is dus quam immundities ipsa videtur." -ai mai5>; ibid. 43b; comp. also 2 Pet. The assertionof Porphyry (Abst. 1.14) II. 22 ; Maim. Mor. Nev. HI. 48. that swine were unknown in Canaan 7 Comp. Matth. VIII. 28 — 32 ; Mark and Phoenicia, is hazardous and un- V. 2—13; Luke VHI. 27 — 36. supported, though they were not 8 Yalkut Shimeoni c. 61, fol. 16a, bred by the Hebrews, but by their asil BH33 -jiainaa lima (in the well heathen neighbours; comp. 1 Chr. known legend taken from 1133S ana, XXVII. 29—31; Matth. VHI. 30; of the planting of the vine jointly Mark V. 13; Luke VHI. 32, 33; XV. by Noah and Satan). 15; and Bochart, Hieroz. I. 696—698. 9 Comp. Deut. XXIH. 13—15. " Herod. Ii. 47; uv Se AJy- (MaP0V i° Maim. Mor. Nev. HI.48. Accord- vJYTjvxai ft-rjpiov elvat; Plut. Is. 8, ing to Jewish, writings, the image xt]v Sv dviepov Cuiov i]iomTai.; Ael. of the pig is derived from "the un- Nat.An.X. 16,'.e[j.i«.Adv. Jovinian.H. 7 init. p. 334 ed.Valarsi; Spencer, Legg. Ritt. I. vii. 4, p. 132. The pig is, besides corpses and blood, the only object the touch of which the Bedouins consider unlawful (ha- ram); Burckh. Beduinen, p. 80; Sale, Koran, Prelim. Disc. p. 9 1 ; Lane, Mod. Egypt. I. 131. is Rosenm. Morgenland, H.170,171. 19 Comp. Horn. Od. XIV. 80, 81, eo&ie . . . 5(o(pe' dxdp oidXous fs. oOac [j.vTjoo capxo- pixxrooiv. VIH. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 83 wholesome nutriment"9; whereas ruminants, because thoroughly mas ticating their food, and perfectly separating the good from the delete rious humours, yield healthful meat'0. This view occurs in many an terior and subsequent writers, variously and often strangely modi fied 1 1. Pork was pronounced injurious not only to the health of the body, but to the vigour and clearness of mind12. The swine, "by far the most brutish of all animals", was by some of the stoics considered as consisting merely of flesh, without any vestige of soul or of a higher power beyond the preserving principle of animal life ' 3. But the pig was brought into disrepute, not more by its habits, than by the cutaneous disorders to which it is unquestionably subject, especially in the East, and by which, as many believed, consumers of pork are certain to be affected. The Talmud remarks, "Ten measures of pestilential sickness were spread over the earth, and nine of them fell to the share of pigs" 14. "Pork is detested", observes Plutarch, "be cause foreign nations generally abhor scab and leprosy, and even be lieve that these diseases destroy men by contagion; for under the belly the pig is full of leprosy and scabby eruptions15, which are supposed to appear on the surface in consequence of some internal taint or disorder"16. It suffices to refer with a passing allusion to the well-known assertion of Tacitus, that "the Jews abstain from pork on account of the loathsome affliction of leprosy, by which they were once disgraced, and to which the pig is liable"17. Even drinking the milk of the "unholy" swine was supposed to engender leprosy and scabby ulcers, "diseases utterly hateful to all Asiatics"18. An 9 Maim. Mor. Nev. HI. 48; comp. pro sale datam non inlepide existu- Rashb. on Lev. XL 3. mabatur; Cic. Nat. Deor. H. 64, cui i° Comp. Spencer, Legg. Ritt. I. vii. quidemne putresceret, animamipsam 1, pp. 116, 117. pro sale datam dicit esse Chrysippus. 1 1 Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. H. p. 405 " Talm. Kiddush. 49b bij>33 Biap maa> ed. Sylb., the richness of such meat aiiiin litaa nsan Biiyi mi ; comp. Shabb. as pork leads to luxury and intempe- 129 ins iaii nap ins 1313 sas is , i. e. ranee (oaacpuaemiova. . . xpucp-fjxioiai nansi nap inns 5>as hs, see Rashi in loc. Yap 7] xoiauxY) XP7)11? xop^Y2"-011)- 15 Ilaaav Be uv utco xtjv Y<*axepa Xe- 12 As beans were proscribed by the Ttpas dvarcXeuiv xal 4><»pix<5v e£avfl-T]- Pythagoraeans because checking the jidxeuv 6p<5p.ev. buoyancy of thought; see supra p. 66. '6 Plut. Symp. IV. v. 3. '3 Plut. Symp. V. x. 3, x-?)v uv odpxa i7 Tac. Hist. V. 4, sue se abstinent xpea YeY0V£val ^Y°'J(It! T7i! "j^X7^! merito cladis, qua ipsos scabies quon- SusTzzp dXuiv, TcapeoTcap[AevT)« u:rep xou dam turpaverat, cui id animal ob- Siajieveiv-; Porph. Abst. III. 20, xrj noxium; comp. infra, the conclusion oapxl xt]V 4'UX''1V ° ^£°? °'ov °^as ^V£" of this treatise, esp. p. 111. (Aiiev; Plin. VHI. 51 or 77, animalium Y8 Plut. Is. c. 8, xuiv xo YdXa mvov- hoc maxime brutum, animamque ei xmv l?avdei xd crf>(j.axa Xercpav xal 84 DIETARY LAWS. observing traveller judiciously remarks, that the custom of abstaining from pork arose, no doubt, from hygienic rules indispensable under a burning sky: this will not be disputed, if it be remembered that the species of pigs found in hot climates , belongs to the swine of China, Siam, and India, rather than to those of Europe; these Chi nese pigs, even if reared in our colder zones, furnish a flesh more delicate indeed than that of our common pigs, but much more charged with fat, thereby enfeebling the most robust constitutions, and produc ing indigestion and injurious acids which are doubly fatal in the East where the stomach is generally weakened by excessive heat. Moreover, the abundance of greese , which checks perspiration so freely engen dered in hot countries, causes scabby diseases which are peculiar to the pig, and which under a broiling sun easily degenerate into leprosy1. Nor have modern science and experience been able to contradict the observations of former ages. Por not only has the hurtful distemper of swine, freely bringing forth the tape-worm and long known under the name of "chalazae"2, been found confirmed, but the existence of an other and much more dangerous disease has been proved — the trichin osis or infection by trichinae3 . Some years since it caused just unea siness, if not consternation; in a few instances it grew into an epi demic, and appeared even endemic in certain districts4. The trichinae, which were probably brought to Europe by the importation of foreign, especially Chinese pigs, received that name about 35 years ago5, be cause their bodies, fine as hairs (xpr/e;), are often spirally rolled up. Though sometimes crowded by millions in one individual 6, they '\iwpvms xpaxuxrjxa?; Ael. Nat. An. comp. also Be Pauro, Recherches, p. X. 16 (on the authority of Manetho) 104, les pretres de l'Egypte ¦. . . ta- YdXaxxo? ueiou 6 Yeuodp.evo; dXepdiv chaient principalement d'eviter la u7io7tip,nXaxai xal Xeitpa;; Nachman. lepre du corps, la lepre des yeux ou on Lev. XI. fol. 9 la ed. Pressb., and la sporophthalmie et la gonorrhee Bechai on Lev. XI. fol. 27b, ed. 1864, etc.; see also on Chapt. XIV. mis mn . . . laaa pann pai as ninn ain 2 Cysticercus cellulosae, Gr. ydlo.- i-ivsa 1S3 ; comp. Michael. M. R. § 203, Cai (comp. Aristot Hist. An. VHI. 21), "whoever is afflicted by a cutaneous Germ. Finnen (comp. Ersch und Gru- disease, were it but the common scab, ber, Encycl. I. xliv. pp. 279—282). must not eat pork." On several dis- 3 Trichina spiralis. eases of the pig known to the an- 4 Comp. R. Virchow, Die Lehre cients see Aristot. Hist. An. VIII. 21 ; von den Trichinen, HI. ed. Berl. 1866, Plin. VIII. 51 or 77 (obnoxium genus pp. 62, 63, 66. mortis, anginae maxume et strumae, 5 By Hilton in 1832, and by Owen i. e. quinsy and scrofula); XI. 37 or in 1835. 68 ; Colum. R. R. VII. 10. 6 Bodwitch calculated the number iSonnmi, Voyage, III. 291, 292; of trichinae found in one man to VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 85 can be recognised by the microscope only, owing not so much to their diminutive size,— for they attain a length of one-third to one half of a line — but to their complete transparency, which prevents the reflec tion of the received light. The generation of trichinae takes place, in the intestinal canal only, from animals there introduced with infected food. Arrived at their sexual maturity, or between the twentieth and the sixtieth day, the females which are viviparous are furnished with 1000 to 2000 ova7; the very next day the new brood begins to appear, the production of which is continued for three weeks. Then the old trichinae die, and the young animals immediately commence their peregrinations: fed by the fibres of the flesh which they irri tate or destroy, they work their way, within twelve days, through the sides of the canal and the ligaments (not through the blood) chiefly into the muscles, and penetrate even to the more remote parts of the body. The worm grows till the 25th day, when it rolls itself up spirally; then the encysting process commences and is concluded in the third month, while the calcination of the capsule or cyst requires between 1 8 and 24 months, and preserves to the animal a truly mar vellous vitality, which has been found unimpaired even after upwards of 1 3 years 8. The worm grows in the muscles, but does not multiply there. Hence men have to fear no danger from the time when the worm becomes enclosed in the capsule, which forms its prison, and renders its further migration and activity in the same body impos sible. The symptoms of the disease vary according to the quantity of trichinae which invade the muscles, and the ravages they cause in the fibres of the flesh; but they are often sufficiently alarming. The pa tient is suddenly seized with vomiting and purging, with griping, spasms, and gastric disorders, whence the illness, in its first stages, has sometimes been mistaken for cholera; or he suffers from various affections of the muscles, from debility, collapse, and stiffness similar to gout and rheumatism; often a feverish condition ensues not un like the agonies of typhus ; and generally the face becomes peculiarly swollen,- especially near the eyes. Sometimes the symptoms assume an acute form, and the persons die in the second or third week af ter they have eaten infected meat; or serious results occur only after 10 or 14 days, and death takes place in the fourth or seventh week; and in other instances, though not ending fatally, a chronic malady re mains, consisting in emaciation and wasting away. The first mortal case amount to upwards of seven millions 7 Comp. Pagenstecher , Die Trichi- and a half; see Gross, Elements of nen, 1865, p. 92. path. Anat. 1845, p. 215. 8 Comp. Virchow, 1. c. pp. 39, 40. 86 DIETARY LAWS. of illness from trichinae was ascertained in the year 1 86 1 in the vicinity of Dresden i ; then, to pass by many isolated instances, followed an epi demic in Plauen in the Voigtland, where about 30 persons were taken ill2, and a more serious one (in 1 863) at Hettstadt in the province of Saxony, where 1 53 persons were seized and 28 died3 ; and lastly, in He- dersleben near Quedlinburg, a town of about 2000 inhabitants, the most important and most formidable outbreak of all took place; for in a comparatively short time upwards of 300 cases and 90 deaths were recorded, all of them the effect of a single diseased pig. However, both the facts and the apprehensions have been unwarrantably exag gerated. Por as a rule, trichinae in swine are extremely rare; sta tistics prove, that they are found hardly in one pig among 5,000 or 10,000, nay in one among 50,000 4; they are fatal only if they penetrate into the muscles in very large quantities ; and they are destroyed, or at least rendered innocuous, by a temperature above 50°Reaum. It is, therefore, only necessary to avoid raw bacon so extensively eaten on the Continent, and in some counties of England by agricultural labourers ; and to refrain from imperfectly smoked sausages prepared of raw pork, and from raw pork minced or scraped, as commonly taken with bread just in those parts of Germany in which the most fearful epidemics of trichinosis have raged: but pork becomes unfailingly harmless by stewing, roasting, and baking, generally also by thorough salting, pickling, and smoking. These precautions suffice to avert disease through trichinae: careful feeding of the swine, microscopic examination of pork by experienced observers, as now introduced in many of the larger towns of Germany, and public slaughter-houses subjected to official control, may be recommendable as additional pro tections 5. i Comp. Zeucker in Virchow's Ar- fiihrung einer mikroskop. Fleisch- chiv XVIII. p. 561. schau, Dresd. 1864; A. C. Feit, Be- 2 Comp. Boehler, Die Trichinen- richt . . . fiber offentliche Schlaoht- krankheit und die Behandlung der- hauser, 1864; see in general Leuckart, selben in Plauen, 1863. Untersuchungen fiber Trichina spi- 3 Comp. Rupprecht, Die Trichinen- ralis, 1860; Die menschlichen Para- krankheit im Spiegel der Hettstadter siten und die von ihnenherrfihrenden Endemie betrachtet, 1864. Krankheiten, 1863, vol.1; K.Haubner, 4 "Immerhin halte ich es fur rich- Ueber die Trichinen mit besonderer tig", observes Virchow, "dass im Berucksichtigung der Schutzmittel Grossen und Ganzen trichinische gegen die Trichinenkrankheit bei Schweine selten sind" (1. c. p. 37). Mensehen, Berlin 1864; Pagenstecher, 5 Comp. Virchow 1. c. pp. 77 sqq.; Die Trichinen 1865; R. Virchow, Die Fr. Kilchenmeister Ueber die Noth- Lehre von den Trichinen, III. Edit., wendigkeit einer allgemeinenDurch- Berlin 1866 ; A. C.Feill. c.pp. 13—15; VHI. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 87 Hence we may conclude , that the Biblical prohibition of pork was prompted, among other reasons, by the diseases which its con sumption was even in early ages noticed to produce or to foster, though we are unable distinctly to point out those diseases, whether the tape worm, trichinosis, or any other disorder was engendered.. If we add that the pig was known to be omnivorous, to devour rats and mice, and sometimes its own young, that it occasionally attacks men and consumes human bodies6, and was even supposed to feed upon serpents7, we can well understand why the eating of pork was, at a comparatively remote time, denounced by Hebrew teachers with uncompromising vehemence, and why it was enumerated among the worst abomina tions of idolatry8, and the most wicked practices9. But do even all these combined circumstances account for the supreme importance attached to abstinence from pork? They hardly suffice to explain all the remarkable facts which are associated with this subject, and some of which we may be allowed to recall to the reader's memory. In the times of the Syrian dominion and of the Mac cabees, the Jews preferred the most horrible tortures and death itself to the defilement of pork; and the aged Eleazar and the mother with her seven sons were no exceptional examples of heroic fortitude. They considered it a triumph and a glorification of God, to show their constancy by offering up their lives as a sacrifice 1 ° , and they were certain of the most splendid rewards which awaited their firmness in the future world 1 1. The swine was not only singled out as the type of all unclean beasts n, but the eating of pork was equi valent to forswearing the Law and to absolute apostasy13. Later, the esp. A. C. Gerlach, Die Trichinen, xo aip-a Na(3ou0ai xxX.); Talm. Nidd. Hannover 1866; etc. etc. 58b; Moed Katon 24a (ns Bmin itsa© 6 Aelian, Nat. An. X. 16 init. , tj 5; inma) ; Bab. Kam. Tos. 19b. xal tujv {Siojv . . . dtpei8v (for B133 wa«n). 'Comp. Talm. Shabb. 110b, 129b; Berach. 43b; El. Levita Tishbi s. v. 131; the same paraphrase was used with reference to leprosy (Talm. Shabb. 129b) and to sexual inter course (Talm. Berach. 8b); comp. in Greek itpdYp.a dXXoxoxov. 2 Yalk. Rub. 12a, qia sin ai35> ia S|ia 11m ia atsi. 3 Comp.^arJ.RoshEmun. c.XIII. fol. 17b, ed. Altona, with reference to Ps. LXXX. 14; see Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenth. I. 741, 755, 779—785. 4 Deut. VI. 9 ; XL 20 ; comp. Crei- zenach, Schulchan Aruch, I. 121. 5 Mishn. Bab. Kam. VII. 7, -riiaa -ps alpa iaa amm ; Avoth de-Rabbi Na than 0. 35 ; comp. Porph. Abst. I. 14, Ooivixes Se xal 'Iou8aioi aTrea/ov-o, 8x1 o'jo' 8Xids ev xots xoitois otpiiexo. e Biinn iiaaa bis 111s , Talm. Bab. Kam. 82b; Menach. 64b; Sot. 49b; Talm, Jer. Shekal. fol. 47b (where rearing swine is coupled with the two disgraceful vices of drunkenness and usury) : the rule was fixed is nuns 13 masi ncs nun -13-a maisa; comp. Jl/fMwzon-.'jiaa ipH3c.5; Yor.Deah § 117; aan msa, fol. 106a, rule 13. 7 Comp. Tacit. Hist. V. 4; Plut. Symp. IV. v. 1 sqq. ; Strabo XVI. 11. 37; Diod. Sic. Fragm. XXXIV. 1; Joseph. C. Ap. II. 14; Ant. XHI. vm. 2; Philo, Legat. ad Caium c. 45; Porph. Abst. IV. 11 (SiexeXo-jv TtoX- XiBv p.ev d-!texop.evoi £uxuv, JSieos Se Sxi xal vuv xuiv yoipicuv); Petron. Sa- tir. Fragm. XLVH. 1. 8 Comp. Juven. XIV. 98, Nee di- stare putant humana oarne suillam; comp. VI. 160; Macrob. Sat. H. 4, melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium, as Augustus is reported to have observed; comp. also Aelian, Nat. An. XVI. 37 (with regard to the Hindoos), oiix av Ysuaaivxo rcoxe bzLwi, &oitep ouv olios dv&pcmreicuv ol aiixol. VIH. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 89 nai working of the elements and of the innate forces of matter, a principle directly opposed to that of Hebraism, which rigorously in sists upon one personal Deity, creating, ruling, and preserving the universe and all mankind. Hence many pagan nations sacrificed the swine to those gods to whom they attributed the fertility of the soil and the fruitfulness of cattle. ^Though the Egyptians commonly avoided the pig as particularly unclean, they offered and consumed one once every year, at the feast of the full moon, in honour of Isis and Osiris, the fructifying powers of nature, and this was done so scrupulously, that the poor who could not afford a pig, were ordered to shape one of dough, and to hallow and to eat this image9. The pig was indeed believed to have suggested the first idea of ploughing and the plough- share by breaking up the earth with its protruding snout40. In Egypt it was no unimportant agent in securing agricul tural success; for in some parts of the country, especially in the Delta, as soon as the subsiding Nile had irrigated the fields, and when the sow ing had been completed, the husbandmen turned swine into their land to press the seed into the ground, thus protecting the grains from the birds ; and at harvest time pigs were employed to tread out the corn 1 1. The famous zodiac of Denderah represents between the sign of fishes and that of the ram a man carrying a small pig, which points to the Egyptian swine offering in reference to the progress of the seasons12- A pig formed the usual sacrifice for Demeter '3. Thus the Athenians generally offered one in their mysteries, which mainly related to the secret activity of nature14. On Athenian and Eleusinian coins, Ceres 9 Herod. II. 47 , 48 init. , xotoi p.ev in South- Wales', corn is trodden in vuvaXXoiai&eoTaiv fl-iieivusou Sixaieuci by sheep to this day"); Ael. Nat. An. AJyuitxioi. SeXevfl 8e xalAiovuaip |j.ou- X. 16; Plut. Symp. 1. c. ; Plin. XVIII. votoi, xou auxoii xpovou, x-g auxrj rcav- 18 or 47 (credo antiquitus factita- ceXrjvip, xous 5s Ouaavxes, iraxeovxat turn). In times of mice-plagues , the xouv xpeuiv; comp. Wilkinson in loc. ; pigs were turned among the mice to Ael. Nat. An. X. 16 , 8xav ouv rcavrj- tear up their runs (Aristot. Hist. An. YUpi£(uai xfj ceXljvfl ftiiouaiv a'jTvj obtaS VI. xxx. 2). xou exous u« xxX. ; Plut. Is. c. 8, 9uov- i2 Comp. Creuzer, Symb. IV. 289. xes aTca? uv ev TcavaeXyjvip xal eafl-£ov- 13 Aristoph. Ran. 337, 338; Macrob. xes xxX.; comp. c. 43. The Zabii also Sat. I. .12. eat pork on a certain day (comp. u Varro R. R. II. 4, Initiis Cereris er, Hist. Or. p. 198). porci immolantur; Aelian 1. c. ; Hy- i° Plut. Symp. IV. iv. 2; Bvis the gin. Fab. CCLXXVII; the reason ad- ploughshare is supposed to have been duced by Aelian, "because the pigs named from us. injure the young crops" is animprob- •i Herod. H. 14 (where Wilkinson able conjecture, although it is re- remarks , "In the district of Gower, peated by other writers, as Macrob., 90 DIETARY LAWS. is figured together with a swine l. The Boeotians, at an annual festi val celebrated in their sacred grove near Potniae in honour of De- meter and Kora (Proserpine) , let down into subterranean chambers pigs which were supposed to reappear in the following summer at Dodona, near the old and sacred oracle2 . The early Romans honoured Ceres or Tellus after the conclusion of the harvest by the sacrifice of a pig3, generally a fat and pregnant sow4, which indeed was con sidered to have been the first offering slaughtered to Ceres 5 , if not the first of all sacrifices 6, "because the swine is useful to men mainly by its flesh", that is, by its death7. Therefore, pigs, so far frombeing detested, were often declaredholy. Thus the Syrians in Hierapolis, who neither ate nor offered swine, did so, according to some ancient authorities, "not because they believed pigs to be a pollution, but sacred animals" 8. The Cretans held the pig holy, not on account of the mythical reason put forth by some foreign writers, that a sow allowed the infant Jupiter to suck her teats and by her grunting prevented the child's cries from being heard, but be cause it was the emblem of fruitfulness, whence the Praisians, a tribe of Crete, regularly sacrificed a sow before marriage9. Callimachus Hygin., and Clem. Alex. (Strom. VII. p. 718 ed. Sylb. eitei y-dXiaxa xuiv dX- Xojv xou? xdpitous dvopuaaei xal tpfl-ei- pei); comp. also Ovid, Fast. I. 349 — 352 (ulta suas merita caede nooentis opes etc.) ; Metam. XV. 112, 113 (quia semina pando eruerit rostro etc.). i See Creuzer, Symb.IV. 380 ; comp. pp. 291, 378. 2 Paus. IX. viii. 1 ; Clem. Alex. Ad- mon. ad Gent. p. 11 ed. Sylb., Si' tjv aixtav Iv xots 6eap.oepopiots p.eYapi- Covxes x°ipous ex(3dXXouaiv. 3 Hor. Epist. II. i. 143, Tellurem porco . . . piabant; comp. Plin. VIII. 51 or 77. 4 Cornutus, De Natur. Deor. p. 168 ed. Osannus (Suouai 8' us eYx6p.ovas xt] Ayj(j.T)xpi itdvu oixeicus, x6 tcoX6yo- vov . . . Ttapiaxdvxes); Macrob. Saturn. I. 12; sus praegnans ei — Majae — mactatur, quae hostia propria est terrae; Arnob. Adv. Nat. VII. 22, Tel- luri matri scrofa inciens immolatur et feta; very fat and quite perfect pigs were hence called porci mystici; comp. Bahr, Symb. II. p. 256. 5 Ovid, Fast. I. 349, prima Ceres avidae gavisa est sanguine poroae; comp. also Juven. X. 354, 355; VI, 447. 6 Varro, R. R. H. 4, sus graece dicitur.us olim flus dictus, ab illo verbo quod dicunt ftueiv, quod est immolare; ab suillo enim genere pecoris immolandi initium primum sumptum videtur (comp. Athen. IX. 64); Arist. Ethic. Nicom. VHI. 11; Ovid, Metam. XV. Ill, 112, et prima putatur hostia sus meruisse mori. 7 Porph. Abst. I. 14, oi8s jdp esxi Xp^oip.ov upos aXka xi us r) itpos |3pu>- aiv; HI. 20, t) Se us oi 8i' dXXo xi tiXt)v d6ec9ai lyeYovsi ; Lactant. Instit. IV. 17. Among the northern nations the boar was regarded in a similar light; comp. Bahr, Symb. H. 260. 8 Lucian, Dea Syr. c. 54, dXXot 8' ou a B& Judaeonun vae nuptae intrantes etiamnum so- odio et Amentia a porcina ejus- lemnehabentposteseo(adipesuillo) 1ue causis' Magde*>- "40; De sue attingere; comp. also Braun, Naturg. in Sacrif- Milium, 1743; De Sa- der Sage II 319 320 crifioiis porcinis in cultu deor. veter. . n ,T_ „, «, . 1775; De sue in divinationibus et 4 Pausan. VI. n. 2, Kuirpioi Se xal ... ... _,.,, ^ . s , ^ , , , ^ mysteriis magiois (nov. Bibl. Brem. uotv eiteseupovxes elot uavxeuea&ai. „ ¦„. N ' r II. 113 sqq.). 5 Athen. III. c. 49. 7 Galen^ De AUm pac- m 2i gee 6 Varro 1. u. nuptiarum initio an- supra p. 80. tiqui reges ac sublimes viri in He- 8 Comp. Ovid, Fast. VI. 158. truria in conjunctione nuptiali nova 9 Comp. Ernesti, Comm.- Theol. nupta et novus maritus primum por- HI. 363. VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 93 renegade , as among Mohammedans it is still held to be equivalent to abjuring the Islam10. Thus all the varied reasons which indi vidually unfitted different animals for food, were combined in the pig to render it hateful in the eyes of the Jews — loathsome un cleanness, unwholesomeness , carnivorous ferocity, and dangerous seduction to paganism. We now resume the main thread of our enquiry 1 \ It is not impossible that the Hebrews were also induced by motives of health to look with distrust upon the hare and rock-bad ger12, and upon fishes unprovided with fins and scales. Por the fins replace the limbs which, in fishes, are rudimentary and imperfectly developed; and the presence of scales' was deemed a sign of a more advanced organisation, while their real or supposed absence, giving to the fishes a slimy and disagreeable appearance, seemed to qualify them to live in the mud rather than in the water, and was in the eel for instance, easily connected with the poisonous and hated serpent. It has, moreover, been ingeniously conjectured, that the scales are formed by the secretion of all superfluous and unhealthy humours which exist in the body, and which therefore in fishes without scales remain in the flesh, and make it heavy and even dangerous food 1 3. Indeed in Egypt, fishes without scales are generally found to be injurious, and were forbidden by the laws of El-Hakim ' 4. But when the people, after long struggles, made progress in moral refinement, they deemed it no longer sufficient to study mere expe diency, and simply to avoid repulsive and unwholesome animals ; but they felt an aversion to all beasts and birds of prey, which feed upon carcass , or attack live animals or men , and regarded them as "an abomination"15: from physical dislike and instinctive caution an i° Comp. Bochart , Hieroz. I. pp. lose the superabundance of moisture, 695--707 ; Cunaeus, De Rep. Hebr. II. are less cold, and therefore more di- c. 24, pp. 342 — 348; Spencer, Legg. gestible, etc. (also in Bechai on Lev. Ritt. I. vn. 4, pp. 131—138; Bahr, XI fol. 28a); Clem. Alex. Strom. II, Symb. II. 233, 234, 256— 258; etc. etc. p. 389 ed. Sylb. "qui enim pisces n See supra p. 79. squamos non habent . . . pascuntur 12 See supra p. 55. in profundo maris" (see supra p. 61) ; is Comp. Abarb. on Lev. XI. fol. De Pauw, Recherches, p. 154. 26b, 27a, ed. Amsterd. napapi iisaon u Comp. Lane, Mod. Egypt. 1. 132. 'ai a-'aon niimao 31313 aiiiia an; Nach- TheTalmudwarnspersonswithweak man. on Lev. XI. 9, the fishes with eyes altogether against fish, which it - scales remain generally near the sur- believes to be injurious to the eyes face of the water, and inhaling the (a-a-ssi -pap 3-31, Nedar. 54b ; Meil. 20b). air, and warmed by the sun, they 15 Comp. Lev. XI. 13 sqq. 94 DIETARY LAWS. advance was made to ethical restraint and self-respect1. Mildness of temper was not unnaturally expected from vegetable food, or the meat of harmless animals. "The thoughtful", observes a heathen writer, "usually value even among the irrational animals the tamer, more moderate, and milder kinds"2. Philo remarks more explicitly, that wild beasts, which feed on human flesh, were excluded, "because a gentle meal is becoming the gentle soul"3; and developing this idea, it may be too elaborately, he contends, that the lawgiver selected those herbivorous animals "which are domesticated and tame by nature, and feed on the simple food supplied by the earth", while he prohibited the carnivorous kinds, "lest by a desire to retaliate the sanguinary deeds of the wild beasts anger and ferocity are engendered in the human mind" 4. The aversion of the Hebrews to beasts of prey increased to gether with their abhorrence of blood; and they detested all rapacious animals that devour the flesh with the blood, that is, the soul5. There fore, they not only kept aloof from the bat-tribe (cheiroptera), which suck the blood of living animals, and some of which, as the phyllostoma, attack men when asleep, and have given rise to the numerous fables about vampyres6; but they also rejected all carnivorous animals pro- i "Unclean are all animals", ob serves Keil (Arch. II. 19; on Lev. p. 83) "that bear in them the stamp of sin, death, and decomposition"; which remark, correct to a certain' extent; becomes artificial if carried out in detail , and especially if sin is attri buted to the animal world also, whe ther really or typically; see supra p. 62. 2 Ael. Nat. An. X. 16, xd itpa6xepa v.al cpeiSous fip.a xal euoe|3e(as p.exei- XYJXoxa. 3 npoof|veoxdx7]v xal TjoiaxTjv euiu- y{av itapaaxeudfeiv XoYiC6|J.evos xo 7tpe7tov f/p-epip ^XH' 4 Philo, De Conoup. eo. 4, 9; simi larly Ebn Ezra on Lev. XI. 42 , "the consumed body turns to flesh in the body of the consumer"; Nachman, on Exod. XXn. 30, "the forbidden food has solely reference to purity of soul" (asaa nints) etc.; and on Lev. XVII. 11, "the food becomes one with him who eats it" etc. , 1315" ninn 13 as eisn assani&ai; Bechai on~Lev. XI. fol. 27b, on Lev. XVII. fol. 46; Lipmann Sepher Nizzachon on Lev. XI. 4, "the food shuts up the organs of the mind so that they cannot reach the truth" ; etc. ; see also Clem. Alex. Strom. VH. 717, 718 (daup.tpopov eaxi rj 8id xuiv aapxuiv xpotp^j eipYaap-evY) Hfii] xal e?o- (j.oiou|j.evv) xais xuiv dXoYu^ats) ; Hotting. Jus Hebr.pp.209, 220 (noxius ciborum usus et esus ipsi quoque animae periculosus est) ; Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenth. H. 618. 5 See p. 2. In this sense we may agree with the remark of Philippson (Pentat. p. 595; Israelit. Religions- lehre III. 36), Trusen (Sitten p. 28), Wunderbar (Bibl. Talm. Medic. II. p. 50), and others, that "animal life should be incorporated in human life with the discreetest caution, lest, by the assimilation of both, the human be debased into animal life, and the soul be depraved and profaned", etc. 6 Yet the largest species, the black rousette (pteropus edulus) is eatable; it is of the size of a small dog, and VHI. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 95 vided with powerful claws to seize, and with formidable teeth, sharp, pointed, or conical, to hold and to tear their prey: whether the Insect- eaters (insectivora), as the hedge-hog (erinaceus), permitted to the Hin doo priests 7 ; the common and the pigmy shrew (sorex araneus and pyg- maeus), of musky scent, the smallest of all mammiferous quadrupeds ; the mole (talpa Europaeus), beneficently preying upon earth-worms and insect larvae ; or the Carnivora proper — all unguiculate, furnished with six incisor teeth in each jaw, massive grinders, tuberculated, pointed, and serrated, large fangs or tearers, peculiarly adapted for their sanguinary work — as the bear in its various kinds, which was a dainty to some ancient nations 8, as it is still to North-American and Siberian savages, who worship bears, and entreat their pardon after the slaughter9; the long and slender tribes of badger and glutton, the weasel and otter, the pole-cat, the ferret, the marten, and the ermine, all higly prized for their valuable furs ; the civets (viverridae), as the ichneumon justly honoured and protected in Egypt ; the whole feline tribe, the most blood-thirsty and formidable of all predaceous animals, both on account of the velocity of their movements and their enormous strength, as the lion, the panther, and the leopard, though all were occasionally eaten in the ancient world10, the ocelot and the jaguar, the terrible hyena preying on carrion only or on corpses grubbed out of their graves, and the wild cat, though now valued, domesticated, and rendered useful, and formerly eaten by some heathen nations H; and lastly, the whole canine family, as the cunning fox, though no uncommon food in Palestine and Italy12, the gluttonous wolf, and the nocturnal jackal, the natural scavenger of all manner of carrion and offal. As regards the dog itself, it was indeed long eaten by s ome nations as the Carthagenians ' 3, as it is still consumed by the people of China and Cochin-China, "its flesh being with the exception of that resembles the rabbit. See Lev. XI. 12 Comp. Joseph. 1. c.; Galen 1. c. 19, and notes in loc. '3 Comp. Plut. De Sollert. Anim. c. 7 ManuY. 18; Yajnav. I. 177. 2; Justin. XIX. 1 , legati a Dario Per- 8 Galen, De Alim. Facult. IH. 2. sarum reSe Cart»agillem venerunt afferentes edictum quo Poem huma- 9 Meiners 1. c. pp. 219, 220 ; see su- nas hostias immolare et canina vesci pray). 47. prohibebantur ; Galen 1. c. xax' Ivia 1° Comp. Joseph. Ant. XII. in. 4; xuiv e&vuiv eaftiouai itdp.7toXXoi. Occa- Galen 1. c. The notice of Philostra- sionaUy the dog seems, in Greece, to tus (Apoll. II. 29) with respect to have been sacrificed for the purposes lions and the hams of tigers said to of divination, though Pausanias him- have been eaten in India, is ques- self, wno records an instance (VI. 11. tionable. 2), observes xuoi 8e o'iSsves feixi fs 11 Comp. Herod. II. 66. . p.avxix-?js vop.i£ouaiv oiiSev xpda&ai. 96 DIETARY LAWS. of the hog the most common in their markets" 1, and by the inhabit ants of Zoab and other African tribes2; and it was even worshipped by some, as the Egyptians3, or employed for purificatory and other sacrifices, as by the ancient Greeks4 and some Thracian tribes5; yet it was by others, as the Persians, looked upon with mingled feelings of veneration and aversion, according as they either considered its moral and useful qualities or its ferociousness and voracity6 in the East of ten rendered wolflike by neglect and want7; and it was by others again invariably regarded with unmitigated disgust, as by the Hindoos, who count the dog's soul among the most impious of spirits, and therefore hold the touch of a dog to be hideous contamination8, by the Zabii9 and by the Mohammedans, who dare not drink from a ves sel from which a dog has drunk unless it be cleansed seven times with water, and who shun the slightest contact with the animal, be it only its wet nose, as a defilement to be removed by a purification "with seven waters and once with clean earth" ' ° : the Biblical writers also allude to the dog exclusively in terms of contempt and dispa ragement, without evincing the slightest appreciation of its singular instincts ' ', although they were not unacquainted with the most re- i Mc Culloch, Diet, of Commerce p. 533 ed. 1859. 2 Be Pauw, Recherches, p. 169 ; Shaw, Trav. p. 67. 3 See supra p. 73. 4 Plut. Quaest. Rom. 52, 68, x<7j Se xuvl Ttdvxes . . . EXX'/jves sypuivxo xal XpiSvxai fz p-expt vuv evioi atsa-jup itpos xous xa9ap[j.ous xxX.: this kind of purification was called. Ttepiaxu- Xaxto|Aos; Romul. c. 21; comp. Pau- san. HI. xiv. 9. 5 Ovid, Fast. I. 389, 390 (Exta oa- num vidi Triviae libare Sapaeos , Et quicunquetuasacoolit,Haeme,nives). 6 Comp. Justin. 1. c. ; Boundehesch XIV. 1. o. "le chien a ete donne pour prendre soin des hommes et proteger les animaux". See the elaborate pre cepts and discussions on the subject in VendidadX.llI.2l — 159; XIV. 1 75; XV. 9—21, 60—137, which all aim at securing the services and breakingthe savagehabits of the dog by careful treatment ; the dog's look was supposed to have the power of driving back evil spirits; roads on which corpses had been carried were purified by leading dogs along them (Vendid. VHI. 38 sqq.); comp. also III. 25—27, 39, 40 ; see Spiegel, Avesta, H. pp. XXXHI, XXXVIH. 7 See 1 Ki. XIV. 11 ; XVI. 4 ; XXI. 19, 23; XXH. 38; 2 Ki. IX. 35, 36; Isai. LVI. 10, 11; Jer.XV.3; Ps.XXH. 17, 21; LIX. 7, 15; LXVHI. 24; comp. Exod. XXII. 30; Luke XVI. 21. 8 Comp. Manu HI. 92, and Jones in loc. 9 Comp. Hotting. Hist. Or. p. 186. 10 Niebuhr, Beschr. v. Arab. p. 40; Lane, Mod. Egypt. I. 132. n Comp. Exod. XI. 7; Deut. XXIH. 19; 1 Sam. IX. 8; XVI. 9; XVII. 43; XXTV. 15; 2 Sam. III. 8; IX. 8; XVI. 9; 2 Ki. VHI. 13; Isai. LVI. 10, 11; LXVI. 3;Ps. XXH. 17, 21; LIX. 15; Prov. XXVI. 1 1 ; Eccl. IX. 4 ; Matth. VII. 6; 2 Pet. II. 22; Philem. III. 2; Revel. XXH.. 15; comp. on the other VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 97 markable, if not the original species, the shepherd-dog12, and in later times learnt to like it as a companion both at home and on jour neys13; and the Egyptians, looking chiefly on the diseases to which the dog is subject in warmer climates, as eruptions in consequence of bad blood and humours, and especially leprosy, considered the embalmers of dogs particularly prone to splenetic and similar dis orders 14. Por analogous reasons the Hebrews may have shunned many of the rodent tribes (rodentia or glires), as the mouse and the rat, though the graceful neatness of the former has tempted many 1 5, and "the rat of the desert" (jerboa) is by Bedouin tribes prized as so ex quisite a delicacy 1 6, that it is expressly forbidden to stricter sects ' 7 ; again, the beaver and the porcupine, the subungulate guinea-pig and its kindred (the savoury -fleshed agoutis, thepaca, and the cavia) ; though they avoided other species of the same class from different motives, as the hare and the rabbit, and the pretty and lively squirrel tribe (sciurina) harmlessly living on fruits and grain. They natu rally shunned the formidable or repulsive birds of prey (raptatores), distinguished by powerful feet and talons, strength of vision, and swiftness of wing, preying upon other animals or feeding upon car rion, .whether the "nocturnal" or "crepuscular" owl , or the "diurnal" birds, the ravenous vulture and the colossal condor, the largest of all flying birds measuring with its extended wings from 11 to 13 feet, the family of the intelligent and courageous falcons (accipitrini), hand, Cic. Nat. Deor. H. 63 (or 158). is Tobit V. 16; XI. 4; Matth. XV. It is well known that the later Jews 27; comp. Horn. II. XXIH. 173 (xpa- called their heathen enemies dogs, r.z'Cf]Zi xuves) ; Od. XVn. 309. as the Mohammedans usually call 14 Comp. Horapoll. I. 39, oi 9epa- the Christians. reuovxes Se xo Juiov xouxo Iv xaTs 12 Job. XXX. 1. Jewish writers (as x-^8eiats . . . is ini xo nXetaxov aitX-j]- Bechai on Exodus XXII. 30) observe vixol Yivovxai xxX. It is well known that nsia, which comes from Satan, that the dogs in Egypt, Turkey, and is appropriately thrown before the Arabia are generally more or less in- dogs which, like ns-ia, belong to Sa- fected with a kind of leprous eruption, tan; yet according to a, Midrashic since they are badly kept or rather explanation, the flesh of animals torn unappropriatedandmasterless "from by wild beasts (neia) was assigned the Hellespont to the confines of Co- by the Law to the dogs (Exod. 1. c.) chin -China"; see Ps. LIX. 7, 15; as a reward for not having barked at comp. Harmer, Observat. I. p. 344 ed. the Hebrews in the night of their Clarke ; Rosenmuller, Naturgesch. II. flight from Egypt (Exod. XI. 7); 95—99. comp. Mechilta on Ex. XXII. 30 (e. 20, 15 Comp. Isai. LXVI. 17. a-ataa , fol. 104 ed. Weiss , fsa -iaii 16 Burckhardt, Beduinen, p. 50 ; see mis is i3a nspa n"apn); Rashiialoc, notes on XI. 5, ad }tv. and others. 17 Niebuhr, Besohr. v. Arab. p. 179: H 98 DIETARY LAWS. living upon smaller birds, on reptiles and insects, as the eagle, the once-prized falcon, and the hawk, though young eagles and young hawks were recommended and eaten as delicacies ', the fan-tailed kite, the buzzard, and the harpy; again, a portion of the order of incesso- res, as the raven tribe — the jay and the mag-pie, the jack-daw and the crow, and especially the ominous raven often seizing quadrupeds and feeding upon corpses2; many "running birds" (cursores), espe cially the edacious and desert-loving ostrich, unsparing of smaller animals3; and many "wading birds" (grallatores), mostly feeding on worms, insects, and grubs, snails, slugs, reptiles, and fish, as the bus tard, heron, and the bittern, though other species of this order, if disdained at all, must have been objected to for different reasons, as the snipes (scolopacidae), plovers (charadriadae) and waterhens (rallidae), the crane eaten by the ancient Romans4, the stork valued as food by the Moslems5, and the ibis venerated in Egypt; some of the "swimming birds" (natatores), as the insatiable pelican6, which was extensively consumed in Egypt, though not by the priests7, and the cormorant8 inhabiting marshes and dreary solitudes9; and lastly, the whole of the sharktribe (plagiostomi), including the most voracious of all sea monsters, armed with rows of sharp, strong, and fearful teeth, the terror of the boatman, as the white, the hammer-headed, and the giant shark10, the latter reaching a length of forty feet, and the sawfish11, with long serrated snout, a weapon formidable even to the largest fishes. Corresponding customs or laws prevailed among nearly all ancient nations. The Hindoo "twice-born" were bidden to avoid all carnivo rous and webfooted birds, all birds of prey that strike with their beaks, or wound with their talons, and those which dive and devour fish12. i Arisot. Hist. An. VI. 7 , Y^yvov- 5 Niebuhr 1. e. xat Se xal xuiv lepdxrov ol veoxxol -rjSu- 6 Probably nsp; Lev. XI. 18 ; Deut. xpeu,) atpoSpaxal Ttioves ; Albert. Magn. XIV. 17; comp. Ps. Oil. 7; see on De Animal. 1. XXIH. p. 614, caro ac- Lev. XI. 18. eipitris dulois est et levis propter bo- 7 Horap. I. 54. num nutrimentum quo alitur; Salt, 8 Perhaps naasn (Lev. XI. 18; Deut. Trav. in Abyss, p. 152 ; Bechstein, XIV. 16). Naturgesch. Deutschlands, II. 211, s Comp. Isai. XXXIV. 11; Zeph. 221,225. II. 14; Ps. CH. 7. See notes on XI. 2 See Comm. on Gen. p. 195. Crows 13 sqq. with some white feathers are eaten io Squalus carcharias, zygaena by Mohammedans (Niebuhr, Beschr. malleus, and sq. maximus. v. Arab. p. 178). n Sq. pristis. 3 See notes on XI. 16. 12 Manu V. 11 — 14; Yajnav. I. 172— 4 Celsus, De Medic. II. 18. 175. VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 99 The rule prevails among the Mohammedans not to eat any animal which attacks men or tears human bodies, and they shun as food chiefly the lion and all other felinae, the fox and jackal, the serpent and scorpion, the frog and the turtle, and all birds of prey13. The Chinese alone have no religious law whatever with regard to food, and they eat any animal they fancy14. Now when all the creatures hitherto pointed out were banished from the table, namely, those excluded as a matter of course, those spar ed for their utility as beasts of burden and draught, and those shunned frommotives of physical antipathy and of health, or on account of their bloodthirstiness; there remained but comparatively few species of her bivorous quadrupeds, whether domesticated from time immemorial, as the ox, the sheep, and the goat, in their different varieties, or living peacefully and harmlessly in woods, valleys, or mountainous tracts, as the deer-tribe (cervidae) — the roe and the hart, the stag and the fallow-deer — , the antelope and gazelle still eaten by the Be douins whenever they can insnare them15, the buffalo, the wild goat, the wild ox, and the chamois16; though cows, as is well known, were never touched by theEgyptians ' 7, ostensibly because they were sacred to Isis, but really to prevent the breed of cattle from being dimin ished'8; nor by the Hindoos, both for the reason just adduced, and because they furnish the sacrificial butter19; nor by most of the Phoe nicians20, the inhabitants of Tibet2', and others. Of birds th;re re mained the domestic fowls (gallinacei or rasores) , especially the pigeon-tribe (columbae) very numerous in Palestine22, though held inviolable in Syria and Egypt23, nay even too holy to be touched24'; the cock declared sacred by the Pythagoreans, especially the white •3 Niebuhr I.e. pp. 178, 179. Plutarch is Be Pauw, Recherches, p. 149; (Quaest. Roman. 93) has preserved comp. supra p. 73, note 11. this line from one of the lost trage- 19 Meiners, Gesch. derRelig.I. 217 — dies of Aeschylus, Opvi&G? opvis rcuis 219; Lassen, Ind. Alterth. I. 792 ; Ma- av a-fveuoi tpaYiuv. habhar. Book I, in Goldstiicker's Es- '4 Comp. Lun-yu, Book I, c. X, § 8 say on Mahabh. p. 13. (ed. Cramer, p. 113); De Pauw, Re- 2U Porph. 1. c. cherches, p. 169 (ils mangent des rats, 21 Miners 1. c. p. 194. des chauves-souris , des hiboux, des 22 See Comm. on Lev. I p. 80. ¦cigognes, des chats, des blaireaux, 23 Comp. Porph. Abst. IV. 7. des chiens, etc.). 24 Comp. Lucian, Syr. Dea 14, 54; 15 Burckhardt, Beduinen, p. 49. Plut.Is.74; Euseb.Vra.ep. Ev. VIII. 14 i° Comp. Deut. XIV. 4, 5; see supra (50); comp.,however,/fcT0G?.I.138;see p. 58, note 8. Bochart, Hieroz. vol. II. lib. I. e. 5; 17 Herod. H. 41; Porph} Abst. n. Selden, De Diis Syr. pp. 271 sqq.; De 11, 61. Pauw, Recherches, I. 164. H2 100 DIETARY LAWS. species1; whatsoever game-birds that were caught2 or bred in the coun try, as the quail3, the partridge, and other birds of the same kind, of course if lawfully killed; and such swimming-birds as geese and ducks4. And of fishes were left the kinds not eel-like and not reputed for fierceness and voracity, and nearly all the species of the large order of the "soft-finned" (malacopterigii) , and some of the "spiny-finned" (acanthopterigii) 5. It was from these animals that the legislators deduced the criteria of permitted animals — rumination and cloven feet, scales and fins — , while they were satisfied with a simple enumeration of the forbidden birds, in which they probably dis covered no common characteristics of a striking nature6. How diffi cult it was for the levitical writers strictly to insist upon abstract principles, and how imperiously they were swayed by existing usages, is proved by the fact that, while they rigorously and almost vehe mently interdicted all insects as "an abomination" (ypi£), they ex pressly, and even in opposition to the Deuteronomist7, made an ex ception in favour of four kinds of native locusts mainly feeding upon grass and succulent fruits, evidently because they found the custom of eating locusts deeply rooted in the nation, as it prevailed and still prevails in the countries adjoining the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean, in Libya and Egypt, Nubia and Abyssinia, Arabia and Syria, and elsewhere8: and generalising the criteria, they i Comp. Diog.Lacrt.YIIi.54; comp. "tantum vivit fumo et sale duratis in also Lucian, Syr. Dea 48. annua alimenta ; hence called dxpi- 2 Comp. Jer. V. 27; Hos V. 1 ; VII. 56cpayoi, Slrabo XVI. iv. 12, p. 772); 12 ; Ps. CXXIV. 7. VII. 2 (an Indian tribe) ; XI. 29 or 35 3 Comp. Num. XI. 31, 32 ;Ps. CV.40. (Parthis et hae — locustae — in cibo 4 See Comm. on Lev. 1. c. gratae) , 26 or 32 (gentes vescuntur 5 See notes on XI. 9 — 12. Curious iis — cicadis — ad orientem, etiam is the notion of Pliny with respect Parthi opibus abundantibus) ; Diod. to allex or garum (XXXI. 8 or 44), Sic.lll. 29 (with respect to the Ethio- aliud vero castimoniarum supersti- pians, Ix xouxou — sc. swarm of lo- tioni etiam sacrisque Judaeis dica- custs — oa'iiXeis xpotpdsSvouoivfiitav- tum quod fit a piscibus squama ca- to x6v fiiov) ; Ludolf, Hist. Aeth. I. rentibus, where probably non caren- xin. §§ 20—22 (suavis enim valde nee tibus must be read, whether the mis- non salubris est cibus); Michael, on take be the copyist's or Pliny's. Lev. XI. 22 ; Niebuhr 1. c. pp. 171, 172; 6 See supra p. 53. Burckhardt, Beduinen, pp. 375, 376; 7 See suPra P- 59- Arabia, p. 162; Syria, p. 382; Kilto 8 See notes on XI. 21, 22; comp. on XI. 21; Ilarmer, Observat. II. 58; Matth. IH. 4; Mark I. 6; Herod. IV. Paxlon, Illustrat. Nat. Hist. pp. 117, 172 (with respect to the Nasomenes, 118; Knob. Levit. p. 456; esp. Riiler, a Libyan tribe); Plin. VI. 30 or 35 Erdkunde, VIII. 789— 815. Thegrass- (pars quaedam Aethiopum locustis hopper was also eaten, especially to VHI. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 101 declared lawful all winged insects provided with springing feet; yet in reality they desired to legalise no more than those four species ; therefore, strictly taken, the rule is specious , and applies only to a few individual instances9. But when the Hebrews, in rejecting bloodthirsty and carnivo rous animals, had passed from physical to ethical considerations in their selection of food, they soon proceeded, by a simple and natural transition, to the strictly religious sphere, and connected the dietary rules with the notions of "purity" and ceremonial cleanness. It is from this point of view that we find those rules regarded in the Pentateuch, since the Pentateuch has preserved to us not the ear lier but the most advanced stages of Hebrew theology. In that code the dietary precepts constitute an integral part of the levitical system; and they form an essential link in that lengthening chain of laws of purity which was intended to encircle and to control the whole life of the Hebrews. Then for the first time the terms "clean" and "unclean" animals were used not in a physical, but in a dogma tic or ethical sense10; for they were also applied to such beasts as the camel11 which, clean, useful, and tractable, could from no exter nal aspect be called unclean; gradually even much stronger express ions were chosen to describe an unclean animal, such as "abomination" and "horror" 12, expressions elsewhere used to brand the most heinous religious and moral offences, as idolatry and incest. For how could the later legislators, who so carefully regulated, and guarded against, even the slightest external contact with unclean things, be indifferent as to the objects which the worshippers of the Lord assimilated with their organisms * 3? And now the more conscientious among the Hebrews began to attach the utmost importance to "cleanness" of food. With a certain proud satisfaction Ezekiel exclaimed, "0 Lord God! behold, my soul has not been polluted; for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dies of itself, or is torn by wild beasts, neither did abominable flesh come into my mouth" ' 4. But while the whet the appetite (Aristot. An. Hist. « nasin, Deut. XIV. 3 (is iasn si V. xxx. 3 ; Plin. XXX. 8 or 21 ; Athen. naa-'in); ypa;, Lev. VH. 21 ; XI. 10—13, IV, io). 20, 22, 23, 41—43; iiss, Ezek. IV. 14. 9 Comp. Lev. XI. 20—23, and notes i3 See supra p. 94 note 5. in i0C- 14 Ezek. IV. 14 ; comp. XXII. 26 ; 1° Gen. VII. 2; VIII. 20; Deut. XIV. Acts X. 14; XI. 8. See also Riehm, 7 11, 12,19, 20; Lev. XI. 4 — 8,24, Charakteristik der messian. Weissag. 31, 35, 43; comp. notes on Lev. XI. in Stud, und Krit. 1865, p. 428, who, 2 8. however, attributes, with question - 11 Lev. XI. 4. able justice, Ezekiel's remarks to 102 DIETARY LAWS. Deuteronomist simply declares certain creatures as "unclean", and only incidentally utters a warning against touching their carcass ', the author of the corresponding section in Leviticus so carefully amalga mates theprecepts respecting unclean animals with all the complicated principles of the ceremonial law, that his tendency and his later age are not only felt but can be convincingly proved. He more than once cautions against the slightest contact with the dead bodies of un clean animals2: "whoever touches the carcass of them shall be un clean until the evening"; "whoever bears ought of the carcass of them, shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening"3. He ex tends the same rigorous ordinances to clean animals that die of them selves or are torn by wild beasts ; the touching of their dead bodies renders a man unclean till the evening; carrying them or eating of their flesh necessitates, moreover, the washing of the garments: "but if he wash them not, nor bathe his body, then he shall bear his iniquity". He enforces this law upon the native Hebrew and the stranger alike4, and thei eby proves that he looked upon it and upon the whole circle of these commandsin a thoroughly levitical light5. Nay he sets forth spe cial regulations which, by their form and spirit, fairly rouse astonish ment ; for treating of eight species of animals considered particularly unclean, as the mouse, the mole, and thelizzards, he literally enacts: "Whosoever touches them when they are dead, shall be unclean until the evening; and upon whatsoever anything of them falls when they are dead, that shall be unclean, whether it be any vessel of wood, or garment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the evening and then it shall be clean ; and any earthen vessel into which anything of them falls, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break the vessel itself. Of all food which is eaten, that on which water comes [in such earthen vessel] shall be unclean; but all drink which is drunk shall be unclean in such vessel of whatever kind; and every thing whereupon any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean, oven and stove shall be broken; they are unclean, and they shall be unclean to you. Yet a well and a cistern, any receptacle his individual bias rather than the the spirit of the Biblical ordinances, spirit of his time. views the dietary precepts as entirely i Deut. XIV. 8 . unconnected with the laws of purity ; 2 Lev. XI. 8 , 11, ispan aniaa-nsi, see against this view Holdheim in etc. Geiger's Wissenschaftl. Zeitschr. VI 3 Lev. XI. 24 — 28,31. pp. 51 sqq. ; oomp. Spencer, Legg. 4 Lev. XI. 39, 40; XVII. 15, 16. Ritt. I. vn. 2, p. 123; Sommer, Bibl. " Yet the Talmud, in opposition to Abhandl. I. 246. VHI. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 103 of water shall be clean ; but he who touches their carcass shall be unclean. And if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean; but if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcass fall thereon, it shall be un clean to you"0. Who can recognise in these trifling and playful enactments the broad simplicity of the earlier portions of the Bible? Who does not almost feel as if he were transported into the frigid atmosphere of Rabbinical casuistry? The plain and tangible princi ples of religious unity were worked out, at once trivially and labo riously, into a network of ritualistic minutiae which seem to bear the character of subsequent commentaries on old-established statutes, and which can only have originated when the free and noble teaching of the prophets had been silenced, and when the deadening influence of priestly rule had replaced a spiritual and life-like heart-worship by the monotony of a cumbrous ceremonialism7. Yet not even the most exacting levitism could presume to punish contravention with any penalty beyond temporary uncleanness8, whereas the eating of blood or fat was visited with the dire threat of excision9: later Rabbinism, however, ordained stripes for eating unclean food amounting to the size of an olive, and even for eating a much amaller quantity 1 °. Ac cording to Manu, offences in diet are one of the principal causes that give death power even over the Brahman ' ' ; they are no less heinous than the gravest moral transgressions, deserve the severest chastise ment , and require repeated purifications ' 2 ; nay , the "twice-born", to cleanse himself from the unconscious taint of illicit food, must 6 See Comm. on XI. 29 — 38. plies "a contempt of the holiness of Je- 7 The ,Rabbins prescribe washing hovah", while eating unclean food is before and after meals , benedictions "only contempt of the vocation and and grace, etc. etc. (comp. Orach mission of Israel"; but subtle and Chajim §§ 159 sqq. ; Matth. XVI. 1, 2 ; specious as usual, he lays exclusive Mark VII. 1—5; Luke XI. 38). Simi- stress upon the late levitical con- lar rules obtained among the Hin- ception of the blood as the means of doos (Manu H. 52—57; IV. 62, 218 — atonement, and disregards altogether 225; V. 36; Ydjnavalkya I. 32, 106, its older and often urged character 112,114,167 — 169), theParsees (comp. as the seat or principle of life ; more- Spiegel, Avesta, H. p. L), and others. ¦ over, atonement through blood, no s "Zum deutlichen Zeichen, dass less than abstinence from unclean man dies Verbot zu halten mehr dem food, aims at the holiness of the Is- blossen Gewissen fiberliess", obser- raelites, and not of Jehovah. ves Ewald (Alterth. p. 208). 10 See the minute rules in Maimon. 9 Keil (Archaeol. H. 23) attempts De Cib. Vet. co. II; XIV. 1—5. an explanation of the difference by ' ' Manu V. 4. observing that eatingfat or bloodim- '2 Yajnav.UI.229; comp.Manu~XI.56. 104 DIETARY LAWS. annually perform one of the hardest penances devised by the Hin doo codes '. However, the significance of the dietary laws soon made the final advance, of which they were capable within the circle of He brew notions: from the levitical they were raised into the theo cratic sphere ; they were associated not merely with the idea of pu rity but of holiness , brought into direct relation with the sacrifices and their work of atonement 2, and converted into an instrument for elevating the life of the Hebrew by applying to it the Divine stan dard. This last and most important step was accomplished, in the Book of Leviticus, with a precision, clearness, and force bespeaking the most matured stage of religious thought attainable by the He brew mind within the Biblical times. The great principle was pro posed, "I am the Lord your God ; you shall, therefore, hallow your selves, that you may become holy; for lam holy: nor shall you make yourselves unclean with any manner of creeping things that creeps upon the earth ; for I am the Lord that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; you shall, therefore, be holy; for I am holy"3. The regulations on food, regarded in so peculiar a light, were made a chief means of distinction between the chosen people and the pagans : "You shall put a difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean, and you shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean; and you shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other nations, that you should be Mine"4. The same principle was applied to other kinds of unlawful food: "You shall be holy men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field , you shall cast it to the dogs"5; "you shall not eat of anything that dies of itself. . . for thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God"6. 1 The penance of prdjdpaty a ; Manu dictam et divinae conformem sectan- V. 21 ; comp. IV. 222. dam incitasse) ; Jellineck, Einleitung 2 Comp. pp. 5, 12, etc. indie Thora, pp. 26, 27; Hamburger, 3 Lev. XI. 44, 45, and notes in loc. ; Real-Encycl. I. pp. 508, 509. comp. XIX. 2 ; XX. 7 ; Num. XV. 40 ; , , „„ „. „ . _ . VTV , -r, . T „ ' „, . ' „ ' 4Lev.XX. 25,26; comp.Exod. XIX. 1 Pet. I. 15, IS; Maim. Mor. Nev. III. . „ n t _' „ „„„ „„ 5, 6; see, however, Comm. on Lev. 1. 33; also Lev. XV. 31 ; XVI. 16 ; XX. ¦ ' ' ' 8; XXII. 16, 32; Num. XIX. 13, 20; PP" ' Deut.XXIII.13— 15; Spencerl. c.(sub 5 Exod- xxn- 30- munditiae illius exterioris figura le- 6 Deut. XIV. 21. See notes on Lev. .gem Judaeos ad puritatem vere sio XI. 44 — 47. Vni. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 105 These conceptions, it is true, emanated obviously from great reli gious refinement, and seemed calculated to promote it in others; yet they were as obviously incongruous and exaggerated ; for they unreasonably made the highest aims of the soul and the. very essence of a holy life dependent upon such indifferent things as eat ing and drinking7. Hebraism, viewing man in the undivided unity of his bodily and spiritual existence, and anxious to stamp all his physical relations with Divine holiness, desired to make religious forms and piety identical. The object was praiseworthy and perhaps deserving the experiment. But it was a fatal, though often repeated mistake, to suppose that the Divine aspirations of man are strength ened by connecting them, through symbol or ceremony, with the routine of everyday life ; on the contrary, they are sooner or later invariably lowered to the level of the latter, either by the blunting and benumbing uniformity of habit, or by a confusion of means and end in feeble or dishonest minds. Formalism inevitably engenders spiritual conceit, separation, and a sanctimonious contempt of others, who are supposed to stand on a lower level before God8. Thus later Jewish writings often express the idea that, as other nations are not singled out by God for "holiness" or eternal life, it does not matter if they eat the food to be shunned as abominable by the Hebrews9. Instead of vainly attempting to hallow life by a distinction of things externally clean and unclean, it is wise to take to heart maxims like these, "There is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean"'0; or "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy""; and "Meat commends us not to God, for neither if we 7 Comp. Justin. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. n-naan (Satan), like nsits and ni33; p. 237, xal Yap |3pcup.dxu>v xivujv dire- Aramah, Aked. Yitsch. c. 60 on Lev. Xeaftai ixposexa£ev up.Tv ?va xal ev xtp XI. fol. 62b ed. Frankfurt; etc. eaiKetv xal itiveiv Ttpo 6cp&aXp.ffiv ex^]xe i° Hebr. XIV. 14. xov de,6v. n Rom. XIV. 17, also vers. 2, 3, 14; 8 Comp. Acts X. 28 sqq. comp. Luke XI. 41, "but rather give 9 Comp. Midr. Rabb. Lev. c. 13, alms of such things as you have, and 31 ssn aiia-'n uni -psa aii5>n niais ; Yal- behold , all things are clean to you" ; kutShim. c.563, Habak. fol. 83b, inmn Matth. XV. 11, 17, 18, 20; Mark II. '31 anni ana -jisa -pliaisn ns ; Rashi on 16 ; Luke XI. 38 ; XV. 2 ; Hebr. XIH. Lev. XI. 2, '31 Blpas flipl3i isiaia isi; 9, "It is a good thing that the heart Bechai on Lev. XI fol. 27 ed. 1864, be established with grace, not with isi . . . Biaaii aispa niais ' ti n' 3pn iinn meats, which have not profited those '31 asniai ai33ia ana ; on Exod. XI. fol. that have been occupied therein"; 31b, an is misa niaisna i&i sc. nan Col. II. 16, 17. 106 DIETARY LAWS. eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse"1. We may be allowed to remind the reader of the saying of an old Gnos tic, preserved by an opponent who fails to disparage its beauty by irony: "We are as little defiled by meats as the sea is defiled by tainted influxes; for as the sea becomes master over every fluid, so we become masters over all meats . . . The sea receives everything and refuses nothing, because it is conscious of its greatness . . . Thus meats have power only over small men; but those who have the fulness of liberty take in everything, and remain unpolluted"2. Noble feeling, elevated thought, and self-denying deeds, the only Divine attributes in man, are both independent and unmindful of capricious and changeful forms. The command, "You shall be holy, for I the Lord am holy", is indeed a fine utterance, the worthy crown ing stone of a laboriously developed system of religion, and a lofty ideal fit to aid man in his struggles against meanness and sin, and to nourish his longing for harmony of mind; but it can only he realised, though distantly at best, by vigilance, devotion, and ener getic yet humble activity. Sanctity must result from sanctification through a pure, unselfish, and useful life, guided by truth, cheered by benevolence, and shielded by moderation. Now it may be admitted that the dietary precepts of the He brews gain by a comparison with those of other eastern nations. They are simpler and less restrictive, and yet more systematic and more comprehensive3. They forbid no part of the vegetable creation4, i 1 Cor. VIII. 8; cornp. Mark VII. writings of the Rabbins, who declare 15, "There is nothing from without a that God will, in the time of the Mes- man, that entering into him can de- siah, render clean all animals that file him"; 1 Tim. IV. 4, "Every crea- are considered unclean at present; ture of God is good, and nothing to comp. Midr. Yelamd. on Ps. CXLVI. be refused, if it be received with 7, n"apn iins>a ilea inn laa sips nai thanksgiving"; Acts X. 15, "What isiaii iinnni; Yalk. Chad. 99b , § 36, God has cleansed, that call not thou '31 iiinni ntni i-m w«i nasa na; common". Abarb. Rosh Emun. c. XIII, fol. 17b 2 Porphyr. Abst. I. 42, ou Yap v]U.ds ed. Altona, etc. p.oXuveixd|3pu)p.axaioG7repouS£x-rjvi}d- Xaxxav xd pu,t,pd xuiv f>eup.dxmv xxX. ; 3 With resPeot to the regulation! comp. Bernays, Theophrast's Sehrift of the Hindoos> comP- f- *• Mam IL fiber Frommigkeit, pp. 15, 16; see ™-57> IV- 62> 2l8-225; V. 5-10, also Manu IV. 225, "the food of a li- 25' eto'> Colebrooke, Relig. Cerem. beral man is purified by his faith, of the Hindoos> Asiat. »es. Vn. 277; but the food of a learned miser is tnouga they are not more minute and polluted, because he does not believe trining tllai1 the later Rabbinical or- what he has read." A glimpse of this dinanoes 5 see infra. truth is even discoverable in the 4 Comp. supra p. 66. VHI. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 107 nor wine5, as the Mohammedan law does6. They are so well calcu lated to promote frugality, temperance, and health, that excesses in eating and drinking could be made amenable to the law7. They are the same for people and priests, with the unessential exception, that the latter had, during their ministrations, to avoid wine and strong drink, like theNazarite during his time of sacred seclusion8; whereas the Hindoo "twice-born" and the Egyptian priest had ex clusive laws intended to surround them with the halo of superior sanctity9. Yet the very distinction between "clean" and "unclean" animals involves a deplorable desertion of older and better" notions; it dooms to aversion and loathing a great part, nay most, of those creatures which, after the work of the six days, God had declared "very good", in common with every" other production10; it thus destroys the grand conception of the first cosmogony, which 5 Comp. Deut. XIV. 26; etc. Yet after the destruction of Jerusalem many Jews would not drink wine, be cause it could no longer be poured out on the altar as a libation (Talm. Bab. Bathr. 60b); and in later Ju daism, abstinence from wine was con sidered to become men of peculiar piety (Maim. Mor. Nev. HI. 33, 48); while on the other hand, in seasons of danger and urgent distress, espe cially in times of war and for medi cal purposes, all animals andallkinds of food were permitted (comp. 2 Ki. VI. 25; Maim. De Cib. Vet. XIV. 13— 17; DeRegib.VIII.l;...inias3i:-siin sin as inn laa is nisiial nii33 iissi ani '31 3i>i; Bechai on Deut. VI. fol. 16); so also among the Hindoos (Manu V. 27, 33; Yajnav. I. 32, 33, 179), the Mohammedans (Koran II. 168; VI. 119, 145; XVI. 116), and others (Lane, Mod. Egypt. I. 131). 6 Koran II. 217; V. 92 (where wine is enumerated among the works of Satan); XVI. 69; comp. D'Herbelot, Bibl. Orient, p. 696 ; Sale, Koran, Pre lim. Disc. pp. 87, 88; Lane, Mod. Egyptians, I. 130, 131 ; however, the Turks and Persians, and in war all Mohammedans, allow themselves greater laxity with respect to wine. 7 Comp. Deut. XXI. 20 , S31B1 iiii (see, however, Talm. Sanh. 71 a); also Isai. V. 11, 12, 22; Clem. Alex. Pae- dag. II. pp. 139, 149 ed. Sylburg. The Hindoo law also enjoins "frugal fare" and eating "not to surfeit" (Yajnav. 1.112, 114). "Pythagoras forbade his disciples to pick up what fell from the table , for the sake of accustom ing them to eat moderately" (Diog. Laert. VHI. 34); comp. also Porph. Abst. I. 49 sqq. 8 Lev. X. 9; Num. VI. 3, 4; see Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 700—702; comp. also Prov. XXXI. 6, 7 ; 1 Tim. V. 23. 9 The latter avoided, in the time of their lustrations, even salt and bread; comp. Porph. Abst. IV. 6, 7; Plut. Is. cc. 5, 7, 8, 32 ; Manu V. 5 sqq.; Be Pauw, Recherches, pp. 102 sqq.; Priaulx, Quaestiones Mosaicae, pp. 185 — 191 ; Comm. on Lev. I. 1. c. i° Gen. I. 31. Apologists asKrum- macher (Paragraphen zur heil. Gesch. pp. 63 sqq.) and Hengstenberg (Chri- stol. I. 39) try to evade the difficulty by declaring that "the whole of the animal creation, in its present con dition, cannot possibly have been is sued from the hand of God" : but all 108 DIETARY LAWS. is upheld even in the Elohist's permission given to Noah to eat all animals whatever1; and if it is not Persian in intent and origin2, it is certainly almost Persian in result and effect; for though not coupled with the injunction of persecuting and extirpating the "unclean animals", it renders them in so far Ahrimanic as they are branded as an "abomination", and withdrawn from the unrestricted use of man who has yet been pronounced their unrestricted master3. Why, then, were the levitical rules endowed with unchange able permanency ? Why was not every individual allowed to decide which creature is repulsive in his eyes and which not ? Ought not advancing experience to be left free to teach , which animals are wholesome in each clime, and which injurious ? And above all, do the symbols, once full of life and significance to remote generations, call forth the same truths and emotions in times distinguished by a different civilisation, progressing under very varied influences, and so decidedly working by discerning thought, and not by dark and vague emblems, that in the same measure as our wealth of ideas increases, the number of forms and symbols diminishes? Can these, after their connection with the spiritual principles which they once represented has ceased, still promote religion, that is, inward purity and noble zeal? And if not, what else are they but a slavish yoke, an unmeaning lumber, a clog to body and mind and soul, irrational in themselves, and strangely in contradiction to the intellectual achievements of our time? Can they, unfelt and dead as they are, work upon the heart by some unexplained miracle, merely by the force of faith — a supernatural notion always discarded by the phi losopher, and at present rejected by the enlightened adherents of all creeds? Moral improvement cannot be attained without moral exertion, and lasting benefits can only result from truth, and not from delusions, however fondly cherished. If man derives the im pulse for his actions, not from the living fountain of his reason and the well-known attempts at explain- Orthodox interpreters who felt this, ing the deterioration, partially imply- took refuge in the subtle distinction ing a dualism in the nature of the that the unclean animals are no abo- Deity, are without exception unscrip- mination in themselves, but only in tural- reference to man, and hence explain i Gen. IX. 3; see p. 48. the addition of asi in XI. 10, 12, 20, 2 See supra pp. 67, 68. etc. (see Wesseli in loc.) : as if the 3 Comp. Gen. I. 26, 28; IX. 2. It is Law were concerned about things in futile to assert that "unclean" as ap- the abstract, and not in their relation plied to animals involves no degra- to man, and about the influence they dation; see notes on Lev. XI. 44— 47. exercise upon the Hebrews. VIII. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 109 his own ideal nature, but from the blind dictates of authority, however imposingly exalted, his morality is as unsafe as his belief; the one may be cold, narrow, and selfish; and the other, mechani cal and unthinking, though perhaps earnest and devoted, is often hardly distinguishable from the darkest superstition. Abstinence from blood, fat, and the sciatic nerve, as the supposed seats or emblems of life, or from "unclean" animals as causing defilement of the soul, may once have had a religious force and reality, because a mysterious cosmic relation was supposed to exist between man and the whole animate creation: but from the time that the station and mission of man were more clearly defined and better understood, those rules could by no effort of ingenuity be any longer connected with religion or Divine worship ; and they must be relegated into the sphere of expediency and personal option4. Thus meat cut out of a living beast has long been abhorred by all civilised nations; meat of animals that die of themselves, or are torn by wild beasts, is in stinctively shunned as a matter of precaution or aversion; and seething the kid in its mother's milk is naturally avoided from motives of humanity, although these did not at first suggest the prohibition 5. The laws of food had indeed an important mission to fulfil, and they fulfilled it completely. In later periods of Jewish history, after the time of Alexander the Great, when the contact with ido latrous nations, and the familiarity with heathen, especially Greek, philosophy threatened to endanger the purity of monotheism6, the ' teachers and leaders of the people avowedly employed the dietary restrictions, infinitely increased and minutely worked out, as the most effectual means of checking the dreaded intercourse with 4 It is therefore difficult to attach properly dietary, such as the prohi- any distinct meaning to the enigma- bition of leaven on Passover; leaven tical remark of Hengstenberg (Bu- and honey in connection with sacri- cher Mose's, p. 193) : "In the circle of flees ; the produce of young trees dur- the Hebrew religion , such dietary ing the first three or four years ; the laws only were possible, which, in restrictions with respect to firstlings spite of their formal repeal , last vir- and firstfruits, and the like; comp. tually to all eternity"; the idea may Maim. De Cib. Vet. init. be eternal, but the symbol has ceased 6 Comp. Diod. Sic. Fr. XL. 3 s. fin. to exist after the "formal repeal" of the icoXXd xuiv iraxpioiv xois'IouSatois vo- dietary laws. Comp. also the strange p.(|j.uiv ixivv^ih]; hence the strong Tal- observations of Baumgarten (Theol. mudical interdict I3ai iaino bis ins Comment. I. 160). nw n^sn, Talm. Sotah 49b; Me- 5 See pp. 9, 14, 20,33. We leave here. naoh. 64b, which was, however, not out of the question ordinances not acted upon in all periods. 110 DIETARY LAWS. foreigners K "Keep aloof", they enjoined, "from their bread and their oil on account of their wine, from their wine on account of their daughters, from their daughters on account of their idols" 2. They were induced to insist upon such commands the more rigorously, because they desired thoroughly to preclude the Jews from sharing the sacrificial meals of pagans, which were held in the deepest ab horrence3. They forbade them, in fact, to taste any food or drink whatever that had been prepared by heathens or in their vessels, or to use for religious rites any materials that had passed through heathen hands. We need only allude to the well-known instan ces of Daniel and Tobit, of Esther and Judith4, and point to the remarkable edict promulgated in the time of Antiochus the Great, "Let not any flesh of horses or mules or asses be brought into the city, whether wild or tame, nor that of leopards, or foxes, or hares, nor, in general, that of any animal which the Jews are forbidden to eat, nor let the skins of such animals be brought into the town, where, moreover, no such beast is to be bred up" : contravention of this edict was punished by a fine of 3,000 drachmae of silver to be paid to the priests5. In addition to this, it will suffice to refer to the treatise of the Mishnah on Idolatry (Avodah Zarah), in order to perceive how infinitely precepts and precautions were multiplied6; 1 It seems that already in the fifth 4 See Dan. 1.8— 16; Tob. I. 10—12; century B. C, the eating of forbidden Addit. to Esth. HI. 11 (Sept. after IV. food(xoivo iaisa "a sisn as isis iis3 iis>n (though recent editions, as that of Lemberg 1867, read instead nini i-a-nsa as> iaisa ia sau ani isis lis3). In a similar spirit, the New Testament commands, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (concerning Christ), receive him not into your house, nei ther bid him God speed ; for he that biddeth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John vers. 10,11). 7 Diod. Sic. Fragm. XXXIV. 1, p.6- vou; Ydp ditdvxmv £9vv xtvl euvoijsetv, p.TJxe dpioxa aup.|3ouXe6aeiv, dXXd xd y_zipovo.); see also Philo, In Flaec. c. 5 (with respect to- the Egyp tians, Sid xt]v TtaXatdv xal xpoitov xivd YeYev7]p.e'v7)v upcis 'IouSaious dn:e- X^eiav). 9 Comp. Diod. Sic. Fr.XL.3 (diidv- Opumov xiva xal p.iso:evov |3iov eiarjYi]- aaxo, sc. Moses); Tacit. Hist. V. 2 — 5, 13 (apud ipsos . . . misericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnes alios hostile odium; separati epulis, dis- creti cubilibus, etc.; Judaeorum mos absurdus sordidusque, etc.; comp. Whiston's Josephus , Dissert, ni) ; Justin. XXXVL 2 (caverunt ne cum peregrinis oommunicarent) ; FlorXH. 5 (illud grande impiae gentis arca num) ; Theophr. ap. Porph. Abst. II. 26 (comp. Bernays, Theophr. Schrift fib. d. Frommigk. pp. 109 sqq.) ; Slrabo XVI. 11. 34 — 46 (ex piv x-^s SeiaiSai- p:ovias at xuiv |3p(upidxu>v dTioayzazis xxX., § 37, although Strabo's account is almost singularinits impartiality) ; 112 DIETARY LAWS. Christians to take any meal with the Jews, for the avowed reason that the Jews despised to eat with the Christians '- These hostile prejudices, at which the student might smile, if the smile did not die away in his shudder at the hideous crop of hatred , oppression, and carnage, outlasted the ancient time and the middle ages, and will continue their mischievous work of retarding humanity and brotherly feeling, nay they may startle the civilized world again and again by sanguinary outbreaks of the populace, as long as the Jews cling to statutes which appear to them Divine, but which are nothing but the expression of the changeful customs of a distant age and a peculiar clime, and which, moreover, have been burdened and almost hidden by the rank over-growth of Rabbinical additions and misconcep tions. The Jews cannot persevere in an isolation which, in the ear lier centuries after their dispersion, was perhaps beneficial, because it enabled them to work out undisturbed the system of a pure faith, but which in our age of science and common enlightenment is sui- Dion Cass. XXXVII. 17 (xexcupiSa- xai Sc 6.r.'t xuiv Xomuiv dvtlpiuruuiv Is xe x' dXXa xd zepl xr)v Siaixav navi1}' ibs eiiteiv xxX.) ; Manetho, Apion, a. o. ap. Joseph. C. Ap., Plut. Symp. IV. v. 6 ; Is. c. 31 ; Juven. XIV. 96—106 (non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra co- lenti etc.) ; Cic. Pro Flacc. c. 28 (huic autem barbarae superstitioni resi- stere etc. ; in tarn suspiciosa ac male- dica civitate etc. ; istorum religio sa- crorum a . . . gravitate nominis no- stri, majorum institutis abhorrebat) ; Quinct. III. vn. 21 (est conditoribus urbium infame, contraxisse aliquam perniciosam caeteris gentem, qualis est primus Judaicae superstitionis auctor); Plin. XHI. 4 or 9 (gens con- tumelia -minimum insignis); Rutil. Numat. I. 383—398 (humanis animal dissociale cibis. Reddimus obscenae convicia debita genti. Radix stulti- tiae, cui frigida sabbata cordi, Sed cor frigidius religione sua est. Cae- tera mendacis deliramenta catastae etc.; adding almost prophetically, Latius excisae pestis contagia ser- punt, Victoresque suos natio victa premit); L. Ann. Seneca Fragm. 42, III. p. 427 ed. Haase (similar tcRu- tilius : quum interim usque eo scele- ratissimae gentis consuetudo conva- luit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta sit; victi victoribus leges dederunt); Sueton. Aug. 76 ; Tib. 36 (qui super- stitione ea tenebantur etc.); Apul. Florid. I. 6 (Judaeos superstitiosos) ; Amm. Marcell. XXII. 5 (foetentium Judaeorum et tumultuantium saepe taedio percitus, dolenter dicitur — M. Aurel. — ¦ exclamasse : 0 Marco- manni! o Quadi! o Sarma,tae! tan dem alios vobis inertiores inveni); see Comm.onExod.pp.XXV— XXXII; F>«?j/p.a is exemplified in the passages imme diately following, Matth. V. 21—48 ("You have heard that it was said by them of old time . . . But I say unto you etc."); and it is already alluded to in Jerem. XXXI. 31—34 ("I will put My Law into their inmost minds, and write it upon their hearts"), and this is the "New Covenant" (ma nam, ver. 31); comp. Matth. XXVI. 28, xo al(j.ax-f); SiaO^xfjs; Hebr. VHI. 13; comp. John IV. 23, "The hour comes and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Fathe r in spirit and in truth", 24, "God is a spirit etc."; 2 Cor. III. 6, "who also has made us able ministers of the new testament, not of the letter but of the spirit ; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life" ; and esp. Rom. HI. 31, "Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Law" (vop-ov loxdvor aev). Other acceptations of the term ixXTjpuiaat and of the whole verse see in Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. I. ni.5, vol.1. I 114 DIETARY LAWS. and, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven" i. And the early apostles never ceased to blame Paul for teaching, that the con verted gentiles were free from the burden of the Law2. John, as his "Reve lation" proves, knew no difference between Christianity and Judaism; he branded the least deviation from the old creed as an act of "the synagogue of Satan" 3; he was implacable against those more liberal converts who disre garded the Mosaic marriage-laws , and partook of the flesh of heathen, sa crifices ; he called them Nicolaitanes whose deeds he hated, Balaamites who cast stumbling blocks before the believers, or followers of Jezebel who would be mercilessly destroyed4. "When from first to last the doctrine of the Church at Jerusalem was sternly levitical, it is quite incredible that Jesus ever taught his disciples the religious nullity of levitical Ceremonies, and the equality of gentiles with Jews before God" 5. Long after the reported resurrection and ascension of Christ, Peter protested solemnly, "Nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth"6. Indeed, if Christ be considered as the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament and ex pected at his time, he can on no account be supposed to have repealed the Law, which itself declares to be unalterable for ever7. pp. 204—211 ; De Wettexaloo. ; Meyer, 1. c. pp. 3—8, 30, 31, 38—42, 69, 70, 76 sqq.,109sqq.,in sqq.,123sqq. Theview thus expressed and laboriously de fended by the latter writer, "Jesus is come in order to do perfectly, that is to realise, all that the Old Testament intended by its prophecies and by its types" (p. 1; comp. p. 137), is very commonly adopted; but it is against the context, against the language, and against the tenour of Christ's teaching. The passage in its literal and correct meaning was deemed so offensive that some, as Marcion, simply declared it a spurious addi tion (comp. Tertull. c. Marc. IV. 7, Hoc — Matth. V. 17 — Marcion ut additum erasit ; see Meyer, 1. c. pp. 77) ; nay Strauss also has recourse to the same desperate expedient (Leben Je su, pp. 212,213, "die anstossigen Verse — Matth. V. 18, 19 — geben sich gradezu als ein Einschiebsel zu er- kennen", adding another conjecture or assertion "nicht in den Text un- seres jetzigen Matthaeus, wohl aber in die Rede Jesu und vielleicht eine fruhere Aufzeichnung derselben"). i Matth. V. 19. 2 Comp. Zeller , Vortrage und Ab- handlungen geschichtlichen Inhalts, pp. 203 sqq., 228 sqq. 3 Revel. H. 9; HI. 9. 4 Revel. H. 6, 14, 15,20—24; comp. Zeller, 1. c. pp. 203, 214, 216. 5 Francis W. Newman , Against Hero-making in Religion, p. 11. On Luke XVI. 17 above quoted he ob serves (ibid. p. 12), "I am, of course, aware, that Christian theologians would have us believe that Luke is here defective, and that the words in Matthew 'Until all be fulfilled' mean 'Until my death shall fulfil all the types'; but this would make Jesus purposely to deceive his disciples by a riddle; ... he must have known how he was understood; they sup posed him to mean that Levitism was eternal , and he did not correct their impression." Comp. also Maximi Homiliae hyemales et aestivales, quoted by Friedreich, Zur Bibel, I. 232. 6 Acts X. 14; XI. 8; comp. infra. 7 In Gal. IV. 4, Christ is in fact called y^ou-cvos U7C° v6p.ov (comp. IX. THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CEREMONIAL LAW. 115 It is true, he appears occasionally to have opposed himself to ritual observances. When the scribes and Pharisees complained, that his disciples were transgressing the tradition of their forefathers 8 by not washing their hands before meals9, and by plucking ears of corn and rubbing out the grains with their hands on the Sabbath-day ">, he palliated this conduct by re proaching the Pharisees, in his turn, with a corruption of the Law, and he quoted what appeared to him apposite parallels taken from Hebrew history and the ordinary Temple practice, though the analogies are doubtful or imperfect U; and later, he himself openly neglected the same ceremonies t2. He spoke lightly of the dietary rules, which in his time had grown so luxu riantly in Judaism. "Not that", he urged, "which goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man" 13. This sentiment was incomprehensible to his disciples u; they considered it "a parable", which they desired to have explained; so far from their minds, nay so incredible appeared to them the idea of a total abolition of the levitical laws of food: but Christ reproached them with obtuseness'6, and furnished explicit illustrations to prove that evil thoughts and other moral offences "are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man" i6. And when he had acted on this view, and was censured by a Pharisee, he pointed out, how little it availed "to make clean the outside of the cup and platter", while "the inward part was full of ravening and wickedness"; and he gave expression to this fine maxim: "But rather give alms of such things as you have, and behold, all things are clean unto you" 17. He predicted to his followers that they were sure to suffer hatred and perse- 1 Cor. LX. 20). De Wette (on Matth. V. 17) remarks, "The question whe ther Christ intended to repeal the ri tual law, disappears under our hands if, as isj necessary, we understand both xaxaXusai and TtX-rjpuiiai in re ference to the spirit and not merely to the letter: according to the spirit, that is, for the ends of devotion, Chris tianity has in reality not abolished the ritual law of Mosaism, but has rendered it more perfect" ; and again (on Acts X. 13—16), "Christ did not repeal the ceremonial law rashly and arbitrarily, but left it to the pro gress of time to effect its removal." But these remarks beg the question, and are wanting in decision. Even ' orthodox Christians admit that "the disciples originally expected from the Messiah the observance of the Mo saic Law according to its letter", E. J. Meyer, 1. c. p. 17. 8 TiBv itpeaP'Jxepiov; comp. Hebr. XI. 2 ; not "elders" of the scribes or of the Sanhedrin. 9 Matth. XV. 1, 2; comp. Mark vn. 1—5. 10 Matth. XII. 1, 2 ; Mark II. 23, 24 ; Luke VI. 1, 2. 11 Matth. XH. 3—6; Mark H. 25, 26 ; Luke VI. 3, 4 ; also Matth. XXIH. 16—22. 12 Luke XI. 38 ; comp. XV. 2; Mark II. 16. 13 Matth.XV.ll ; comp. TWm. Shabb. 33b, '31 -j-aa ail nissm ni'isa 13 i3> S|K. " Comp. John XVI. 12 sqq. 15 Matth. XV. 16, 'Axp.-?]V xal up.eis dauvexoi eaxe. 10 See Matth. XV. 11—20. A simi lar want of yvwns on the part of the disciples appears with respect to the very nature and mission of Christ; see Comm. on Lev. I. p. 306 note 8; comp. also Luke XXIV. 25, 45 ; John H. 18—22; Acts I. 6, 7. 17 Luke XI. 37, 41 ; see p. 105; comp. 12 116 DIETARY LAWS. cution from the chiefs and rulers of the Synagogue, evidently on account of his more liberal doctrines '. Nay, laying stress upon the words of Hosea, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice" 2, pointing to his own Messianic work, and insisting, that his authority was greater than that of the Temple, he plainly declared that he was "the lord even of the Sabbath-day", and was entrusted with the power of altering or spiritualising its celebration, since, as he significantly added, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" 3 : therefore, he did not scruple to heal the sick oh that sacred day, to the great scandal of his opponents, and he justified his conduct by the axiom-like question, "Is it lawful to do good on the Sab bath day or to do evil? to save life or to kill?" 4. Yet with all this he never meant to attack the validity of the "Mosaic" Law; he merely denounced its extravagant expansion by alleged traditions, to which his disciples, like the rest of the Jews, clung tenaciously, and which the Rabbins surrounded even with greater sanctity than the written Law itself5. "Take heed", he warned them, "and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" 6; for "they bind heavy burdens and grie vous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders"7; while he declared, on the other hand, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light"8. He did not oppose the Hebrew Law, which he considered, at least partially, efficacious for righteousness9; but he rose against the rigour of the zealots i°, who had almost hidden its true meaning by casuistry and oppressive formalism. "You have made", he said to them reproachfully, "the commandment of God to no effect by your tradition" n ! Or if he opposed the Law, he did so merely because its narrow interpretation inevitably leads to sterile Pharisaism. He did not even impugn the ritual ordinances of the Pentateuch, because he seemed unwilling to endanger the force of the moral precepts with which they are coupled in the same code. In this respect, he differed little from the old Hebrew prophets , who insisted with fervour upon a religion of the heart, without thereby pronouncing rituals void or superfluous. "Woe unto you", he exclaimed, "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites I for you pay tithe and mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the Law, jugdment, mercy, and faith : these ought you to have done, and not Matth. VII. 12; XXH. 36—40; also 6 Matth. XVI. 6—12. Gal. V. 14; James II. 8. 7 Matth. XXIII. 2—4. i Matth. IX. 15; X. 16—23. 8 Matth. XI. 30; comp. 28, 29. 2 Hos. VI. 6 ; comp. Mark XII. 33, 9 Matth. XIX. 17— 21 ; LukeXVHI. xo dYairav xov itX-qaiov d>s eauxdv r.z- 20 — 22; Mark XH. 28 — 34; comp. ptcsuoxepov ka~i rcdvxiuv xuiv 6Xoxau- Luke XVHI. 9 — 14. xa)[j.dxu)v xal Ouatuiv. 1° Comp. Acts XXVI. 5, ¦x.a-za xt]V 3 Matth. XH. 6—8; Mark II. 27, dxpipeaxdx7]v a?peaiv . . . e'Cfjaa Oapi- 28; Luke VI. 5. aatos. 4 Matth. XII. 10—13; Mark HI. n Matth. XV. 3—6; comp. XXHI. 1 — 5; Luke VI. 7 — 10; comp. also 16—19. The objections thathave been John V. 9, 16, 18; VII. 23; IX. 16; raised against this view, however Luke V. 33; XIII. 14; XIV. 3, 4; Acts dogmatically or speciously urged VI. 14; Matth. IX, 10—13; XI. 11. (comp. Meyer 1. o. pp. 86—109), are 5 See p. 38. not conclusive. IX. THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CEREMONIAL LAW. 117 to leave the other undone" '2. These words precisely describe the position he occupied in reference to the Law is. Indeed, the earlier Karaites, as Anan, considered Jesus "as a true prophet for the heathens, and » wise teacher of the Law for the Jews", since to the former he preached the revealed Word, and the latter he tried to convince of the distortions which the Scrip tures had suffered through arbitrary interpretations i 4. By stating, in reply to a captious question, that "all the Law and the prophets hang" on the two commandments of loving God with all our power and of loving our neigh bour as ourselvesi5, he merely imitated a favourite device of Jewish doctors, whose ingenuity delighted in deducing the varied precepts of the Law from a few verses of the Bible. "The 613 laws", teaches the Talmud48, "were com municated to Moses, viz. 365 prohibitions or as many as the days of the solar year , and 248 commands or as many as the members of the human body ; then came David and comprised them in eleven precepts ]7 , later Isaiah in sixis, Micah in three!9, and finally Amos 20 and Habakkuk in one2i. And in propounding the maxim, "All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them, for this is the Law and the pro- phets"22, he merely repeated, in a positive form-, what Hillel, in negative terms, is said to have answered the heathen who desired to learn the whole Law in one sentence : "Whatsoever is hateful to thee, that do not thou to thy neighbour; this is the whole Law, the rest is only its interpretation; now go and learn" 23. Yet who would assert that Hillel and the Talmudists re pealed the ceremonial law, or considered it unimportant ? At first Christ desired his disciples not to preach to the Gentiles and Samaritans, but "rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" u, though later, after his resurrection, he is related to have commanded them to go forth to instruct and to baptize "all nations" and "the uttermost part of the earth"25. In the Sermon on the Mount, he had no other object but to con trast the teaching of the Pentateuch in its spiritual conception with the unprofitable and graceless adherence to the letter, which must lead to the danger of exchanging Divine doctrines for "the commandments" or "tradition of men" 26. But he was far from questioning the "Mosaic" teaching itself. In 12 Matth. XXIII. 23; comp. vers. 20 _4_m_ y. 4j "Seek Me and you 25—28 ; Luke XI. 42. shall live."| is See Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 52—55. 21 Hab. II. 4, "The just shall live by 14 Comp. Fiirst, Karaerthum, I. 42. kis faith." 15 Matth. XXII. 34-40; Mark XII. 22Matth.VII.12; comp. Luke VI.31. 28— 34; comp. Rom. XIII. 8— 10; Gal. „,,„.» . j. „ , ' ' „„,„.,. 23 Tahn. Shabb. 31a, ^pani 130 n>i V. 14; VI. 2; Jam. II. 8; 1 Tim. I. 5. ' ' ia Waccoth 23b, 24'. * ™ *h\ C°mp- alS° AMh R'MJh' it Ps. XV, "He that walks upright- «>¦ 15' 16' * ^ *" ™™ MS' See . , ... * notes on XIX. 18. ly, and works righteousness and speaks the truth in his heart", etc. 24 Matth. X. 6 , 7, see John IV. 22 ; is Isai. XXXIII. 15. comp., however, vers. 4 sqq.; Matth. - 19 Mic VI. 8, "What does the Lord X. 23. require of thee, butto actjustly, and 25 Matth. XXVIIL 19; XXIV. 14; to love mercy, and to walk humbly Acts I. 8. with thv God?" 26 Matth. XV, 9 : Luke Vn. 7 (Iv- 118 DIETARY LAWS. substituting for the old law, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", the doctrine, "If anyone will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also", he must have been aware that he was transferring a statute of a criminal code to the sphere of personal ethics, and that he was thus enabled to alter its spirit1. In denouncing divorce except in cases of faithlessness2, he did not annul the lawof the Pentateuch which was framedin deference to "the hardness of heart" of the Hebrews, but he virtually repeated it, since the Pentateuch also permitted divorce only if the husband had found in his wife "some uncleanness" (131 mis'), that is, unchastity3; but he combated the prevailing doctrines which allowed divorce on many other and even trivial grounds 4; and in support of his appeal he aptly quoted the words, "Therefore shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they both shall be one flesh" 5. And his recommendation not to swear at all does not contradict the previous injunction, that, if oaths are resorted to, they should be scrupulously just 6. He mainly desired to warn xaXpiaxa avftpoiuuiv), 8(itapd6o(3is xuiv dvftpuiitu)v). i As regards the injunction, "Who soever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matth. V. 39; Luke VI. 29), it could not easily be acted upon even by Christ or St. Paul ; comp. John XVIH. 22, 23 ; Acts XXni.3; see also Matth. XXI.19. 2 Matth. XIX. 3— 9; Deut.XXIV.l. 3 Deuter. loc. cit. 4 For instance, "if the wife but spoils her husband's meal by cooking or salting it too much" (nmipn liiss liiasn), Mishn. GittinlX. 10 : so taught Hillel and his school , and so Talmu- dism finally decided; while the school of Shammai, in this point more le nient, admitted faithlessness as the only valid reason for divorce ; nor is it likely that the Hillelites ever act ed on their objectional view, which resulted from an exegetical error (stress being laid on 131 rather than on niis>); comp. Talm. Gittin 90a, "whoever dismisses his first wife, over him even the altar sheds tears." 5 Questionable, therefore, is the re mark of Strauss in connection with this subject: "Christus hatte das mo- saische Gesetz auch fiber seinen ri- tuellen Theil hinaus in seinen das sittliche Zusammenleben der Men- schen betreffenden Bestimmungen fiirperfectibel,mithinfurunvollkom-men erklart" (Leben Jesu, p. 211 ; comp. in general pp. 209 — 217). 6 Matth. V. 33—42. There are some passages which might appear to have some weight, but are unavail able for our argument on account of their indistinctness ; for instance, the abrupt and almost fragmentary words in Luke XVI. 16, 6 vop-os xal ol upo- tpf]xai p-expi'Iuidwou-, duo xoxe -?] pa- ciXeia xou Oeou euaYYeX££exai xxX.; which seem to be reminiscences from Matth. XI. 12, 13 (see De Wette in loc); or Christ's figurative remarks thatit would be inappropriate for his followers to fast, in contrast to the Pharisees and the disciples of John (Matth. LX. 14—17); or his obscure declaration, differently interpreted in the New Testament itself, "that he was able to destroy the Temple of God, and to build it in three days" (Matth. XXVI. 61; Mark XIV. 58; John II. 19-22; Acts VI. 14): yet Strauss (1. c. p. 214) and others sup pose these and similar expressions to prove that Christ considered it unfeasible to harmonize the old ce remonial system with those princi ples of an internal religion which he desired to enforce. Again, it is im- IX. THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CEREMONIAL LAW. 119 his disciples, that, unless their righteousness surpassed that of the scribes and Pharisees, they would have no share in the kingdom of heaven7. In pursuing this end, he was so far carried away by his zeal as to state what, in itself, is not true, viz., "You have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour8, and hate thy enemy" 9; these last words do not occur in the Pentateuch, nor in any other part of the Hebrew Canon, and are absolutely against its spirit i"; but he boldly added them, evidently because the Pharisees , taking the term "thy neighbour" (~»ii) in the sense of "thy friend", were inclined to conclude, by the rule of the contrary, that it was right to hate the enemy, especially apostates and heathens, the detested foes and snares of the Jewish faith u. In a word, Christ preached no antagonism to the Law; nay so anxiously watchful was he for its stability that, in order to protect it, he partially •conquered the antipathy he felt against the exaggerations of tradition, and exhorted his disciples, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all, therefore, whatever they bid you observe, that observe and do" 12. At first, Christianity meant belief in Jesus as the long promised and im patiently expected Messiah, and nothing else; it required from its followers possible to draw any reliable infer ence from the facts, -that the Evan gelists mention no sacrifices on the part of Christ, nor allude to his having performed the regular pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and that he expelled the money-changers and cattle-dealers from the Court of the Temple (Matth. XXI. 12, 13; Mark XI. 15—17; Luke XIX. 45, 46; John II. 13—17); the argumentum ex silentio, precarious in any case, can least be employed with respect to narratives so incom plete as those of the Evangelists; and the expulsion of the money changers and others may have been prompted by his knowledge or suspi cion of fraudulent transactions; he may indeed have deemed these trans actions unbecoming for the House of God, and therefore been anxious to remove them from its precincts altogether ; yet we are not forced to admitthatthis involves a repugnance to the sacrificial service (as Strauss infers 1. c. pp. 214, 215). 7 Matth. V. 20; comp. Meyer 1. c. pp. 62 sqq. 8 Having probably in his mind the words of Leviticus (XIX. 18), "Thou shalt love thy neighbour (-?ii) as thyself." 9 Matth. V. 43. i° Comp. Lev. XIX. 17 ; Exod. XXIII. 4, 5; also Prov. XXIV. 17, 18; XXV. 21, 22; Ps. VH. 5, 6; XXXV. 12, 13; XXXVHI. 21; CXLI. 5, etc.; see Comm. on Exod. p. 444, and notes on Lev. XIX. 17,18. "Die Feindesliebe", observes Hupfeld (Psalmen, IV. 432), "ist dem Alten Testamente keines- wegs so fremd, wie es nach einem bekannten freien Citate des Heilan- des scheinenkonnte." The authorised English Version gives in the margin as alleged parallels to the words "thou shalt hate thy enemy", the passages Deut. XXIH. 6, and Ps. XLL 10: it is very difficult to see how these pas sages teach hatred of the enemy. n Comp. Lightfoot, Op. II. 295; Schottgen, Horae Hebraicae, pp. 42 — 45 (where, however, many of the ana logies adduced from Rabbinical wri ters are uncertain and insufficient). 12 Matth. XXIII. 2, 3. Comp. also Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschr. VI. 251 sqq., "bei der ursprunglichen Entstehung des Christenthums hat kein ausser- judisches Element mitgewirkt." 120 DIETARY LAWS. baptism with that acknowledgment, and nothing more; and it established no distinctions from the old creed. Nay, even after Paul had uttered those great and world-reforming maxims, by which he hoped to reach and to- unite the whole human family, "The Law was our schoolmaster (iraiSa- Yidyos), but we are no longer under a schoolmaster"; "By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified"; "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; against . such there is no Law" ; "There is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean . . . The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the- Holy Ghost" i : even after Paul had pronounced these and similar truths drawn from the depths of the human soul, obstinate efforts, well reflected in the Acts of the Apostles, were made to conceal and to interpret away his aversion to ceremonialism — efforts invalidated by every sentence in his au thentic writings2. And during centuries afterwards, the Church adhered al most fanatically to some of the dietary precepts, especially those concerning blood3; for it felt the necessity of guarding large sections of Christians against a relapse into common or Gnostic paganism4. For a long time, Paul stood nearly alone in his struggles for a purely spiritual faith. Peter indeed had a dawning conviction of the worthlessness of the Jewish laws of diet, and he expressed it by a vision, in which, as he described it, he- saw a large vessel descending from the opened heaven, and filled with "all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts and creeping things, and fowls of the air"; then a voice called to him, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat"; but he answered, "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean"; and the heavenly voice spoke again, "What God has cleansed, that call not thou common"; and when these speeches had been thrice repeated, the vessel was received again into heaven5 : this vision was designed to overthrow the deep-rooted distinction between clean and unclean persons, or between Jews and Gentiles 6, and that between clean and unclean food , which involved one of the chief points of contrast which separated the Hebrew and the heathen7. But Peter was wavering; he was deficient in courage and consistency ;' in public, and before adherents of the Law , such as the followers of James in Jerusalem, he was afraid to be seen sharing the meals of heathen converts ; like Barnabas , he dissembled , and stooped to questionable compromises, which more than counterbalanced the feeble effects of his teaching8. To St. Paul, who severely castigated such i Comp. Rom. HI. 20 ; VI. 14 ; VH. 6 ; XXIV. 11, 17; XXV. 8; see Zeller, 4, 6; VHI. 2 sqq.; XIII. 8—10; XIV. 1. c. pp. 208—210; Apostelgeschichte 14—23; Galat. II. 4, 16, 19; in. 11— (Stuttg. 1854) pp. 297 sqq., 320 sqq. 13, 19—25; IV. 1 sqq., 9; V. 1, 18, 3 See supra pp. 8, 9. 22, 23 ; 1 Cor. VH. 19 ; VIII. 8 ; 2 Cor. 4 Comp. Leyrer in Herzog's Real- IH. 6 sqq. ; Ephes. II. 15 ; Col. II. 14, Enc. XIV. 610. 16; 1 Tim. IV. 1—4; see also Hebr. 5 a,,.,,-*- q 1c vt c .. -b-ttt r, t i -v-trr ,„ T. T 5 Acts X. 9— 16 comp. XI. 5 — 10. XHJ. 9; Luke XVI. 16; John I. 17; e Acts XV. 10; XVIII. 13-15; XXIII. ' 0omP- Acts X 28 ' **¦ 18- 29 ; P orphyr. Abstin. I. 42 ; see p. 105. 7 See also A°ts XV. 7—11, esp. 2 Comp. Acts XVI. 3 ; XVHI. 18,21 ; ver- 10- XIX.21;XX.16;XXI.20^.;XXHI. 8 Gal. H. 11-16, "I withstood IX. THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CEREMONIAL LAW. 121 faintheartedness and evasion, who made Jews and Gentiles alike partake of the Messianic salvation9, who declared the religion of Christ not to be the completion of the old faith, but an essentially new one, and for this purpose even spiritualised the doctrines of Christ, attributing to him, with unequalled self-denial, what was his own original creation i°; to St. Paul, though wisely inclined to consider the external forms as things indifferent in themselves i " , the Christian world owes mainly its release from the chains of the dietary precepts and of ceremonialism in general!2. Indeed his teach ing, confirming and enlarging that of an Isaiah and Micah, might be hailed as the corner-stone of a universal creed, had he not, in the fervour of his enthusiasm, unwarrantably idealised Christ's person, nature, and mission also43, and thereby given rise to a perversion of his own rational principles , and to a partial relapse into paganism. Peter to the face because he was to be blamed, etc."j 9 Ephes. H. 11—13; Rom. IH. 29, 30; etc.1 1 1° Comp. Gal.1. 12,16 ; Col.H.14; etc. n Rom. XIV; comp. 1 Cor. VIH. 8. 12 The accommodation advised by him with respect toeatingmeat of sa crifices offered toidols (1 Cor.VHI.l — 13), was suggested by a judicious re gard for the weak , and involved no abandonment of principle ; see Comm. on Lev. I. p. 214; similarly IX. 19 — 23; Rom. XIV; comp. also Matth. XIX. 8. is Comp. 1 Cor. VHI. 6 ; Rom. HI. 22—26; V. 6 sqq.; XIV. 9, 10; Gal. IV. 4, 5. TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY. CHAPTEK XI. Summary. — ¦ On clean and unclean animals. God permits for food, as clean animals (lino) , among quadrupeds , the ruminants with cloven feet (bi- sulca ruminantia), excluding those which, according to notions prevalent among the ancient Hebrews , are either only ruminants or only bisul. cous, as the camel, the rock-badger (]Ba), the hare, and the swine (vers. 1 — 7); among fishes, those provided with fins and scales (ver. 9); among birds, all except twenty tribes individually enumerated (vers. 13—19); and among insects (f|is»n -pa) those furnished with springing legs, of which four kinds of locusts are specified (vers. 21, 22). All the other animals of land, water, and air are "unclean" (satt, vers. 5 — 8, 26 — 29, 31) or "an abomination" (fpa, vers. 10 — 14, 20, 23, 41, 42); their flesh is not to be eaten, nor their carcass (ni??) to be touched (vers. 8, 11, 26, 31, 36, 39, 43); whoever does the latter becomes unclean, and remains so till the evening (vers. 24, 26 , 31, 39, 40, 43), and whoever carries their carcass or any part of it, must, besides, wash his garments (vers. 25, 28). Among the lower land animals eight species are singled out as parti cularly defiling, viz. the weasel (lih), the mouse (i3ss>), and six kinds of lizards (ss, ngss, n>, nsiA, Ban, and naa?n); their dead bodies render unclean not only the persons who touch them (ver. 31), but also the objects upon which they accidentally fall, such as utensils of wood or metal, garments or skins, which require cleansing by being left in water till the evening (ver. 32) ; if any part of their carcass falls into an earthen vessel, the contents of the latter become unclean, and the vessel itself must be broken (ver. 33), like ovens and stoves under similar circumstances (ver. 35) ; all food prepared with water and put into such earthen vessel is unclean ; so also any beverage poured into such vessel, whatever its material (ver. 34); but wells and water pits into which such carcass has fallen, remain clean, though the carcass itself preserves its defiling impurity (ver. 36); clean also remains seed, if dry, but if moistened it becomes unclean (vers. 37, 38). — The touch of the carcass of a clean or permitted animal that has died of itself, renders unclean till the evening; carrying it, or eating of its flesh re quires, moreover, washing of garments (vers. 39, 40). — Reptiles and worms, abominable and polluting, must be shunned as food unsuited for the chosen and holy people of a holy God (vers. 41—45). — A com prehensive formula, referring to- the laws of clean and unclean animals, terminates the section (vers. 46, 47). LEVITICUS XI. 1. 123 1. And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron saying to them, 1. The first portion of Leviticus sets forth the principal statutes con cerning sacrifices, andinnatural con nection with them describes the con secration of the Sanctuary and of the priesthood. We now enter upon the second great division of the Book, the laws of purity (ch. XI — XV). When the "kingdom of priests", as ideally conceived by the author, had been provided with the means of pub lic worship and atonement, they were to be instructed how to attain and to preserve personal holiness, and how to strengthen holiness by purity. An atmosphere of religion was to sur round every relation of practical life. Therefore, the laws of purity follow here in their appropriate place. To indicate the continuity of the narra tive, the commands are addressed not to Moses only, but to Aaron also : the latter, as the appointed represen tative of the sacerdotal order, was principally concerned in the ordinan ces of purity ; both he and the com mon priests were to be unstained when they entered the Sanctuary to perform their sacred duties, or when they were eatingthe sacrificial meals ; it was their special duty to instruct the Israelites in the distinction be tween things clean and unclean (X. 10, 11); and they had to officiate at the offerings of expiation in cases of undesigned defilement (V. 2, 3). These are reasons enough, why the laws of sacrifice and priesthood should be supplemented by those of purity. Moreover, the arrangement of the details is, in this division, decidedly more regular than both in the pre ceding and following sections; in deed, with a few exceptions, it is sys tematic; it begins with purity in diet, advances to precepts on purity of persons, garments, and houses, and treats of these subjects in intelligible and judicious subdivisions (comp. Part I. pp. XV. XVI. XXH). We lay no stress on the circumstance, that in the laws of sacrifice already allu sion is made to "a carcass of an un clean beast, a carcass of unclean cattle, and the carcass of unclean reptiles" ; and in general to "unclean things" and "the uncleanness of men, whatever their uncleanness may be wherewith a man defiles himself" (V. 2, 3; VII. 19—21): for anticipa tions of this kind must be expected, and could perhaps not easily be avoided, in so complex a code. We are, therefore, justified in supposing, that the whole of this portion was brought into its present order by the same compiler. However, it would be hasty to conclude, that it was entirely written by the same author ; on the contrary, a careful analysis of its component parts reveals striking dif ferences of age and conception, and proves, in these as in all other reli gious precepts, a gradual progress from simplicity to intricate ritualism. The laws of diet fitly stand first. If the Israelite was, through purity, to be holy because his God is holy, nothing was more important than to regulate the food he takes and blends with his body ; for the body, the de pository of the Divine image of the soul, and reacting upon it, was deemed sacred; it was not to be mutilated or wantonly disfigured ; muchless was it to be profaned by its amalgamation with detestable nourishment. In this respect, the dietary laws have even a greater force than the ancient Hebrews probably ever imagined. For it is at present known that, by a constant chanpre of matter carried on 124 LEVITICUS XI. 1. in the human organism, "man is not merely a creature that consumes food, but he himself — with his skin and hair, his bones and brain, his flesh and blood — is nothing else but his own consumed and metamor phosed food". Precepts relating to various kinds of food, as fat and blood, ni33 and nsita, are, in a desul tory manner, scattered throughout the Pentateuch, especially the middle Books ; but the ordinances on clean and unclean animals are here at once given fully and systematically ; they comprise nearly everything that the Hebrew law ever fixed on the subject ; and they leave but little doubt re specting their object and character. They follow, in general, the classifi cation of the animal kingdom usual among Biblical writers (see p. 50); for, beginning with quadrupeds, they proceed to fishes, then pass to birds, and conclude with the "creeping things" (yia). Yet they cannot con ceal the traces of considerable addi tions inserted at different periods. Let us take the corresponding pre cepts of Deuteronomy as a basis of comparison (Deut.XIV. 3—21). Pre mising the general principle, "Thou shalt not eat any abominable things", the Deuteronomist enumerates ten species of clean quadrupeds and states their criteria; he next describes the characteristics of clean fishes ; advancing to birds, he permits "all clean birds", and specifies twenty- one unclean or prohibited kinds ; he then unreservedly proscribes "every creeping thing that flies" (qwn yia), that is, all winged insects ; and he finally forbids the flesh of animals that died of themselves (niaa), and seething the kid in its mother's milk, which , like the other commands, is introduced by him merely as a diet ary regulation. If these comparative ly simple injunctions are read by the side of our present section, it will be found, that the author of Leviti cus indeed retained the outlines of the earlier work, but that he materi ally enlarged, and in some respects completelymodifledthem.(l.) In adr dition to unclean fishes, "the moving things" of the water (ww yia), in cluding especially the Crustacea, are pointed out as an abomination (ver. 10). — (2.)Of the winged insects, those with springing legs, or certain spe cies of locusts, are expressly declared clean, and permitted for food (vers. 21, 22). — (3.) Among "the creeping things that creep upon the earth", the Reptiles, Spiders, and Worms are spe cially dilated upon as detestable, and then all "the creeping things" in ge neral are similarly denounced (vers. 41 — 43). — (4.) Among the inferior ha bitants of the land, eight species are signalized as pre-eminently unclean, and guarded against in a manner un precedented for scrupulous minute ness (vers. 29 — 38, see Summary). — (5.) Above all, the "uncleanness" which results from eating, carrying, or touching any part of the carcassof a forbidden animal, and the lustra tions required to re-establish a con dition of purity, are stated and in sisted upon with an emphatic ear nestness which strongly contrasts with the wording and the spirit of former enactments (vers. 8, 11, 24, 26 — 28, 31 sqq., 39, 40, 43—45). — (6.) Hence commands are inserted with regard to the flesh of lawful animals that died of themselves (niaa), but they are meant less as laws of diet than as rules of purity, since they refer not merely to eating, but also to carrying and touching such meat (vers. 39 , 40). — (7.) The context is, in one instance, illogically interrupted by additional injunctions of purity concerning the carcass of the great land animals, which had, LEVITICUS XI. 1. 125 indeed been treated of before, but as it seemed to the reviser, not with suf ficient fulness and rigour (vers. 26 — 28; comp. ver. 8).— (8.) In another in stance, with respect to unclean fishes, an almost intolerable tautology is resorted to, reiteration being sup posed to add force (vers. 10 — 12). We are, therefore, compelled to conclude, that some original ordinan ces on permitted and forbidden food, probably those preserved in Deute ronomy, were by the subsequent com- ptters of the more stringent code of Leviticus supplemented and altered with a view of their closer associa tion with the laws of purity, and their more complete union with the levi tical system. Indeed the component parts of our section are so trans parent , that they may not only be pointed out with safety, but be ar ranged in chronological order so as to exhibit at a glance the gradual growth of the principles which gave rise to the laws of diet. Philological Remarks. — ¦ Fol lowing out the preceding suggestions, we may thus analyse our chapter, and describe its individual parts. (1.) It begins with the older precepts concerning quadrupeds, fishes, birds, and insects (s]Wn yia), vers. 2-20: so far the dietary ordinances are carried in Deuteronomy also, and agree substantially with those of Leviticus; but the latter, now en tirely abandoning, or rather passing beyond, the earlier source, first en larges upon the class of animals treated of last, the insects, and adds (2.) a supplementary rule in fa vour of edible locusts, vers. 21, 22; yet (3.) prohibits with enhanced se verity aU other insects as defiling, and prescribes careful lustrations, in case they are touched or carried, yers. 23-25. (4.) As now the aspect of purity was to be more strongly ur ged, besides that of diet, additional commands are inserted with regard to the carcasses of unclean quadru peds (nana), vers. 26-28. Then fol lows (5.) a series of regulations con cerning a number of lower animals held particularly unclean , vers. 29- 38, regulations so intricate and al most playful, that their spirit and very late origin cannot be mistaken. Moreover, (6.) distinct injunctions were deemed requisite on the pollut ing effect of the dead bodies of clean quadrupeds,vers. 39,40; andlastly(7.), as until then the insects alone (yia S)ls>n)had been mentioned of all"creep- ing things" {yia), the other classes also, especially the hated reptiles and the Crustacea, the spiders and worms (yisn is> yian yia) were expressly proscribed and denounced; and it was chiefly with respect to these most abhorred and most repulsive creatures, that the ideas of defile ment and of holiness were forcibly dwelt upon, vers. 41-45; after which a comprehensive statement of the object of the section brings it to » proper conclusion, vers. 46, 47. — A logical arrangement of the contents would yield the following order of the verses : (1.) The laws on clean and unclean quadrupeds, vers. 2-8, 26-28, 39, 40. (2.) On fishes and birds, insects, and other "creeping things", vers. 9- 25, 29-38 , 41-47. It is, hence, prob able that the first portion (vers. 2-20) was concluded, and perhaps diffused, when the remarks on the defilement of unclean quadrupeds were added (vers. 26-28), for else the latter would no doubt have been inserted after the 8th verse; and that then the injunctions were again carried on to ver. 38, for else the two fol lowing verses (39 and 40), treating of quadrupeds and interrupting the laws on creeping things, would prob ably have been placed after the 126 LEVITICUS XI. 1. 28th verse. The former circumstance especially affords a welcome corro boration of the view which internal reasons have induced us to form, that the corresponding section of Deuteronomy (XIV. 4-21), mainly coinciding with the first portion of our chapter (vers. 2-20), constituted the groundwork of the levitical legislation on diet. — All attempts at reconciling the discrepancies pointed out are necessarily unavailing, ex cept upon the principle of historical development. Ewald, assuming ori ginal harmony and logic in the ar rangement, simply believes that "the words vers. 26-28 must be considered as transposed, and ought to receive their former place after the 8tlx verse" (Alterth. p. 206 note 1) : but trans position alone , as has been proved, does not suffice to explain the pecu liar composition of our chapter. Knobel (Comm. pp. 439, 461) sup poses that "the Deuteronomist omit ted the enactments with respect to the most unclean creeping things (vers. 29-38), because a prohibition regarding them appeared no longer necessary in his advanced time" : but the Deuteronomist had, according to the common view, which is shared by Knobel, no other object but to recapi tulate and epitomise the legislation of the preceding Books ; he could, there- fore,make no arbitrary selection from his given materials; he would cer tainly not have suppressed ordin ances so remarkable as those con tained in the verses alluded to, had he found them in his sources, that is, had the Book of Leviticus in our present form been before him; for he would surely "in his advanced time" not have deemed superfluous those complicated rules about defile ment which bespeak not a rude but a very cultivated stage of religious life, and which were subsequently made the basis of even more intri cate regulations : nor can the prohi bition of certain reptiles, which were evidently eaten by surrounding na tions, have appeared too elementary to a writer who found it necessary to inveigh against every form of idolatry, from the worship of the heavenly orbs to the burning of chil dren to Moloch, against sorcery, divi nation, and witchcraft, and against every kind of unnatural abuse (comp. Deut. XII. 29 — 31; XTH. 7 — 18; XVH. 2—7; XVin. 9—14; XX. 18; XXni. 18, 19 ; XXVH. 15, 16, 20, 21). The verses under discussion are a de liberate addition of a levitical com piler writing considerably later than the Deuteronomist : as such alone can their wording and their spirit be understood and accounted for. But even the levitical compiler felt that he was powerless to abrogate, by an abstract command, habits rooted in the life of the nation; he was, therefore, induced to legalise the custom of eating various kinds of locusts ; and adding this permission to the laws of Deuteronomy, he en deavoured to invest it with the ap pearance of intrinsic justification by pointing out distinguishing cha racteristics of those insects (see p. 100). That the custom existed al ready in the time of the Deuterono mist, needs not be questioned; but if we read his positive and unqua lified precept, "Every creeping thing that flies is unclean to you, they shall not be eaten" (ib., ver. 19), supposing that he thereby alluded to insects, we may well ask whether he did not deem it feasible to uphold this rule in its uncompromising strictness, and to exclude from the food of the Hebrews those winged devastators, upon which he could only look with feelings of aversion and dismay (see, however, on vers. 20-25). The later LEVITICUS XI. 1. 127 levitical legislator, finding the at tempt a failure , and possibly appre hensive that the unchecked trans gression of the Law in one particular might injure its authority in general, preferred adapting it to the stub born exigency of facts, the more so, as he must have been reluctant to limit the dietary resources of the re established and not very prosperous commonwealth. A similar abandon ment of an ideal principle in favour of practical considerations has been pointed out in another place (see Comm. on Lev. I. p. 42). From these remarks it will be evident, how un founded is the view that the edible species of locusts are not alluded to in Deuteronomy on account of its "epitomising brevity" (Riehm, Ge- setzgebung Mosis , p. 56; also Stud. und Krit. 1868 p. 359), and because "Moses did not intend to repeat every detail of the laws previously given" (Keil, Comm. on Lev. p. 80) — and yet Deuteronomy unnecessarily gives a specified list of the clean quadrupeds (see infra on vers. 2-8; comp. also Graf, Geschichtl. Biich. des A. T. p. 66) ; or because the matter did not appear "sufficiently important" (Riehm, Stud, und Krit. 1868, p. 360) — whereas the permis sion of locusts as food is a surprising deviation from a fundamental and very significant rule (see infra on vers. 20-25). It will suffice to point out the subterfuge prompted by apo logetic perplexity, that Leviticus was written in the desert, where the locusts were indispensable to the Israelites as food, but Deuteronomy immediately before the conquest of Canaan, when those insects began to lose their importance for the im migrants (Schultz, Deuterpn. pp. 83, 430 ; comp. Ewald, Alterth. p. 207) — as if the laws of the Pentateuch were intended for times of transition, and the contingency of eating locusts in Palestine was impossible. And we may passingly mention the strange conceit that, as the insects share the curse of the earth to which they are mainly, tied, they were to be mani festly subjected to man's dominion (Baumgarten, Comm. II. 157) — as if dominion is manifested by con sumption only, and that idea could not have occurred to the Deuterono mist as well as to the writer of Le viticus (comp. also 1. u. pp. 157, 158, offering a most specious and unten able analysis of the second part of our chapter, from ver. 24). While a preceding command is ad dressed to Aaron only (X. 8 — 11), because it concerns the priests ex clusively, the injunctions relating to clean and unclean animals are fitly communicated both to Aaron and Moses. It is both unnecessary and inadmissible to explain the first words of the chapter, "And the Lord spoke toMoses that he should say to Aaron" (Rashi on I. 1, a. o.); and it is futile to interpret the last words of the first verse (anis lasi), "that Aaron should say to his sonsEleazar andlthamar", mentioned immediately before (X. 12 sqq.): onis, though not necessary after lasi, is its natural complement, "saying to them." — anis is written defectively for oniis as in I. 2 ; Num. XIV. 28 (see Grammar H. § XXX. 5b). — The construction lasi . . . laiil re quires no explanation in this place (see Gram. § 1. 98. 5). It is difficult to see that the combination lasi las is more languid or redundant than 131 lasi , that it cannot be supposed in the earlier and fresher stages of the Hebrew language, and that, there fore , all the passages of the Penta teuch in which it occurs (Gen. XXXI. 29; XLH. 22; XLIH. 3; XL VII. 5; Ex. VII. 8; etc. etc.) are suspicious as later and spurious interpolations, 128 LEVITICUS XI. 2—8. 2. Speak to the children of Israel saying, These are the animals which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3. Whatsoever is hoofed and is or require the suppression of lasi (comp. Geiger, Jfid. Zeitschr. IV. 27 — ¦ 35; V. 188, 189; VI. 159); the artifi cial interpretations which this view, carried out in detail, renders neces sary, are little calculated to recom mend it; breadth of expression is not unnatural in a primitive style ; though the Pentateuch contains portions and additions of a very advanced period, the phrase lasi las cannot be em ployed as a decisive, it can hardly be adduced as a collateral, criterion of an interpolation ; and it does not oc cur a single time in the Book of Le viticus, which embodies the latest revisions of the Pentateuch. 2 — 8. The law commences with the quadrupeds or greatland-animals, whether of the domesticated or wild kinds (nans or n~n). It is content with giving the general rule for the permitted classes, and illustrating the prohibited species by a. few ex amples. It does not, like theDeutero- nomist (XIV. 4, 5), enumerate the for mer. This difference leads to a most interesting trace of the gradual ex pansion of the dietary precepts. Deu teronomy begins with stating the lawful kinds of quadrupeds, evidently attempting completeness, and then proceeds to deduce from the indivi dual instances the general rule : our s ection dispenses with the detail,gives at once the general rule, but scru pulously explains it by several ex amples, in order to prevent any pos sible mistake. To the earlier writer the general rule is new, to the later author it is familiar. The former is more empirical, the latter is obvious ly more practised in speculative ab straction. Nay, in Deuteronomy, the general rule (ver. 6) is so little in its place that it might almost be sus pected as a subsequent insertion : for why was it necessary elaborately to enumerate all the clean quadrupeds, and yet to add, "every beast that is hoofed and has a two-cleft foot, and chews the cud, that you may eat"? The specificationrenders the rule su perfluous, and the rule throws doubt on the completeness of the specifica tion; both together are perplexing; either the one or the other would be sufficient. The levitical writer, more experienced and more circumspect, foregoes the detail ; but so far from imperiling by this omission the spi rit of his enactment, he preserves and protects it more effectually; for the ten names in Deuteronomy do not exhaust the quadrupeds legalised by the rule; they are simply the most common instances ; they are not meant to exclude the various kindred species which are or may be known (comp. Maim. De Cib. vet. I. 8, 12). Moreover, the meaning of some of the Hebrew names is doubtful, of others it is obscure beyond the hope of identification. This applies in a still higher degree to the birds and the lower animals mentioned in a sub sequent part of the chapter : the ety mology is in many cases effaced or leads to no decided result ; in the kin dred dialects only a few of the words occur; and the ancient versions, of ten guessing rather than translating, of fer little assistance. Who, then, can be surprised, that Jewish tradition, help less and bewildered, took refuge in the view that God seized specimens of every kind of animals, and as He pointed them out to Moses, said, LEVITICUS XI. 2—8. 129 cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eat. 4. Yet these you must not eat of those that chew the cud, and of those that divide the "This youmay eat, and this youmust not eat"; or, according to another conception, He permitted Moses to see them in revolving fire at the foot of His throne, and then the lawgiver, de scending to the earth, caught animals of every species, and showed them to the Israelites , not only the great land-animals, "but also every single kind of the creeping things of the water, and every bird and insect and reptile" — and all this in the sandy and lifeless desert of Sinai, solely on the strength of the words, "These are the beasts" (n"nnnst)! (Siphra 47bed. Schlossb.; Talm. Menach. 29a; Rashi in loc. ; comp. p. 23). But the appre hensions of later Judaism, which suggested this monstrous view, were gratuitous. The general character of the unlawful animals was clear from the undoubted species and from the criteria stated ; a mistake was scarcely possible, and even uncertainty could not often arise : indeed the Jewish practice never wavered ; if it admit ted, for instance, the goose as lawful food, it acted doubtless in accordance with the spirit of the Biblical law, whatever fancied objections may be urged against that bird (e. g. by Mi chaelis on Lev. XI. p. 150). "Clean" animals are indeed those permitted, "unclean" those prohi bited, by the Law ; but the words are not convertible; they are used as par allel, but not as synonymous or. iden tical terms ; and the epithets "clean" and "unclean" in reference to animals were never entirely divested of their original meaning. Though asses and horses, camels and dogs were kept by the Israelites, they were to a certain extent associated with the notion of impurity; they might be turned to profitable account by their labour or otherwise, but in respect to food they were an abomination; this instinct was, in the course of time, consider ably strengthened by religious ideas or doctrines ; moral was joined to physi cal aversion, or the one was substitut ed forthe other; the terms "clean" and "unclean" were from the natural re moved to the spiritual sphere; and as regards most of the unclean, or at least some peculiarly detested animals , as the swine, later Judaism, combining both conceptions, prohibited even their very breeding or keeping, and pronounced it an unhallowed practice (p. 88). In a word, "unclean" is not merely a vague alternative for inter dicted food; the designation partly re tained its inherent force and original significance, and implied contempt or repulsiveness. To prove the contrary,a more fallacious argument couldhard- iyi[have been used than this : "among all animals, man was the most un clean, that is, human flesh was to be eaten least of all" (Michael. Mos. Recht, § 202, and on Lev. XI; comp. also Dathe and Rosenm. on Lev. XI; Kilto on Lev. XI. 47). Is man unclean in the same sense as a prohibited animal? He may, under certain con ditions, become temporarily unclean, but in the Pentateuch he is never pronounced or considered unclean by nature. Metaphors in poetical Books can have no weight in deciding a question of dogma (comp. Job XIV. 4). Indeed, while Jewish tradition proscribed as unclean all food derived from any species of forbidden animals, such as the milk of unclean quadru peds or the eggs of unclean birds or 130 LEVITICUS XI. 2—8. hoof: the camel, because it chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof; it shall be unclean to you; 5. And the rock-badger, because it chews the cud, but does not fishes (though naturally not the ho ney of bees), it declared human milk clean, and permitted it even to adults, under condition that it be drunk from vessels (Maimon. De Cib. Vet. HI. 1—5; Yor. Deah § 81). Eating hu man flesh was of course an abomina tion, but for very different reasons (Yor. Deah § 79. 1). That the clean animals are not identical with those fit for sacrifice , needs hardly , be observed (see Comm. on Lev. I. p. 78) ; yet this assertion has not unfrequent ly been ventured, and has been cou pled with very curious justifications of the logical arrangement of Leviti cus: just as not all species of ani mals, contends one writer, are suit able for the altar, so are not all to be admitted to the table of the Israe lite (Salomon on ver. 2) — as if the idea of connecting altar and table were of such early origin (see Comm. on Lev. I. p. 62) ; a portion of the sa crifices, triflingly propounds another divine, was to be eaten to promote the communion between God and Is rael — therefore the laws of food follow properly after those of sacri fice! (Gerlach, on Lev. XI. p. 404). On the erroneousness of theBiblical criteria of clean quadrupeds, and of the examples adduced, we have com mented above (p. 53) ; the rule is illo gical and the examples are fallacious ; for non-bisulcate ruminants and non- ruminant bisulcates, are zoologi cal fictions. Jewish tradition consid ers the instances of unclean animals named in our text — the camel, the hyrax, the hare, and the pig — as ex haustive, and assumes that they are the only species in the world pos sessing either of the two stated cha racteristics (Talm. Chun. 59a): this view, which seems indeed to harmo nise with the words of the Bible (vers. 4 — 8), is, from the facts pointed out, devoid of all foundation. Hence also the Rabbinical canon that "all ru minants are cloven-f ooted[ except the camel, and all cloven-footed animals are ruminants except the swine", though approaching the truth, does not reach it, because the two ex ceptions, taken for granted on the authority of our passage, are imagi nary. Moreover, have the Biblical criteria intrinsic value for determin ing the animals destined by, nature for human food? If clean' creatures be those "of a higher, nobler, less in tensely animal organisation", why did those tests exclude the horse, the elephant, and the camel? Is their organisation lower, less noble, and more intensely animal than that of the ox, the sheep, and the goat? It is well known that ruminants, though endowed with acute senses — great range of vision, singular power of hearing and smelling, and in most cases also remarkable swiftness of foot — are low in the development of the brain, can be "tamed rather than educated", show very little in telligence, and hardly any remark able instinct beyond the selection of food and the avoidance of danger. Are they less "calculated to degrade the life of man and to render it more beast-like" than the noble horse or the "half-reasoning" elephant? The solid foot may be a formidable weap on evincing or engendering defiant- ferocity; but are horns, generally found in bisulcate animals , less for midable for defence or aggression? LEVITICUS XI. 2—8. 131 divide the hoof; it shall be unclean to you; 6. And the hare, because it chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof; it shall be unclean to you; 7. And the swine, and does not the divided hoof of the hindfeet frequently inflict dangerous blows? Who would approach un armed the bulky and untameable bi son which fears neither wolf norbear, and assails its enemies both with hoofs and horns? Or who would trust the infuriated bull or buffalo? (comp. Aristot. An. Hist. II. n. 9 ; Part. An. IH. n. 1 — 3). Is indeed the divided hoof, which Aristotle declares to be a defect and a weakness of nature, a decisive characteristic, since there are species of pigs with solid hoofs? (Arist. De Part. Anim. III. n. 4, xo ^iXVjXov xax' e'XXeidnv x-rjs epuaeujs loxiv; see p. 57 note 15). If rumina tion "makes the impression of tame- ness", why was it disregarded in the patient camel that has neither a so lid foot nor horns for savage attack? It is indeed exclusively restricted to herbivorous animals, and it may fa vour more complete digestion: for every one knows that the food coarse ly bruised by a preliminary masti cation, is first accumulated . in the largest of the four stomachs , or the paunch, as in a spacious store-cham ber; that it then enters into the se cond stomach, or the honey-comb^ where it is at leisure formed into little balls or pellets, which the ani mal brings up again into the mouth to be re-chewed; that it passes next, in a soft and half-fluid state, into the third stomach, or the many plies , to the right of the paunch, to be more fully reduced; and is lastly swallowed into the fourth, or the reed, to the Tight of the third, there to be finally digested by the acid gastric juice. But is the timid hare, which is no ruminant, not herbivorous? and is it less inoffensive, than even the cow or the ram? and does not its sto mach, like that of ruminants, secrete rennet , which is held to be a proof of perfect digestion? (Comp. Aristot. An. Hist. IH. xvi. 6, e'xei 8e ituexiav xxX.). Inreality, the legislator simply confirmed and tried to systematise existing customs, the result of many ages, of climate, experience, and na tional life : how far he succeeded as regards accuracy, has been pointed out above (pp. 50, 59). All attempts at pointing out other reasons for the per mission of some and the interdiction of other animals, are equally worth less, however they may differ in spe- ciousness or ingenuity. Or are indeed ruminants preferable,because "chew ing the cud presents the image of meditation" ? And are cloven- footed quadrupeds more wholesome or more desirable nutriment, because "the undivided hoof betrays intractable stubbornness", considering that the horse belongs to the most docile crea tures? Are the locusts more highly organised or less rapacious than many of the fishes and aquatic ani mals that were declared detestable? Yet they were expressly pronounced "clean" and permitted as food. This one factsufficesto decide thequestion if subjected to impartial enquiry. The Talmud proposed additional criteria ; it declared that clean qua drupeds are always distinguished by the absence of teeth in the upper jaw, and by such flesh beneath the hip bone as can be torn both lengthways and crossways: the former test the Talmud has in common with other ancient authorities (see p. 70); the latter, strange and fanciful in itself, is 132 LEVITICUS XI. 2—8. because it is hoofed, and is clovenfooted, but does not chew the cud; it shall be unclean to you. 8. Of their flesh invalidated by the circumstance that it is shared by the wild ass (Talm. Chull. 59a). — It has been proved above that, according to Talmudical deductions , the clean domestic and the clean untamed quadrupeds (nans and nin) differ from each other in se veral points of ritual; for the fat of the clean n-n is permitted as food, and the blood of the slaughtered clean nans does not require "cover ing" (see pp. 5, 13) : it became, there fore, necessary to fix tests for the distinction of both classes , and they were derived from the formation of the horns ; these must, in clean qua drupeds of the field (nin), be either forked (mixisa), or notched in the manner of scales (nipiin, nuns) and rounded off(nimn; see Talm. Chull. 59b; Maim. De Cib. Vet. I. 10; Yor. Deah § 80. 1). How far these signs are decisive may be inferred from the following facts. We need only allude to the difference between "per sistent" or permanent horns covered with a hard, nail-like substance, and "deciduous" or annual horns, or ant lers, covered with a soft skin or "vel vet." Antlers are only found in the males of the Cervidae or deer-tribe, with the exception of the rein-deer, both sexes of which are provided with them. As regards their shape, the antlers are either rounded or flattened; the former kind are pecu liar to the species living in the tem perate and tropical zones, as the stag, the roe-buck, and the wapiti, the latter kind to the deer inhabiting the coldest climates, as the elk and the rein-deer, "as if they were destined to be used by the animal, like sho vels, in clearing the snow from off its food." — The antlers of the elk, weighing 50 or 60 pounds when fully formed, are in the second year, when they are only a foot long, "dags" or "prickets" or simple dagger-shaped spikes; in the third year they are forked; and in the fourth somewhat flattened with a number of projec tions or "snags"- Therefore, the Tal mudical criteria of the horns are both incomplete and unreliable. Moreover, the text itself is doubtful , some , as Rashi, reading not niinn rounded, but nnnn pointed. The identity of three of the ani mals mentioned as possessing one of the two required criteria, is perfectly certain, both from the kindred lan guages and tradition, viz. the camel (ias), the hare (n33is) , and the swine (ii?n) ; but the fourth — ¦jbxej — is the subj ect of much dispute. The Scriptures afford but a slender clue. We learn from them only, that the animal "is by no means strong", and "makes its house", or "seeks re fuge", on rocks. It is mentioned among the four creatures, which, though "little upon earth", are yet "exceed ingly wise", or have remarkable in stincts, the three others being the feeble ant which provides its food in the summer; the locusts which "have no king, yet go forth all of them in hosts", and the lizard which "takes hold with its hands , and is in royal palaces'' (Ps. CIV. 18; Prov. XXX. 26 — 28). Conjecture has indeed a wide field if called upon to fix upon an animal not large and not strong, living, and building its nest, on rocks. Yet even these few hints suffice to ex clude the Jerboa (Dipus jaculus) — a hare-like rodent, with very long hind- legs, and large, tufted tail — which has frequently been identified with LEVITICUS XI. 2—8. 133 you must not eat; and their carcass you must not touch; they shall be unclean to you. our shaphan, as it usually constructs its dwelling in sandy or graveny plains and subterraneous cavities ; and they point rather to a species of Hyrax, probably coinciding with the Wabr iy,"f) of Saadiah. The Hyrax or "rock- hadger" (in Germ. Klippdachs or Schieferdachs) lives in the wild and stony parts of Africa and Asia, espe cially in Upper Egypt, Abyssinia, and the ridges of the Lebanon. It is a pa chyderm of the size of a rabbit, at taining a length of 18 inches. It has •dark, large, and vivacious eyes , with a singularly gentle and harmless, yet shrewd expression; a black and bare nose constantly moist; thick rodent teeth; a divided upper lip; and a soft, fine, and close skin kept scrupulously clean, greyishbrown above and light er below, yet changing into various other shades. Its short legs are pro vided with four small but broad toes in front and three behind, almost all enclosed in round and very thick hoofs, and with soft yet rough palms admirably adapted for safe and rapid ¦climbing, but entirely unfit for dig ging in hard ground, or for hollowing out stones. A very short tail is al most hidden in the skin, and resem bles that of the lamb, whence the animal is called by the Arabs "the sheep of the children of Israel" (p5* Jd'cr"' ij^i). The hyrax may often he seen basking in the warm sun, on the high ledges of mountains , or nimbly climbing and bounding along the sides of even the steepest and almost vertical rocks; but it disap pears instantly in the clefts with ape like and tremulousyells, upon hearing the faintest sound, and especiaUy at the approach of a dog or of other ani mals, among which the leopard is its most dangerous enemy. Yet, strange to say, the very sociable and grega rious creature lives peacefully toge ther with such rapacious animals as the Manguste (Herpestes zebra) and the thorny lizard (Stellio cyanogast- er) . It leaves its stony heights and recesses only if these no longer afford herbage to satisfy its very keen appe tite ; then it descends into lower parts, though with the utmost caution, and escapes back into its accustomed and faithfully cherished abodes at the slightest suspicion of danger , which a remarkably acute- sense of hear ing enables it to discover. For it is entirely defenceless, incapable of offering resistance with its teeth or claws , though it endeavours to bite when caught. However, small and agile as it is , and above all so timid and weak that it is frightened away by the shadow of a flying crow, swal low, or pigeon, it belongs, accord ing to Cuvier's careful analysis, to the same family as the elephant and the rhinoceros, and forms the pro per link between these and the more slender rodents. Its flesh, which in whiteness resembles that of the young chicken, is eaten and much relished in the East, especially by the Bedouins in Arabia and in the Peninsula of Mt. Sinai, and by the Kaffirs at the Cape of Good Hope, who employ, besides, the secretions (Dassenpiss, Hyra- ceum) as a remedy for certain ner vous disorders ; but it is scrupulous ly shunned ¦ by the Christians . and Mohammedans in Abyssinia , where the animal is known by the name Ashkoko. A modern naturalist ob serves : "I saw the rock-badgers often graze at the foot of clefts; and I found that their habits are exactly 134 LEVITICUS XI. 2—8. like those of ruminants: for having bitten off the grass with their teethi they move the j aws like the bisulcates when chewing the cud; yet, though I have watched them very closely, I have never noticed that they masti cate theirfoodasecondtime" (Brehm Illustr. Thierleben, II. 724). Just as with respect to the hare, appearance misled the Biblical writer to represent the Shaphan as "chewing the cud.'' Concerning the quadrupeds not provided with both criteria, the Law ordains, "of their flesh you must not eat, and their carcass you must not touch" (ver. 8); that is, even if the animal is sound, and is slaughter ed in the prescribed manner, its flesh ought not to be eaten, much less if it has died of itself, or has been torn by wild beasts; in any case, the flesh is "carcass" (niss) and "unclean." Its very touch is defiling — defiling in every respect and for all purposes, and not merely, as is asserted by the Rabbins, for entering the Tem ple, for touching sacred things, and eating holy or sacrificial meat. The injunction, repeated from Deutero nomy, but in our section strengthened by the addition "they shall be un- - clean to you", was meant to apply to all relations of life in general, and to be valid for all times. The laws of purity were not exclusively asso ciated with the Temple and its ser vice ; Jewish tradition indeed looked upon them solely in such connection, and therefore declared them inope rative after the destruction of the common Sanctuary; but this view, prompted by convenience and expe diency, militates against the spirit of the Biblical injunctions, and en tirely effaces the peculiar character of the levitical legislation. Philological Remaeks. — The words n-n and nan3 are here (ver. 2) employed in their generic sense, in cluding the whole animal creation (see p. 50), and the verse in which they occur must be considered as a common heading to the whole chap ter, corresponding to the equally com - prehensive formula at the end (ver. 46). The heading is indeed less de tailed than the conclusion, and might even be mistaken for an introduction to the laws on quadrupeds only (nans) ; but we may explain this from the circumstance that the parallel passage in Deuteronomy, the source of ours, limits the first words indeed to the greatland-animals (...nansnns- '31 t:h lia, Deut. XIV. 4): the begin ning, merely modified from an exist ing document, shows still the traces of the latter; while the conclusion is a free and full addition of the later levitical compiler. — It is of some importance , correctly to understand the meaning of the phrase nois bH£rt (vers. 3 sqq.). The verb bis (Isai. LVIII. 7), equivalent with ais (Lam. IV. 4) and yiE, is lo divide; therefore nois signifies properly divided or clo ven hoof (Ex. X. 26 ; Ezek. XXXH. 13), and then hoof or foot in gene ral, as that of the horse (Isai. V. 28; Jerem. XL VII. 3; Ezek. XXVI. 11; Rashi stasis, plante) ; hence the denominative C"En is simply lo have a hoof (Vs. LXIX. 32), whether it be divided or not; this general sense belongs usually also to the combina tion nois biisn (comp. vers. 5,6), so that the text might allude to a class of animals as nbi3 nsisa , and yet at the same timS as ns-'oa n33hs 3>ba (ver. 26), that is, animals that have hoofs (and not paws, as the cat, the dog, and the bear-tribe), yet "do not di vide the division", i. c. are not clo ven-footed; and if the meaning of parted hoofs is intended, nois Biisn is sometimes strengthened by the addi tion of sibto 5>ba (vers. 3 , 7). Unques tionably, however, that nhrase alone LEVITICUS XI. 2—8. 135 denotes also "to have parted hoofs" ; for the swine is in Deuteronomy (XIV.8)simply described asnblBbiisa, although our chapter (ver. 7) adds nbis »Ba swdi; on the other hand, Deuteronomy (XIV. 7) alludes to clo ven-footed beasts with nbiEn ibiisa nsiban , whereas our chapter (ver. 4) omits the latter word; and si nbiE biisn always denotes "to have no di vided foot" (vers. 4 — 6). It is , there fore , impossible to consider the two terms no"E biisn and s-ca 3>sa, if used together, to apply to such animals as the camel, the hoof of which is di vided, but not so thoroughly that the division embraces both the upper and nether part (see Rashi on ver. 26 ; Pfeiffer, Dub. Vex. p. 294, Michae lis and Rosenmuller on ver. 3): in this manner some have tried to de fend the correctness of the Biblical statement with respect to the camel biisa 1331s nbis (ver. 4); but these words are not even qualified by s-ba 3>ba, they can, therefore, mean nothing- else but "it has no(divided hoof", and they cannot even be rendered "sed non habet ungulas ab utraque parte fissas" (Dathe). It is to be regretted if, in attempting to vindicate the statements of the Bible, its language is distorted in support of exegetical theories. • — • From these remarks it is easy to judge of the various trans lations that have been offered of the words nbiE nbisa is (ver. 3); most of them have erroneously "what soever parts the hoof"; so Onk. and Jon. (snbii spi'ibi ia), Sept. (xxyjvos §iXT)Xouv6itX75v)andVulg.(quodhabetdivisam ungulam, though in ver. 4 it has simply habet ungulam, and condenses in the whole of this section the Hebrew text inaccurately, e. g. vers. 33 , 37 , 42) , Rashi and Nach- man., Luther and Engl. Vers., Men- dels., Johlson, and Cahen, De Wette and Knobel, Bunsen and Keil, a. o.; though some translate correctly "whatsoever is hoofed", as Ebn Ezra (nbis ni3>3),Rashb.(is>3a 11313 ins piss), and Ralbag, Arnh. and Luzzatto (fornito d'unghia), Wesseli and Wo- gue. — The sense of the following words nibis 5>ba ns>bai certainly re quires before nibiB the addition of ina which is found in Deuteronomy (XIV. 6) , for it is just the characte ristic of clean animals, that their feet should be parted into two divi sions , and not into more, as the feet of those "that go upon paws" (ver. 27, iiB3 is> ~im); that word is indeed reproduced intheSamaritan and Syr. Vers, and by the Sept. (ovuxiaxijpas 6vuyi£ov 8uo x^Xiuv), it is found in 6 codd. of Kennicot, 3 of De Rossi, and other manuscripts (Michael. Orient. Bibl. H. 212, 213), and may by some chance or mistake have been omitted in our text. — Targum Jonath., con sidering the addition necessary that ruminants are horned, inserts (in ver. 3) 1h3ip ni n-sil. — The pass age in Deut. (XIV. 7) parallel to our 4*h verse, has after nbisn ibiisaai the word ns>lba, which is certainly required by the context, since the two tests of clean quadrupeds men tioned in the 3rd verse are repeated in the 4th ; and the Septuagint indeed adds here also xai 6vuxiC6vx the dipus(mus)jaculus (comp. Brehml. c.11.191— 194; so Vulg.choe- rogryllus, see infra, Bochart — Hie- rozoic.I.pp. 1002— 1017— ,Oedmann, Hasselquist, Dathe — mus ursinus — ¦, Michaelis , Rosenmuller — • Bibl. Al- terthumsk. IV. 2. pp. 213—222 — , Gesenius, Zunz, Luzzatto, De Wette, a. o.); or as Fenek (jai Arab. Vers.), a sort of marten, the Veverra aurita of Blumenb. ; etc. The Septuagint ren ders isa in our passage by 5aaunous ("rough-foot") or hare, and nails by XoipoYpuXXios, which, as Jerome ob serves, resembles both the mouse and the bear, and is, therefore, also called dpxxop-us. According to a Talmudi- cal tradition, the translators avoided the familiar term Xayius; and they seem to have done so from fear of giving offence to their patron, king Ptolemy, a descendant of Lagus , by including among the unclean ani mals one so closely resembling his ancestor's name. The Talmud (Me- gill. 9b) assigns a reason which is untenable ; it contends that they wrote "rough foot" (aiiji niis>a, so must be read, instead of 'i mis1::), and not "Arneveth" (ns3is) , because the lat ter was the name of Ptolemy's wife or mother ; but supposing even that the word "Arneveth" recalled the sound of Berenice (who was neither the king's wife nor his mother), it could never have been employed in a Greek version. In twelve other passages, the translators were con sidered to have deviated from the ori ginal text for reasons of expediency; and it was, therefore, said, "The day when the Scriptures were translated into Greek, was as fatal for Israel as the day when the golden calf was made , since the holy text could not be rendered with accuracy" (Talm. Sepher Torah I. 9; Mechilt. ss, sect. 14, fol. 19b ed. Weiss; see also De Veil, Transl. of Maimon. De Sacrif. pp. 449, 450). In Ps. CIV. 18 1Ea is translated by Xayiuos; and it may be observed that, though Aristotle or dinarily uses 8acJU7tousfor hare, Pliny (VIII. 55 or 81) distinguishes it from lepus, taking the former probably as a particular species of hare. — We have already alluded to the unhappy LEVITICUS XI. 2-8; 9—12. 137 9. These you may eat of all creatures that are in the waters: all those that have fins and scales in the waters — in the seas and in the rivers — , these you emendation of the Septuagint which renders sin ma nis>a 13, with refer ence to the hyrax and the hare (vers. 5 and 6), 8x1 otix dvaYei (J.-f)puxiop.6v, and thus attempts to redeem the scien tific accuracy of the Biblical state ment by the addition of oux (seep. 54). — An instructive instance , showing that a general rule may in Hebrew be expressed either by the participle, the future, or the past, occurs in vers. 4 — 7, viz. biisa, buei, and nonsn (see Gramm. I. §§ 93. 3; 94. 7; 100. 5). In accordance with the breadth of style usual in the levitical legislation, the description of the camel , the hyrax, and the hare is repeated three times with all but identical words, "it chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof" (vers. 4 — 6); whereas the Deuterono mist, more concise in legal enact ments, characterises the three ani mals in one common statement (Deut. XXV. 7). — 151 (ver. 7), in pausa for iii, is most likely the fut. Kal of lis (verb med. tsere, hence n-.-, past Kal, Deut. XIV. 8) to draw or to bring up, insteadof is? fwhichtheSamarit. Co dex has; comp. mi';i Hab. I. 14), pa- thach being, in the second syllable, irregularly used for cholem, as in irn (Prov. XXVTL 17), of i* to be sharp, comp. also iai, ip_s, oa'n, anis; and 15, W, •$* (Gram. §'62. 3; LXH.3a,b); it is less probably the fut. Niphal, . though the kindred dialects use pas sive modifications in the same sense (Arab. "L.TY and VHJ, Syr. mans); but hardly the fut. Kal of 133 , which root does not occur in the meaning here required; the noun nia with which that form is joined (131 si nia) is almost decisive in favour of the first explanation; it is formed from the Kal of 113, after ^the analogy of rwa, na-i, nia, nsi, and other nouns derived from verbs s"s>, and denotes "that which is brought up again", viz. from the (second) stomach into the mouth to be re-chewed, that is, the cud, exactly as the analogous nouns quoted have passive meaning, "that which is taken as spoil", "that which is devised" etc. Synonymous with ma 11a is the more usual phrase nia nisin to bring up the cud (vers. 3— 6; Deut. XIV. 3— 7), or elliptically 11a (Deut. XIV. 8, nia sii); Sept. dvd- yeiv (j.Tqpuxiapvov, which latter word, like the Latin rumen and ruminare, is also etymologically connected with the meaning to draw (u-rjpueiv, £ ueiv). 9 — IS. The regulations on qua drupeds are followed by those on fishes , or rather on aquatic animals generally. TheDeuteronomist indeed seems to have the former alone in view; but our author, taking a more comprehensive range, includes all "creatures that teem in the water" (aian yia), and all "living beings (ass ninn) that are in the water" — the Seal- and Whale-tribes (pennipeda and cetacea) , most of the Amphibia , as the Turtles, the Lizards, and the Frogs (chelonii, sauri, andbatrachia), the Crustacea, Mollusks, Radiata, and the lower marine aquatics. Noris this the only distinction between the earlier and the later Book. The law in Deuteronomy runs simply thus: "These you may eat of all that are in the waters — all that have fins and scales you may eat, but whatsoever has no fins and scales you may not eat; it shaU be unclean to you." But our verses dwell upon the "abomination" 138 LEVITICUS XL 9— 12. may eat; 10. And all those that have no fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all creatures that people the waters, and of all living beings that are in (ypa) of all unclean aquatics with a repetition meant to be emphatic, but so redundant, that ancient and mo dern expounders deemed it necessary to search for hidden and distinct meanings in the identical terms. The re-iteration, "They shall be an abo mination to you: yea an abomina tion they shall be to you" (vers. 10, 11), was supposed to imply, that the Hebrews, till then accustomed to shun those animals from a natural instinct, were commanded to do so in future from a sense of religious duty (Michae lis, Wogue) ; or it was said to mark as unclean all food with which any part of those creatures has by chance been mixed , and to which they have imparted a taste (Siphra) ; or to warn the Hebrews not only against eating them, but also against profiting by them in any way(Targ. Jonath.). Is it necessary to remark that these and si milar interpretations,solely prompted by the desire of investing pleonasms with some gradation or variety, are in no manner justified by the words or the tenour of the text? — The prob able reasons why fishes with fins and scales were deemed more whole some than those without both these organs, and why, therefore, in the course of time, the former kinds were pronounced clean, and the latter un clean, have been stated before (p. 52); nor need we point out again the no tions and feelings which urged the rejection of other aquatic animals as loathsome or even detestable (p. 78). Jewish tradition assumed the exist ence of finless fishes , and prohibited the eel as unclean,erroneously suppos ing it to be devoid of scales (seep. 58). It fixed, moreover, additional crite ria. For it declared that clean fishes. have a complete and continuous ver tebral column (-lis or snira), un clean fishes merely single joints uni ted by a gelatinous cord; for this rea son, it pronounced as unclean the cartilaginous fishes — the shark-tribe (plagiostomi) and the sturgeons with their caviare (eleuthero-branchi), the lamprey and the nine-eyed eel (cy- clostomi); whereas" it permitted as clean the osseous fishes with scales, especially of the order of "soft-fins" (malacopterigii), as the salmon and trout, the capellan and greyling, the herring, anchovy, and sardine, the pike- and carp-families, the cod, hake, and haddock, the sole, turbot and plaice ; and so also the order of "spiny-fins" (acantopterigii), as the perch, the mackerel, and the tunny. Some Talmudical teachers asserted that "the unclean fishes are vivipa rous (y-iaa),thecleanones oviparous", no spawn being found in the former ; whereas others observed more cor rectly, that "both unclean and clean fishes throw out spawn; but the for mer species mature the young while the eggs are still in the parent fish [that is, they are ovo-viviparous] ; whereas the latter leave the eggs to be developed in the sand" (Talm. Avod. Zar. 40a; Bechor. 7b, 8a): these remarks , inaccurate in their sweep ing generality, have a certain foun dation in fact; for many of the car tilaginous fishes, and a few of the osseous species, as the anableps, a kind of loach, and the eel, are par tially viviparous; while the ray is ovo-viviparous , since its eggs, black and parchment-like, flat, angular, and elongated at the ends, and called LEVITICUS XL 9—12. 139 the waters, they shall be an abomination to you: 11. Yea, an abomination they shall be to you; you must not eat of their flesh, and you shall have their carcasses in "fish-mice", are matured in the in terior of the fish, and their produc tion nearly coincides with the birth of the young brood. — Again, the eggs, the roe, and the swimming blad der (sniBiia) of clean fishes were con sidered to be oblong, but pointed at the one and rounded at the other extremity; those of unclean fishes eitherpointedor rounded at bothsides alike. And lastly, the head of clean fishes was supposed to be more or less broad, that of the unclean kinds rather pointed at the end (comp. Talm. Avod. Zar. 40; Rashi in loc. and onNedar. 30b; Yor. Beah § 83; Lewysohn, Zoolog. des Talm. §§ 7, 15, 24, 303, 304). That these rather singular distinctions have no con nection with the Biblical signs , and at best apply to individual instances only, needs not be pointed out. The Greeks and Romans more simply and more rationally considered fishes wholesome or unwholesome accord ing to the places in which they usu ally live, whether iri rivers or lakes, in stagnant, slimy, or muddy water, or the sea ; and according to the na ture and quality of their food , whe ther consisting of nutritious herbs or of putrid and weakly roots (com pare Galen, de Alimentor. Facult. HE. 25). Philological Remarks. — Some, believing that the laws on fishes are introduced abruptly (ni ns , ver. 9), have connected our verses with the preceding portion by the copulative 1 (nt nsl, comp. ver. 13); this read ing is found in the Samarit. text, and in one codex of Kennic, and it is rendered by the Sept., Syr., and Arab. ; many codices and translations have also in ver. 15nsi instead of ns (comp. Deut. XIV. 14), and isi instead of is in vers. 12, 20, 42 ; (comp. Deut. XIV. 19); while others have in ver. 23 is instead of isi (comp. Be Rossi Var. Lect. I. 94 — 96): all these variations are of no moment whatever. — The generic term "water" (bib) is subdivid ed into two parts, namely, the "seas" (bibi) and the "rivers" (a-hr,i vers. 9 ; Sept. xzip.dp' p"oi winter-torrents, Vulg. stagna) ; hence to express the whole notion, the text uses either "water" alone (vers. 9, 10, 12), or "seas and rivers" alone (ver. 10), and employs the one parallel with the other (ver. 10); therefore the Masorites justly marked the second Bias in ver. 9 with the distinctive accent revia (Sept. inserts inaccurately in ver. 9 xai between ev xots 88aai and ev xais OaXdaoais, and adds in ver. 10 un necessarily ev xoTs fioaoiv; Vulg. in ver. 9 tarn in mari quam in flumi- nibus). Yet the enumeration cannot be considered strictly exhaustive, and the rule of clean and unclean fishes applies of course to those also found in ponds, marshes, reservoirs, and the like (see Talm. Chull. 66b, 67a; Ebn Ezra in loc). Moreover, this de tailed division occurs in Leviticus only, and is not found in Deutero nomy, where o"B simply is used once (XIV. 9). — There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the two chief cha racteristics of clean fishes, iHBjb and napap_; the former (of uncertain ety mology) is fins; it is rendered by On- kel. and Jonath. ysis (i. e. plate- or fringe- or wing -like appendages; comp.yi:: andnais; Talm. Bab. Bathr. 73b isjua), and similarly by the Sept. ixxepuYta and Vulg. pinnulae, and 140 LEVITICUS XL 9—12; 13—19. abomination. 12. Whatsoever has no fins and scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination to you. 13. And these you shall have in abomination among the fowls; they must not be eaten, they shall be an abomination — the eagle, and the ossifrage (lammer- it is explained by Rashi "something like wings with which the fish swims" (comp. Mishn. Chull. in. 7, aiiissb an3 niisn; Talm. Chull. 66; Targ. Jon. on Deut. XIV. 9, nisai -jis-a; also Nachman. in loc.) ; and napap (of aap or nap to peel or to scale off) is scale (used collectively, or in plur. as -pia a-apap a scaled mail of coat, 1 Sam. XVH. 5, and niap-^p, Ezek. XXIX. 4) ; it is translated by Onk. iisip(from pip to peel off) , by Jon. yniBBin (from rcn ovrp--to scale; comp. Midr.Rabb. Num. XIX. 5, "the feet of the cock re semble the scales of fishes", snissani ssin), by the Sept. XeTtiSes, and Vulg. squamae ; and it is explained by the Mishnah (1. c.) is ^snspn something at tached to the fish (or 13 nwispn mEiipn Yor. Deah § 83. 1). Jewish tradition declares, that such scales are meant that can really be peeled off, or re moved from the skin, whether by the hand or a knife; it considers one fin and one scale sufficient ; and holds such fishes clean which, though not actually having fins and scales, may be expected to get them later, or whichpossessed them whenin the wa ter, but lost them when brought to the land. — bsi on ypa does not mean "they are" but "they shall be an abo mination to you", just as asi an bisbb (ver. 8) means "they shall be unclean to you" (comp. vers. 4—7, etc.) ; and thus the artificial explanations above alluded to lose their foundation. — Targ. Jonath. renders the beginning of the 11th verse, "and their juice (yri-,T?) and their sauce (yirnsBii, sic) shall be an abomination to you" (comp. Talm. Chull. 120a). 13 — 19. With respect to birds, the legislator confined himself to a specification of the prohibited kinds ; he gave no common characteristics; he even omitted the general rule or in- troductionof the Deuteronomist, "AU clean birds you may eat" (Deut. XIV. 11). But instead of the mere inter diction, "These are they which you shall not eat", he employ ed strong and almost vehement language, "These you shall have in abomination (ispan) among the fowls ; they must not be eaten; they shall be an abomination" (ver. 13). Yet we cannot doubt that he had distirtct criteria of the un clean orders in his mind, since he repeatedly qualified the names by adding "after its kind" (i3i»i, etc.). Even through the veil that conceals the exact meaning of many of the Hebrew terms, we may discover a certain system in the enumeration. The first third comprises the carni vorous birds of prey which live upon flesh and carcass (raptatores), as the eagle, the vulture, and the raven (vers. 13 — 15); the second third em braces the ostrich and the various kinds of crepuscular predaceous birds, or owls (vers. 16, 17); and the last, with one exception, includes the wa ders ormarshbirds(grallatores). This very arrangement, however imper fect, forms one of our scanty helps for ascertaining the identity of the names. It clearly suggests that the author intended to proscribe all birds of prey, subsisting less on vegetable food than on carrion and all kinds of putrid matter ; all those that live and delight in darkness, whence he in- LEVITICUS XI. 13—19. 141 geier), and the vulture, 14. And the falcon, and the kite after its kind, 15. And every raven after its kind; eluded even the bat, which belongs to the mammalia; and those which dwell, or seek their food, near unclean places, such as marshes and morasses. The list, therefore, though not com plete, does not leave us entirely with out guidance, especially if we con sider that all the birds mentioned occur probably in western Asia, and were eaten. The Hebrews held in natural ab horrence the birds of prey — birds mostly dark and sombre in plumage.; violent, fierce, and cruel; voracious and nearly insatiable; repelling by a monotonous and discordant voice; and above aU armed with the most formidable weapons for attacking, grasping , and tearing their prey , — with the short, arched, hooked, and pointed beak; and the powerful and largely developed, fang-like talons, strongly bent and sharp. These cha racteristics eclipsed the remarkable attributes of many families of the class — their perfect structure, their wonderful eye and ear, their courage and strength, their surprising intel ligence, so conspicuous in the falcon- tribe, the mutual affection of the couples and their young; and in de crying their voracity, it was forgot ten that it beneficently helps to de stroy the pernicious hosts of rodents and insects, cleanses the streets of African and Asiatic towns, and there by often averts pestilence. 1. The first bird named — 1'fij — is the eagle: this the kindred dialects, aU ancient versions, and numerous allusions of the Bible raise beyond a doubt. It is true, the eagle is in some passages declared to feed upon car rion (Job XXXIX. 30 ; Prov. XXX. 17), and in one to be bald-headed (Mic. I. 16) ; but the common opinion that the eagle consumes only what it has killed itself, and disdains dead bodies, has been proved a fallacy; and as it is the largest and noblest, one of the most highly endowed, and in fact the chief representative of its class, its name may be applied to other birds of prey also, such as the vulture. A few species only are found in Asia, as the "stone-eagle" (Aquila fulva), the strongest and boldest ; the golden eagle (Chrysaetos),the swiftest and most agile; and the fish-hawk (Pandion haliaetus), the most expert fisherman, that forms the connecting link between the eagles and the kites (Milvi): a far larger number of va rieties occur in other parts of the globe, as the imperial eagle (Aqu. imperialis),themuch smaller scream ing eagle (A. naevia), and the dwarf- eagle (A. minuta), in the southern and south-eastern regions of Europe ; the rapacious hawk-eagle (Pseudoae- tus Borellii), the mighty fighting eagle (Spizaetus bellicosus), and his smaller kinsman the crested eagle (Lophoaetus occipitalis), in Africa; the Urutaurana(Pternura tyrannus), and the fiercest and most dangerous of all, the Harpy (Harp, destructor), in South - America ; and the arrow- tailed eagle (Uroaetus audax), in Australia. Eagles, especially young ones, are eaten by some rude Asiatic and African tribes, and esteemed as dainties (see p. 98); to the He brews they were to be an abomina tion, for they combine all the detested characteristics of the winged "rob bers" or raptatores: "their young ones also drink blood, and where the slain are, there are they"; yet they were included among the marvels of- creation described in the Book of Job (Job XXXIX. 27 — 30; comp. 142 LEVITICUS XI. 13—19. 16. And the ostrich, and the tachmas, and the sea-gull, and the hawk after its kind, 17. And the eared owl, Exod. XIX. 4; Deut. XXXII. 11; see Brehm, Hlustrirtes Thierleben, HI. 402—406, 444—482). 2. With regard to the second bird — bis — the chain of proofs is suf ficiently complete. The etymology — from Bis or yiB to break — leads to the ossifragus , and this, as we learn from Pliny (X. 3), was the Tuscan ap pellation for the a quila barbata, which can hardly be any other bird than thebeardedgriffin or lammergeier, be longing partly to the eagles andpartly to the vultures, and therefore apt ly called gypaelus ("vulture-eagle"). Greek writers, from the earliest to the latest, mention it under the ana logous name of Aigypios (aiYUTuo;) or "goat-vulture", which is by Ho mer employed as a metaphor for an impetuous warrior rushing headlong upon the terrified enemy (comp. Horn. II. VH. 59; XIII. 531; Od. XXII. 302; Herod. Xii. 76; etc.); it is identical with the Greek Phinis or Phene (cpi- vis or tp-^vv], Dioscorid. II. 58; comp. Bom. Od. IH. 372;' XVI. 217; Aristot. De Mirab. p. 191 ed. Tauchn.), al though in earlier times the Aigypios and the Phene were distinguished (Horn. Od. XVI. 217), the latter being supposed to protect and to feed the young ones deserted by the former (Horn. Od. XVI. 217: Aristot. H. An. VI. vi. 1). The bird could hardly have received a more fitting name than "bone-breaker". For in the first place, it delights particularly in the bones of vertebrates, and can subsist upon them almost exclusively; and then, it breaks or comminutes even the hardest of them in a powerful stomach secreting a gastric juice of a marvellously solvent force ; more over, when it finds that the bones are too large to be devoured, or de spairs of obtaining their marrow, it dashes them from a great height upon some well-selected pointed or projecting rock, and thus literally breaks them : the poet Aeschylus is supposed to have thus been killed by a falling tortoise. But the lammer geier is by no means that dangerous and rapacious robber it has frequently been represented to be by imagina tive naturalists; it does not attack sheep, goats, or dogs, or any quad ruped larger than a hare , since nei ther its beak nor its foot is very pow erful; it never ventures to approach children, much less full-grown per sons; it is, in fact, one of the most harmless species of its tribe; it is dreaded neither by shepherds nor their cattle; it peacefully shares with the vultures their carrion-feast, sa tisfied with the bones which they disdain; and it has had too long to bear execration for misdeeds which in reality are perpetrated by the fierce and pitiless stone-eagle. The root of the beak is surrounded by tufts of bristle-like feathers, which partially conceal the lower beak also, and may well be termed a beard. The body is strongly built but elon gated, with a large head, short neck, and long and pointed wings. The plumage, which in the earliest years is almost entirely of a dusky brown in termixed with grey, gradually chan ges into black or dark-brown on the upper side, andyellowor white in the lower parts, occasionally with dark spots , especially at the breast. Its flight is extremely quick and even impetuous , without any flapping of the wings, and resembles in grace fulness that of the larger falcons. The silvery eye is unrivalled for power and penetration ; not only the LEVITICUS XI. 13—19. 143 and the frigate bird, and the night-owl; 18. And the cormorant, and the pelican, and the racham, 19. And iris lies bare, but also the hard outer coat (sclerotica), forming a broad soft ring beautifuUy coloured. The sense of smelling also is singularly deve loped, but not so the brain, which is proportionately small and simple, and does not bespeak great intelli gence. The lammergeier is , in fact, neither remarkable for his instincts, nor for' strength and courage. It is found almost in aU parts of the three old continents, though the European differ from the Asiatic and African species considerably in size and habits. We shall for the sake of easier survey and reference insert the "Phi lological Remarks" at once after each bird, marking them by brackets. [The name bis is translated ossi- frage by the English Version, Bo chart, Dathe, De Wette(Beinbrecher), Knobel, Fiirst, and Bunsen; the ety mological sense of "breaker" is ren dered by Onk. iy, Targ. Jerus. 13>-S>, and Abusaid y^\f, though it is diffi cult to say, whether they intended to point precisely to the gypaetos; still more indistinct are the render ings of Jonath. kms, of Sept. andVulg. Ypu'i and gryps, Sam. Vers, nsts, Syr. ,smi, and Saad. UUc (a black eagle). Other translations seem unaccept able; the sea-eagle is included in las (Gr.'Ven. dXidexos, Kitto, Luzzatto l'aquila marina , Knobel — ¦ on Lev. p. 448 — who fluctuates between sea-eagle and lammergeier) ; the vul ture and the hawk are no doubt in- tendedby the following names (Gr.Al. ytith, Boothroyd, Taylor, Luther Ha- bicht) ; and the condor is only found in the high-lands of South- America (so RosenmuUer, and the translation of Onkel is has been understood "the bald bird"). In Spanish the lammer geier is also caUed "bone-breaker" (queberantahuesos; comp.theFrench orfraye) ; and German naturalists de signate it promiscuously Bartgeier, Bartadler and Bartfalk, Lammer-, Gemsen-, Gold-, Greif- and Jochgeier (see'Brehm 1. c. HI. 542—555).] 3. If any degree of systematic order maybe assumed in our list, the next bird — nj3ij> — is the vulture, since eagle, lammergeier, and vulture form the regular succession of tribes in the class of raptatores. The author of the dietary code could not possibly omit at once the largest and the most repulsive of unclean birds, which combines all their fierce and loath some , without sharing any of their generous or kingly qualities. For even the least of the vultures is not smaller than an eagle of average stee; baldness of a part of the head and neck gives them in most cases a hideous appearance; their flight, though slow, is remarkably persever ing, ambitiously high, and perpe tually roaming ; in keenness of sight they vie with the most gifted of birds, and surpass them in power of smeU. But their inteUigence is not" consid erable: they are shy, but not pru dent; irritable and violent, but not bold or courageous; sociable, yet by no means peaceful; combative and mischievous, yet cowardly; by turns indolent and tenaciously active; clumsily awkward, but nimbly viva cious if roused by the prospect of booty; greedy and ravenous, but ca pable of abstemiousness for whole weeks, — • birds of strangely contra dictory attributes. They are empha tically carrion-eaters, and rarely at tack living prey; they delight espe cially in corpses of mammals, yet do not disdain birds , amphibia, and in- 144 LEVITICUS XI. 13—19. the heron, the ibis after its kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat. sects ; their meals, from which they usually rise enveloped in dirt and bespattered with blood, present a scene of horrid strife and combat, of hideous clamour, tumult, and con fusion. The species which the author had principally in mind, are prob ably the gyps ("Gansegeier"), and the famous Percnopterus slercorarius, known under a variety of names , as the holy or Egyptian vulture, or "Paraoh's chicken", so often figured on the monuments of the ancient Egyptians, who regarded the bird with religious awe, not only because, as a most active scavenger, it saves the towns from pestilential epide mics, but because it was supposed to watch over its young with the most affectionate devotion during a hun dred and twenty days in every year, and even, if necessary, to feed them with the blood of its thighs ; it was, therefore, selected to express the no tions of mother and merciful (comp. Horapoll. I. 11). More than any of its class , it resembles the raven by its form, the large and rather pointed wings, and the long but blunted tail ; wrhile the Greeks compared it with the stork, and named it accordingly (opeiiteXapYos; Arist. H. A. IX. xxn. 2). It is found in the southern coun tries of Europe, nearly in the whole of Africa, and in most parts of west ern and southern Asia , where it is eaten by some tribes, rejected by others. If its appearance be not quite so repulsive as that of some of the larger vultures — though the bald face of the small head, the proj ecting and bare crop, the dirty and untidy coat, form no attractive sight — it is ut terly detestable for its loathsome ha bits, and especially for the kind of food it chooses (comp. Arist. Hist. An.l. c. ; Plin. X. 3). Other species are never or rarely met with in western Asia, as the huge condor, and the gor geously feathered Royal vulture (Gy- parchus) principally found in the elevations of South- America, and the giant of the family, the "Ear- vul ture" (Otogyps) frequent in Africa. [It wiU be evident from the preced ing remarks that n;:T3> can probably not be taken as "Sea-eagle" or erne (Sept. dXiaiexos, Vulg., Michael., De Wette, Bunsen), nor ospray or fish- hawk (Luther, Engl. Vers.), nor the eagle melanaetus or Valeria (Bochart, Dathe, Fiirst, Luzzatto), nor falcon (Targ. Jon. ssa ia, explained in Aruch isipis). Whether ~*m has any etymo logical connection with is- strong (like the Latin Valeria Plin. X. 3), must be left undecided (comp. Onk. s;is>, Sam. V. ni-s'; Saadiah Uic, a term opposed by Ebn Ezra, as signifying something that does not exist in reali ty, and explainedby Kamus "thehuge and fabulous gryph, which rules over the birds"). Nor is it possible to as certain whether the Hebrews shared the opinion of some ancient nations that there are no male vultures , but only females, which conceive through the wind (comp. Horapoll. I. 11; Aelian. N. A. II. 46; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 93) , and whether thus the fe minine form nisw is to be accounted for (comp. ani ver. 18 with nan-; in Deut. XIV ; s'ee Brehm 1. c. III. 534— 542, 555—585).] 4 and 5. As regards the next two birds, the nsi and the njs, there can hardly be any reasonable doubt that they are meant for the falcon and the kite, which represent two other chief tribes of the raptatores, and which could not bepassed over in our text. For the f alcons(f alcones),- at once LEVITICUS XI. 13—19. 145 the boldest and noblest of all birds, and the most perfectly organized of the birds of prey, subsist upon live animals which they seize with their talons ; and though deserving admi ration for their courage and agility, their rare intelligence and remark able instincts,they belong to the worst andmost sanguinary of robbers. And the chief representative of the kite- tribe (milvi), the hen-harrier (milvus regalis), a mean, unroyal bird, is ra venously voracious, eats small mam mals and birds, lizards and serpents, frogs and toads, locusts and beetles ; attacks young fowls and geese, phea sants and hares; and impudently robs even bolder birds, as falcons, of their prey; though by largely destroying noxious insects and the swarms of rodents , it is often use ful to man. Both the falcon and the kite are, in a great variety of species (hence ninai), diffused over nearly all parts of the globe ; and the ety mology of the Hebrew names agrees fully with these equivalents. [For the root nsi , applied not only to the impetuous and dartlike flight of birds of prey (Deut. XXVHI. 49 ; Jer. XL VIH. 40; XLIX. 22), but to the moving of God on the wings of the wind (Ps. XVHI. 11), admirably conveys the chief characteristic of the falcon (comp. Brehm 1. c. III. 406 — 431); nor is the name nis, from nis or -is to desire with greed, less appropriate for the insatiable and omnivorous kite (comp. Brehm 1. c. pp. 482—502). The derivation from nis in the meaning of howling or crying out — the clamorous bird — does not seem so striking; moreover, the root is never used in that sense throughout the 0. T. The other identifications which have been pro posed for nsi are vulture (Sept. , Lu ther, Winer, Bunsen, Engl. Vers.), kite (Ar. Erp. 5! jjk., Vulg. milvus, Bo chart, Dathe,Kitto, Knobel, Luzzatto nibbio), and hawk (Michael., Taylor); and for njs vulture (Vulg.) or falcon (Bochart — Arab. \Aj — , Gesen., Knob., Bunsen), owl (Ben Gannach, Saad. ,_jj*fl), and magpie (Kimchi s'bas agasso, gazza).] 6. The sixth bird — sis' — is un questionably the raven with all its numerous species (isiai): how fully it deserves to be placed among the unclean birds on account of its shame less aggressiveness and immoderate edacity, needs not be repeated in this place (see Comm. on Gen. p. 195; comp. Brehm 1. c. III. 334—371). [The reading nsi (inst. of ns) before 35s~^> which occurs in the text of Deuteronomy (XIV. 14) , and is here expressed by many ancient versions, is the more appropriate, as the raven concludes the first third of the list, the birds of prey.] 7. The following name — n»;n na — which begins the second portion of the catalogue, has by nearly all an cient versions been rendered ostrich, and there is no reason for question ing the correctness of this translation, which fully agrees with the allusions made in the Old Testament to the real or supposed habits of the bird. It is there represented to live among desolated ruins and dreary solitudes, and to make them resound with its doleful wails , and it is described as stupid (it is still an Arabic proverb "more stupid than an ostrich"), and as heartlessly indifferent to the fate of its eggs, leaving them in the sand to be hatched by the sun, or to be trodden upon by the beasts of the desert (comp. Isai. XHI. 21; XXXIV. 13; XLHI. 20; Jer. L. 39; Mic. I. 8; Job XXX. 29; XXXIX. 13—18; Lam. IV. 3). However, this last reproach is undeserved; it probably originated in the fact that the ostrich-hens , af ter having filled their nest with eggs 146 LEVITICUS XI. 13— 19. (for several hens lay in the same nest), deposit those which they lay afterwards apart at some distance, unmindful of what may become of them; but the birdsjjestow the ut most care upon the eggs in the nest ; in some cases the male and the fe male sit upon them alternately ; but more frequently the male in particu lar and even exclusively, while the one that does not happen to sit, guards the nest and procures the food; if the male leaves the nest for a short time, he carefully covers the eggs with sand; at intervals the fe male turns the eggs gently and cau tiously, a process which is daily per formed with great regularity. Nor do the parent birds neglect their off spring, of which they are tenderly fond , as even ancient writers testify (Aelian, N. A. XIV. 7). Accurate ob servation does not bear out the view formerly entertained that the eggs laid separately are meant either to satisfy the rapacity of intruders, or to serve as the earliest food of the young brood; for the ostrich has nei ther the intelligence for the one nor the forethought for the other. It is sufficient to know that the Hebrews regarded the ostrich as an unkind, dismal, and silly bird, and associated it, as perhaps even its Hebrew name implies , with the dreariness and the terrors of the wilderness; they may have been aware that it occasionally devours fowls and other small verte brates, exactly like a bird of prey; they counted it, therefore, among the unclean animals, and shunned its flesh, which was eagerly eaten by whole tribes of Ethiopia, by large classes in India, and also by the Ro mans, who deemed ostrich-brain a peculiar delicacy; and it is still ex tensively eaten, especially in Arabia, and in the interior of Africa. The emperor Heliogabalus is curiouslv reported to have said that "the Jews were bidden by their laws to eat it" (dicens praeceptum Judaeis ut ede- rent, Lamprid. Heliogabal. 28, 32; Strabo XVI p. 772 ; Diod. Sic. IH. 28 ; Aelian, N. An. XIV. 7). Whether they considered the ostrich, as the Greeks did, as a sort of unnatural hybrid, half bird, half quadruped, cannot be proved (comp. Aristot. DePart. Anim. IV. 14). Though not found in Pales tine itself, it is not rare in the Ara bian, nor even in the East-jordanic deserts , where it may formerly have been still more frequent; for it is well known that the ostrich, eagerly chased by the Bedouins , has all but disappeared in districts where it once abounded. [nwjnns is probably "the daughter", that is , according to a common Ori ental usage, the "inhabitant" of the desert (iu. , like ^.IsuiJl yj "pater desertorum") , another name for ost rich (comp. Michael. Suppl.IV. 1127) ; some , connecting it with the Syriac ¦ji'-ns to be greedy, take it as the gluttonous bird, or with -jS" in the sup posed meaning of howling or wailing (Mic.I.8,etc. ; comp. bijsi Job XXXIX. 13; Sam. snips? nia). Though origin ally denoting the female bird, it is unquestionably used as an epicene (Isai. XIH. 21; Job XXX. 29; comp. Chald. SE33 na vulture ; the mascul. 1?; occurs in Lament. IV. 3; comp. Ebn Ezra on Exod. XXIH. 19) ; some indeed suppose that nssnn n3 is the female , and the next name bann the male ostrich (as in Arab. ~JU3 "the impious", so Bochart, Gesen., De Wette, a. o.); but it is not probable that the two sexes of the same spe cies should have been forbidden se parately. Nearly all translators have understood najnujia as ostrich, a few only render it, against all probabi lity, bv nwl (so the f/iityl. Vav« . T?nl- LEVITICUS XI. 13— 19. 147 ler, Oedmann, a. o.); comp. Brehm, 1. c. IV. 522—534.] 8. As regards the next name — barjn — we confess our inability to suggest an identification. Neither the etymology , which vaguely leads to a "violent" or "rapacious" bird, nor the ancient versions, which con- flictingly render owl or swallow or the sea-bird gannet, allow a safe con clusion, and the opinions ventured by modern scholars can be no more than conjectures. [The term Bann has been taken as swallow (Onk. ssrs, Saad., Ar.Erp., Dathe, and perhaps Jonathan srnBBn, though this word signifies properly raptatrix or robber) ; or gannet (Gr. Veil, xaxa^dxx-fjs) ; or owl (Septuag. YXauij, Vulg., Luth. , Michael., Oed mann strix otus, Winer, Bunsen) ; or night hawk (Engl. Vers., Kitto); or falcon(Luzz.) ; or male ostrich (Boch., Gesen., De Wette) ; or cuckoo (Knob.). But the whole list contains no such small and harmless bird as the swal low; the hawk, the falcon, and the ostrich, are mentioned before, _and the owl and tire sea-birds afterwards ; and the cuckoo is simply a hazard, based on the belief that this bird ejects its foster parents from the nest, or eats their eggs and their young (Arist. H. A. VI. vii; IX. xx; Ael. N. A. m. 30).] 9. The following; bird — sjrrti — has by some ancient versions been rendered sea-gull (larus), and though this translation is not intrinsically cogent, it may at least be adopted as probable. The gulls have aptly been called the "ravens of the sea" ; for in their nature and habits , they in deed resemble the ravens. Like these they are almost omnivorous, and their greed seems wellnigh insatiable. They do not only eat fishes and in sects, but they devour aU smaUer animals of the water; in the man ner of fowls and pigeons they scrape up and collect whatever the shore supplies; like the vultures, they feed upon carrion , whether fresh or put rid; and they dart upon living booty like birds of prey — reasons enough why they should have been shunned as food by the Hebrews, though, dif fused as they are over all parts of the globe, they were probably not spared by tribes inhabiting sea- coasts; at present the eggs of gulls and the flesh of the young birds, are eaten and much valued in some nor thern countries, as Norway and Greenland. [Other translations of Spa, besides gull (so Sept., Vulg., Boch., Michael., Dathe, Gesen., De Wette, Buns., a.o.), are cuckoo (Luther, Engl. Vers.), or sea-swallow (tern;stevm\, Kitto, a. o.), or horn-owl (Geddes, Boothroyd), or hawk (Knob., the Sam. has nsia or -Bsa, and Saad., Ar. Erp. , and Abus. render ±j\a or ,_JU* , supposed to de note a kind of hawk) , or some lean bird (comp. nsna consumption, tp-ia thin board, Ezech. XLL 6). On the sea-gull see Brehml.c.iY.867— 885.] 10 and 11. In reference to the tenth and eleventh name — y.3 and bis — we find a remarkable unanimity among ancient translators; these, though differing in the exact species, render nearly all hawk and owl, and it would be gratuitous to deviate from their tradition, which agrees, moreover, with the Biblical statements that the one, as a migratory bird, turns at the approach of winter with unwearied wings to more southern climes (Job XXXIX. 26), and that the other inha bits deserted ruins, being the type of loneliness andmisery(Ps.CH. 7). The aversion with which the hawks were regarded, is not surprising; fof while lacking the generous qualities or re markable gifts of other birds of prey, such as the eagle and the falcon, 148 LEVITICUS XI. 13—19. they yield to none in audacious ra pacity directed, with incredible eager ness, upon both mammals, birds, and amphibia, and unsparing even of their own parents , mates , and offspring. They are in many varieties (msiai) spread over all parts of Asia , where several tribes deem them desirable food. — And the owls, especially those kinds that live not so much in forests as among the rubbish and frag ments of crumbling edifices, combine various features which may well ac count for theirbeing included among unclean birds; for they recall the notions of darkness and dreary soli tude, and they repel by their ghastly shrieks ; while some of them , daunt less and dangerous birds of prey, at tack not only insects and mollusks, mice and rats, but also ducks and geese, crows and ravens, rabbits and hares, and even larger animals. Some species of owls, abounding in Pales tine and Syria, are in great request for their flesh, which is considered palatable. [ys (Sept. iepa£, Vulg. accipiter, Saad.,Pers., Ar.Erp.^b, iS;\>1 Aruch, Nachman. l"iuas autour, Kimchi i'iiiBas,fromn^3ory3:3tofly,the"swift-winged", (oluitxepos or lixuitxepos, comp. Hom.il. XV. 237, 238 ; Od.XIII. 86; iuxioxos or eXacppoxaxosixexe-/jvi3v) has only by a few translators been rendered otherwise than hawk, na mely vulture (by De Wette), or fal con (by Winer falco peregrinus), or sparrow (by Dathe). — The species of owl between which the transla tors fluctuate in their rendering of bi:, are screech-owl (strix noctua, Je rome, Jonath. in Deut. and Targ. in Ps. CH.7 seiEp, Rashi a"a-sis chouet- tes), the eared owl (strix otus, Sept., Aquil., Theodot., vuxxi/.6pa|, Vulg. in Ps. 1. c. nycticorax, Syr. sus-', Mi chael., Dathe), the horn-owl (Bubo maximus, "Uhu", Saad., Abus., Ar. Erp., Pers. „.<, Onk. s;iE, Sam., Jo nath. Nils, Vulg. bubo), or the com mon barn-owl (strix flammea, Kitto, Luther Kautzlein). — Some, how ever, interpret b:3 by pelican or cor morant (Boch., Gesen., Ffirst, Luzz., deriving the name from the "pouch" or "bag" hanging from the throat like the Latin truo from trua), others by sea-gull (Taylor a. o.). But it has been observed that the sitting owl, widening towards the upper part, has a cup-like appearance, which would also account for its Hebrew name (comp. Thenius on 1 Sam. XXVI. 20). The reading bis found in some manu scripts, is no doubt erroneous (comp. Michael. Suppl. p. 1236), and the pro posed reading Bis, merely because the large owl or bubo is in Arabic f.y,, is objectionable. On the hawk see Brehm 1. c. HI. 431 — 444, and on the owl ibid. pp. 586—624.] 12. In the list of Deuteronomy, which, as we have tried to render probable, is the foundation or rather the original of that of Leviticus, the owl (bis) is followed by a name — Epa'31 — the etymology of which points to another crepuscular bird, and is perhaps a different kind of the order of owls found in very numerous va rieties throughout all parts of Asia; and if the one term (bis) represents the large bubones or "eared owls", the other (sy.a;;) denotes the smaller and less rapacious slriges or "night- owls"; this harmonises with the Bib lical allusion that the bird lives in deserted ruins , in company with the raven and similar birds (Isai. XXXIV. 11). It is not easy to see why the author of Leviticus departed, in this point, from the arrangement of his predecessor, and separated two birds which probably belong to the same class, unless it be that he desired to nlace together two al-moot t^nninr- LEVITICUS XT. 13— 19. 149 mous names signifying piety and mercy (niiBn and ani). [We derive t|ia'?i (or sywai in Isai. XXXIV. 11) from p|Tga darkness, night (Isai. V. 11; XXI. 4; etc.), taking it as the "night-bird" (noctua, Onk., Jon., Syr. NEis-p night-owl, comp. Targ. Ps.CH. 7, where Bis is rendered by that term, Rashi is' n hibou, Ebn Ezra, Kimchi "a bird which flies about in the dark," Bochart bubo, Engl. Vers, great owl, Michaelis Kautzchen, Dathe noctua, Knobel, Bunsen Uhu); others trace it to the root !)B3 in the sense of blowing, and understand a bird "uttering a sound like the blowing of a horn", such as the ardea stellaris or Agami (Rohr- dommel or Trompetenvogel ; Gese- nius) , or heron, or crane , or ibis (so Sept., Vulg., Oedmann, De Wette, Kitto), or sea-crow (xopi&vv)), or fowl (Luther Huhn); but most of these translations do not agree with the Biblicalstatement above referredto.] 13 and 14. The next two names — ¦ na.aan and nsp — may, with some probability, be interpreted cormo rant and pelican, both remarkable for their marvellous voracity and their rapacious habits — qualities in themselves sufficient to condemn them as unclean in the eyes of the Hebrew legislator. The cormorant not only chases fishes with impe tuous and arrow-like swiftness, but lurking in the water, darts upon swallows and other birds as they flit by, or selecting its prey on the land, pursues small vertebrates and snat ches them (oas) with fatal certainty. It is frequent everywhere in nor thern and southern Europe and in Africa, in North- America and the West-Indies, in middle and in sou thern Asia, where it is successfully trained for fishing, especially by the Chinese. Its flesh, unpalatable to the taste of Europeans, except the Laplanders , is on account of its fat ness deemed a rare delicacy by the Arabs. Partly greediness, and partly forethought for its young, impel the cormorant to stuff its crop and stomach almost to suffocation ; and returning to the nest, it often dis gorges dozens of fishes to feed a nu merous family. This last peculiarity of "vomiting up" the contents of the stomach , is stiU more urominent in the pelican, which probably owes to it its Hebrew name (nsp from sip). The cormorant is supposed to keep conchiferous animals in its stomach, till they are warmed, and then to cast them forth again, in order to open the valves more easily and obtain their contents (comp. Aristot. Hist. An. IX. xi. 10; Plin. X. 40 or 56 ; Ael. N. A. IH. 20 ; Talm. Chull. 63a). It is stamped as an aggressive and for midable robber by a long and power ful beak with its hooked and curved point, and its peculiar pouchlike ap pendage. Though it inhabits both hot and temperate climes , and is spread over the whole globe, it is in some parts, as in northern and middle Africa, found in incredible numbers. Unable to dip into the depth of the water on account of the air-filled sack beneath the beak, it lives upon the prey which it seizes on the sur face of shallow rivers or lakes; as a rule, it eats indeed chiefly fishes and young swimming birds, but de vours them in such vast quantities, that it may well be called insatiable. Generally selecting for its nest so litudes or isolated ruins, it is, like the owl, the picture of abandonment and misery (Ps. CII. 7; Isai. XXXIV. 11; Zeph. U. 14). Though its flesh has an oily taste, it is eaten by the Arabs; but the bird has been de clared sacred by a Mohammedan law, which originated in the legend, that when the holy mosque in Mecca was 150 LEVITICUS XT. 13—19. being built, the busy workmen, un willing to delay the completion of the holy edifice by fetching water from a distance, were amply pro vided by hosts of pelicans which brought the water in their pouches. [The naa?n is variously rendered as the falcon (Arab. ^4>la) or por phyrin or purple water-hen (Sept. ¦rcopcpupiiuv, Kitto porphyrio hyacin- thinus), or pelican (Oedmann pelec. onocrotalus), or heron (Gr. Ven. epiu- Sios, Bunsen Purpurreiher) , or swan (Vulg., Engl. Vers., De Wette, Luz- zatto) , or bat (Rashi y'Sia s'aip chauve souris; comp. Talm. Chull. 63a; Luther), or chameleon (Gesen.), or owl(Onk. snia, snia, or snag — the reading sni3 seems corrupted — ; Jon- sinis, i. e. 16x6 s ear-owl, and sris i. e. iXo bubo, Syr. 133133, i. e. xtxxafi-^ or xoxxa[3a" night-owl; Gr. V. f\a.6£, Rashi, Kimchi, Bochart, Ffirst, Kno bel, strix stridula or strix flammea), or goose (Michaelis, who believes that goose-fat was especially interdicted to the Hebrews as increasing their tendency to skin diseases) ; and Ebn Ezra explains "a bird at which thebe- holder shudders" (bibi). About naasn in the sense of chameleon see on ver. 30. — Greater unanimity prevails with respect to nsp, which many translate pelican (so Sept. , Vulg. onocrotalus, i. e. ass-brayer with reference to its unpleasant cries, Engl. Vers., Bo chart, Michael., Dathe, De Wette, Zunz, Furst), but others cuckoo (Hon., Syr. sgp — comp. Physiologus Syrus ed. Tychsen, p. 110 — , Arab. ^J or jJ, Luzzatto), or the bittern or mire- drum (ardea stellaris, Luther, Rosen- muller, Bunsen), or a kind of par tridge (Kata VhJ Knobel), or swan (Cassel, der Schwan p. LIII). On the cormorant and the pelican see Brehm 1. c. IV. 923—933.] 15. With respect to the next bird — ani , or nani in Deuteronomv — we feel considerable perplexity. The analogy of Arabic would lead to a species of vulture (.i.j or 4*ij), as indeed Saadiah and other Arabic in terpreters render ; and the etymology which points to a "merciful" bird, seems to corroborate this meaning, since the vulture was in the ancient world reputed for exceeding affection towards its young (see supra p. 144). But are we permitted to suppose plan less confusion in our list , which , if that were the correct sense, would begin with birds of prey , proceed to the "Runners" (as the ostrich) , then to the crepuscular birds (the owls), next to the "Swimmers" (as the cor morant and pelican), and then return again to a chief species of birds of prey? Though the hawk (ys) would have found a more appropriate place before the raven (si's) , the enumera tion exhibits, on the whole, a certain well-considered order. We are, there fore , inclined to take ani also as a species of pelican, which deserves, or was considered to deserve, the ap pellation of the "merciful" bird at least as much as the vulture; for "the pelicans", so writes one of the best and latest observers, "are as good- natured as they are intelligent ; they live peacefully with all animals, and seem to be quite satisfied if they are left unharmed" (Brehm 1. c. IV. 931); and as regards kindness to their young , it struck the ancients as so extraordinary that they invented the most marvellous fables, for instance, that pelicans throw themselves into the burning flames to rescue their young, or that, if unable to procure food forthe latter, they rip open their breast to nourish them with their own life-blood ; and the large pouch which is capable of holding about thirty pounds of water, was supposed to have been given to them by nature as a Rtorp-hnnsja +r. onnv.!.. +Ti^t« .yflP.- LEVITICUS XI. 13—19. 151 spring in times of need (comp. Horap. I. 54). That a "compassionate" crea ture to which such fine qualities were attributed, should have been classed among the unclean animals , may be understood by considering its asso ciation with the dreariness of ruins and waste solitudes , and by its pro verbial and unconquerable gluttony, to which it not unfrequently sacrifi ces its habitual good temper and love of peace ; and the aversion may have been confirmed by its voice , which resembles that of the unclean ass, whence the bird was designated "ono crotalus" or ass-brayer. [Guided by the analogy of the Ara bic , many have taken nm as vulture (vultur percnopterus , so Engl. Vers. gier eagle, Dathe, Michael., Rosenm., De Wette, Winer, Knobel, Fiirst, Bunsen, Luzzatto), while others have identified it with the swan (Sept. xuxvos, Kitto), or porphyrion (Vulg. purpurio), or stork (Luther), and even the nightingale (Pers. Ajb). Onkelos has spiipi?, a bird of "greenish" co lour , supposed to denote a species of vulture, Jonath. and Syr. sp^pia, that is, "the hissing" bird, probably the bee-eater (merops) ; and the Talmud (ChuU. 63a), modifying the etymolo gical sense, contends that if the bird arrives and settles upon some tree crying rakrak, it is a sign that "mer cy" (i. e. rain) is about to descend upon the earth (aiwi siam isa). The feminine nam, which is found in T TIT7 Deuteronomy instead of bhi, is the earlier, and seems the more appro priate reading, because the charac teristic affection of the pelicans to wards their young was deemed most conspicuous in the females,] 16. Now follows, in the original list of Deuteronomy, a name — 7[iw — the etymology of which, like its Greek equivalent (xaxappdxx-qs) points to a bird that darts and rushes upon its prey, and which, therefore, may well be taken to mean the chief repre sentative of the family of "fish-dar ters" (piscatrices). These, the most perfect of "web-footed birds" (Ste- ganopodes), to which the pelican also belongs, are pre-eminently re markable for their mastery in dart- .like diving , and in this no species of the family excels so much as the "fri gate-bird" or "man of war" bird, which fully deserves its name as "the swift-winged eagle of the sea" (ta- chypetes aquilus) ; for it surpasses in rapidity of flight even the tern and the gull: circling round in the air like the eagle or the vulture , it suddenly sweeps down from the giddy height , whenever its keen eye espies some porpoise or dolphin with a fish or some other favourite food; it forces from them their prey, and pursues them plunging into the depth of the sea; and so sure does it feel of its booty that it often drops a fish it has caught two or three times, to seize it again till it can hold it conve niently. A creature which shares so many characteristics of the most de tested of the birds of prey, and which is found everywhere in the warm and the temperate zones, could well be included among the forbidden kinds. [Most of the ancient and modern translators render r(iw by some web- footed darter or some diver (urina- tor), as fish-catcher (Onk., Jon., Syr. S3i3iia ; comp. Talm. ChuU. 63a, niian Bin ia fliai), or pelican (Gr. Ven., Kno bel), or more particularly fhepelica- nus Bassanus (Bochart, Oedmann, Michaelis, De Wette, Fiirst, Bunsen, Sturzpelikan), or crab-eater (Vulg. mergulus, Arab. g«; Dathe, Luzz.), or cormorant (Gr. Ven. in Deut., Engl. Vers., Kitto, a. o.) ; while some have swan (as Luther). On the frigate-bird see Brehm 1. c. IV. 913—916.] 152 LEVITICUS XI. 13—19. 17. The foUowing bird — ni-bq — is mentioned in the Scriptures as a migratory bird that observes the sea sons with nice precision , flies high "between earth and heaven", and builds its nest on the cypresses of mountain heights, such as the Leba non, and whose kindness is placed in strong contrast to the cruelty of the ostrioh (comp. Jer. VIII. 7 ; Zech. V! 9; Job XXXIX. 13; Ps. CIV. 17). It is remarkable that modern interpre ters understand almost uniformly the stork , while many ancient versions have heron (Sept. epmSios); it is dif ficult to see why the former aban doned a wide-spread tradition , un less they did so because they believed that the appeUation of "pious" bird (niibn) was most suited for the stork, whose parental and filial devotion has been extolled by writers of all ages (comp. Plin.X. 23 or 31; Ael. N A. III. 23; X. 16; XI. 30). But this cannot be deemed a decisive ar gument; moreover, storks seldom, if ever, build their nests on trees . No valid objection can, in fact, be raised against the old translation of heron, especially if we take the noblest representative of the family, the fa mous while or silver heron (Xeuxepui- 8i6s, herodias alba), which may well have struck observers as kind and good-tempered, if they compared it with its nearest relations, as the common heron (ardea cinerea),which, as a rule, are malicious, quarrelsome, and destructive. The silver heron is distinguished by its slender body, long neck , and weak bill , and espe cially by a plumage of resplendent white, and large and beautiful back- feathers , the well-known heron- plumes. It is found in the south-eas tern parts of Europe , almost in the whole of Asia and northern Africa, near secluded lakes and morasses, where often vast numbers are con gregated and present a splendid sight. It flies higher and more rapidly than most birds of the order of "Waders" or "Stilt-walkers" (Grallatores). For its nests it selects the tops of the loftiest trees, and seems to prefer the thicket of a high cane-brake only in regions where it deems the exposed trees unsafe. In England, the fleshof the common heron was formerly con sidered a delicacy, and heron-hawk ing was a favourite pastime of the wealthy , wherefore the bird and its eggs were protected by laws and fines. [The name niibn is rendered heron by the Greek translators (Septuag., Aquil., Theodot., Gr. V., ep33;s nini), that is, probably a middle front- toe more prominent than the rest, and are thus enabled to dig out grains from the ground; (2.) a crop (pst) to receive the food for preliminary soak ing; and (3.) a strong and muscu lar second stomach or gizzard (ppup), whose inner coat, covered with a slimy mucous membrane, can be peeled off from the fleshy part with the hand, without the aid of a knife. Yet it was soon discovered that these three signs can in themselves not be relied upon as decisive, for they would,for instance, legalise the raven, which is expressly mentioned among the prohibited kinds; hence they were not considered final, unless the bird is, besides, known not to "strike", and is by a sure tradition regarded as clean (see Mishn. Chull. HI. 6; Talm. Chull. 65a; Yor. Beah § 82 ; comp. Aristot. Hist. An. H. xn. 14, 15). Again, Jewish doctors estab lished this distinction that the eggs of clean birds have the yolk in the middle and the white around it, and that they are narrower on one and broader on the other end; while those of unclean birds have the white in the middle and the yolk around it, and are at the end equally nar row or equally broad (Talm. Avod. Zar. 40a; Chull. 64a). But the "strik ing" (nbin) was ultimately taken as the infallible, as it is the most obvious, test invariably stamping the bird as unclean; for it was looked upon as a proof that "the blood of the bird, heated on account of its innate cruelty, causes the internal organs to be blackened and burnt up, and en genders fierceness of temper" (Nach- man. in loc. fol. 90b). Anan, the Ka raite, taught that "the clean birds lick the water and drink, and feed their young" ; but many members of his sect held these criteria to be as illusory as those set forth by tra dition (comp.R. Aaron H in his Com mentary on Leviticus — nun ins — fol. 25b, edited by R. Jud. Savaskan, Eupatoria — silina — 1866). Philological Remakes. — Targum Jonathan inserts here (ver. 13) the Rabbinical signs of unclean birds above referred to ("those that have no siini ssois, nor a snpst, and whose ispiip cannot be peeled off"); comp. also Siphra 50b (ps ansa i»sn na '31 pst ii); Maim. De Cib. Vet. I. 16. The Talmudical criterion of nbin has, with less probability, been explained tomeanimpingingthe claws in small er birds ; or snatching with the ta lons the prey from the ground before it is taken into the mouth, or seizing and devouring it in the air while flying ; and the mini s>sss is usually understood as a separate toe or talon behind the rest, which acceptation is excluded by the fact that such toe 156 LEVITICUS XL 13—19. is found in most of the eagles, and in other notorious birds of prey. How many species the author actually intended to prohibit, it is impossible to say; the number 24 stated in the Talmud (Chull. 63), is imaginary, since it is simply made up of the twenty species really enumerated, and the four repetitions of the term "after its kind" occurring in the list. — The passage of Deuteronomy (XIV. 12 — 18) corresponding to ours, specifies not 20 but 21 birds, or "three heptads" (Sommer, Bibl. Abhandl. I. 253; comp. Kurtz, Opferc. p. 6): namely instead of n'sn-nsi ns~-nsi Deuteron. reads n;-ni n'sn-nsi nsini. It seems natural to conjecture that ns-n and niin are only orthographic modifications of the same word, s and i being occasionally interchanged (see Gram. II. p. 57), and that ns-ni has crept into the text of Deutero nomy by some mistake, unless the compilers of Leviticus omitted it on purpose, in order to produce the significant number of 20 animals (see p. 59). Ebn Ezra (on Lev. XI. 14 and Deut. XIV. 11) proposes, without proof, to take nsi as a generic term comprising the two species ns-, and n-i, or n-s and n~i. The Talmud (Chull. 63b) chooses to consider nsi and nsi as identical, the one derived from the vision, the other from the flight of the bird, which opinion has been adopted by later writers (as Man. ben Isr. , Bochart, Rosenm., a. o.), and been supported by the ana logy of Bi3in and B13111 (Gen. X. 4 and 1 Chr. I, 7); nt-i and n-- (Gen. X. 3 and 1 Chr. I. 6); isiss- and isis-i (Num. I. 14 and II. 14); and above all siii and siv, (2 Sam. XXII. 11 and Ps. XVIII. 11) ; but these varia tions, as is especially evident from the last instance, really imply differ ent readings in the earliest manu scripts or traditions. The Samaritan codex has nsm both in Levit. and Deuter. , and omits -iini in Deuter. (so also the Sept., Ar. Erp., and some masor. manuscripts of Kennic). Kno- bel's opinion (Levit. p. 449), that n"i is ah addition later made in Deuter. from Leviticus, is based upon the as sumption that it occurs in Levit., where, however, it does not occur; and Keil's suggestion (Lev. p. 75), that the list in Leviticus , meant to be merely illustrative, could in Deu teronomy be fitly increased by one or even more animals , is a conve nient evasion, the weakness of which needs hardly be pointed out. See also Hartmann, Forschungen, pp.230, 231. — The order in which the birds are enumerated is not identical in Deut. and Levit. : the difference with respect to nsi and nishas just been stated ; and -ia, which here stands immediately after Bis, is in Deuter. placed consi derably later, and follows only after an-; (or rather nani, see p. 151). The Sept. deviates, besides, from the ma- soretic sequence in transposing the wordy: (iepa£)inLevit., thoughnot in Deuter., and giving it an earlier place after s-s- (xopa£, ver. 15); the trans position does not, however, extend to the whole verse (as is assumed by Michaelis, in Orient. Bibl. H. 213), and the omission of the 15th verse in the Cassel manuscr. (Michael. 1. c.) is simply a mistake of the copyist. — If the more frequent use of ns as sign of the accusative be peculiar to the later stages of the Hebrew lan guage, it is curious to notice that, in our verses , that particle occurs . 9 times where it is omitted in the pa rallel passage of Deuteronomy, that in fact, in our verses, it is but once wanting (in nsisni ver. 19). This is the most important of the minor dif ferences of the two texts ; for we can lay no stress upon the reading nani in Deut. instead of the masculine LEVITICUS XI. 13—19; 20—25. 157 20. All winged creeping things that go upon four, shall be an abomination to you. 21. Yet these you may form oni, tor upon the occasional omission of the connecting particle i in the one Book or the other. SO — 35. The "winged creeping things" (til3>n yia), to which the Deuteronomist alludes with a few passing words, merely prohibiting them for food as unclean (XIV. 19), are next treated of by the levitical writer with evident care. But his statements present considerable dif ficulties. What are "winged creeping things"? Are they insects? We must answer, No; for they are distinctly described as "going upon four feet" (3>3is-i» 7jinn ) or as "having four feet" (fliiai s>ais ii-HBK) ; whereas the insects have invariably six, two on each of the three jointed rings of the thorax. It is, in fact, an essential point in the definition of insects that they have six feet. The authority of Aristotle has been appealed to. *ut that authority which, were it even favourable , would prove nothing against nature , is opposed to those who invoke it. For Aristotle remarks : "Some insects ha vethe/?rs/pair of feet larger ... in order to wipe off with them whatever falls upon the eyes, as we see the common flies and bee like insects do ; and the last pair is larger than the middle one, partly to be more serviceable for walking, and partly to enable the insects to rise more easily from the ground when about to fly." Indeed flies, as is well known , use their hairy legs as a kind of brush, wiping with the foremost pair the dust from the eyes, and with the hindmost from the wings , after which they cleanse the legs themselves by rubbing them against each other: but those ob servations of Aristotle manifestly pre-suppose six feet; moreover, the author adds distinctly, "All creatures of this kind have six legs, including those that serve for leaping (eijci-rroSa Se xd xoiauxa rcdvxa eial ouv xots aX- xixois p.opiois;. De Part. Anim. IV. vi. 1,5); and all recent investigations have confirmed the fact , that "three pairs of locomotive limbs are cha racteristic of perfect insects" (Hux ley, Elem. of Comp. Anat. p. 57). Again, even if, for argument's sake, We lay no stress upon the number of feet, we must ask, Are all insects Winged ? It is well known, that the class includes several wingless spe cies, viz. not only the females of some kinds, as the female or working ant (belonging to the hymenoptera), and the females of the mantis, the ear wig, the cockroach, and others of the order of orthoptera, but both males and females of a part of the order hemiptera (the louse, bug, a. o.), and the flea (one of the diptera). In fact, the only four-footed animals with wings are bats, and these are in our very chapter counted among the birds (ver. 19), though they reaUy belong to the mammalia. There are indeed a few animals provided with a membranous expansion or broad fold of skin along the flanks , or be tween the fore and hind legs, and also between the two hind-legs them selves, as the "Flying Dragon" (draco volans), a harmless lizard, the "Flying Lemur" (Galeopithecus or colugo), and the "Flying Squirrel" (Ptero- mys). But that extension of skin can in no sense be designated a wing ; it is by those creatures merely used as a kind of parachute, to sustain themselves while leaping from branch 158 LEVITICUS XI. 20-25. eat of all winged creeping things that go upon four [six] — those that have strong upper joints above their to branch, and it does not qualify them for continuous flight. What then are " the winged creeping things" ? For tunately, the Biblical text is suffi ciently explicit to dispel all doubt and to permit a clear inference. It mentions as lawful species of the "winged creeping things" several kinds of locusts. Now, these are winged; they have six feet; two of them are indeed peculiarly formed, but their exceptional structure is by no means so important as to con stitute a new class of animal. The locusts are insects ; their right of being numbered among them has never been questioned; and insects are undoubtedly meant by "winged creeping things", since they both walk or crawl and fly. The Chaldee trans lation of Jonathan exemplifies these animals by the fly, the wasp, and the bee; Jewish tradition has invariably taken the same view; Rashi explains the term by "small and diminutive creatures that crawl upon the ground, as the flies and hornets, the gnats and locusts"; and Maimonides in cludes in it "fly, gnat, hornet, and bee" (De Cib. Vet. H. 5). We are, therefore, compelled to conclude (1.) The fact that wingless insects exist was disregarded by the writer, whether he believed that the wings are an unessential criterion of insects, or not; and (2.) The words "all that walks upon all four", and "aU that has four feet" are incorrect. Six feet are required by the context, and six must here be read and understood. But it remains to enquire — How did this extraordinary mistake ori ginate? Is it attributable to the tra ditional text or to the author? All ancient versions, withcit. .-.nv mm, tion , render four feet ; this reading seems, therefore, as old as the dif fusion of the Hebrew text itself, and it would be arbitrary to suppose that four was inserted by the copyist in stead of six. But we believe we are able to prove that the mistake is due to the author, and even to show how he was betrayed to fall into the error. Let us turn to the parallel passage in Deuteronomy (XIV. 19, 20). After the enumeration of the unclean birds, it continues: "And every winged creeping thing (t)i3>n yia) shall be unclean to you; they must not be eaten: all clean fowls you may eat." It will be observed (1.) That the text in Deuteronomy does not qualify the creatures by the number of their legs, to which it does not allude at all; and (2.) That the "winged creeping things" are manifestly birds; for they are introduced in the midst of com mands relating to birds (comp. vers. 11 and 20) ; on any other supposition the last words "all clean fowls you may eat" would be unintelligible. These two important differences lead to the following conclusions. The Deuteronomist understood the words rendered "winged creeping thing" (ni3>n yia) as "unclean bird"; he evidently placed the terms "clean birds" and "clean fowls" (mint: iiss and una S|W) in juxtaposition to "unclean bird'"(vers. 11, 19, 20), as a calm examination of the passage must convince every reader; that the words i|i3>n yia bear suchmeaning, nay demand it in the context, re quires no proof, for yia denotes the unclean animals of all classes and species generally (see p. 50). Thus the text in Deuteronomy is clear and LEVITICUS XI. 20—25. 159 feet in the hindmost legs, to leap therewith upon the earth; 22. These of them you may eat: the migratory ticus , who had Deuteronomy before him, obviously believing the general injunction "every unclean bird shaft not be eaten" (Deut. XIV. 19) super fluous after the detailed enumeration of the unclean species (see p. 128), restricted that injunction to the last of the species mentioned, the bats (t)it33>); he was perhaps aware that bats are no bipeds, and had been wrongly placed among the birds ; he described them with sufficient accu racy as "winged creeping things that go upon four" ; and the great number of species of the bat-tribe, that were actually eaten, may have made such addition appear desirable. But the phrase S)13>n yia could easily and naturally be applied to the smaller "winged creeping things", or to in sects: therefore a later reviser, de sirous of inserting the permission of eating locusts, took the verse "all winged creeping things that go upon four, shaU be an abomination to you" to refer to insects, perhaps under standing the phrase "walking upon all four" to refer to any indefinite number of legs (see infra); and he introduced that verse as a general rule, from which he excepted the locusts as lawful food. Thus the mistake of attributing four feet to locusts and to aU other insects , re mains; but we can account for its origin, we see that it crept into the Pentateuch at a late period, and that it is a result of the very peculiar and complex manner in which that work was gradually completed and con cluded. The veil wiU never be with drawn from the composition and growth of the Law , unless it is ad mitted, that, the levitical precepts form the latest additions, and are, in spirit and detail, more advanced than those of Deuteronomy. Butwith this conviction as a guide, the mys tery is lessened , and may in time be entirely solved. How , on the oppo site view, the omission, in Deute ronomy, of aU mention of clean lo custs can be explained, it is diffi cult to see. Could a recapitulation, however compendious, suppress an important and a striking feature which might have been inserted with a few concise words? In any sum mary of the dietary laws — and they are stated in Deuteronomy with con siderable fulness — the permitted species of the "winged creeping- things" would unquestionably have been aUuded to, had that summary been made from a work such as Le viticus, containing a provision in fa vour of those insects (see also p. 124). How the locusts, "unclean" (yia) in every respect, a ravaging scourge while living, and often the cause of dire pestilence by their sudden death, could be allowed for food by an ap parently unwarranted deviation, has been explained above (p. 126). The four sorts of locusts here spe cified are not easy of identifica tion; but so much is certain from the addition "after its kind", made in each instance, that certain chief genera are intended (see Philolog- Remarks). Jewish tradition main tains, that 8 species of clean lo custs are literaUy implied in the text, and that there exist altogether 800 species (Talm. Shabb. 90b ; Chull. 65 ; Taan. 22b; Maimon. De Cib. Vet. I. 21—23). The Mishnah (Chull. III. 7) thus describes the criteria of the clean kinds: they have four legs, four wings, and springing legs 160 LEVITICUS XI. 20—25. locust {arbeh) after its kind, and the locust solam after its kind, and the locust chargol after its kind, and the locust (aiilbip), and their wings cover the greater part of the body ; and having these four signs, they must be known under the name chagav (s;n) : which rules, explained, qualified, and ex panded in the Talmud (Chull. 65, 66 ; Av. Zar. 37), no more lead to a dis tinct conclusion than the surmises of subsequent Jewish writers, some of whom place the springing legs "near the neck" ! (see infra). Indeed later and stricter casuists entirely forbid locusts, because it is at pre sent impossible to distinguish the clean from the unclean species (comp. Rashi in loc. ; Yor. Beah § 85). It is well known that locusts are extensively eaten in various forms of preparation. They are roasted on red-hot coals or on an iron plate, or dried in the oven or in the sun on the roofs of houses, when they keep and remain eatable for years ; they are cooked alive by being thrown into boiling water co piously mixed with salt and then dried in the sun, after which their heads, feet, and wings are' plucked off, and their bodies freed from the salt; or they are boiled, or stewed, or fried in butter, and so spread on unleavened bread; or they are ground to flour in hand-mills, or pounded into powder in stone mortars ; the flour and the powder, usually mixed with corn-flour, are made into a dough by kneading them with water, and then baked into cakes or bread; or the powder is sprinkled with milk and so consumed (Herod. TY. 172). They are eaten both in years of famine and of plen ty, and in seasons of scarcity they form not rarely the only nourishment for whole tribes (Diod. Sic. T17 29} : they are relished by the natives, especially at breakfast, though more often by the poor than by the rich, and more by the Arabs than the Turks ; they are neither disagreeable in taste which resembles that of shrimps and prawns or sprat's, nor, as a rule, injurious to health; often they have even been employed medicinal ly, and taken with wine, have been considered efficacious against the sting of scorpions (Diosc. II. 57). Hence they are commonly offered in the market, or ordinarily soldin shops by the measure, either in sacks and baskets, or drawn on strings, and they find ready purchasers. The Jews in Yemen buy and eat them freely, and believe that locusts are the "birds" (lia) which God sent the Israelites as food in the desert; and this ques tionable opinion is shared by some western scholars (as Ludolf, Niebuhr, and Oken). It is remarkable that the inhabitants of the peninsula of Mount Sinai, where the Hebrews are said to have received the dietary laws, are the ' only Bedouins "who do not use the locust as an article of food" (Burckhardt, Bedouins, p. 376) : how ever, the dietary laws of the Penta teuch were not given in the peninsula of Mount Sinai, but in Palestine, and were suggested by much later habits and exigencies. While our author was following the guidance of Deuteronomy, he coupled the prohibition of the un lawful animals with the simple in junction, "Of their flesh youmust not eat , and their carcass you must not touch" (vers. 8, 11); but now, taking his own path, he is unable to con ceal a more advanced age and a more LEVITICUS XI. 20—25. 161 chagav after its kind. 23. But all other winged creeping things which have four feet, shall be an abomination to tedly, "Whoever touches their car cass shall be unclean until the even ing; and whosoever bears ought of their carcass, shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening" (vers. 24, 25, 28, 31, 40, 41). Thus a nice gradation is establishedbetween touching and carrying an unclean carcass, and a decided ceremonialism is everywhere manifest; for the le vitical spirit had begun to pervade religion and all relations of life. But an additional and a very remarkable difference is apparent. Another le vitical legislator was not satisfied with measures of lustration so lenient, in cases of defilement by unclean car casses ; he looked even upon involun tary or inadvertent pollution as an of fence to be expiated by a signal act of religious penance ; and he ordained a sin-offering for any such emergency whatever (v. 2, 3). How this rigorous and oppressive law was abandoned, has been pointed out in another place (see Comm. on Lev. I. 41, 42, 509). Philological Remakes. — The meaning of the term siwn yia cannot be doubtful as regards the language, whatever difficulties it may offer with respect to the sense : it is "a creeping thing with wings" ; the Sept. renders literally epitexd x<5v -nexeivuiv ; and so Onk. and Jonath. ssissi sanii; Bunsen hot inaptly "alles geflugelte Klein- gethier"; inaccurately Vulg. omne de volucribus ; Luther "was sich reget unter den Vogeln" ; Rosenm. insecta salientia ; indistinctly Michaelis "alles Mittelding von Geflugeltem" ; Nach- manides explains, "The winged crea tures with four legs, the neck and head of which are bent downward, as in reptiles, and do not, as in birds, rise upward"; but he omits to give instances of animals so peculiar ; Jonathan who, as has been stated above, inserts after these words, "the species of flies, and the species of wasps, and the species of bees" (comp. Talm. Chull. 65, 66), adds at the end "but bee-honey may be eaten"; for Jewish tradition, though as a rule strictly adhering to the canon , that whatever comes from an unclean creature is itself unclean (see supra p. 129), declared the honey of bees unobjectionable, because it is not the direct produce of the insects,but a pre paration from the gathered juices of herbs (comp. Talm. Bechor. 7b; Mai- mon. De Cib. Vet. IH. 3 ; Yor. Beah § 81. 8). — In ver. 42, Targ. Jonath. renders the words '31 ssis is> 'jiin isi "all that go upon all four from the serpent to the centiped (or miUiped i-3) which has many feet" (a class connecting the Crustacea with the insects); while the Talmud (Chull. 67b) understands by 3>sis is> ^iin the scorpion, whichbelongstothe spider- tribe. Hence the phrase "going upon aU four" s>sis is> "im,. as in some mo dern languages, evidently pointed to the low or crawling movement of the body near the ground, rather than to the exact number of feet : there fore , whereas in ver. 20 it is taken literally, it is in the following verse unmistakably applied to insects with six legs, although these creatures are immediately afterwards described as biiai 5>sis ii ias , which words per mit no other interpretation than just "four legs." — The correct reading (in ver. 21) is unquestionably theKeri tji3>ia ii i»s, not the Kethiv 'is si ias. The decisive argument against the latter reading is, that it is opposed to fact and nature, for locusts have 162 LEVITICUS XI. 20—25. you; 24. And by these you are rendered unclean; whoso ever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the even- "ai3>i3 above their feet to leap there with" (see infra). The sense of ii is expressed by all ancient translators ; ii is found in the Samaritan codex, and in many manuscripts of Kennic. and De Rossi (comp. Var. Lect. I. 94, 95); while the reading s'i, taken in its usual sense, would be utterly un intelligible in the context, though it has been expressedby Luther a. o., and supported by early Jewish casuists who translate, "which, though hav ing no B-s-'is at the time, grow them later" (Talm. Chull. 65a). If si is to be retained, it must be considered as identical in meaning with ii, and as differing from it merely in ortho graphy; it is not impossible, as has been conjectured, that ii, being in ancient times often written sii, withs otiosum (see Gramm. H. p. 59), was in some cases, by a questionable ap plication of scriplio defecliva, written s'i. Certain it is , that the same Ke- thiv and Keri (s'i and ii) occur in several other passages also, where the Keri ii is required by the sense (Exod.XXI. 8 ; Lev. XXV. 30 ; 1 Sam. II. 3 ; Isai. IX. 2) ; while in others (as Job XLI.4) the Kethiv si, and i n others again (as 1 Sam. XX. 2) the Keri s'i is preferable (comp.also 2 Sam.XVHI. 12 — Keth.sii,Ker.iii; Mic.H.ll — Keth. ii, otherreadingsiin; andonthe Ma- soretic interchange of si or ii with ii see Geiger's Jud. Zeitschr. VI. 21 — 31). No uncertainty is possible as to ^ the entire phrase in which the cha racteristic of the locusts is set forth, is> 1H3 insi iiiaii is-aa 313*13 ii ias yisn, that is literally, "which have thighs above their feet to leap there with upon the earth". It must be ob served, (1.) Those words do not de scribe the locusts' legs generaUy, but only the third or hindmost pair, for these alone differ in their use and structure from the legs of other in sects. (2.) These legs consist indeed, like those of all insects, of three joints and no more, but the second j oint, which is above the tarsi or the series of smaller segments terminat ing thefoot, is, in locusts, particularly long and powerful, and is used by them to stem themselves on the ground, and by these means to leap considerably, in some instances 200 times their full length (comp. Job XXXIX. 20). (3.) This second joint must be understood by bis>13, which fully admits this sense (see Comm. on Levit. I. 478), while the lowest set of joints, or the tarsi, is appro priately expressed by iai, the foot in the stricter sense. (The Arabs call the two springing legs simply feet, Nieb. Arab. 170.) Therefore, the words under discussion might be thus pa raphrased: — the insects that have in their hindmost legs the second joint, or that above the proper foot, so strong as to be able to leap there with upon the earth. Impossible meanings have been attributed to the - words iiiaii is>aa: they have been explained to signify "over and above" or "besides the feet", yielding the translation "all that, besides the feet, have two hind-legs" (so Sommer, Bibl. Abh. I. 259, Bunsen, Luzzatto), as if 'i iyaa could ever have that meaning (Isai. VI. 2 is no parallel at all), and as if the locusts alone of the class t]i3>n yia had six feet; or "above the four ordinary legs, near the neck" (as Rashi, Bartenurah, and other Jewish writers surprisingly in terpret) , whereas the springing legs are the lowest or last, and not the LEVITICUS XI. 20—25. 163 ing. 25. And whosoever bears ought of their carcass, shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening. highest pair on the thorax (comp. Aristot. De Part. An. IV. vi. 5); or -"'rising above the proper legs", that is (as Bochart, Michaelis, and others explain), the locusts have besides the four legs upon which they walk or creep along, two much larger and higher springing legs , which , if the ¦creatures sit or walk, not only pro ject above the proper legs, but also above the back; but (1.) Biyis cannot mean the entire legs including the three parts or joints, for they are in variably expressed by a-iai, and (2.) the elliptical sense attributed toa"s-is iiiaii i3)aa is entirely against the He brew usage. Most of the interpreters render the words so literally that their translations are not less in distinct than the Hebrew original itself (Sept. a e'-/_ei sxIXt] diviuxepov xuiv TtoSuiv auxiSv; Onkel., Jonath., Engl. Vers., "that have legs above their feet", Dathe , De Wette, a. o.) ; the Vulgate expresses the sense im perfectly (habet longiora retro crura), entirely omitting 1-iaii is-aa; and Luther erroneously ("und nicht mit zweien Beinen auf Erden hupfet"; see supra) : — 1"s refers to Bis>ls which is feminine (comp. Am. IH. 12) , for the locusts leap by means of the middle joint, not by the proper foot (or tarsi), which is short and weak. The reading ans, therefore, in the Samaritan Codex and some manu scripts, is not acceptable. Just as the Arabs eat some kinds of locusts and reject others, and as the Persians even divide all locusts into "lawful" and "forbidden" classes, so the levitical legislator permitted to the Hebrews only some of the many genera which have frequently,though somewhat conflictingly, been descri bed by old and modern travellers and naturalists. These distinguish the green and the yellow, the red and tbe grey, the light and fat, the flying and the leaping locust; and the sub genera are so numerous, that an ap proximate identification of the four species mentioned in our text is per haps all that can ever be expected. As a rule, the larger kinds only, which are comprised under the old generic name of Acridia, are eaten; they have short antennae not pointed at the end, and their prothorax is knobbed underneath and raised above. The female of the "Muken" (.Xo) is espe cially esteemedboth as palatable and nutritious. It is well known that lo custs are the favourite food of fowls, pigs, and monkeys , but above all of some birds , as the starling and red thrush (turdus roseus), and especially fheSamarmar or Samarmog(ya^J), a black bird somewhat larger than our sparrow, which devours a vast num ber, and kills many more, whence it is kept and scrupulously protected in provinces liable to the locust plague; for a similar reason, jack daws were, in Thessaly and Illyria, fed at the public expense, because they destroy both the eggs of the lo custs and their young brood (comp. Ael. Nat. An. HI. 12 ; Plin. XI. 29 or 35 ; Rilter, Erdkunde, VHI. 796, 798, 804). l.The rnis(from nsi to be multiplied, to be many) seems to point with some distinctness to the "migratory lo- custs"(acridium migratorium or gryl - lus gregarius), which often fly in stupendous swarms over various parts of Asia and elsewhere, voraciously devastating all vegetation (see Comm. on Ex. pp. 160—163); "like the lo custs in multitude" (aii n3is3) was 164 LEVITICUS XI. 20—25. a proverbial phraseused to denote vast numbers (Judg. VI. 5; VH. 12; comp. Jer.XLVI.23; LI. 14; Nah. IH. 15,17); andthemigratorylocust is still called by the same name (nsis)in some parts of Asia (Nieb. Arab. p. XXXVII). 2. The Byis (from the Chaldee root to consume, perhaps kindred with the Hebrew s>ia), is the "Devourer" (like pii and V-cn, see infra), a large and destructive kind, which it would be mere hazard to define, especially as the word B3>ib occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament. The same applies 3. to ijin (comp. Arab. Ja-^a. to run rapidly) the "Lea- per", evidently an unwinged species, the eggs of which, if worn at the ear, were supposed to be a remedy against ear-ache (Mishn. Shabb. VI. 10). And 4. the 3S.n (comp. Arab. _>«-?. to cover or hide) seems to mean a class of locusts which cover the ground so completely as to hide it; they resemble, therefore, the nais in their prodigious swarms, but differ from it in being unwinged ; though small and insignificant in appearance (Num. Xni. 33 ; Isai. XL. 22), they may become a scourge laying waste the fields (2 Chr. VII. 13); and they were certainly so common that they were used as the generic term, not only for the clean but for all locusts in general (JJfw^.Chull.III.7 ; VIH. 1 ; Terum. X. 9; Edej. VII. 2; Vin. 4). How far these criteria afford a ba sis for exact identifications, may ea sily be estimated, if our imperfect knowledge with respect to this sub ject be considered. Yet for the sake of completeness we subjoin a survey of the principal conjectures that have been ventured. 1. n^is — Samar., Onk., Jon., Sifra, Talm. S3:3 (Hebr. si:, perhaps the most comprehensive designation for lo custs, Am. VII. 1 ; Nah.III. 17 ; Arab. ^Va.), orissy, a kind of locust having neither tail nor "hump" (i. e. the anterior part of the head does not rise, hump-like, between the anten nae) , whether the head be round or oblong (comp. Talm. Chull. 65, Be rach. 40b; Sot. 49b; Taan. 22b); Syr. ssap (locust generally; comp. ja*5 to leap, to run in galop); Ar. oija. (locust); Sept.fipouyoz; Vulg. bruchus; Gr.Ven. dxpis; Engl.Vers.locust,Bathe locusta, Michael. Heuschrecken nach der ersten Hautung, Buzz, locusta. 2. b^b — Onk., Syr. si-'a'i, Jon. sawn*, Sifra, Talm. (Chull. 65) y'ai, Sept. axxdxTjS, Vulg. attacus ; Talm. (Chull. 65, 66) "a species having a hump but no tail"; Gr. Ven. itdpvoii (gryl- lus eversor) Saad. and Abus. U.^ (dybbe or dybben, a winged species not eaten by the Arabs because unwhole some, Nieb. Arab. p. 172); Ebn Ezra "Rockscaler" (aiyibs nis>i pa) ; Ar.Erp. yjiJj (comp. Onk., Syr.) ; Engl. Vers. bald locust; Michael. Heuschrecken nach der zweiten Hautung. 3. i;-n — Onk., Syr., Saad., Abus., Ar. Erp., si;;in; Jon., Sifra, Talm. (Chull. 65b), si'sna or iiss; Talm. 1. c. a species having both a "hump" and a tail; Samar. nil si (the walking or leaping locust); Sept. 6cpiop.dx?]S, and Vulg. ophiomachus ("the serpent- killer"), an unwinged species attack ing serpents in the neck; comp. Plin. XI. 29 or35 ; Gr. Ven. dxxeXafSos(comp. Arist. IHst. Nat. V. xvn. 2; xxiv. 3; Plin. XXIX. 4 or 29, adversantur scorpionibus locustarum minumae sine pennis, quos attelebos vocant; Cyrill. and Hieron. ad Nah. HI. 17); Engl. Vers, beetle; Michael. Heu schrecken nach der drittenHautung; Bunsen, Grashupfer (Gryllus verru- civorus or papus). 4.san — Sam., 0H/c.,ss.an; Jon. ssiis sains sim (a kind of "locust called Nidduna), or (in Num. and Isai. 11. cc.) ssag; Sifra -pis (the "Leaper"); Talm. (1. c.) isiia, or a species having LEVITICUS XI. 20—25. 165 a tail but no "hump" ; Sept. dxpts, Vulg. locusta; Saad., Ar. Erp. *_>j.A*., and in Num. 1. c. JUa., the general name for locust; Engl. Vers, grass hopper; Michael. Heuschrecke nach ^ervierten Hautung; Luzzatto grillo; Bunsen Heupferd. S ome translators (as Luther, Dathe, De Wette, and Zunz), attempting no version whatever, retain the Hebrew terms, and we have partially followed their example. The fourfold addition of I3iai or insiai may be explained from passages like Joel 1. 4 andH. 25, where as sub-genera of ttais are men tioned Bis, pi;, and in?- (comp. Ex. X. 13, 19" with Ps. LXXVni. 46 ; CV. 34; see also 1 Ki. VHI. 37; Nah. HI. 15, 16; 2 Chr. VI. 28); although at tempts have been made to prove, that the four terms both in Joel and in our passage merely represent four different metamorphoses or ages of the chief or migratory kind of locust {so Credner and Meier on Joel U. cc, Michaelis) ; in our law certainly the in sertion of "after its kind" which fol lows each name militates against such an opinion (comp. Oedmann, Samm- lungen, II. 113 sqq. ; Hitzig on Joel).— nisii (in ver. 24, "and by these you are rendered unclean") clearly points to the preceding injunctions — to those on the "winged creeping things" Sa naais swbi by xal ivuxtaxYJpas ovuxiCei, omitting nasis; and others unscrupulously leave out nbis nsisa sin ias (so Dathe). — It is a matter of course that unclean animals defile by their touch only when dead, inwhateverway theymay have died or may have been killed (Rashb. ,Nachman.Bi5sina iia aina ya), for asses, horses, camels, and other "unclean" animals could be freely employed; many codices have indeed aniaaa instead of ani (De Rossi, Var. Lect. I. 95); and the Sadducees ac tually extended the prohibition to the living animals (comp. Ebn Ezra in loc, see also supra p. 129). — The words iiss is> -im denote the planti grade animals , having a foot like a hand (ns, comp. 1 Sam. XXV. 29; Sept. eitl xeipuW auxuiv ; Targ. Onkel. inni is>; Jonath. ini is)). SO— S8. Of the large class of "creeping things" (yia), which are all unclean, only those with wings have hitherto been considered (vers. 20 — 25); butthose "creeping on theearth" could not be passed over in a code meant to serve as a complete guide (see p. 51). Among the latter class, certain species were held to be pre eminently polluting, and appeared to require regulations of exceptional strictness. They are here introduced so exclusively in reference to leviti cal purity, that eating, which is out of the question, is not even men tioned. We have before pointed out the character of these extraordinary ordinances (p. 102); they will be suf ficiently understood from the Sum mary and the translation ; and no one can failtobe struck bytheir casuistic minuteness and subtlety. A few re marks only are needed in this place. Touching the 'carcass of the eight animals causes uncleanness tiU the evening ; and carrying it probably re quires washing of garments , though that contingency is not mentioned. Vessels of wood and metal , and stuffs and textures of any kind, upon or into which such carcass falls , are to be cleansed by water; but vessels of earthenware, which were unglazed amongtheHebrews, are to be broken, 168 LEVITICUS XI. 29—38. and the mouse, and the land-lizard after its kind, 30. And the water-lizard, and the hardun, and the gecko, and the since the uncleanness of the carcass is supposedto penetrate into the utensils through their pores and to taint them irremediably (see Comm. on Levit. I. pp. 543, 544) : in any case, the contents of the vessel become unfit for use. Now if dry food faUs into an earthen vessel defiled by contact with a car cass, it is thereby not contaminated; but if the food has been prepared with water, it is considered to imbibe by the moisture the unclean matter absorbedin the vessel,andis therefore, if put or dropped into such utensil, forbidden as unlawful. For similar reasons, any drink is disqualified that is poured into a vessel so pohuted, of whatever material the vessel may be, whether of wood, metal , or earthen ware ; for the fluid is in all instances believed to draw out, and to mingle with, the latent impurity. Analogies to these peculiar ordinances are not wanting. If a Brahman touches a human bone moist with oil, he can only be purified by bathing ; but if the bone is not oily, stroking a cow suffices, or looking at the sun, in ad dition to sprinkling the mouth with water (ManuY. 87; see notes on XV. 1 — 15, esp. ver. 12). A Mohammedan is not defiled by touching with a dry hand a dry corpse, but is unclean if either the hand or the corpse is moist (Nieb. Beschreib. v. Arab. p. 40) ; and he considers himself impure even by the touch of a dog's wet nose (see p. 96). — As the baking and cooking utensUs were, as a rule, simply ear thenware, they were also thoroughly polluted by the contact with unclean carcasses , and were in such case to be broken in pieces as utterly unfit for further use (see Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 482 , 483). The heat to which they are ordinarily subjected, was held, like the water in other cases, to preserve the impurity and to com municate it to the victuals prepared in them. Wells, cisterns, and similar receptacles, are not contaminated by carcasses , because the water, con stantly renewed, neutralises or infini tely dilutes the defiling matter: whe ther practical considerations, such as the scarcity of water in eastern climates , helped to recommend this apparent leniency, it is difficult to decide; yet the carcasses themselves, when taken out of the water, remain unclean, and defile those who touch them. Dry seeds were considered, not to be pervious, to impurity by contact, whereas seeds soaked in water were deemed to be so; therefore, the for mer remained clean, if touched by a dead body, the latter were defiled; and a similar distinction between defiling objects in a dry and moist state stiU prevails among the Arabs and other nations. In this manner the strange playfulness of these or dinances is brought to a fit conclu sion. They bespeak an age of decline, when the freshness and enthusiasm which create new ideas had vanished. Their non-introduction by the Deu teronomist is, therefore, not owing to his "late time" supposedto have no longer required them, but to very different reasons (see p. 126). That the eight animals here enumerated were looked upon as causing pecu liar and intense defilement second only to that produced by a human corpse, cannot be doubted from -the tenour and phrasing of the com mands; and the matterhas by Jewish tradition invariably been so consi dered. According to the Talmud and LEVITICUS XI. 29-38. 169 ¦chmet (lizard), and the chameleon. 31. These shall be to you the most unclean among all creeping things: whosoever Targum Jonathan, not only their carcass, like that of other unclean creatures, pollutes both men and ves sels by mere contact, but even their skins are defiling, whereas the skins of other unclean animals may be ' freely touched and used(see onvers.39, 40); they' infect earthenware vessels even when falling into them alive, whereas the other "creeping things" cause pollution only if dead; and stripes are forfeited by eating a piece of their flesh not larger than a lentil, whereas the seize of an olive is the ordinary measure with respect to other unclean meat (comp. Mai- mon. De Cib. Vet. H. 6 sqq. ; Hotting. De Jur. Hebr. pp. 209, 224; also Targ. Jonath. in vers. 29, 31, 32). But why were those creatures re garded with such exceptional abhor rence? Why were they described and treated as the incarnation and the very types of uncleanness? This question can only be answered when the Hebrew names have at least ap proximately been identified. 1. With regard to the first animal — lih — , tradition fluctuates between the mole and the weasel; but proba bility is in favour of the latter, for this alone suits the passages of the Mishnah and the Talmud in which that term (miw) occurs. And the weasel (mustela vulgaris) deserves in deed to be classed amongthe mostob- noxious animals. Though the small est and most slender of the carni vora , it yields to none in fierce cou rage and bold rapaciousness. It some times even attacks horses and men, and seems in the East to have been considered dangerous to sleeping children and human corpses (Talm. Shabb. 151b; Rashi on Taan. 8a). Among the birds of prey, it fears the largest only, such as the hawk; to the others it is no contemptible oppo nent; and it engages in desperate fights with much stronger! quadru peds. It is indeed a truly formidable robber; aided by its diminutive size and remarkable agility, it causes fearful ravages among the smaller mammals, such as mice and rats, moles and hamsters, hares and rab bits, which it kills for their blood rather than their flesh ; it wages suc cess ful war against fowls and pigeons, larks and other birds , and all kinds of insects; against lizards, deaf ad ders, and water snakes ; against fishes and frogs; and it even knows how to obtain the flesh of the lobster. In fact , hardly any of the smaller ani mals escape its indefatigable aggres siveness ; for it is a master in running and climbing, jumping and swim ming, turning and eluding; it glides into the smallest holes , and makes its way through the narrowest fissures ; and it possesses every possible faci lity for giving effect to its insatiable destructiveness . In addition to this, the aversion entertained against the weasel was fostered by strange fables and inventions ; for instance , that it conceives through the ear, and brings forth its young through the mouth — a fiction based on the simple ob servation that the mother carries her very small offspring from place to place in her mouth, as the cat does (see supra p. 60) — ; or that its very touch causes ulcerous eruptions, espe cially in cows. If it be added that the weasel has a strong and disagree able smell , that it selects for its re treats mostly dark recesses,as caverns, hollow clefts of walls and rocks , the 170 LEVITICUS XI. 29—38. touches them, when they are t.Tifi fivpninp* 39, And unnn i dead, shall be unclean until the evening. 32. And upon whatsoever anything of them interior of dunghills, the holes of the mole where it hides bright objects which it delights in stealing, and that it was superstitiously employed for divination (Talm. Sanh. 66a): it will notbe difficult to account for the intense dislike with which it inspired the Hebrews. For, to sum up, it is rapacious and thievish, drinks blood with predelection, is repulsive in smell, and lives in darkness. All this weighed too heavily with the He brews to be counterbalanced by the beneficent effects of the weasel's de- structiveness, which is largely direct ed against rats and fieldmice. [The fact, the force of which cannot be denied, that the Arabic name for mole is still jji. or l^SL, as lih is rendered by the Arabic trans lators (Saad., Abus., Ar. Erp.), is out weighed by the consideration that not mole but weasel is applicable in the passages of the Mishnah and Talmud , in which it is said that the mim kills other beasts of prey lar ger than itself and fowls (Mishn. To- har. IV. 2, 3; Chull. III. 4; Talm. Chull. 52b; see, however, Pesach. 8b), and succeeds mainly on account of its pointed and hooked teeth with which itbreaks through the skull and its skins (Talm. Chull. 56a), that it lives in deadly enmity with the cat (Talm. Sanh. 105a), is of surprising shrewd ness and cunning, laps water from a-vessel(Mishn. Var. IX. 3), and feeds voraciously, and even excessively, upon flesh (Talm. Pesach. 9a; comp. Brehm 1. c. I. 544—549) : yet it must be observed that the word nia»s (Mishn. Moed Kat. I. 4), which un doubtedly is mole (Bi3is> ni ysa nns, Talm. in loc. 6b), is in the Talmud of Jerusalem explained by mim (viz. mim ii ma»s, fol. 80b ed. Krotosch.). In some other passages, the "large weasel" or the ermine (mustela ermi- nea) seems to be intended (Mishn. Ki- laimVIH.5,an3bnniiin mustela rubro- >rum; :Tfl/m.Bab.Kam.80a; comp.Lehy- sohn, Zoologie des Talmud, pp.94, 95). lih (from lin to glide, to creep in) has, besides, been rendered mole by Bo chart, Dathe, Michaelis, De Wette, Zunz, a. o.; \3utweasel\iy theSept.(ya- Xf)) and Vulg.(mustela), Onkel. (si^n), Syr. (snaiS3),and Jon.(sna"isis, comp. Talm. Sanh. 105a), Rashi (n'iitaaa, moustille) andKimchi(s'iinaia), Lu ther andEngl. Vers., Gesen. (seeThe- saur. pp.474, 475), Sommer (Abhand- lungen, I. 260—263), Knobel, Luz- zatto, Bunsen, a. o.] 2. The next name — • isssj — is un doubtedly the common mouse, ormore especially the field-mouse. The lat ter was so much dreaded for the ravages it causes in fields and mea dows, that it became the very type and picture of destruction. The word mice is in the Bible simply explained as "destroyers of the earth" (1 Sam. VI. 5). When the Philistines, after having seized theArkoftheCovenant, were smitten with pestilential boils, they sent as an offering of atonement, besides golden emerods,golden figures of mice, the former denoting the special misfortune from which they were suffering, the latter characte rising that evil as ruinous devasta tion in general (1 Sam. VI. 5; comp. V. 6); for we are not warranted to assume that the Philistines had been visited by a plague of mice also. The mouse was the Egyptian hierogly phic for destructiveness (dtpaviap.6s), "because, gnawing at aU things, it damages and spoils them" (Horap. I. 50) ; and it would be unnecessary to repeat the testimonies of ancient LEVITICUS XI. 29 — 38. 171 falls, when they are dead, that shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or garment, or skin, or sack, what- and modern writers as to the fearful havocthathas oftenbeen wrought by the most edacious and prodigiously prolific field-mice, engendering fa mine and disease, and forcing the inhabitants to emigrate (comp. Boch. Hieroz. I. lib. IH. c. 34). Among the Greeks, mice were sacred to Apollo in his attribute as destroyer ('AiroX- Xiuv — ibs ditoXXus xd C<5a, Macrob. Sat. I. 17). The fatal injury they in flict upon all kinds of fields was re cognised in later Judaism by the per mission granted to proprietors to kill them by any means on the middle days of Passover and Tabernacles (Talm. MoedKat.6b, 7a;comp. Orach Chajim § 537. ]3); they received the appellation of "wicked mice" (smsBs1 sisnai), because, whenever they see grain , they caU aU their tribe toge ther and feast till nothing is left (Talm. Jer. Bab. Mets. lla) ; and even the common mice stood in great dis favour because "an evil instinct" com pels them to gnaw at objects which they cannot eat , as garments, wood, and skins, and to bite even into hu man corpses; and a person eating food that has been touched by a mouse, was believed to suffer loss of memory (Talm. Horay. 13; Shabb. 151b). Hence at certainheathenrites, especially those performed in honour of the dead, the flesh of mice was freely eaten, though it may otherwise have been shunned; and after the Ba bylonian exile, the Jews, adding new superstitions to their many old forms of idolatry, practised that custom also, and conciliated death , the most im placable of all destroyers , on graves and in cavern tombs (Isai. LXV. 4i LXVI. 17; Comm. on Lev. I. p. 376). Moreover, a thievish propensity ma nifested by pilfering coins, rings, and other bright objects (Talm. Sanh. 29b), avoidance of day and light, and a predatory life in secret holes, prob ably strengthened the antipathy with which the restless destructive- ness of the mouse impressed the Hebrews. [All ancient versions, we believe without an exception, render lasy by mouse; and there is no reason whatever to understand springing hare or Jerboa (Dipus jaculus, so Bochart, Gesen., Rosenm., Knobel, Bunsen, a. o.) , a clean and harmless animal, which would hardly have been count ed among the detested and polluting creatures, and the chief species of which (Pedetes caffer) is mainly found in the southern parts of Africa (comp. supra p. 132; Brehm 1. c. II. 191 — 194). Whether the etymologi cal meaning of iss? is "destroyer of the field" or "of corn" (is isy, Bo chart, Gesen., a. o.), must remain undecided.] 3. Perhaps the most interesting and most extraordinary of all the Reptiles are the Sauria. In the ear lier periods of the earth's history, they peopled the water in the hugest and most wonderful forms, and in looking at the petrified remains of the Ichthyosaurus or the Pterodac- tylus, we are astonished to find that these gigantic monsters combine the peculiarities of amphibia, fishes, and birds. Their present representatives are indeed smaller in size and simpler in structure, but still most remarkable fortheirnumber,shape, andhabits. Of the three classes in which the Sau ria are naturally divided — the Armed lizards (Loricata), the Scaly lizards (Squamati) and the Snake-lizards (Annulati), the second have the most numerous varieties and are most 172 LEVITICUS XI. 29—38. soever vessel it be, wherein put into water, and it shall widely diffused, and it is probably families of Scaly lizards which are intended by the next words, "and the 32 after its kind" : for lizard or "land-crocodile" is the most uniform rendering of the ancient versions; and a certain harmless kind of yel- lowlizard,knownaslacertaAegyptia, about 18 inches long, living in de serts but never in the water, and ea ten by some Bedouin tribes in Africa and Syria, is still called dhab or dhob (-^o)- But it would be difficult to fix upon one particular species, and we must include the whole tribe, the characteristics of which are indeed such as to justify its place in our list. The body of the lizards is certainly, as a rule, divided into head, neck, trunk, and limbs , but sometimes the limbs, if not entirely wanting, are so stunted, that the creatures resemble serpents. They move with agile rapidity, and by the aid of their tails are capable of taking considerable leaps. Many of them display their activity chiefly in the night , and their eyes are or ganised accordingly. They devour their food entire without mastication, apparently unmindful what they de vour; a few only are satisfied with vegetable nourishment; most of them are beasts of prey , and murder and eat unhesitatingly their own young or other members of their order ; the larger kinds assail all vertebrates, seize upon small and even larger mammals, andonbirds or their nests, upon reptiles , amphibia, and fishes, and all kinds of the lower and small er animals; in fact, "every lizard sees in any weaker creature of what ever class or tribe a welcome prey" ; yet they have themselves many for midable enemies — the martens and serpents, vultures and eagles, hawks any work is done, it must be be unclean until the evening; and buzzards, owls and ravens, and not a few marsh- and water-birds. They eat enormously, though they can bear hunger for an astonishing length of time; some subsist without water for months , and to most of them the dew gathering on leaves or stones suffices. They are partly oviparous, partly ovi-viviparous, and bestow no particular care upon their offspring. Some of the larger kinds are eaten, and their flesh is declared palatable, though an old and un founded prejudice branded some of them as venomous. It is unnecessary for our purpose to describe the nu merous species , or even to characte rise the different families of lizards — the Egyptian Warans (Polydae- dali), the Ameivae, the Lacertae, and the rest, especially as it is uncertain how many of them the term "after its kind" (inaiai) is intended to in clude. It is enough to have indicated those features of the order which, bearing upon the object of our en quiry, may weU have struck the He brews as repulsive. [Some ancient translators repro duce the Hebrew word 3S (so Onkel. sss, Saad., Ar. Erp., _>,o), because this was in their time the current name for a species of lizard; the Sept. has xpoxoSetXos xepaaios (comp. Plin. XXVIIL 8 or 30 crocodilus terrestris), and the same animal seems to be in tended by the Syriac S3iin, Jonath. ssinln, and the Samar. nams (comp. Arab, ^jj^a.; see infra, and in gene ral, Bochart, Hieroz. I. 1043 sqq. ; Brehm 1. c. V. 92 sqq.). Other trans lations of ss are load (Rashi in loc. a" isip crapaud ' 'resembling the frog" , or on Talm. Av. Zar. 40a i"iiisi3 co- quiUe, Luther, Luzzatto rospo, a. o. ; comn. Zermjsnhn . 1 a -n-n 9sn ocm ¦* LEVITICUS XI. 29—38. 173 and then it shall be clean. 33. And any earthen vessel, into which anything of them falls, whatsoever is in it shall be or tortoise (Aruch, Engl. Vers., a. o.), or crocodile (Vulg.).] 4. '^With regard to the next crea ture — n»3S — we feel no slight dif fidence ; the ancient versions disagree entirely; the etymology of "groan ing" or "sighing" animal leads to no certain trace,and we have only the one slender clue that a large and strong river-lizard is in Abyssinia called Angueg or Anguga (Ludolf, Lex. Aeth. o. v.): if the Hebrew term np3S be identical with this name, it might be taken to represent the water-lizards, while the preceding word (3s) would denote those tribes that live on the land. It is well known that the for- mer^kinds particularly utter a moan ing or hissing sound, and some of them a croaking similar to that of frogs. Any attempt to determine the species would be the merest hazard. [The divergence in the translations of np3S is indeed great ; some render shrewmouse (Sept. p-uydXT], Vulg. my- gale, Bunsen Spitzmaus), others hedgehog (Rashi lls;iin herisson ; see Rashi on Talm. Chull. 122a; prob. Onk. Si;, comp. Lewysohn 1. c. p. 100)> or ferret (Engl. Vers.), or toad (Luz zatto la botta dal suono lugubre), or chameleon (Gr. Ven.) , or Waral (Ar. Erp. t.,), or lacerta, or lacerta Gecko, or lacerta Nilolica; Targ. Jon. has Sim Kniiis supposed to mean the green lizard (Fleischer, in Levy's Chald. Worterb. II. 573, reads nvjis siin which he explains to mean a beetle "looking after serpents", to free them from vermin; but a beetle is not yisn-is> yia).] 5. Not more certain is the identity of the foUqwing name, ns, which seems to point to some strong and powerful animal ; many ancient ver sions understand a kind of lizard, and Saadiah and Ben Gannach point more distinctly to the hardun(..^i^.l Stellio vulgaris), about a foot long, of various shades of yellow inter mixed with darker spots; the body is slender and the tail comparatively thin, but provided all around with prickly scales; it is most frequent in northern Africa and the neighbour ing countries, and is often seen, in dozens together, on stones and. walls of houses, on which it climbs with remarkable adroitness, now stopping cautiously , and now briskly moving on, and then alternately raising its head and bending it down; which "nodding" of the head Mohamme dans formerly considered as an irre verent mimicry of their pious devo tions, and they therefore hated and persecutedthe animal. Serpent tamers try their art on the hardun also. [Many translate r}b by chameleon (so Sept., perhaps on account of the literal sense of yap.o.\.-\zw* "a lion on the ground", a creeping lion in strength ns, Vulg., Engl. Vers., Bun sen), others moloch (Luther) or some other kind of lizard (Rashi ap. Kim chi s. v., Gr. Ven. sian is equivalent in sense with ani33S 3>sl3n; for it is indifferent with respect to their defiling effect, whether the ani mals enumerated have died of them selves or have been killed. Other ex planations are necessarily artificial; f. i. "not only if they have died pre viously, but also if thev die while LEVITICUS XI. 29—38. 177 they are unclean, and they shall be unclean to you. 36. Yet a well and a cistern, any receptacle of water, shall be clean: falling into the vessel" (Keil). — Targ. Jonath. expresses the Talmudi- calview that the eight creatures cause uncleanness only through an entire limb detached from their living body {naBmtn iimii sn3isi; comp. Jonath. in ver. 39, and Sifra in loc. tansn 13S mn ia). The particle ia in isa (vers. 32, 34) has a partitive sense, meaning literally "any of all vessels of wood", "any of all the food" (as in IV. 2, etc. ; see Comm. on Levit. I. 498). — The term pa is sufficiently clear from a parallel passage (Num. XXXI. 20), where it is replaced by B-.w nasa "stuff made of goats' hair" (comp. Matth.IH. 4; Revel. VI. 12, etc.; Rashb. ia niiu fills nssia ; Vulg. cilicia i. a. covering made of — Cilician — goats' hair; Varro, R. R. H. 11); therefore ias is any texture of whatever kind except of horsehair ; ys> -is and iis> (skin or leather of any sort, perhaps vessels of skin, not exclusively "trunks or baskets covered with skin") are in- teUigible in themselves; though by transposing the former and placing it before lis is , the sequence of the words would be more logical. — • The verb in nssia na.yi (masculine) is to be accounted for by the impersonal construction (Gram. §. 77. 15). — On the fact that the text employs (in ver. 33) sat?i, and not sais, the Mish nah (Sot. V. 2) fancifuUy bases the conclusion, that an object, whichhas become unclean by falling into an earthen vessel contaminated by yia {which is "the first" or "the father oftheuncleanness"iiasiornsaitanss), renders, in its turn, any third object unclean by contact (ns Nataa 13a 133 iaiion) — which is by the Talmud restricted to the case when the third object is naiin : but it needs hardly be observed, that saiji and sata are used without difference of meaning (comp. vers. 24 and 25, 27 and 28, etc.); more- aver, it would be necessary to read sau? (the causative) , instead of satai. — As a curiosity, and to characterise a school of interpreters which might have seemed impossible in our time, the explanation of Baumgarten may bequoted(Comm.II.159): "The com mand that earthen vessels must be broken, appears to have been sug gested by the consideration that , as the earth was specially placed under the curse (Gen. III. 17), the earthen utensils are specially liable to the reception of uncleanness"! — That "Moses" was "unfavourably disposed to earthen cooking utensils", and de sired to accustom the Hebrews ra ther to the use of copper ones, which "are solid wealth" , and could not be dangerous to a very cleanly people (Michael, in loc. and in Mos. R. IV. pp. 220, 221, 223), can neither be in ferred from our passage nor from a preceding one (VI. 26); the great cheapness of earthen vessels and the comparative rarity of cases such as stated in the text, could hardly ren der the law oppressive in reality, however rigid it may be in spirit. — Talmudical speculations as to the instances when the interior of ves sels becomes unclean, and when the exterior, may be found in ChuU. 24b, 25a; Pesach. 20. Our text mentions, for intelligible reasons, external de filement only in reference to wooden or metal vessels , and internal pollu tion only in reference to earthen ware ; but vessels of the former de scription required cleansing with wa ter, those of the latter kind were to be broken, whether the carcass feU N 178 LEVITICUS XI. 29—38. but he who touches their carcass, shall be unclean. — 37. And if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing upon or into them : this latter differ ence had no influence whatever upon the treatment of the utensils. — The words am iia isi (ver. 33), standing in juxtaposition to ys> lis isa (in ver. 32), begin the sentence emphatically, as an absolute nominative, though thereby an irregular construction Or inversion is necessitated ("and every earthen vessel, whatsoever is in it"; see Gram. § 75. 5) ;' and it was prob ably this irregularity which induced the Vulgate to leave out the words isms ias is, by which omission a nor mal construction is effected (lis isi satai . . . am). — The word ana (ver. 33 , "anything of them") proves that here also not the living animals, but their carcasses are alluded to, so that aniB3 must be supplied as in ver. 26 ; comp. ver. 32. — The 34th verse is indeed not without obscurity, on account of its elliptical brevity; but the sense seems unquestionable from the context. Both parts of the verse, of course, treat of vessels de filed by an unclean carcass , but the first part refers to earthen vessels, like the whole of the preceding verse, and the second part to "vessels of whatever kind" (lis is), which words have antithetical force : thus the dif ficulty disappears, we can dispense with the numerous strained explana tions that have been ventured, and we certainly do not require the alteration of Bia into ana, the supposed original reading (so Vater). Bia 1iis> slsi ias is simply "that on which water comes" (comp. ver. 38; so Onk., Sept., Vulg., Rashi, Keil, a. o.), not "such water" (so Luth., Engl. Vers., Ro senm., De Wette, Knobel), for if the water before mentioned, in which the defiled vessels were cleansed, were meant (ver. 32), not ai» but Bian, or rather bian fa, would be demanded; nor "water from such vessel" (Augus- tin. Quaest. in Lev. XXXVII, Bun sen); for the antithesis is withiis iss, and we have to supply rather "in such vessel", viz. of earthenware. In the second half of the verse, the Ma- sorites have indicated . the correct interpretation by the distinctive, ac cent (zakeph-katon) on nnai, thus separating this word from the fol lowing lis-isa. The meaningis, there fore — drinkable fluids become -un clean, if put into any vessel polluted in the way described, irrespective of the material, whether this beporous or not. The usual version,offered by most ancient and modern translators(Onk., Jon., Sept., Vulg., Luth.,Buns., a.o.), "all drink which may be drunk in any such vessel", though indistinct, may imply the right sense; but erro neous are the renderings "all drink which is drunk out of such vessel" (De Wette, Knobel); or "drink that is to be drunk outof avessel" (Michael.), where is in lis is is not translated at all; or "aU drink that is preserved in any vessel" (Dathe) , which attri butes to nnai an impossible meaning; or the explanations "if such a dead animal has fallen upon the food or the drink", but the carcass had be fore fallen into the vessel , while the food and drink are in themselves clean; or "every drink that is drunk out of any vessel, and is poured into such unclean earthen vessel, becomes unclean" (Rashi, a.o.), where the el lipsis would be unparalleled, and isa lis extremely languid, if not super fluous. — Both nan and biiis (ver. 35) are, from the context , evidently ves sels, and that earthen vessels, not only LEVITICUS XI. 29—38. 179 seed, which is to be sown, it shall be clean. 38. But if any water be put upon the seed, and any pail of their carcass fall thereon, it shall be unclean to you. because they can be broken in pieces (yni), but because they are ritually considered and treated like the ear then vessels mentioned ni the pre ceding verses; they are probably portable or moveable , especially the latter: for nan (ver. 35) is oven, prin- cipaUyforbakingbread(comp.XXVI. 26), or baking-pot for making thin, usually unleavened cakes (comp. II. 4; Sept. aptly xX{(3avot; see Comm. onLev.1.482, 483) ; and m (kindred with lis furnace, -r,*s brasier Zech. XH. 6, or stewpan 1 Sam. II. 14) is a portable stove or chafing dishteatecl within, and probably furnished with a lid,, or consisting of an upper and a lower part (whence the dual form of biiis; Sept. appropriately xUTpo- irooes; comp. Hes. Op. 746). Onkelos retains both words; Targ. Jonath. renders the second by "-;sn i. e. fire- pot (comp. levy, Chald. Worterb. n. 548, 581); the Syr. by s-sn n»a, that is, the place on which the pot is put; Arab. ^Sy^a hearth ; Ebn Ezra range for baking and cooking; Luther Of en oder Kessel; Engl. Vers, oven or ran ges for pots; BunscnanA. KnobelHack- topf and Dekeipfanne (orKasserole) ; Michaelis less plausibly Backofen and Casserol-Locher (explaining: "the Orientals commonly dig, or rather construct by brickwork, round holes in the ground, in which they cook, roast, and bake"). The Mishnah (Shabb. III. 1, 2) distinguishes three kinds of ovens (1.) the ni-s, which is oblong, so made that two pots can be placed upon it, and that the fire burns beneath both (whence the dual form b::"3 is accounted for) ; (2.) the nan, wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, devised to keep the heat lon ger; and (3.) nsis, a square and hol low structure made for one pot only to be placed upon it, with a small aperture at the top, and keeping the heat better than the ni-3, though not so well as the "ian (comp. Talm. Shabb. 38b, 125a; Mishn. Kelim V. 1 sqq.). — The singular of the verb yni (ver. 35) following the nouns nsn sm-si is more uncommon than the reverse order, although in that case also the verb may be taken imper sonally (see Gramm. § 77. 10). — The words Bia nipa (ver. 36) are a gene ralising apposition to the preceding- phrase nsi ")ij.'a "a well and cistern, any receptacle of water" (comp. Ebn Ezra in loc); they ought, therefore, not to be provided with the copula tive i (so the Sept. xal auvaYiuyijs Coaxo;; Luther die BrunnenundKQlke und Teiche; a. o. ; more correctly, as regards the sense, Vulg. et omnis aquarum congregatio). Jewish tra dition urges that, to enjoy immunity from pollution, the receptacles of water must, what de facto usually is the case, be fixed in the ground (Rashi s-p-pi a— a-«an, Luzzatto che non sia mobile), because then only sufficient changes in the water can be expected to counteract the effect of the carcass. — The words anisas s-aai satai "and he who touches their car cass, shaU be unclean" (ver. 36), can not express a general rule respecting the unclean carcasses here treated of; for that rule has before been clearly stated (ver. 31); after which follow special regulations the continuity of which would be interrupted, unless those words be taken to form a part of them. In connection with the first half of the verse, they can only mean that, though the water into which the carcass has fallen remains clean, 180 LEVITICUS XI. 29—38; 39, 40. 39. And if any beast, of which you may eat, die, he that touches its carcass shall be unclean until the even ing. 40. And he that eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening; and he that the carcass itself preserves its un cleanness, and pollutes those who touch it, whether in the water or af ter its removal from it. The word ing may be abrupt, and the regula tion itself curiously subtle, but nei ther the one nor the other justifies us in rejecting, as a spurious inter polation, a sentence, the spirit of which is completely in harmony with the .whole of this portion (comp. Talm. Nedar. 75b; Targ. Jonath.; Rashi; Luzzatto ; a. o.). But it is against the Hebrew usage to explain, with Ebn Ezra, "and the water that touches their carcasses', shall be unclean"; for aia has in the first part of the verse too subordinate a gramma tical position to be supplied as the subjective case in the second; besides, in the first part the water is de clared clean, for the terms ys'a and na do not merely point to the recept acles, but mainly to their contents, or the water, as the qualifying words aia mpa prove. — The "seeds" (3111) here treated of (vers. 37, 38) are evi dently, as most interpreters admit, such as are intended to be sown, but are not yet put into the ground (s-it 3>i|i ias sjiii). If the water of a weli or a cistern cannot be permanently defiled, how much less living plants which constantly derive new elements of growth from below and new mois ture fromabove. Therefore the Bibli cal enactments bear out the Rabbini cal rules, "Whatever is fixed in the ground (-aina) does not take unclean ness", and "Plants are incapable of uncleanness unless they have been gathered", for "else there would be no clean plant whatever, since there is none, near or upon which some un clean creeping thing is not found" (Siphra fol. 56; Talm. 118b and Rashi in loc). Targum Jonathan renders explicitly, "If any part of their car cass fatis upon any seed that is sown in the manner in which it is com monly sown, that is, in its dry state, it is clean" (131 majaiaa 3>i-ii 1- sniiss). Luzzatto, taking s'i) as a "vegetable product", and hence s>-»i -as as "that has been sown", explains "quel pro- dotto attacato al suolo epuro" ; which ' would imply a. questionable ellipsis. It is clear from these remarks that the words '31 Bia in? -31 (ver. 38) can not be understood , as Ebn Ezra in timates, of the watering of the fields. The noun snij is vegetable (Isai. LXI. 11), like sp.T (Dan. I. 12; comp. ys-ii ibid. ver. 16). — Some codices omit is before sit in ver. 37, while they add it in ver. 38 (De Rossi, Var. Lect. I. 95) — which would unnecessarily complicate the meaning of the pas sage. Jewish tradition extends these regulations to fluids of any kind, be sides water (spring- or rainwater), whether the fluid drop upon the seed, or the seed faU into the fluid (Siphra 1. c). 39, -40. With respect to quad rupeds, the levitical compiler found in the earlier document nothing but the general and qualified interdic tion, that those not possessing the two lawful criteria are "unclean", and "that their flesh is not to be eaten and their carcasses are not to be touched" (Deut. XIV. 7, 8); and he reproduced the prohibition in its due place (vers. 4 — 8). Yet he read in that document this command also : "You sh.aU not eat of anything that dies of itself (nis?) ; thou shalt give it LEVITICUS XI. 39, 40. 181 bears its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening. to the stranger who is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou may- est seU it to the alien" (Deut. XIV. 21). He could not pass over so im portant a provision, especiaUy as, in its tendency, it bears a close affinity to all his peculiar theories. But he con fined himself to the first part, or the prohibition enjoined upon the He brews ; he did not repeat the second part, or the permission granted to the non-Hebrews. This liberty was against his convictions and feelings, or against those of his time. In a later portion of Leviticus, the eating of niss is expressly forbidden to the "native Hebrew and the stranger" alike (issi nivssXVII. 15); the latter was , by his example , not to become dangerous to the former. Again, Deuteronomy does not even allude to the uncleanness caused by eating nisa ; but our author declares that the mere touch of it engenders a state of impurity which lasts till the evening ; and for carrying or eating it , he or dains washing of garments, by which alone the contamination can be re moved. So much had the ceremonial spirit advanced within the period intervening between the composition of the two Books. But that spirit made progress within the limits of the Book of Leviticus itself. In a sub sequent portion, an additional lustra tion is prescribed for eating nisa, na mely bathing (XVII. 15). It was evi dently and naturally considered, that the defilement caused by eating im pure food is infinitely greater than that produced by carrying it; and hence this inteUigible gradation was fixed: touching nisa is simply attended by uncleanness which eo ipso ceases in the evening ; carrying requires washing of garments; and eating demands both washing of gar ments and bathing; in any case clean ness is only restored at the end of the day. But as the priests, the holy me diators between God and His people, were specially to live in purity, the law, more rigorous with respect to their conduct, ordained that they must bathe even after touching any unclean carcasses (XXII. 5, 6). More over, the law on animals torn by wild beasts (nsia), was equalised with that on animals that have died of them selves. And then, finally, even an impressive menace could be added in cases of non-compliance with these ceremonial precautions — "he who does not wash his garments, nor bathe his flesh, shaU bear his iniquity" (XVn. 16). Yet here also we look in vain for the slightest allusion to the necessity of a sin-offering (see supra on vers. 20—25). Thus the law of tti33 had passed through a variety of stages, each of which bears the stamp of its time, and which, in their tota lity, illustrate the course of levitical development (see also pp. 14 — 18). — Jewish tradition strictly limited these regulations toquadrupeds(nans), do* mestic or wild, and did not extend them to birds or fishes : the text men tions indeed the first order of ani mals only, whether involving the most important or the most frequent cases; but there is hardly a reason why the other two classes should be exempted from the general rules ; the characteristics of nisa apply to aU alike, hence all should defile or not de file in,the same manner. The birds were, by tradition, at least subjected, like the quadrupeds, to the obligation of ritual "slaughtering" (noma, p. 22); while the treatment of fishes was left without such ceremonial precepts. 182 LEVITICUS XI. 39, 40; 41—43. 41. And every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten. Rabbinical expositors connected the laws of purity with the sacrificial system; but not even in carrying out this unwarranted principle, did they proceed consistently; for if the fishes remained unnoticed because they were excluded from the altar, the birds might be expected to be viewed in the same light as the quadrupeds ; for just as a few birds only were fit for the altar, so also were but a few quadrupeds. More in harmony with the nature of nisa, Talmudism put stress upon touching the "carcass" of an animal that died of itself, and declared the flesh only as pol luting, but not "the skin, nor the bones, nor the sinews, nor the horns, nor the claws" (see Talm. Chull. 77b; 117b, and Rashi in loc.) : there is indeed a difference, in the degree of corruption or decomposition, be tween the organic and the inorganic parts of such animal; yet not even the latter can be considered entirely sound, that is, they cannot be held perfectly clean. Expediency every where mitigated the rigour of abs tract levitism. Philological Remarks. — • The quadrupedbecomesnisa if dying from any cause whatever, and not merely in consequence of a limb being torn off from the living body (so Targ. Jon. si3-s nasm ys ; comp. on ver. 32). — The Sept. renders nnisas xiiiv Dv^ai- p.aiiuv, in the plural, and so some ma nuscripts have aniaas and anisaa. -41 — -43. Among the large num ber of "creeping things" (yia), which, with the one solitary exception of locusts, are all unclean, a portion only have been legislated upon in the preceding sections (vers. 20 — 25,29 — 38); the levitical writer could not possibly leave the rest unnoticed; for the "creeping things" were the special objects of his aversion; and he treated of them in a last supple ment, and in a comprehensive and nearly complete classification. With an emphasis almost vehement, be ex presses his loathing of "all that goes upon the belly", as the Serpents and Worms, of "all that go upon four", as the Reptiles, and of "all that have many feet", as the Crustaceous ani mals and the Spiders (see p. 52) ; and he is anxious to imbue the Hebrews with the same feeling of detestation : "Do not make yourselves abomin- - able", he exclaims, "with any creep ing thing that creeps, nor make yourselves unclean with them , that you shouldbecome unclean thereby." He expressly warns them against eating those creatures , but does not mention touching or carrying. He excepts no single class or species ; all alike are held up to unqualified dis gust (yian isi, ver. 42). It is, there fore , certainly against the spirit of these injunctions, that Talm'udical teaching excludes from their opera tion, and pronounces unobjection able, the small' worms, supposedto be bred by generatio originaria, in vegetables , fruit , and certain kinds of food, such as the weevils Or mites in peas, beans, or lentils, worms in dates and berries, the maggots in cheese, and the vermin discovered under the skin or in the flesh of fishes : all these creatures were per mitted merely because they cannot be called "creeping on the earth"; and therefore they were declared to become unclean if they leave the ob ject in which they were generated, and crawl about freely (comp. Talm. Chull. 67b; Siphra fol. 57a; Targ. Jon. Deut. XIV. 19; Yor. Deah § 84; LEVITICUS XI. 41—43. 183 42. Whatsoever goes upon the belly, and whatsoever goes upon four, up to whatsoever has many feet, in fact all creeping things that creep upon the earth, these you shall no,t eat; for they are an abomination. 43. Do not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing Maimon. DeCib.Vet.II. 14^2.). How ever, the principal stress does not lie upon the place in which those crea tures "creep", but upon the fact of their "creeping." Here again ne cessity compelled the abandonment of a rigid theory. A similar difficulty was differently solved by the Brah man who dashed to the ground the microscope, which revealed to him living creatures in vegetables. Philological Remarks. — From the detaUed enumeration of the species belonging to the large order of yia (p. 52), it will be obvious how far the Talmudical statementis correct, that linaiseyiin points to the serpents, and is to the long, serpentine worms, or that ssis is> n^im means the scorpion, is beetles, and aiiai nsia the centipedes (ii3, see p. 161; Talm. Chull. 67b; Si phra fol. 57a). Rashi defines the yia as "a diminutive creature with short legs, which is only perceived when it creeps and moves": however, the yia is not characterised by smallness of size, but by low and crawling locomotion, the number of feet, and by predaceous and lurking habits. — The Masorites have written the 1 in llna prominently large, because, according to their orthography, it forms the middle letter of the Pen tateuch; as regards the words, they marked ain (inX. 16) as the middle; and as regards the verses, that which begins with nianni (XIH. 33), whence they wrote the a in this word large, and they did so on the authority of an old beraitha; however, the Tal mudical treatise Soferim (ch. IX § 2) mentions another verse of Leviticus /yni. 7) as the middle, which differ ence is not without interest for the history of the Masorah (comp. Gei- ger, Jud. Zeitschr. IH. 91). — The "creeping things" are described (in ver. 42), with reference to their mode of locomotion , in a certain systema tic gradation — creatures that have, or seem to have, no feet, creatures that have four feet, and creatures that have many , that is , more than four feet: it is easy to see the cli max implied in fliiai nsia is is "up to all that have many feet", culminat ing in the comprehensive terms "in fact, all (isi) creeping things that creep upon the earth" (comp. on ver. 26, p. 167) ; these words ('si is is>) are not simply, "or whatever has many feet" (so Luther, Engl. Vers., Mi chael., Luzzatto, a. o.) ; the Syr. and Sept. do not express is> (Staicavxos 8 7toXu7rX-f[0et iroaiv), and a manuscr. of De Rossi omits it ; while the Vulgate renders the whole verse with more than usual inaccuracy ("quidquid super pectus quadrupes graditur, et multos habet pedes sive per humum trahitur"), disregarding 1 in isi al together, and fancifully translating i in isi with sive. On the paraphrase of Targ. Jonath. seesupra p. 161. The apparent tautology in the concluding words of the 43rd verse may be avoided by referring the words sil ana isatan to physical, and aa anataai to levitical or civil uncleanness , the latter being the result and conse quence of the former. — anaa; is written defectively forBnsa,p3(Gram- niar § LXVI. 1 ') ; it is unnecessary to derive it from nata, probably to be obtuse or stolid (Job XVIH. 3); so Gesenius (Lex. s. nata), Luzzatto 184 LEVITICUS XI. 41—43 ; 44—47. that creeps, nor make yourselves unclean with them, that you should become unclean thereby. 44. Fori am the Lord your God; you shall there fore hallow yourselves, that you may become holy; for I am holy: nor shall you make yourselves unclean with any manner of creeping things that creep upon the earth. (Gramm. p. 280, ne divereste otturi, abbrutiti), a. o. 44 — 43. After the prohibition of every kind of nisa, the Deuteronomist briefly adds, "for thou art a holy people (a'iip By) to theLord thy God." This point of view lay nearest , and was most congenial, to the mind of the levitical author. He extended and applied it to all dietary laws, especiaUy to all uncleananimals. Dis- tinctlycombining the notions of clean ness and holiness, and regarding the one as the indispensable condition or invariable preliminary of the other, he thus expressed the very centre of the system that is usually understood by the term levitical: "Do not make yourselves unclean with any creeping thing that creeps . . . You shall hal low yourselves that you may be come holy." But desirous tangibly to strengthen this abstract idea, he urged, that the Hebrews stood under the guidance of Jehovah, the holyOne, not merely in the manner of the other nations ; for they had by His mercy and power been released from Egyp tian thraldom; He was, therefore, "their God" in a peculiar and special sense; He had made them a nation and preserved them amidst dangers "that He might be their God"; and He had "borne them on eagles' wings, and brought them to Himself" (Exod. XIX. 4). Thus there was a close, al most a personal relation between God and Israel (comp. 2 Sam. VII. 23). It originated by an election through God's grace, and was ratified byamu- tual covenant. "You shall be holy, for I am holy" : this is the pith and ker nel of the intellectual labour of many centuries ; it is the ripest fruit of a long spiritual education (see p. 106). But is the fruit entirely of Hebrew growth? Is no foreign influence dis cernible ? The idea of Purity is the foundation of the Persian creed, and the contrast between clean and un clean animals forms one of its chief features. In the exile, theHebrews de veloped both the one and the other with assiduous care ; but they intensi fied purity into holiness, and they placed the clean and the unclean ani mals under the dominion of the same Omnipotence. The doctrines of Zo roaster are plainly reflected in the rigorous" distinction of a pure andim- pure creation ; but Hebraism assert ed in this point also its independence and superiority (see p. 64). • Here ended the commands attri buted to Divine utterance ; nothing, therefore, was left to the author or revisor but to mark the dietary code as concluded , and as complete in it self; and this he did in a recapitula tion embracing all the various class es of animated creatures, the tenants of land, air, and water; moreover, he significantly represented the distinc tion between lawful and unlawful animals as coinciding with the dis tinction between "clean and un clean", and he thus raised the dietary laws with unfaltering hand into the sphere of religious purity. Philolocigal Remarks. — The Talmud expresses the connection be- LEVITICUS XI. 44—47. 185 45. For I am the Lord that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: you shall therefore be holy; for I am holy. tween ceremonial and ethical purity clearly, though somewhat playfully, in the foUo wing gradation: "Watch fulness (niiini or nitiit) leads to clean ness (mips), cleanness to purity (ninta), purity to holiness (nanp), holiness to humility (ni33>), humility to fear of sin (son nsii) , fear of sin to piety (nniBn), piety to the holy spirit (aipn mi) , the holy spirit to the re surrection of the dead, (Talm. Jerus. Schekal. c. III. fol. 47b; comp. Talm. Bab. Avod. Zar. 20b ; Sot. 49b ; etc. ; see also Biog. Laert. VIII. 33, xtjv oe dyveiav eivai 8id xa8app.i5v xxX. Py- thagor.). The "creeping things (yia) that creep upon the earth" (ver. 44), relate to all unclean species in gene ral, since the term yia gradually took universal meaning; whereas Rab binical interpretation restricts them to the species "born in dunghills" by a supposed generatio originaria (Mai- mon. De Cib. Vet. II. 13). — Enampnw (ver. 44), with chirek in the penulti mate (comp. XX. 7; XXH. 22); see Gramm. § XL VI. la. — The parti ciple nis'an (ver. 45) has the meaning of the preterite (Gramm. § 100. s) "who have brought you up" (so also Deut. XX. 1 ; Josh. XXIV. 17; 2 Ki. XVII. 7; Jer. II. 6; Ps. LXXXI. 11; etc.), fbriniisfn ias (comp.Ex.XXXn. 1, 23 ; 2 Ki. XVII. 36 ; Jer. XVI. 14, 15; etc.) ; and thus s^ian (XXH. 33 ; Deut. VIII. 14; XHI. 6; Judg. n. 12; etc.), although insscin ias is as fre quently used (Exod. XXIX. 46 ; Lev. XXV. 38, 42; Num. XV. 41; etc.); while in Ex. VI. 7 s>a;iBn occurs in the meaning of the present or future "who brings or shall bring you up." Therefore, all speculations attribut ing a peculiar significance to the use of the article instead of the relative pronoun (Talm. Bab. Mets. 61b), are gratuitous. — The concluding for mula (ver. 46, 47) is probably not in tended as a part of God's address to Moses and Aaron (ver. 1), but as the author's addition meant to round and to complete the section. It does not enumerate thevarious class es of animals in the same order in which they have before been treated in the chapter; but this irregularity, striking mainly by the precedence given to birds before the aquatic ani mals, is by no means unusual (comp. esp. VH. 7 ; XIII. 59 ; XIV. 54—56), and calls for no recondite explana tions. — The connection between the last two verses is rather loose : "this is the law of the beasts ... to distin guish (inani) between the unclean and the clean"; where the general notion is given in the infinitive, and not in a distinct tense and person, "that you or the people may distin guish" (see Gramm. § 98. e); Vulg. ut differentias noveritis ; Luth. dass ihr unterscheiden konnet; Michael. dies ist das Gesetz . . . nach welchem zu unterscheiden ist; Luzzatto, onde sappiasi distinguere; etc. — The Sept. renders nmn (in ver. 47) £ojo- ¦pvouvxa, that is, animals in general (comp. Lucian, Amor, c 19, icdv e£i»o- YovT|aev !pnl>uxov), not merely vivipa- ra, as St. Augustin contends (Quaest. in Levit. XXXVHI, quae vivos fetus gignunt, id est non ova, sed pullos). The Talmud (ChuU. 24) derives from the last verse the rules concerning clean animals disqualified as food through defects or diseases; and it has been supposed that the word Ciooyovouvxa here employed by the Septuagint involves, or points to, the Talmudical decision (ChuU. 58), that 186 LEVITICUS XI. 44—47. 46. This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moves in the waters , and of every creature that creeps upon the earth: 47. To dis tinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animals that may be eaten and the animals that may not be eaten. animals capable of conceiving and bringing forth young, are to be con sidered as perfectly sound, and in no way falling under the category of nsio, however they may seem to suf fer from defects or diseases (so Fran- kel, Vorstudien zu der Sept. p. 189): but it seems hardly warranted to at tribute to the Greek translation a sense so entirely foreign to the te- nour of our whole chapter, since Cmo- ¦yovouvxa is simply a later, though not very frequent term for animals. — On the notion of permission or lawfulness implied in the participle (nissan) and in the future (issn), see Gramm. §§ 94. 10; 100. 5, and the passages there quoted. B. ON PURITY OF PERSONS, GARMENTS, AND HOUSES- CHAPTERS XII TO XV. THE LAWS OF PURIFICATION. Next to sacrifices, purifications were the most important of Hebrew rituals. Whenever both were prescribed together, the latter appeared indeed as merely preparatory to the former, since sacrifices were deemed the main agency of restored peace or holiness ; but pu rifications, like offerings, were frequently ordained as separate and independent acts of worship: closely entwined with the thoughts and habits of the Hebrews, they formed an essential part of their religions system; and the doctrine, echoed in a hundred creeds, that "Purity is, next to life, the highest boon of man "', was among them also a truth and a reality. The Hebrews "purified" or, as they understood the term, "sanc tified" themselves, whenever they desired to rise to the Deity, that is, before solemn ceremonies and seasons, as sacrifices and festivals 2 — just as the Mohammedans are enjoined to wash themselves before prayer, and the Hindoos before reading the Vedas or any other holy book 3 — ; or whenever they expected the Deity to descend to them by some supernatural manifestation, as the disclosure of heavenly wisdom or a deed of miraculous power and help *. Therefore, when in a state of impurity, they were forbidden to enter the Sanctuary, to keep the Passover, and to partake of holy food, whether of sacrificial meat, of sacred offerings and gifts, or of shew-bread, because the clean only were fit to approach the holy G-od and all that appertains to Hiin i; nay more, as long as they were in such a condition, i Vendid. V. 66; comp. Khorda- 4 Exod. XIX. 10, 14, 15; Josh. HI. Avesta I (Spiegel, vol. IH. p. 3). 5; VII. 13; see Comm. on Levit. I. 2 Gen. XXXV. 2—4; 1 Sam. XVI. p. 167—171. 5; comp. 2 Chr. XXX. 17; Jos. Ant. 5 Lev. VII. 19—21; XXn. "5 sqq.; XIV. xi. 5. Num.IX. 6sqq. ; XVIII. 11, 13; 1 Sam. 3 Koran V. 8 ; Manu V. 138, 145. XXI. 5. 188. THE LAWS OF PURIFICATION. they were commanded to keep aloof from all social intercourse, lest the chosen community be defiled '. But long before these principles and regulations were fixed in a legal code, they were current and were acted upon among the Hebrews as traditionary notions and customs. Incidental allusions scattered troughout the historical Books, leave no doubt on the subject. "When Samuel arrived at Bethlehem to anoint David, he said to the alarmed elders, "I am come to sacrifice to the Lord ; sanctify your selves, and come with me to the sacrifice" ; and as regards Jesse and his sons, he specially "sanctified them, and called them to the sacri fice" 2. — Saul readily accounted for and excused David's absence from a banquet at which he was expected, by supposing that "some thing had befallen him": "he is not clean", he said, "surely he is not clean" 3. — Ahimelech, the chief priest of Nob, hesitated to deliver up the shew-bread to the fugitive David and his men until he was sa tisfied that these had, in the previous night, abstained from asso ciating with women 4. Por sexual intercourse was deemed defiling, and required "sanctification", which not even Bath-sheba omitted in the royal palace after her violation of conjugal fidelity 5. — Azariah, the leprous king of Judah (B. C. 811 — 759), was, like all lepers, compelled to live in seclusion before the gates of the town 6. — King Josiah, desiring to pollute most flagrantly the places devoted to pagan worship, cast upon them human bones 7. These are the main facts recorded with respect to the ante- Babylonian times. Do they justify the inference, that there existed among the Hebrews, from early periods, a complete system of puri ficatory laws , and more particulary that of the Pentateuch ? Other facts of equal authority impose great caution ; for they point to a slow and gradual progress. In the latest time of the Judges , a custom may have prevailed as to certain religious acts to be performed by women after child birth, but there was certainly no law. Hannah delayed her first visit to the Sanctuary till she had weaned her son Samuel, that is, till he 1 Comp. 1 Sam. XX. 26. except clean priests (Comm. on Le- 2 1 Sam. XVI. 5. vit. I p. 618). 3 1 Sam. XX. 26. 5 2 Sam. XI. 4; see infra notes on i 1 Sam. XXL 3—7: though ac- XV. 18. cording to the levitical law, shew- 33 was not the lashas in Abyssinia have generaUy, ordinary and popular term, it may atsomedistancefromtheirdwellings, as well have passed from Deutero- a cottage towhich all unclean people nomy into Leviticus as from Leviti- retire, asmenstrnatingwomenorper- cus lnt° Deuteronomy. sons who have come into contact with a corpse (comp. Jos. Halevi, Be- richt iiber die Mission zu den Fala- schas, in Frankel's Monatsschrift, 1868 p. 406). 7 See Comm. on Lev. I p. 56 6 Maimon. Mor. Nev.IH. 35 (no. 12), 47; and similarly iS'peKcer, Legg.Ritt. I. xi. 2. THE LAWS OF PURIFICATION. 195 for was not the holiness of the Sanctuary considered to exercise an awe- inspiring influence upon the worshippers at all times, and the more so, the more regular they were in their attendance? 8 And did not the Hebrews look upon uncleanness as a sad visitation principally for this reason, that it caused their exclusion and estrangement from "the Temple 9? — Some contend, that "the laws of purity were meant to puni sh the Hebrews for the sins they had committed in the desert" 1 °: as if religious rites were penal inflictions. — Or, "their object was to educate a rude and barbarous people" ' ': but they pre-suppose a very high degree of religious training as well as of political and eccle siastical organisation. — Or, "they were designed to enhance the in fluence of the hierarchy"12: though indeed they conferred upon the priests very considerable powers, and if faithfully carried out, tend ed to promote their aggrandisement ' 3, this was certainly not their original or their exclusive object; for they aimed not at the ascen- dency of one class, but at the sanctification of the whole people. Again, it has been maintained that they were intended to place a strong and permanent barrier between the Hebrews and the heathen nations14: but they concern entirely the inner life of the community, and serve no other but their own important and pe culiar purpose; moreover, most of them have very close analogies in the religious rites of other, especially Eastern nations; in fact, the idea of seclusion or separation is as foreign to these laws as to the dietary precepts 1 5- Or they have been characterised as sanitary or police precau tions, prescribed for the protection of individuals and of society16: such considerations, though at first probably the chief motives of some of the ordinances, and never wholly disregarded, gradually gave way to religious and spiritual conceptions, which, in the course of time, gained increasing weight; besides, many, and these the most important provisions, have no reference to health and ill ness, being as useless for preserving the one as they are ineffica cious for warding off the other. Or they have all been referred to birth and death, the begin ning and end of human existence, which, contrasted with Divine 8 Comp. Ps. LXXXIV. 10. 13 Comp. Siphra and RashionX.iH.2. 9 See infra. ™ Spencer I.e. •n -.I., t n 15 See supra p. 70. io Soencer Lesrg. Ritt. I. xi. 2. „ opente, egg ie /few, Gesch. Mos. I. 374 *jj. ; afi- h Spencer 1. c. chaelis, Mos. Recht, IV. §§ 207 sqq.; 12 So Gramberg, Relig.Id.1.64, a. o. Saalschutz, Mos. Recht, pp. 21 sqq. if 2 196 THE LAWS OF PURIFICATION. infinitude, is sinful and impure1: but the Hebrews were utter strangers to such notions, and they never looked upon the new-born child as unclean2; moreover, that principle does not apply to the dietary laws, which are of the utmost importance ; for they regulate the assimilation of external objects with the inner organism, whereas the other purificatory precepts mostly control passive and abnormal conditions of the organism itself; therefore, the defiling effects are greater with respect to the former, though the defilement is more conspicuous with reference to the latter ; and hence the Pentateuch often threatens severe penalties for trespasses in diet, while for "un cleanness" it merely ordains lustrations or sacrifices3. Or the laws under discussion have been deduced from the ideas of death and corruption: but though these ideas prevailed in cases like contact with corpses and lepers4, and though they probably exercised an influence in a few other instances, such as irregular discharges and the prohibition of carnivorous animals ; they can , as general principles , not be upheld without strained applications : for how is it possible to associate decay and dissolution with conjugal intercourse , menstruation, or childbirth? And this ques tionable view has been coupled with the typical or allegorical acceptation, which is even more objectionable: the laws of purity, it is asserted, were meant to remind man of death "as the monument of sin"5, and, by imbuing him with a deep disgust for physical cor ruption, to implant in his mind a strong abhorrence of unrighteous ness 6 ; but all typical interpretations of moral and ritual laws have been proved to be as unfounded, as they generally are playful and arbitrary7; moreover, the doctrine that death is the hereditary con sequence of original sin, is not fundamental in the Old Testament; it is indeed implied in the narrative of the "Pall of man" in Genesis, but in every other part of the Hebrew Canon, death is represented either as coming in the ordinary course of nature, or as the con sequence of individual and personal transgression. 1 So Bahr, Symb. II. 459 — 464. dicat morbos animae etc.); Sommer, 2 See notes on XII. 1—8. 1. c pp. 202, 234, 235; Keil, Levit. 3 See supra p. 123; Sommer, Ab- pp. 85, 86; Archaeol. I. 276 — 280; II. handlungen, 239 — 241. 18, 19; Hengstenb. Christol. HI. 592 4 Num. XII. 12. sqq., 663 sqq.; and on the other hand, 5 Comp. Gen. III. 14—19 with re- Winer 1. c.II.319; Knob. Levit. p. 435. ference to Gal. III. 22 ; Rom. V. 12 ; On the strange opinion of Br. Bauer VII. 24 ; VIII. 20, 22 ; Hebr. IX. 27 ; etc. (Relig. des Alten Bundes, I. 256 sqq.)r 8 Comp. Theodor. Quaest. XIV ad see Knob. 1. c. Levit. (per affectiones corporeas in- ' See Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 142 sqq. THE LAWS OF PURIFICATION. 197 The usual explanations, therefore, are by no means satisfactory. If compared with the purificatory laws of other nations, those of the Pentateuch appear in a favourable light. They may possibly evince traces of Zoroastric views, which are discoverable in the dietary laws also8; but they exhibit no vestige of a dualism; in every detail they are stamped by the monotheistic creed; God alone, the merciful, wise, and omnipotent Euler, sends trials and diseases; and no evil genius has the power of causing uncleanness. They are singular in the noble principles on which they are framed — • the perfection and holiness of God ; and they are thereby raised above frivolity and unmeaning formalism. Moreover, it would be unjust to deny that they were understood as symbols, or as means of sanc- tification9; to defile oneself and to sin, and also to cleanse and to hallow, are frequently used as equivalents10. They must be pronounced simple if considered side by side with those of the Parsees, the Hindoos, the Egyptians, or the Tal mud. For they are, on the whole, confined to the chief and most striking forms of defilement, and evince a judicious moderation in fixing the detail ; they prescribe no rituals for many occasions which are so signalised in other codes; and the rituals they prescribe are neither very burdensome, nor do they materially encroach upon the practical duties of life. They declare no living animal as defiling, bowever strongly it may have been detested, and however scrupulously its carcass may have been shunned ' i ; whereas, for instance , among the Egyptians the accidental touch of a passing pig was contamina ting12. Unlike the laws of the Parsees, they include no such ordi nances as those which declare hair and nail-parings as unclean, and as polluting the ground upon which they fall13; they do not enjoin washing before and after meals 14, nor after sleep 15, after spitting and sneezing16, or the like17; in most of which cases Eabbinism also pre scribed ablutions, generally accompanied by some formula of prayer. They ordain rituals only for the following occasions: (1) Por women after childbirth a 8. — (2) For touching or approaching 8 See supra pp. 107, 108; comp. 12 Herod. H. 47; see supra p. 79. Sommer 1. c. pp. 196 sqq. 13 Comp. Vendid.XYii. 1—33; Spie- o Comp. Gen. XXXV. 2; Lev. XI. gel\. c. I. p. 81. 44; XX. 25, 26 ; etc. 14 Comp. supra p. 115 note 9. io Comp.Gen.XXXV. 2 , i Lev-XVIO. „ y_ 20, 23—30; XIX. 31; Num. V. 13 ; 1 Sam. XVI. 5 ; Isai. I. 16 ; etc. 16 Ibld- n Comp. Lev. XI. 29 sqq., nnisa 17 Comp. Manu V. 138, 144 ; etc. r 32_ 18 Lev. XII. 1 sqq. ; see notes in loc. 198 THE LAWS OF PURIFICATION. a human corpse or human bones ¦, as was the case also among the Greeks and Romans2, the Hindoos3, the Parsees4, and Phoenicians5. — (3) For touching the carcasses of "unclean" and of such "clean" beasts,. as had not been regularly slaughtered, had died of themselves. (niaj), or were torn by wild beasts (n&Tj)6. —(4) For those diseases which seem to point to an unnatural decay of the body, and in some manner to reflect the process of dissolution , especially for leprosy which was regarded as living death7. — (5) For abnormal secretions (nil) from the sexual organs8. — But (6) also for the natural and regular discharges of women in their menses9, and of men during sleep10, and even for conjugal intercourse 1 1. How striking is the difference if, after considering this limited number of rules, we glance at the Zend-Avesta12, the laws of Manu or of Yajnavalkya13, the scattered accounts respecting the Egyp tians preserved by Herodotus, Porphyry, and others14, or at the sixth section of the Mishnah ' 5 ! As regards simplicity of detail , we will only introduce one illustration. The Pentateuch merely commands with respect to domestic utensils, that wooden or brazen ones, if defiled, shall be cleansed by water, and metal ones by fire, and that earthen vessels i Num. XIX. 11—22; 2 Ki. XXIH. 14; Hagg. II. 13 ; Tob. n. 5, 9 ; comp. Jos. Ant. III. xi. 3 ; XVTH. n. 2 , 3 ; Mishn. Kelim I. 4, 5, 8 ; Ohol. I. 1 sqq. ; II. 1, 5 ; and both treatises passim. 2 Varro, Ling. Lat. V. 23; Cic. Legg. H. 22; Eurip. Alcest. 100; He len. 1430, 1431; Biog. Laert. VHI. 33 ; Virg. Aen. VI. 229 ; Gell. N. A. X. xv. 24; Tacit. Annal. I. 62; Senec. Ad Marcian. 15; Festus sub aqua. 3 Manu V. 59, 62, 74—79, 88, 91, 92. 4 Vendid. III. 25 -27, 39, 40,44—71, 123—136; V. 1—23, 35—64, 113 sqq.; Spiegel, Avesta, H. pp. XLH. XLHI. 5 Lucian, Dea Syr. cc. 52, 53 : who ever had seen a corpse was unclean and excluded from the temple for one day ; the relatives of the dead for thirty days ; the Galli, after having buried one of their colleagues, for seven days. 6 Lev. XI. 8, 11, 24—28, 31, 36, 39 ; see notes in locc,and supra pp. 16, 21. -30. 39,. i See notes on XHI. XIV. 8 See notes on XV. 1—15, 25- 9 See notes on XV. 19—24. io See notes on XV. 16, 17. n See notes on XV. 18. i2 Comp. Vendid. HI. 25 — 27, 40, 44—48; V. 66—68, 83— 178;. VL 1—106 ; VH. 1—93, 122—196; VHI. 1—72, 107—310 ; IX.l— 185 ; X.lsqq. ; XI. 1 sqq. ; XII. 1— 71 ; XVII. 1—44 ; XVHI.134— 152 ; etc.; comp.alsoiS/u'e- gel, Av. n. pp.XLIV, XL VI, LXXXIV, LXXXV ; and in general to p. XCVI, where the different lustrations and the degrees of their importance or efficacy are described — tne patiab, the ghusl (j«»c), and the barashnom nuh shava (iJi, nj **iav> )• 13 Ed. Stenzler, I. 11—13, 15—22, 139, 147, 148, 182—197, 222; H. 303; HI. 18—38, 243—258, 277, 278. 14 Comp. Herod. II. 37 ; Porph. Abst. n. 44; IV. 7; etc. 15 Comp. supra p. 190. THE LAWS OF PURIFICATION. 199 sball'be broken, lest they be used again16. But the Hindoo laws give so many injunctions that it would be tedious to enumerate them; let it suffice to observe that they distinguish between vessels or objects of metal and wood, horn and bone, cane and ivory, jewels and precious stones, corals, shells, and pearls ; and that for the pur pose of purification , they call into requisition water and fire, ashes and earth, acids and mustard-seed, cow-urine, cow-dung, and the cow herself, which is made to stay a day and a night on land which is to be cleansed. Moreover, they prescribe purifications for fields and their produce, for wood and straw, for fluids, for silk and woollen stuffs, cloths, and skins, and for an infinite variety of other objects. Yet with that spiritual refinement which distinguishes the Hindoo sages , they rise occasionally to a noble conception of purity : no uncleanness , they declare, can fall upon a king or divine while engaged in the exercise of their duties ; a monarch is purified by acts of mercy, a warrior by valour on the battle-field, scholars by par doning offences, artists by the exercise of their art, the heedless by generosity, secret sinners by pious devotion, the mind by truth and careful study, the soul by holy meditation, all men by sacred learning, self-denial, and religious worship; and "he who acquires wealth with unstained hands, is clean above all others".17 Not even blood was, of itself, deemed defiling18 among the He brews, since, as a means of grace and atonement, it was sprinkled upon the most sacred parts and objects of the Sanctuary; only if shed by murder, it polluted the land , the hallowed abode of God; 19 and it was to be expiated whether the perpetrator was known or not, in the one case by the death of the murderer, in the other by signi ficant symbols.20 The purificatory laws of the Pentateuch assert their superiority, besides, in another respect. They reflect indeed that hierarchical tendency which is manifest throughout the levitical legislation; for they are more stringent with regard to the priests than the people, since the former, the anointed mediators between God and the corn- is Lev. VI. 28 ; XI. 32, 33 ; XV. 12 ; thoughts, words, and actions ( Vendid. Num. XXXI. 22—24. On the puri- V. 67, 68). fying force of fire see Comm. onLev. isThishasfrequentlybeenasserted; I pp. 529 sqq. oomP-> f" *• ' Knobel, Lev. p. 437 ; and it was so among the Persians (comp. 17 See Manu V. 57—145. Similarly, Strab. XV. in. 14, p. 732). the law of Zoroaster declares him 19 Num. XXXV. 33, 34. clean whokeeps himself pure by good 20 Deut. XXI. 1—9. 200 THE LAWS OF PURIFICATION. munity, are invested with uncommon holiness ; ;¦ and they are also more exacting with respect to the Nazarite, because "the consecration of his God is upon. his head2". But with these few exceptions, they are identical for the whole people, and admit no distinction of classes. How different, for instance, are the corresponding ordinances of the Hindoos! After defilement by contact with a corpse, a merchant becomes pure in five days, a priest in ten, a warrior in twelve, and a servant in a month3; and similar gradations pervade all analogous laws4. Among the Egyptians, the idea of purity seems to have been restricted to the priests only5, and indeed the purificatory laws of the Egyptians have the least resemblance to those of the Hebrews. Nor is it possible to mistake, in the Pentateuch, a well-considered method and system as to the degrees of defilement. In some instances, the uncleanness is communicated to persons and objects by direct or indirect contact6, in others, it remains confined to the person who con tracted it7; in some cases it only lasts till the evening8, in others seven full days9, at the birth of a boy during forty, at the birth of a girl for eighty days10, and in cases of leprosy, irregular menstrua tion, and seminal discharges, as long as the evil continues ' *. The means of purification are no less thoughtfully varied. In some cases, the uncleanness ceases without any ceremony 12, in others 1 Lev. XXI. 1 sqq.; comp. Comm. 8 Viz. if caused by nocturnal pol- on Lev. I. 587 sqq. lution, or by entering a leprous house ; 2 Num. VI. 6 sqq. or if produced by contact with a car- 3 Manu V. 83; comp. 59, 136, 137, °ass, with a person defiled through and Book V. passim. touching a corpse, and with the "wa- 'Cornp. also Spiegel, Avesta, I. ter of purification" (nnan V) , a men- p. 111. struating woman, or an object on which such a woman or a man with a 5 Comp. #^.11.37;/^. Abst. runniagissuenadbeensittingorlying H. 44; see, however, ibid. IV. 7 ai oe (Lev.XI. 24,27,31,39 ;XIV. 46; XV. 19, ATvet« ixavxiuv exaftdpeuov. 23 . Num.XIX.21j22 . Deut.XXUI.12). o As in reference to a corpse, to le- 9 As after contact with a corpse or prosy, "running issue 3", and regular a human bone or grave; after enter- or protracted menstruation (Levit. ing a b0USe harbouring a corpse; XHI. 45, 46 ; XV. 4—12, 20—24, 26, menstruation and connection with a 27; Num. XIX. 21, 22). menstruating woman (Lev. XV. 14, 7 As with respect to unclean car- 16, 19, 24; Num. XIX. 11, 14, 16; casses, conjugal intercourse, sponta- XXXI. 19). neous emission of semen, and child- 10 Lev. XH. 2 — 5. birth (Lev.XI. 24, 25, 27, 39, 40 ; XII. 11 XIII. 46; XV. 2, 25. 2 sqq. ; XV. 16, 18). 12 See the passages supra note 8. THE LAWS OF PURIFICATION. 201 by bathing the body in water 1 8 ; in some by the washing of garments • 4, and in others by both bathing and washing of garments15; and lastly, in some remarkable emergencies, sacrifices and symbolical rites are prescribed, usually in addition to the ordinary ceremonies : thus in the important case of defilement by a corpse , the lustration includes sprinkling, on the third and the seventh day, with the'"water of purification", a strong and sharp lye , prepared from the ashes of the red cow16; a holocaust and a sin-offering are required of women after childbirth, and of men and women after the cessation of cer tain abnormal discharges; while the leper, whom the Hebrews re garded as the image of death-like dissolution, has to present a ho locaust, a trespass- and a sin-offering, and has besides to submit to an elaborate ceremonial of purification ] ". Yet in spite of these laudable features, the purificatory rites of the Pentateuch were, like all ceremonials, liable to perver sion. They were too often considered as a self-sufficient end, and 13 As after the emission of semen, whether during sexual intercourse or not ; or a priest after coming into contact with an unclean animal , or with a person defiled by touching a corpse or by any other cause (Lev. XV. 16, 18 ; XXII. 4—7 ; Deut. XXIII. 11, 12; comp. Lev. VHI. 6; XVI. 4; etc.); similarly Manu V. 66, 77, 78, 85, 86, 103, 144; Vendid. XVI. 18, 19; comp. also Manu V. 76, 99, 108 (puri fication by touching water); V. 86, 145 (by sprinkling or washing the mouth with water) ; V. 139 (by drink ing water); Vendid. V. 157; Spiegel, Avest. H. pp. XX, XL VI, XLVH, LXXXIV, LXXXV ; Meiners, Gesch. der Relig. n. 108. 14 So after carrying the carcass, or eating of the flesh, of an unclean animal; after recovery from disor ders of the skin ; after having eaten or slept in a leprous house; and af ter having sprinkled the "water of purification" (Lev. XI. 25, 28, 40; XHI. 6, 34; XIV. 47 ; Num. XIX. 21 ; comp. Exod. XIX. 10, 14); see also Manu, Y. 77, 78, 103. 15 As lepers were required to do when passing through the ceremo nies of lustration; or persons healed from running issues, and about to be declared clean; or those who touch a bed or any object on which such a person or a woman in her menses or with an irregular flow of blood had been sitting or lying; those who eat of ni3a or nsita; those who are cleansed from defilement by a corpse; and aU persons engaged in burning the red cow and gathering its ashes (Lev. XIV. 8, 9; XV. 5, 6, 10, 13, 21, 22, 27; XVII. 15, 16; Num.^XIX. 7- 10, 19; comp. Lev. XVI. 24, 26, 28). 1° Num.XIX.17— 19; comp.XXXI. 19; Hebr. IX. 13; Jos. Ant. IV. iv. 6: ashes and lye were employed as a means of purification by the Persians, the Romans, and others (comp. Virg. Eel. VHI. 101; Ovid. Fast. IV. 639, 640, 725, 726, 733; Arnob. Adv. Nat. VII. 32). " Lev.XH.6— 8; XIV. 1—32; XV. 13 — 15, 28 — 30; see notes inlocc. An offering of purification (nsiaj) is re peatedly mentioned in the sacrificial tablet of MarseiUes (lines 3, 5, 7, 9, 13). '202 THE LAWS OF PURIFICATION. instead of promoting humility and purity of heart, they engen dered pharisaical pride and hypocrisy, and their mechanical per formance by the mass of the people was constantly rebuked by prophets and moralists. More advanced generations require no purificatory laws as injunctions of religion ; for they conform spontaneously to the requirements of cleanliness ; and they can see no "pollution" in those natural processes and conditions of man, which are inseparable from him as a link in the univ.ersal chain of life. TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY. CHAPTER XII. Summary. — The ordinances concerning women in childbirth. For seven days after the birth of a boy, the mother is as thoroughly unclean as in the time of her menstruation (ver. 2); while during thirty-three days after the first week, she has merely to keep aloof from holy things and from, the Sanctuary (ver. 4) : on the eighth day, the boy is to be circumcised (ver. 3) . After the birth of a girl, both periods of purification are doubled, viz. fourteen and sixty-six days (ver. 5). When the terms are completedr that is, forty days after the birth of a boy, and eighty days after the birth of a girl, the mother, to effect her atonement and purification, has to present a lamb one year old as a burnt-offering, and » young pigeon or a turtle-dove as a sin-offering (vers. 6, 7) ; but if she be poor, a pigeon or a turtle-dove suffices for the burnt-offering also (ver. 8). 1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2. Speak to the children of Israel, saying, If a woman is delivered, 1 — 8. A certain principle and sys tem of arrangement cannot be mis taken in the purificatory laws. No weight can be attached to the Rab binical suggestion that, as in the cos mogony the creation of animals pre ceded t&at of men , so in the section on purity the animals are treated of first, and then the ordinances relat ing to men (Midr. Rabb. Levit. 22 ed. Stett., Rashi, a. o.): but we may acknowledge a natural progress from precepts on food received from without and assimilated within the body, to precepts on accidents arising from conditions of the human body itself and manifesting themselves externally. And of this latter class of laws, those relating to childbirth, or the beginning of human life, are lo- gicaUy introduced first. Their mean ing naturally coincides with that of the laws of purity in general. They bear no reference to "the first sin for which woman was cursed with the pains of labour" (Baumgarten, Com ment. II. 161); nor do they imply that every mother is unclean and worthy of death on account of man's hereditary defilement and guilt (Mi chael. Typ. Gottesg. p. 95) ; they do not teach that "both sin and its punish ment lie principally in the relation of the sexes", or that "the flesh, created by God and originally good, has yet, by the sin of the spirit , become the kindling spark of all sinful desires" (Gerlach, Comm. pp. 408, 409; Bren- 204 LEVITICUS XII. 1—8. and gives birth to a male child, she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her tano, Pent. II. 69; comp. Origen. In Levit. Homil. VIII. pp. 316, 317 ed. Lomm.) : the3' point to no ideas so to tally foreign to the conceptions and the character of the Old Testament (see p. 196). They are clearly laws of purity, and their spiritual charac ter is manifest from the religious rites prescribed in connection with them. After a certain number of days, when the mother might well be re stored to perfect health and to her normal state, she was ordered to pre sent a burnt- and a sin-offering. By the one she was to acknowledge the sovereignty and power of God, as the Lordofnatureandmankind, towhose willand grace she owes her offspring ; and by the other she was to express her un worthiness, from her moral frailty and failings, of receiving so precious a blessing, and of overcom ing pain, anxiety, and peril. The impurity itself, inseparable from childbirth, required no atonement whatever, because it is ordained by God as natural and inevitable. It was held physicaUy defiling, but pointed to no moral trespass ; it im posed, therefore, necessary restric tions in the mother's intercourse with men, and in her relations to holy things and places; but it called forth no mournful thoughts of self- reproach and abasement. The days of purification at the birth of a girl were double of those observed at the birth of a boy, simply because in the former case the physical derange ment of the system was supposed to last longer (see infra), and not be cause, "viewed in reference to the origin of things, the woman is and remains the seducing and the seduced sinner, who is affected by greater impurity, till she is hallowed by the birth of the pure seed" (Baumgarten, 1. c); nor because the female sex "stands a step lower than the male sex", is "more imperfect, weaker, and in a certain respect even more un clean" (Bahr, Symb. II. 490); no such difference is traceable in the Hebrew law; for the sacrifices of lustration were identical in both cases, irrespec tive of the sex of the child. They were in no manner intended to remind the woman of "the corruption of her whole nature, and to impress upon her the depravity of her desires" (Baumg. 1. ^. ; Keil, Comm. p. 87) : the occasion was far too joyful to be dimmed by reflections so gloomy and so unavailing ; it w.as indeed calcu lated to call forth the feelings of de pendence and humility, but no less those of gratitude and exultation; if the former alone were conveyed by the prescribed offerings, it is because they predominated in the solemn hour when the mother, long secluded from the privileges of the Sanctuary, was restored to her full rights as a Hebrew woman, and to the unre- stri cted communion with her God ; yet the ideas of transgression and guilt were decidedly subordinate to those of awe and submission; for the sin- offering consisted of the smallest animal sacrifice lawfully permitted, namely, a single pigeon or turtle-dove; while the holocaust was ordinarily a lamb. Origen (1. c.) indeed strives to prove that only sinners, like Pharaoh and Herod, rejoice at their birth-day (Gen. XL. 20; Mark VI. 21), while "to pious and holy men it is an ob ject of execration" ; but this startling assertion, which might be expected from aPlinyor aLucretius,rather than a Father of Church, and which Ori gen supports by the well-known ut- LEVITICUS XII. 1—8. 205 monthly illness shall she be unclean. 3. And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circum- terances of Job (III. 3 — 9) and Jere miah (XX. 14 — 18), is absolutely con tradicted by the Hebrew and Eastern spirit, nay by the very words of those sufferers (comp. Comm. on Gen. p. 134). Nor was the burnt- offering ordained merely because the mother might, in the agony of her pains, have allowed reproachful thoughts to rise in hermind, and the sin-offer ing, because she might have given expression to them (Ebn Ezra, a. o.) : the sacrifices were not meant to apply to individual conditions or to special times, but were founded upon the tota- lityof life and the innermost character of human nature. But it is certain that the expiation was performed, not for the new-born child , but for the mother ; for though the Psalmist declares, "I was shaped in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (LI. 7) ; though the Pentateuch pronounces "the imagination of man's heart evil from his youth" (Gen. VIII. 21); and Job exclaims, "How can a clean being come from an unclean one ! not one" (XIV. 4) : sacrifices of atonement were only offered by and for those who understood and felt their significance, and never for child ren (comp. Augustin. Quaest. XL ad Levit.). The new-born boy had indeed to undergo the rite of circumcision, but not as a means of penitence, but of sanctification; it was not intended to atone for innate depravity, but to serve as the sign of a holy covenant; if indeed, in a certain sense, it was a sacrifice, because it involved the feel ings of -human dependence and sub mission, it was a. holocaust rather than a sin-offering (see infra; comp. Comm. on Gen. p. 390); and no ini tiatory ceremonial whatever was re quired for new-born girls. Analogous laws or customs in con nection with childbirth existed and still exist among other nations ; but they are far more rigid and more ca pricious than those of the Hebrews. Amongthe Hindoos, "all the kindred" of a new-born child are impure ; the father, who, according to the Hebrew law, is in no way levitically affected, has to undergo lustration by bathing ; the mother is unclean till the tenth day, when the child receives its name, and in cases of miscarriage she re mains in a state of impurity as many nights as months have elapsed since conception; the houseitself, in which the birth takes place, is unclean, and must be sprinkled with hallowed wa ter (Manu, V. 58, 61, 62, 66). — Cu rious are the ceremonies of the Par - sees. While in ancient times the new born child was simply washed with water (Vendid. XVI. 18, 19), in later periods it became customary to pour into the mouth of the child a few drops of the purifying juice para- haoma , and to wash the body three times with cow-urine and once with water; three years afterwards the father is bound to present an offering to Mithra ; for the child is supposed to be fed, in the mother's womb, by the impurities which ordinarily pass away withhermenses, anditis, there fore , at its birth believed to be in tensely polluted. The mother her self, as soon as her labours begin, is placed on an iron bed, as no wooden one would finally be capable of purification; immediately after the birth of the child, she washes her self, but remains unclean for forty- one days, during which time she takes the same food as in the period. of menstruation. Then she makes thirty ablutions with cow-urine and 206 LEVITICUS XII. 1—8. cised. 4. And she shall then continue in the blood of purification three and thirty days; she shall touch no water, and having put on a new dress, she is at last considered clean. As in the days after her confinement, both she and her child, and the latter even in a higher degree, are deemed to be exposed to the malice of evil spirits , it is strongly commanded to have during the first three days and nights a light burning in the house, since fire, the emblem of Ormuzd and the enemy of the wicked kharfesters, is a powerful protection for the in fant (comp. Vendid. V. 157 ; see Spie gel, Zend-Avesta, H. xix, xx, xliv — xlvii). — Among the Mohammedans, the woman is unclean for forty days after childbirth, during which time she has to abstain from all acts of religion and worship. — The Greeks believed they defiled an altar by ap proaching it after having been near a woman in childbirth (Eurip. Iph. Taur. 381 — 383) ; nay by coming near .such a woman they held that they de filed themselves, though excessive rigour in this respect was looked upon .as superstition (Theophr. Char. XVI [XXVH]). During the Peloponnesian war, one of the means they employed for "purjfying" the island of Delos (in the 88th Olympiad), was to for bid, that no woman should keep her confinement in the island (Thucyd. III. 104). The same prohibition was enforced by the Epidaurians with respect to the holy grove of Aescula pius (Pausan. II. xxvu. 1). The mo ther was not permitted to appear in the temples before the fortieth day, which was generally celebrated as a holiday (the xsaaapaxoaxov), because within that period most women were still supposed to suffer from the effects of their pregnancy, and to be sub ject to loss of blood, while the infants are feeble, do not smile, and seem subject to constant danger (Censorin. Di. Nat. c. xi). On the fifth day, the well-known ceremony of amphidro- mia (d(j.cpi5p6|j.ia) took place, when the child was by the nurse or mid wife carried rapidly round the do mestic hearth; on the same day, sa crifices were offered on behalf of the child, when relatives and friends sent presents; and the name was given either on the seventh or on the tenth- day, which was likewise celebrated as a festival (6v0[i.dxiov iopx-f\; see Suid. sub d|Aifa8p6(ua and £f3Bop.£Uo- p-eva; Plaut. Trucul. n. iv. 69, 70).— Among the Romans, the mother was required to bathe immediately after her confinement (Plaut. Amphitr. n. n. 37 ; Ter. Andr. III. n. 3) ; the day on which the chUd was named — the dies lustricus or nominalis — dedi cated to the goddess Nundina, was kept with solemnity ; it was for boys the ninth , for girls the eighth day after their birth, for which difference playful reasons were assigned, as, for instance, females grow more rapidly and come sooner to maturity ; or even numbers partake of the female , un even ones of the male character (Ma- crob.i.l& sub fin. ; comp. Plut. Quaest. Rom. 102; Pers. Sat. II. 31—36. — Callim. Hymn, in Jov. 10 sqq., in Del. 123 sqq., offer no apt parallels). — Some Asiatic nations employ fire for the lustrationof women in childbirth. The Siberian women must leap seve ral times over blazing flames. The Siamese keep the mother constantly before a fire for a whole month, turn ing her, for more efficient purifica tion, frequently from one side to the other, unmindful of her agonies; and the people of Pegu put her for four or five days upon a heated hearth: after these ceriods thev nplnhrato LEVITICUS XII. 1—8. 207 hallowed things, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification, are fulfilled. 5. But if she. gives festivals in honour of the fire, to ex press their gratitude for its great services. Among the Hottentots the lustration is effected by urine and cow-dung. Many northern tribes, as the Samoiedes, Siberians, and Lap landers, compel thewomen to remain for six weeks or two months in se cluded huts; or they prevent them at least, during that time, from pre paring any food, touching the gar ments or any other property of their husbands, coming near a hearth or the path of men and rein-deer, and above aU from approaching altars or places of sacrifice. Among some ne gro-tribes also the women are kept in isolation during the whole time of their impurity; preparing food for their husbands within this period is a sin of death (comp. Meiners 1. c. pp. 105 — 108). SimUar customs pre vail among the Red Indians and the North-American savages, and seem, in fact , to be common to all nations and tribes which consider physical impurity not merely repulsive, but in some mysterious mannermorally pol luting. Though the issue of blood that .succeeds childbirth (or lochia rubra) generally lasts only three or four days, and the efflux of the white fluid that follows (lochia alba) usually ceases altogether after two or three weeks, the* Hebrew legislator, extending both periods so as to cover extreme oases, fixed significant numbers of days — seven for the one and forty for the other period at the birth of a boy, and twice seven and twice forty at the birth of a girl ; for he desired to stamp the time of separation with the seal of religion. The significance attributed to those numbers by the Hebrews requires no iUustration in this place (comp. Comm. on Exod. p. 480; on Gen. p. 185; see also He noch XVIII. 6 ; XXIV. 2; XXXII. 1 ; LXXVHI. 4— 8; XCI. 16; XCIII. 10; Philo, DeSeptenar. cc 1, 6, 9, 10, 18, 19, 24; Yalk. Shim. I. § 276; Saadiah, On the Decalogue, ed. Eisenstadter, pp. 12, 13; Maimon. Mor. Nev. III. 43 ; Ebers, Aegypten und die Bucher Mose's, pp. 339, 346). But it was par ticularly striking among the heathens with reference to birth, life, and death. It was believed that "the number seven encompasses the whole existence of man in aU its stages to its very termination" : conception is decided seven hours after the inter course ; seven days later, the semen is enclosed in a membranous vesicle, as the egg in its shell; from seven to seven days the foetus undergoes marked changes or developments ; in the seventh week it is perfectly formed; it is fuUy matured in seven months; and generally sees the light of day after 273 or after 39 times 7 days ; seven hours after the birth of a child, it is possible to decide whe ther it will live ; the seventh day af ter this period, when the navel drops off, is particularly dangerous to the, infant, which previously "resembled a plant rather than an animated being" ; after fourteen days, it begins to turn its eyes to the light, and af ter forty-nine , it notices and distin guishes objects; after seven months, it gets the first teeth, and cuts seven in each jaw; after fourteen months, it sits upright without fear of .falling; after twenty-one months, it speaks with distinct articulation; after twenty-eight, it stands firmly and walks with ease; after thirty-five, it shows dislike to the milk of the nurse, and accepts it only from habit; in 208 LEVITICUS XII. 1—8. birth to a female child, she > shall be unclean two weeks as in the time of her monthly impurity; and she shall the seventh year, it looses its first, and gets its second teeth, and the pronunciation of words becomes per fect; at the end of the fourteenth year, both boys and girls enter the period of puberty, the former be coming capable of generation, the latter beginning to have their men ses; at the age of twenty-one, the young man has a, fully developed beard , which then ceases to grow in length; at twenty-eight, his body has attained its greatest height, which never exceeds seven feet; at thirty- five, the man is in the plenitude of his vigour, which remains on the whole stationary to the forty-second year, when his faculties are highest, and fit him alike for action and coun sel; then his strength diminishes, at first slowly till his forty-ninth year, then more perceptibly; and as a rule he reaches the limit of his life in his seventieth year. — Again, the seventh day marks the crisis for most disea ses ; man -has seven great internal and seven other vital organs ; his body consists of seven substances and of three times seven limbs; his head, the seat of Divine intelligence , has seven apertures ; he dies after seven hours of suppressed breathing and after as many days of hunger. More over, seven stars form the constella tions of the Great and the Little Bear and of the Pleiads; there are seven planets and seven heavenly circles ; summer-solstice takes place when the sun passes the seventh sign after the winter-solstice, viz. from Capricorn to cancer, and conversely; the moon completes her revolution round the earth in four times seven days ; and twenty-eight is the sum of the numbers from 1 to 7; the deity or the soul of the world itself origin ated in this number , which is hence designated "the venerable" (iiixdj or azK-zds), the "sovereign regu lator of the human fabric", the "perfect number", or the "key to nearly all things" (rerum omnium fere nodus; comp.ilfrtcroi.Somn.Scip. I. 5, 6 ; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 1'02 ; Pla- cit. Philos. V. 18; Gell. IH. 10; Cen sor. Di. Nat. cc. VII, XI ; Apulej. Me tam. XI init.enm. numerum — septem — praecipue religionibus aptissimum divinus ille Pythagoras prodidit). Nor were the Hebrews singular in the belief that the woman suffers more and longer at the birth of a girl than of a boy. It was supposed that the foetus of the former is de veloped more slowly than that of the latter ; that the mother looks more pale, feels greater discomfort, and is exposed to more irregularities and mischances in the one instance than in the otherjthat the purifications con tinue, in the one case never more than thirty, in the other never less than forty days after conception ; and ge nerally last as long after childbirth (comp. Hippocr. De Nat. Puer. I. 393 ed. Kiihn ; Aristot. Hist. An. VI. xxn. 3 ; VII. in. 2 ; iv. 3 ; xii. 1). Some Rab bins expressed the opinion that both the male and the female child are indeed formed in the mother's womb within 41 days, but that the body of the female is by nature colder and moister, and cold humours require longer time to be secreted and lustrated (comp. Nachman. in loc; Holling. Jus Hebr. p. 231), which questions were eagerly discussed by classical writers also (comp. Macrob. Sat. VII. 7 ; also Talm. Nidd. 31b). Now, the text enjoins that the new born boy should, after the first great period of the mother's purification. LEVITICUS XII. 1—8. 209 then continue in the blood of purification six and sixty days. 6. And when the days of her purification or after the lapse of seven days , be circumcised (ver. 3). This express injunction , which might appear su perfluous, can in the connection in which it occurs, hardly refer to any other idea than that of purity ; but the nature of this purity must be un derstood in harmony with the entire system of Hebrew theology ; it is not of an outward kind; circumcision aims not simply at cleanliness , as it did for long periods among the Arabs and Egyptians (Herod. H. 37) ; it ty pifies still less "the corruption of the human will manifesting itself in the lust of the flesh", or "the origin and principle of all the impurity of hu man nature" (Baumgart. 1. u. p. 162) ; but being "a sign" (nis) of the holy covenant with the God of Israel, and of the boy's introduction into the Chosen community, it marks his transition from the state of nature to that of religion; frompagan unclean ness to the priestly holiness of Israel. In this sense, but in no other, the boy's circumcision is a rite of lustration (see supra). During the secondterm of recovery, extending over 33 or 66 days, the mother was indeed still under re straints; for the white issue from which she suffers during that time, was also looked upon as "blood of purification" (vers. 4, 5); yet her re strictions applied no longer to the so cial, but only to the religious sphere ; she was not, as in the first seven days, treated with the same rigour as a menstruating woman ; her proximity or contact did not defile; she was probably not forbidden to her hus band; yet as the lochia alba was just ly regarded as another, though more lenient, stage of the lochia rubra, she was debarred from holy places and are holy objects; she was "to touch no haUowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary" (ver. 4) ; she was still in her "days of purification", which closed finally when, attheendof40or 80 days, she had cleansed herself by the prescribed offerings. So careful is the author in this respect, that he bids the mother bring the sacrifi cial animals, not within the precincts of the Sanctuary, from which she was excluded before the completion of the sacrifice, but "to the door" of it, where she was to hand over her offerings to the ministering priest (ver. 6). Bathing is not expressly men tioned, as it formed no part of the religious ritual; but it was doubt less performed as a first and natural lustration, and is at present, together with a special visit and prayer in the Synagogue, the only ceremony ob served by Jewish women after child birth (see Yor. Deah §§ 194. i; 197. l ; 201. l; comp. also Holtinger, Jus Hebr. pp. 233, 234; and in general Mishn. Nidd. HI. 1 sqq.). The Christian church still celebrates the annual "festival of the purification of Mary" on the second of February, that is, on the 40tt day after the 25th of De cember , in reference to our law and to an allusion in the New Testament (Luke H. 22 — 24); and in some coun tries, Catholic women repair to their places of worship to pray, six weeks after their confinement, just as He brew women do everywhere. But in connection with those sacrifices several questions arise which have not been satisfactorily answered, and which lead to interest ing historical inferences. Why did the holocaust precede the sin-offering (vers. 6,8), whereas in aU other in stances when both were presented 210 LEVITICUS XII. 1—8. fulfilled for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb one year old for a burnt- offering, and a young pi- together, the sin-offering preceded the holocaust ? And why is the for mula, "This is the law for her that gives birth to a male or female child" (ver. 7), which in all similar cases concludes the ordinances, foUowed by other regulations on the same subject? (ver. 8). It has been con tended, that the holocaust, being the larger offering and probably designed for the child as weU as for the mo ther, is indeed first mentioned, but was not first presented (comp. Talm. Zevach. 89 sqq.; Rashi; a. o.); or that logical sequence must not be expected, the text employing the concluding formula after having stated the "or dinary rule", and caring less about "exceptional cases", which are treated of in supplementary precepts. It is unnecessary to point out the weak ness of these explanations; the sacri fices were not intended for the child, butforthe mother only (see supra); not the value of the victim, but the cha racter of the offering decided the priority; the last verse (the eighth) forms a necessary and integral part of the law, nay the smaUer offering of two birds was doubtless in reality the more frequent one, as it was, for instance , presented by the parents of Jesus , an incidental proof of the humbleness of their station and cir- cumstances(LukeH.24; comp. Origen. In Lev. Hom. VIH. referring to 2 Cor. VIH. 9; Augustin. Quaest. XL. in Levit.). We have proved before, that holo causts were the oldest, expiatory of ferings the latest class of sacrifices (see Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 3, 4). Now it is very probable, that offerings of pious acknowledgment or holocausts were, from comparatively early times, presented by Hebrew women after chUdbirth, though we have pointed out that this custom was not yet raised into a law at the end of the period of the Judges (seep. 188) . The levitical legislator found the practice in existence; and he not only fixed it permanently, but he enjoined besides another sacrifice of that class which had, in his time, risen more and more in importance, and which he deemed the holiest and most essential of aU — a sin-offering. A lamb had prob ably been customary as the holo caust after childbirth; he could not venture to demand another great victim for the sin-offering; and he, therefore, contented himself with prescribing a young pigeon or turtle dove. Now the ordinances were com pleted, and the formula, "This is the law" etc. was added to mark the conclusion. But the presentation of a lamb must very soon have become extremely burdensome , when it was no longer left to custom or option, but was required as compulsory by a religious command; it was impos sible to enforce it with any degree of rigour or consistency, especiaUy if the prolificness of Hebrew women be considered; it was, therefore, deemed wise to alter the law in so far , as to permit to poorer families the sacrifice of a pigeon or a turtle dove for the holocaust also ; this was the more feasible, as the offering of birds, forlongperiods unusual among the Hebrews , had become frequent, probably as an unavoidable conces sion, and had evenbeen adopted with respect to the sin-offering (see Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 474, 475) ; and then the ordinance permitting two young pi geons or turtle-doves for both sacri fices was appended by a later revi ser, satisfied that the addition was LEVITICUS XII. 1—8. 211 geon or a turtle-dove for a the Tent of Meeting, to the demanded by necessity, and convinced that the intention and the frame of mind are more essential than the of fering itself (see 1. c. p. 51), but un concerned at the logical offence of adding an appendix to a final con clusion. But why did he not, in extreme ca ses of poverty, permit a cereal offer ing, as he did in several other in stances? Without desiring to speak with decision where the Bible affords no hint whatever, we may suggest, that he possibly deemed the sacrifice of a living creature appropriate on occasions connected with life and b irth, and therefore emin ently requir ing the embodiment of the idea of "life for life", or of a vicarious sacri fice (see 1. c. pp. 291 sqq.). Philological Remarks. — The word 3"itn (ver. 2) no doubt means "she brings forth seed" i. e. is delivered of a chUd (comp. sit jmtb and sit siit Gen. I. 11, 12, 29), since sit is com monly used for progeny, offspring; so also Ebn Ezra and. Abarban. (fpn 3>it) , Gerlach, Johlson , Herxh., Keil, Luzzatto, Bunsen, a. o. ; it does not mean "she has conceived seed", so Targ. Onk. and Jon. (r»» and -ngn, see Nachman. in loc), Sept. (edv airep- jMmaft-jj, comp. iTn and jr.w are uncalled for; the former is against the usage. — nin to be ill (nnii infin. Kal with suff.) is used especially with respect to men struation^ the feminine of the adjec tive n;i(XV.33 ; XX.18) a menstruating woman, and the noun nw (Isai. XXX. 22) a menstruous garment (comp. Talm. Nidd. 9a; Rashi, Ebn Ezra, a. o., ¦'Vim niio -poi ; hence nnii nia i»is satan is literally, "she shall be unclean as in the days of the uncleanness of her being unweU", that is , she shall be as unclean and subjected to the same rigorous rules and restraints as in the time of her menses (comp. Lev. XV. 19, Rashi, nsaita is iitffl rnsannssn) ; for ¦'sps stands instead of ¦was, the time being expressed by the simple accusative (Gram. §86. i). The same sense is conveyed more briefly in ver. 5 by nniffi nsao?, where nma signifies also the period of her impurity, and is therefore likewise employed in the simple accusative. Indistinct is the rendering of the Sep- tuagint xaxd xd; 'rff.ipas xou v_iupt- tsu.ou x7]s depsopou a&xfjs, and of the English Version "according to the days of the separation for her infir mity shaU she be unclean" ; inexact thatof Onk.and Jon.nnsiss pin^i lavs, and of the Vulgate juxta dies sepa- rationis menstruae; and quite incor rect, both as regards the words and the context , that of Luther and Mi chaelis "so lange sie ihre Krankheit leidet" , and "so lange ihr Wochen- bett wahrt" (by which the time of lochia rubra is meant). The noun rnj is indeed derived from na to flee, lo remove, and signifies, therefore, in the first instance, separation or removal (so Rashb. a. o. avoidance of, and separation from, her husband; D2 212 LEVITICUS XII. 1—8. it before the Lord, and make atonement for her, that she may be cleansed from the issue of her blood. — This Rashi on XV. 19 , ois bz> saaa nnatt) ; but then it means that which is to be shunned and avoided, that is, im purity, used paralleland coupled with nswp (XVHI. 19; Ezek. XXXVL 17; Ezra IX. 11), whether the impurity is physical, as the menstruation of women (XV. 19 sqq.; Ezek. XVHI. 6; XXH. 10), or moral, that is, in iquity (Zech.XIII. 1) and abomination, as incest (Lev. XX. 21) and idolatry (2 Chr. XXIX. 5; comp. nasnn and ylpffl), or loathing and disgust in gene ral (Ezek. VII. 19, 20; Lam. I. 8, 17), while Hn? *(Num, XIX. 9sqq. ; XXXI. 23) is water of or for impurity, i. e. for the removal of impurity. It will be seen that the word nia occurs only in works written during and after the Babylonian exile; it became cur rent in late periods only , when the laws of levitical cleanness were fully developed (see p. 194). The deriva tions from ma, so that nia would be formed like 13s (Fiirst) , or from the Arabic root si3 to ripple, to flow (Wogue), are doubtful. — aa,;n (in vers. 4, 5) is hardly "she shall remain at home" (so Luther, Michael., Dathe, Knob., Bunsen, a. o.), much less, as Nachmanides fancifully interprets, "she shall sit, and not walk", since "by her steps she defiles the earth and taints the air" (Gen. XXXI. 35 af fords no proof); but simply "she shall continue" in the blood of her purifi cation (so Vulg. manebit in sanguine, Engl. Vers., Herxh., Cahen, Johlson, a. o.); an active Hebrew woman, so useful in field and vineyard, could not be expected to stay at home for full 40 or 80 days from her confine ment , and long after she had reco vered her full vigour and power for work; the construction is 3»n (in ver. 5) also favours the latter inter pretation; although some codices read both times *»ia (see De Rossir Var. Lectt. I. 96), and the Sept., Vulg. , Chald. , and Ar. render so (sv, in, etc.) : passages like Gen. XIH. 18 and Deut. I. 46, in which the place is mentioned after a«n, or like Hos. HI. 3 (¦'i -nan), are not paraUel with ours. It is, therefore, impossible to enter tain the view of Theodoret (Quaest. in Lev. XIV) and others (as Trusen, Sitten etc. p. 112), that 40 or 80 days of impurity were fixed merely with the object of securing to the woman complete rest after her exhausting pains ; they were not fixed as a mat ter of expediency but of religion, and "the rest", especially with regard to conjugal intercourse, ceased after the first short terms of 7 and 14 days. — Hints "*& (vers. 4, 5) is the impure blood, the removal of which effects purification, whence the Sept. renders the words indifferently a!|Aa xafl-api- opou (ver. 4) and o.Xp.0. dxd fl-apxov (ver. 5). Rabbinical interpretation too de cidedly explains them to mean "pure blood" which is not defiling , in con tradistinction to nis ci (Ebn Ezra, Rashb., Nachman. fol. 92a; see infra; comp. Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschr. H. 27, 28; comp. I. 51, 52; Michaelis also has "reiner Blutabgang") ; and Rashi renders by way of hypaUage "purifi cation of blood." — nsia (vers. 4, 6) is the constr. inf. Kal of xitt, formed in the manner of verbs n'i, like nstarr (Ezek. XXXIII. 12), nsaia (Prov. VIIL 13), etc. ; see Gramm. n.'§ LXVI. 13. — ' nnias (ver. 5) for nma was, "as in. TT. ; \ / TT. .. .' the time of her menses" (see supra) ; Sept. xaxd xt]v acpeBpov auxfj;, and more distinctly stiU Vulg. juxta ri- tum fluxus menstrui ; Onk. and Jon. inaccurately npmia; Dathe incor rectly pro duratione puerperii sui. — LEVITICUS XII. 1—8. 213 is the law for her that gives birth to a male or female thild. — 8. And if her fortune does not suffice for a lamb, The sense nsi is pi (ver. 6) is "with reference to — or at the birth of — a son or a daughter", for the mother and not the child required purifica tion; Sept. correctly £ip3 ulip ^ km. ftu- 7axp(; Clericus ob filium vel filiam, i. e. prout marem aut foeminam pe- perit. — The term injuria (ver. 6), an animal one year old (Sept. eviau- <3ios, Vulg. anniculus, etc.), instead of the more usual nsffl-p, is found ex clusively in later writings, viz. in Ezekiel (XL VI. 13) , and the middle Books of the Pentateuch(Lev. XXIII. 12; Num. VI. 12, 14; VU. 15—81; .and nn3» na Lev. XIV. 10 ; Num. VI. 14; XV. 27), and is, therefore, like Hi3 an incidental proof of the late origin of this section (see p. 194). — The verb s-an (ver. 6) has three dif ferent complements ; hence the Vul gate , to render the construction ea sier, inserts before the third a new verb — ¦ "et tradet sacerdoti." — The subject of i3--pni and issi (ver. 7) is of course pan (comp. ver. 8), to be supplied from the preceding verse; it is added in a codex of Kennic, and expressed by the Samar., Sept., Syr., and Jonath. — The suffix in laiipm, though in the singular,, refers, col lectively, to both sacrifices (Ebn Ezra ninni unsn ntl ht), and not, as Rab binical interpreters maintain, to the sin-offering only, on which the puri fication and atonement of the mo ther are supposed to depend (Siphra in loc. fol. 59a ed. Schlossb.): the ho locaust being the older, and for a lono- time perhaps the only sacrifice presented, it is in the prescribed ritual at least of equal importance with the sin-offering. — On is is see Comm. on Lev. I. p. 476 ; the Vulg. paraphra ses (in vers. 7 and 8) "et orabit pro ea"; and the Sept. renders the fol lowing nintal xal xaftapieT aux-i^v, as if reading ninoi. — The sense of lipa trwi (lit. "the spring of her blood") cannot be doubtful (comp. XX. 18) ; Sept. TZf]f)\ xou ai^iaxos, Vulg. pro- fluvium sanguinis, Luther a. o. Blut- gang ; inaccurately Onkel. nsxitaa snai, Michael. Wochenbett, a. o. — Several manuscripts, the Samarit. Text and Vers., and the Arab., have nspail (ver. 7) instead of 'i is, which is indeed an unessential deviation, since 1 also has occasionaUy disjunc tive force (Gr.§ 107. ie); but as this is very strongly expressed in the double i (in i3Ti and H3pai, whether — or), is is preferable (as in ver. 6) : the Ma- sorites seem designedly to have pro vided mVn with a strongly distinc tive accent (Luzz. tanto per la nascita di un maschio quanto etc.). — On the phrase no ~n m sawn (ver. 8) see Comm. on Lev. I. 515 (on V. 7). —The Samar. and Syr. Vers., and a codex of Kennicot,give(inver. 8) to nstani pre cedence before niisi, evidently in or der to obviate difficulties which have been discussed above. The Rabbini cal, and no doubt the correct inter pretation of this chapter, as embodied in the Targum of Jonathan, is this : the mother is unclean only during the first seven or fourteen days after childbirth ; on the eighth or fifteenth day, after having bathed, she is clean (ver. 3, iinsnn), and fit for conjugal intercourse; and her discharges in the following 33 or 66 days are also clean (ver. 4, -psi snai is) ; yet she is during this time to keep aloof from the Sanctuary and all sacred things (as tithes, naiin, and the flesh of thank-offerings) : thus a double "flow of blood", a clean and an unclean one , is distinguished (snai -pin sisa , ver. 7; Talm. Nidd. 35b, 42a; Shabb. 64b; 214 LEVITICUS XII. 1—8; XIII. she shall bring two turtles or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt-offering, and the other for a sin-offering ; and the priest shall make atonement for her, that she may be clean. Yor. Deah 11. cc ; Mitzv. Hashem they are, therefore , in this instance, p. 21h). The Sadducees, on the other more strict than theRabbanites, who hand, and with them the Samaritans have certainly the tenour and the and Karaites, though admitting a wording of the Law on their side. — difference of degree between the The Mishnah (Kerith. 1. 3 — 7) ordains two periods, declared the woman sin-offerings also in certain cases of even during the second term too un- abortion. clean for matrimonial connection; CHAPTER XIII. Summary. — On leprosy of persons and garments and its treatment. — 1. Leprosy developed from plague-spots in the skin (vers. 1 — 8). A rising (nsio), or scab (nnso), or bright spot (nin?) on the skin, with the hair on that part turning white, and the part itself appearing to be deeper than the rest of the skin, constitutes a leprous disease (nsis S3 a) and causes uncleanness (vers. 1 — 3). But a white spot which does not appear to be deeper than the other skin, and the hair of which does not turn white , is a doubtful symptom requiring to be carefully tested: if after a week's seclusion of the person so affected , the disorder does not spread, but remains unchanged in appearance, he is to be sub jected to another term of confinement of the same duration; if then the diseased part is found to be paler and has not extended farther , it is merely affected with a scab (nnspa) , and washing of garments suffices to restore cleanness (vers. 4 — 6). But if at the end of the first or second week, the disorder has spread, and, on renewed inspection by the priest, is discovered to have made another advance, it is polluting leprosy (vers. 7, 8). — 2. Leprosy breaking out direct on the body, and not from plague-spots (vers. 9—17). The presence of raw flesh, and whiteness of the hair on a white rising, characterise confirmed and defiling lep rosy (vers. 9 — 11). White leprosy extending equally over the skin of the whole body, is not considered a tainting disease (vers. 12, 13); yet it becomes one by the appearance of red raw flesh on any part (vers. 14, 15) ; when such flesh disappears and the original white colourreturns, the sufferer is restored to a state of cleanness (vers. 17, 18). — 3. Leprosy arising in consequence of a healed boil (vers. 18 — 23). A white rising or a reddish white spot appearing in the place of a healed boil (prjs), is real leprosy, if it seems lower than the skin, and if the hair on it turns white ; but it is merely a scabby scar left by the boil if it does not show these two symptoms, is pale in colour, and does not spread within seven days of seclusion after the first inspection by the priest. — 4. Precisely the same Regulations apply to the bright spot which may arise in the place of a burning (icx n-sa, vers. 24—28). — 5. Leprosy on hairy parts of the head and face (vpth. 5>9 — 371 Tf ar, ommtim nr, +-h«; \.?nA r-v.t LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8. 215 the beard appears deeper than the other skin , and is covered with yel low thin hair, it is a soall (pn.3), or leprosy of the head or beard (vers. 29, 30). Now, if indeed the diseased part seems not deeper than the other skin, but has yeUow hair upon it, it is examined again after seven days of isolation: if then the disorder has not spread, and the yellow hair has vanished , the sufferer is to shave his body with the exception of the afflicted parts ; and if, after other seven days of separation, the scaU has preserved the same limited extent, he is to be declared clean by the priest , and has merely to wash his garments ; yet if after that time the evil spreads , he is unclean , whether yellow hair shows itself or not; and he becomes only clean when the irregularity ceases, and black hair grows on the affected place (vers. 31 — 37). — 6. Harm less leprosy (vers. 38, 39).- A palish white eruption on the skin (niins nisai or pna) is harmless, and does not render unclean. — 7. The same applies to baldness at the back of the head or at the forehead (vers. 40, 41); but a reddish white rising on the bald places, resembling in ap pearance leprosy of the skin, is looked upon as that disease, and causes uncleanness (vers. 42 — 44). — 8. Social status of the leper (vers. 45 , 46). — He shaU rend his clothes, bare his head , cover his beard , and at the approach of strangers exclaim, "Unclean, unclean!"; during the whole time of his illness he is to stay in an isolated place without the camp. — 9. Leprosy of garments (vers. 47 — 58). If garments, or linen and woollen stuffs, or objects made of skin, show greenish or reddish spots, they may possibly be affected with leprosy ; hence they are to be shut up by the priest for a week; if on the seventh day the spots have spread, it is a case of malignant leprosy, and the garments and stuffs must be burnt; but if the spots have not extended, the things are to be washed, and removed for other seven days; if after the washing, the spots do not change their colour, whether they spread farther or not, the garments are un clean, and must be burnt; if the spots become pale after the washing, the part is to be torn out, and if they yet appear in the stuffs, these are to be burnt; for it is a, spreading leprosy; but if the spots vanish alto gether after the washing, the objects are washed a second time, and thus become clean. — Then follows 10. the concluding formula (ver. 59). 1. And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 2. If a man has in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes in the skin of his flesh a plague of leprosy; he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to one of his sons the priests. 3. And 1—8. Of the various diseases en- of Moses, and was together with demic among the ancient Hebrews, other contagious disorders, not un- none was more inveterate, and none frequently represented as having more disastrous.than leprosy. It clung caused their expulsion from that to them from the earliest to the latest country (comp. Manetho , Chaeremon, times ; it was by aU but general tradi- and Lysimachus ap. Joseph. C. Ap. I. tion attributed to them during their 26, 32, 34; Tacit. Hist. V. 3; Justin. stay in Egypt, especially in the age XXXVL 2; Diod. Sic. XXXTV. 1; 216 LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8. the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and if the hair on the part affected with the plague is turned white, and the appearance of the part affected with the plague is deeper than the other skin of his flesh, XLinit. ; see.Sttprap.lll). Nayit pre vailed, even in the Assyrian, Babylo nian, and Persian periods, to such an extent, that the most elaborate laws of precaution were deemed impera tive. Its occurrence, in striking in stances , is mentioned during all in termediate and even in much later epochs — at the time of the Hebrew wanderings in the desert and of the Judges, of the earlier and of the later kings of Judah, of Christ and his apostles ; for it is connected with the names of Miriam and Joab ; of Gehazi and the "four lepers" who, driven by the despair of starvation, ven tured into the hostile camp of the Syrians; of the kings Azariah and Uzziah, and of Job; of Simon the leper of Bethany, and the many lepers healed by Christ at various times (comp. Num. V. 2—4; XH. 10—15; 2 Sam. III. 29 ; 2 Ki. V. 27 ; VII. 3 ; XV. 5; 2 Chr. XXVI. 19—23; Job II. 7, 8; VII. 5; XIX. 17, 20; XXX. 17, 30 ; Matth. VIII. 2 , 3 ; X. 8 ; XI. 5 ; XXVI. 6; Mark I. 40—42; XIV. 3; Luke IV. 27 ; V. 12, 1 3 ; Vn. 22 ; XVH. 12; see also Talm. Sanh. 107a, 110a). Nor was the disease less frequent in the neighbouring countries, as Syria, Phoenicia, and eastern Asia in gene ral; it was above all so common in Egypt that this country was consid ered the chief, if not the sole, centre of at least a, principal form of the disorder (comp. 2 Ki. V. 1 sqq. ; Exod. IV. 6, 7; Deut. XXVIH. 27; Lucret. VI. 1112, 1113, Est elephas morbus qui propter flumina Nili Gignitur Aegypto in media , neque praeterea usquam ; Plin. XXVI. 1 or 5, Aegypti peculiare hocmalum est) ; it appeared sporadically at the beginning of the Christian period in Germany; im ported by the returning crusaders, it spread, in the twelfth century, to a fearful extent, over Greece and otherEuropean countries; and though mostly found in warm and damp coast-lands, as in Arabia and at the Persian gulf (Herod. I. 138), on all the shores of Africa and along the Mediterranean, in Sumatra and Java, in Ceylon and the islands of the Southern Ocean, the West Indies, Su rinam, and Brazil ; it invaded, though often with modified features , colder climates also , as Iceland , . Norway, and the Faroe islands, the Crimea and Astrakhan; it rendered neces sary an incredible number of leper houses and hospitals — France alone had in the thirteenth century above 2000 — ; till it gradually yielded to rigid precautions in diet, cleanliness, and habits ; throughout central Eu rope it was considered extinct in the seventeenth century; yet it lingers still in some parts of Portugal and Spain, especiaUy Asturia; even in Germany several cases, though with comparatively mild symptoms, have recently been noticed; it rages oc casionally in Egypt, where in 1845 a French hospital was erected at Con- stantine, and among the Falashas in Abyssinia; it is not rare in the dis tricts of the Lebanon and the Jordan, in Bosra, Bagdad, and Damascus, and in Jerusalem, where before the Zion gate a colony of lepers is still found, inhabiting about a hundred wretched huts; these unfortunate sufferers intermarry with each other, producing a, progeny as miserable LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8. 217 it is a plague of leprosy: and when the priest sees it, he shall pronounce him unclean. 4. But if the bright spot is white in the skin of his flesh, and its appear ance is not deeper than the other skin, and the hair as themselves ; and though loathed and shunned, they are allowed to enter the town to buy provisions, or to beg for alms. Athough the Bible often mentions leprosy, and even discusses it in some portions, it affords no informa tion as to the origin and causes of the dire disease. This will not be sur prising to those who bear in mind the principle of Divine retribution, upon which all laws and narratives of the Bible are framed, and which, disdain ing to trace effects to natural agen cies, represents diseases mainly as heavenly inflictions and providential visitations. With respect to leprosy, the Bible most strictly adheres to that principle. For leprosy appears in all instances as the result of God's im mediate interference — as a trial in the cause of Job, as a fearful punish ment in all the others: Miriam ut tered disrespectful words against God's chosen servant Moses ; Joab, together withhis family and descend ants, were cursed by David for hav ing treacherously murdered his great rival Abner; Gehazi provoked the anger of Elisha for his mean cove- tousness, calculated to bring the name of Israel into disrepute among the heathen; king Azariah clung to the reproachful worship on high places; and Uzziah was, according to the Chronist's characteristic ac count, smitten with incurable leprosy for his alleged usurpation of priestly privUeges in burning incense on the golden altar of the Temple. Jewish tradition clung consistently to the same views; the Talmud declared, that leprosy should be looked upon by the sufferer as "an altar of atone ment", since it is only sent for great transgressions , such as idolatry and incest, calumny and perjury (comp. Talm. Berach. 5; Sanh. 107a, 110a; Erach.l6;Bab.Bathr.l64b;^f. Rabb. Nath. c. 9; Midr. Rabb. Lev. c 16); and Kabbalists maintained that the Messiah, though having long since appeared on earth, delays the work of redemption, because he must first expiate the iniquities of mankind, and he does this by taking upon him self the plague of leprosy (comp. De Wette, De Morte Jes. Chr. expiat. pp. 67, 68). Influence of climate can scarcely be set down as the chief cause of a disorder which has raged in all parts of the old and the new world, both in dry highlands and in humid valleys, both in the torrid and the frigid zones. Diet, next to damp dwellings, a marshy atmosphere, ill- aired clothes and uncleanliness, may be of greater moment, though indeed no station or mode of life secures im munity. Salt fish and salted cheese, fat and oil, indigestible or insufficient food, putrid water, pork, camel's or buffalo's flesh eaten abundantly, and milk drunk after fish, have in an cient and modern times been asserted to engender the disease. Woollen gar ments are considered to promote it, linen ones to ward it off. Inflamma tion, boils, or wounds may hasten its development in constitutions predis posed to it by the unhealthy action of the blood. Violent emotions, such , as fright, anger, fear, or excitement, have been observed to produce or to favour it. But all this hardly passes 218 LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8. thereof is not turned white; the priest shall shut up him that has the plague for seven days: 5. And the beyond the sphere of vague conjec ture or probability. Nor is there any foundation for the theory (brought forward by Calmet), that leprosy is caused by small animalcules, which, settling between the skin and the flesh, gnaw away the epidermis and cuticle, and then the extremities of the nerves and the fl esh ; or for the Rabbi nical supposition that it arises from a disturbance of the assumed equili brium in the human frame between water and blood, the latter unduly preponderating (see Yalk. Shim, on Job XXVIIL 25, II. no 916, fol. 151b). In fact, its exact origin has up to our time baffled both observation and science. Leprosy is generally classed among the diseases of the skin ; but its germ lies deeper in the constitution, in an excessive hardening and thickening of the blood-vessels, and in a conse quent derangement in the circulation and production of the blood; it testi fies to a complete degeneracy of the body, of the liver, the spleen, and the lymphatic system, and to the cor ruption of the cellular tissue , which fills itself with a peculiar milky fluid congealing and drying up , and thus producing pale and chalk-like spots (comp. Plut. Symp. IV. v. 3). It ap pears in two essentially different forms,either as "white leprosy" (leuke, lepra alba, jo.j barras), or as elephan tiasis and lepra leonina. The former kind only — the white leprosy — concerns us in this place; for it is that which is treated of in our sec tion of Leviticus , and is hence also called lepra Mosaica or Hebraeorum ; while elephantiasis, first and mainly attacking the feet, is probablymeant and described in the Book of Job (comp. Job H. 8; VII. 4, 5, 13, 14; XVI.8,16 ; XIX. 17,20; XXX.30; etc.). Men are liable to white leprosy at all ages, though seldom before the time of puberty, and not very often after the fortieth year; women ge nerally at the end of their first men ses, when it proceeds slowly till their second childbirth, after which it makes fearful andrapid advances. In the beginning, it is deceitfully in significant and almost imperceptible ; it then differs but little from ordin ary and harmless affections, such as moles or freckles. It seems for some time entirely confined to the skin, without the least connection with the inner organism. First appear small tumors of a glossy white, some times of a livid-red or -violet colour, and often there is not more than one hardly larger than a, needle's point ; they commonly rise on hairy parts of the body, principaUy the face, the arm-pits, or the genitals, yet also on the forehead, the nose, or finger, and often in the place of healed boils or burnings of the skin. They are so scattered and diminutive that they are easily overlooked ; so utterly pain less and insensible that they may, without the least effect, be pierced with red-hot pins ; so free from all inconvenience that they are usually disregarded; yet so obstinate and obnoxious that they are absolutely irremovable. Owing to their indis tinct colour, they seem to lie deeper than the surrounding skin, in the manner of scars, though they are in reality flat elevations. If cut with a pointed instrument, they do not emit blood, but a whitish humor. For a long time, often for ten or twenty years, if careful diet be observed, thev LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8. 219 priest shall look on him the seventh day; and, behold, if the disease has remained the same in its appearance, are the only symptoms of the ap proaching disease. The patient suf fers no pain, eats and drinks with keen appetite , and is not incapaci tated for sexual intercourse. But gradually, though by almost inap preciable stages , important changes take place. The hair on the swell ings turns white, becomes woolly, and then falls out. The patient feels a, sUght rigidity in the hands and feet, is languid and depressed , sub ject to a feverish alternation of heat and cold, and to a strange tickling in all limbs as if ants were crawling over his body. The tumors get lar ger, and spreadover the face, the ears, and the fingers, and then indiscri minately over the whole skin, which appears "white like snow." They pe netrate through the cellular tissue to themuscles and bones. When they have attained about the size of a bean, the malignant nature of the malady is decided, whichnow hastens on in its baneful course. Sometimes they soften into distressing pustules, which burst , become boils , or heal, leaving slightly deepened and whit ish scars, and rendering the skin excruciatingly sensitive : this is the "smooth" leprosy. But more frequent ly they remain and spread, join and become inflamed and extremely of fensive in smell: this is the "tuber ous" leprosy (1. squamosa). But both forms take essentially the same deve lopment. The skin is hardened, rough, and chapped, and exudes » lymph producing large concretions which break from time to time , and under which often foul and spongy tuber- cules are formed. That lymph is so powerfully corrosive that it indehbly taints woollen stuffs and linen tex tures, defies removal by water or che micals, and may by contagion pro pagate the disease. The pulse is feeble, the urin copious and earth-like. The blood loses the power of coagulation; and is filled with little sandy globules. The wounds heal of themselves with out cure or medicine, to reappear deepened and enlarged. But some tumors contain neither that white and viscous pus nor water, but are covered with a thick white skin, un der which appears raw flesh, soft and dingily red , often protruding in all directions and growing to a consi derable size. The whole body is tor mented by a violent itching, for which scratching,, even to bleeding, affords no relief. The hair is covered with a dirty and offensively smelling crust, or it falls out, especially just above the forehead. The eyebrows bulge out, the eyelids upturn, and the hair of both drops off; the eyes are dimmed, become painfully sensitive, and blear. The tears are hard and pungent, ulcerate the eyelids, and often even the cheeks. The face, repulsive ly disfigured, is generally covered with knotty, dirty, deep-red tu mors, which congregate in grape-like clusters, or form large knobs sepa rated by deep furrows. The nose is transmuted into a shapeless lump, for the upper part becomes bloated, the nostrils expand, the ridge softens, and the passage is partially stopped. The lips swell to such a size that it is impossible to close the mouth, which secretes abundant saliva, and emits a nauseous breath. The jaw-bones, the tongue, and the roof of the mouth, are frequently covered with excrescen ces, and then the breathing is thick, heavy, and asthmatic, and the speech 220 LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8. and the disease has not spread in the skin; the priest shall shut him up seven days again. 6. And the priest laborious, hoarse, and unequal. The ears are puffed, and the hearing is impaired. The joints of the hands and feet become vitiated by glandu lar nodules, distend, and lose their vital power; the palms and soles are dotted with dry and deep pimples by turns rising and disappearing; the extreme points of the fingers and the toes swell; the nails thicken, get scaly, bend, and fall off. The geni tals, monstrously enlarged, are in fested by cancerous knots. The lung, liver, spleen, and the viscera harden and shrivel. The mucous membranes andthe skinny coverings of the nerves grow abnormally, and thicken to such extent that large parts of the body become insensible. The bones are emptied of their marrow, while in some parts of the cellular texture, where the sinews and the cartilage of the joints separate, fat and tallow are formed. An unconquerable tor por seizes all senses. Then the it ching decreases, though it does not cease. The frame is emaciated, and occasionally a limb drops off withered or decayed. Debility or consumption, constantly advancing through fever, diarrhoea, and dropsy, makes life a burden. The miserable sufferer is tortured by harrowing dreams, gloo my dejection, and thoughts of sui cide, which often prove irresistible. Though, as a rule, experiencing great discomfort rather than violent pain, he now presents a hideous spectacle. He is loathsome to the eye and in sufferable to the smell, in which re spect he often resembles a corpse in an advanced state of decomposition. His dissolution is progressing limb by limb. It is literally living death. Indeed his condition is so wretched that, as an ancient writer observes, "any death is preferable"; and his trials are by the Rabbins compared with the loss of children , since both cannot easily be borne with resigna tion (Talm. Berach. 5b). Yet his sexual desires not only remain, but are morbidly intensified; they as sume a repulsive vehemence, and sometimes continue to the very day of his death , whence Galenus desig nated leprosy as satyriasmus. Thus the leper lives on to the age of fifty and upwards. At last, a very slight fever, or sometimes suffocation caused by the swelling and closing of the wind pipe, releases him from a pitiful exist ence, not seldom suddenly and un expectedly. In many cases , the disorder is he reditary. Infants bornof leprous mo thers die, unless they are at once sepa rated from their mothers. Tettheevil is not transmitted regularly orin con tinuous succession, andrarely beyond the third or fourth generation, when it stillmanifests itself by decayed teeth, foul breath, and sallow complexion, but by no more serious symptom. Thismaj'beoneofthereasons,besides uncontrollable desire, why neither among the Hebrews nor among other nations lepers were forbidden to mar ry. — Again, leprosy is often conta gious, if not directly, at least through dangerous concomitant disorders, such as obstinate scab and syphilis; it was supposed to be communicated both by inhalation of the infected air and by actual contact, both through sexual and through longer social in tercourse. It would be very precarious to deny, on the strength of recent ob servations , the infectious character of leprosy, because this disease was. LEVITICUS XIII. 1-8. 221 shall look on him again the seventh day; and, behold, if the part affected with the plague is pale, and the plague has in ancient times, infinitely more ma lignant. Therefore lepers were, in most countries, expelled from society, and forced to live apart beyond the gates of towns, in hospitals, or in "houses of separation" (nnasnn n-3 or snW3D ma, at present chush el kaatti). Jewish lepers were, under penalty of eighty stripes , forbidden to approach the mountain of the Temple; yet they were not rigidly confined to isolation, but were al lowed to move about freely , and, in towns without walls, even to enter Synagogues (comp. Lev. XIII. 46 ; Num. V. 2—4; XII. 14, 15; 2 Ki. VII. 3, 4; XV. 5; 2 Chr. XXVI. 21; also Job XIX. 13—17; Joseph. Ap. I. 31; Ant. HI. xi. 3; Bell. Jud. V. v. 6; Matth. VIH. 2; Mark I. 40; Luke V. 12; XVU. 12; Mishn. Kel. I. 7; Neg. Xin. 12; Phot. Bibl.p.41b ed. Becker, ¦rcapd fUpnais 6 Xe-rcpos . . . Ttasiv dTtpoatxo?). It was of the utmost im portance that they should, on the re motest suspicion, present themselves for inspection to competent authori ties, such as the appointed priests, and should be pronounced clean only after repeated and most scrupulous examination. They had no right to complain of a personal restriction which was imposed in the interest of society as well as in their own; for society was freed from apprehen sion and danger, and they themselves from a distrust which, even when unfounded, was sure to injure their social position. If declared to be infested with the evil, they were required to make themselves strik ingly known at first glance; like mourners, they were to appear in public withrent garments, bare head, and covered beard; thus signalised, they would surely be shunned; but if yet any one should inadvertently come near them, they were to warn him off by the loud wail, "Unclean, unclean!" (Lev. XIII. 45). They were even interred in a, separate burial ground (2 Chron. XXVI. 23). In the middle ages, lepers, when walking abroad, were, in some countries, ob liged to make a constant noise with a rattle, to wear two artificial hands of white wool, one tied on the breast, the other on the head, and to make themselves otherwise conspicuous. However, leprosy is not invariably contagious, and in no case so power fully or so virulently, as pestilence or pox; therefore, in Egypt and else where no precautions are taken to prevent infection; and the patients mix, and even eat at the same table, with their families and friends. But leprosy was, from early times, considered to be an incurable disease. Celsus declared that no person once afflicted with white leprosy is easily freed from it; and even if the malady should be mitigated, of which there is hope if in cutting or pricking the skin, blood and not white matter is sues, a healthy complexion is never completely restored (Cels. De Medic V.xxviii. 19). Norhasmedical science hitherto made any advance in the treatment of leprosy ; all the remedies that have been tried, tend only to in crease the sufferer's agonies, to com plicate the malady, and to accelerate the crisis. The symptoms are often. deceptive; for white spots on the skin are by no means an unfailing sign or guide ; if they grow paler and do not extend, they indicate merely a scab (vers. 2—6); if they cover the entire body as with shining scales, they 222 LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8. not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is scab; and he shall wash his clothes and be force the unwholesome matter from the constitution to the surface, faU off within ten or twelve days, and then leave the skin clear and white "like the flesh of a little child" (vers. 12, 13; 2 Ki. V. 14) ; if they are of a peculiar dull and palish white, and of unequal size, and appear chiefly on the neck and in the face, they usually result in a harmless cutaneous eruption, still known among theArabs by the old Hebrew name bohak (pni, vers. 38, 39, Gr. dXcpos), which is ''neither infectious nor dangerous", and stiU less hereditary; it hardly occasions any inconvenience, and causes no change in the colour of the hair ; it spreads and remains from two months to two years, and then gradually vanishes of itself (comp. vers. 18 — 28). That which was pre sumed to be leprosy, frequently turns out to be some very different disor der, and suspected persons were con sequently often pronounced clean. Yet this does not imply that leprosy was considered curable ; the recovery of Job affords no proof; for it is no real fact, but serves a didactic end in a philosophical work, and the Bible distinctly declares the Egyptian leprosy as incurable (Deut. XXVHI. 27). Miriam, smitten with leprosy, is described as "one dead, of whom the flesh is half-consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb" (Num. XII. 12); the "uncleanness" of the leper is, according to the Law, but little inferior to that caused by death itself; Josephus affirms that he "differs in nothing from the dead" {Ant. HI. xi. 3) ; and it is a current Talmudical adage, "the leper is counted a dead man", like the poor, the blind, and the childless. Similar to the great Greek physicians, the Bible prescribes no treatment, aUudes to no remedy, but confines itself to a description of symptoms and the in junction of sanitary precautions. Popular or traditional cures were probably applied; thus the Syrian captain Naaman was healed by bath ing in the Jordan, the water of which was, on account of the sulphuretted hydrogen it contains, like the baths in Tiberias, much valued for its re medial properties (comp. 2 Ki. V. 10, 14; Talm. Shabb. 38b; MegUl. 6a); just as the Greeks deemed bathing in the river Anigrus in Elis an efficient restorative (Strab. VJJJL.in. 19,p.547); and very often good results were ex pected from bathing in, or rubbing the body with, blood (comp. Plin. XXVT. 1 or 5 ; Midr. on Exod. n. 23 ; etc.; Friedreich, Zur Bibel, I. 225, 226). But it would have been ex tremely unwise to embody definite directions in a code meant to be unalterable for all times, and thus to annul beforehand the possible pro gress of medical science in reference to a disease which takes many differ ent forms, and, in the course of cen turies, materiaUy changes its charac ter. Those only who assume a direct and Divine inspiration of the legis- latormight, withsomejustice, expect an infallible method of perpetual va lidity, were they not, by another principle of Biblical orthodoxy, com pelled to conclude that God, having reserved for Himself the infliction of leprosy as one of His means of retribution and chastisement, could not fitly, by revealing an effectual cure, defeat the force of His own judgments. That "Moses", in addi tion to the instructions of this chapter, LEVITICUS XIII. 1-8. 223 clean. 7. But if the scab spreads in the skin, after he has been seen by the priest for his cleansing, it shall be oraUy imparted to the priests more precise hints regarding the treatment of the disorder, is a gratuitous as sumption resting on artificial infer ences (see f. i. Michaelis Mos. R. IV. 181; Orient. Bibl. XVH. 20—22). As might be expected, leprosy has not been left untouched by typical interpretation; it has been under stood as the most striking symbol of sin, which is likewise almost imper ceptible in its beginning, and is often unfeltby the sinner, till it ends in the total obduration of his mind — which may suffice as a fair specimen (comp. Origen. In Levit. Hom. VHI. 5 — 10 ; Selecta in Lev. pp. 167 — 169 ed. Lomm. vol. ix; Michael. Typ. Gottes- gel. pp. 102—106). It would be needless to point out the very late character of the ordin ances of this section. The author indeed studiously and successfully portrays the time of the Hebrew wanderings. He makes God enjoin the commands upon Moses and Aaron ; he entrusts the medical supervision of the people to Aaron and his sons ; he bids the diseased repair to places "without the camp"; he speaks of the conquest of Canaan as still im pending; and he retains, in general, an archaic colouring. But the spirit of these laws is entirely hierarchi cal. The priests are solely invested with the power of examining the symptoms of the disorder, of decid ing on its character, watching its development, and pronouncing it healed or incurable. They superin tend, guide, and almost control the community. They make their direct ing influence felt in every relation of Ufe, both personal, social, and reli gious. Such supreme authority they enjoyed only at very advanced pe riods, certainly not before the Babylo nian exile; they could venture to claim it only after the return and the re-organisation of the colonists ; al though they had acquired the leisure for gathering medical knowledge, and the opportunity for applying it, from the time when the tribe of Levi, by its own misdeeds and offences, for feited political power (see Comm. o n Lev, I. p. 649; comp. De Wette, Bei- trage,H.278— 281; Gramb. Rel. Id. I. 194 sqq.). The later Mishnah and the Talmudical writings extend 'indeed to all Israelites the permission of in specting and treating the leper, and merely reserve to the Aaronites the formal or official declaration of the decision (Mish. Neg. HI. 1; Siphra Neg. u. 1) ; but whether that per mission was considered to be implied in the spirit of the law, or whether it was a designed democratic oppo sition to the hierarchical tenden cies of the ordinance, cannot be dis cussed in this place (comp. Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschr. II. p. 49). Nor does the detaU in the description and treat ment of the disease bespeak a less advanced age; it is far too compli cated and minute for the earlier stages of national existence; it was no doubt graduaUy accumulated by close and systematic scrutiny; and it is so obviously borrowed from actual experience, that Jewish inter preters, declining to explain these laws in their literal sense, or from their own observations, adhered ex clusively to ancestral traditions and suggestions (comp. Rashb. on ver. 2). Rabbinical exegesis discovered in the words 'of our text 4, nay 16, 36, or 72 kinds of leprosy, of simple and 224 LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8. seen by the priest again. 8. And if the priest sees it, and, behold, the scab has spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is leprosy. complex forms, which are fuUy de scribed and amply discussed in the Talmudical treatise Negairn (comp. Mishn. Neg. I. 1, 2). The two decisive symptoms pointed -out in the text are — the hair, gener ally jet-black among the Hebrews, turning white on the affected spot, and the spot itself appearing to lie deeper than the rest of the skin; which two criteria have, by common experi ence been confirmed as constituting or foreboding real leprosy (comp. Arist.Hist.An. IH.xi.5). But one sta tement is not without difficulty. The suspected person is to be shut up twice for seven days; and if, after the lapse of this time, the spot has not spread, he is to be released as clean. Yet the progress and final crisis of leprous diseases are often so remarkably slow that years hard ly produce a perceptible change; therefore, it has been conjectured, that the legislator meant to enjoin inspection and isolation of the patient for an indefinite, succession of weeks, until a decided judgment can be formed on the nature of the evil : but this view is both against the tenour and the wording of the text, which prescribes no more than two exami nations. We must, therefore, suppose that the sufferer was only brought to the priest when his illness had assumed a serious character, indeed not before it "had become in the skin of his flesh a plague of leprosy" (ver. 2) : a public supervision spread ing over a very protracted period would have been equally trouble some and superfluous ; for as the superintendence mainly aimed at preventing contagion, it could, in the earlier and harmless stages of the complaint, well be left to private control. Whether and in what degree contact with a person in those in cipient stages engenders uncleanness, we are not informed, which is a sur prising omission in so elaborate a code. Jewish tradition fixed the ex tent of the plague-spot at a square gris hakalki (saiia ipipn trias), that is,halfaCilicianbean,whichkindwas remarkable for its size, a gris covering the space of nine lentils,each supposed to hold four hairs; while it limited the raw flesh growing out of a leprous part (vers. 10, 14) to a lentil; it de clared two white hairs sufficient to corroborate the suspicion, and iUus- trated the apparent depression of the shining spot by the analogy of sunny places which seem to be deeper than shady parts. — Comp. Mishn. Neg. VI. 1 sqq.; Talm. Shevu. 6b; Chull. 63a; and see in general Mishn. Tract. Ne gairn; Kelim I. 4; Midd. H. 5; Mai- mon. Tumath zaraath V. 16 ; on Mishn. Neg. XII. 5 ; and Mor. Nev. IH. 47 ; Arist. Probl. X.4, 5 ; Celsus, Medic. HI. 25 ; V.28 § 19 ; Plin. XXVI.1 ; Galen. De Tumorib. praet. Nat.c. 14; Prosp.Al- pin.l.i.ca,p.li;Lightfooi,Opp.I.611~ 514,754,755 (comp. p. 415), 678 ; Otho, Lex.Rabb.pp.365— 368;i!/eaat,Medica sacra,pp. 11—24; W. Hillary, Obser vations on the — epidemical diseases intheislandof Barbados, pp. 322-351 ; Hasse, Magaz. fiirPhil. Fasc. I. p. 50 ; Schilling, De Lepra, p. 135; Michaelis, Mos. R.IV. §§ 208—210 ; Orient. Bibl. XVII. 1—37 ; Reinhards, Bibelkrank- heiten, I. 79—96 ; Niebuhr, Beschr. v. Arab. pp. 135—138; Larrey in De- script. del'Egypt. etatmod. 1. 4$2sqq.; Sonnini, Voyage, II. 26, 75, 76; HI. LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8. 225 117—126; Seetzen, Reisen, I. 125; H. 315; Burckhardt, Beduinen, p. 76; Ersch und Gruber, Encycl. I. vi. 451 — 453 ; Winer, Bibl. Realworterb. I. 114—117 ; Sommer, Bibl. Abhandl. I. 214 — 218; Hensler, Abendlandischer Aussatz im Mittelalter; Friedreich, ZurBibel, I. 207—226 ; Trusen, Sitten der alten Hebraer, pp. 167 — 170; Robinson, Palest. I. 243 ; D. Essinger, Ueber den Zaraath des Moses (1843); Hirsch, Histor. Geogr. Pathologie (1860), I. 303 sqq. ; Haeser, Geschichte der epidem. Krankheiten(1865), pp.92 sqq.; Danilssen und Boeck, Traite de la Spedalskhed; Virchow, Onco logic, II. 509 sqq. ; F. Steudener, Beitr. zur Pathol.der Lepra mutilans (1867). PhilologicalRemarks. — The com mands apply probably to the Hebrews only, and not, as Ebn Ezra infers from the general term Bis (ver. 2), and from the contagious nature of leprosy, to the strangers also, who can hardly be included in the rites of purification, and still less in the sacrifices connected with them (XIV. 1 sqq.). As the affected part was to be estimated in reference to the general appearance of the body, especially the skin, it was called "the skin (us) of the flesh", in which phrase the etymological sense of lis "naked or hairless spot" (from nw, comp. Exod. XXII. 26) is not to be urged, since the text speaks of the hair grow ing in that part, and also of "the skin of the head and beard" (vers. 29 sqq.). — It is not easy precisely to define the terms describing the first symp toms of leprous diseases (nss, nnsc, and nina, ver. 2). Jewish interpreters explain them simply as "names of disorders differing in their degree of whiteness" (Rashi; comp. Talm.. Shevuoth 5b). The original meaning.. of ns-i; (from s-w) rising, swelling., or eminence (Rashb. nai;) is too general to lead to identification, especially as it was abandoned in the living lan guage, and the word was used todeno- te any kind of affected spots, even such as are, or appear at least, deeper than theskin(vers.3, 4). Onkelos translates the word in this sense by sjaas or p-^tes (ver. 43) or spp-^as (ver. 10) that which lies deep ; other ancient versions ren der vaguely mark (Targ. Jer. saio, Syr. snai», Saad. 4*l&), while Targ. Jonath. has more accurately saw kb*jst prominent mark or tumor (from t0 to rise, to lift up), which seems to be the most exact explanation it is at presentpossible to give (Michael. Finnen, Knob. Grind); while other equivalents are unfounded hazards, as Sept. ouXtj (scarred wound), Vulg. cicatrix (in XIV. 56, though it uses the word for other Hebrew terms also, see infra), or diversus color or color (ver. 10); Mishn. Neg. 1. 1 "like an egg-shell" or "as white wool"; Ebn Ezra "like a burning" (as nsiaa and nstoa in Isai. XXX. 27 ; Judg. XX. 38, 40). — The word nnso or nnspa (from nro to pour out, to fall off) appears to be the scurf or scab that "peels off"; so Targ. Jon. -pVp (from qip to peel off), Syr. sn*sip, Targ. Jerus. s|ija. or sira»a *!:iip (i. e. scurf that clings or adiieres to the body), while Onke los, on the contrary, renders s;is or sn^is ("something that is added" to the skin, ulcer or blister, perhaps from ntt to take up, to gather ; comp. •'ins) ; and Ebn Ezra explains "an evil that settles in one place"; the Sept. has inaccurately u-qp-aGia? (sc. ouXtj) or o-qu-asia; Yulg. pustula, or scabies, or erumpentes papulae (XIV. 56); Rashb., adopting older Talmudical explanations, takes it vaguely as "something connected with ns» or : nina",. or merely a- modified. form of. these symptoms (nsffli ni"Eta;, comp. 1 Sam.H.36 ;:ZVm.Shevu.6b; Neg. 71a, yais ina B"j» c"s;a n;sia) ; . Rashi as "the^ name: of some clean disorder"; Q 226 LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8. and others "the falling off of hairs". (comp.SiEju ; Michael., Gesen.). — Last ly, nina, expressing no more than the notion of brightness implied in the Shemiticrootina, seems to be a bright spot; so Targ. Onkel. sina or snina; Jon. and Jer. --pnaor ¦'pna (comp. pna ver. 39); Syr. smpna, similarly Ebn Ezra, Rashb., a. u. ; Sept. •zr\ko.»fi\s sc. ouat^ far-shining scar, or xrjXau- Y?][j.a (ver. 23; comp. Suid. s. v. dpy^-i\ Xiizpas ev xrj xou oiop.axo? sTiicpaveia), or x6 auyd£ov (ver. 28), or auYaau.a (vers. 39, 56) ; Vulg. lucens quippiam, or candor (vers. 28, 38), or albor (ver. 39). The "brightness" was qualified by Hebrew tradition to mean "a shin ing spot white as chalk" (Jon. "pna si"B3 snimi), esp. "the chalk of the Temple" (is--nn TBS), or "as dazzling snow" (;iffls hts; Mishn. Neg. I. 1; Talm. Shevu. 5, 6): the rendering spots (Rashi ninaian and s"^ta or u''"B taches) omits the chief attri bute; and that of Aetivo) (Jahn, Ar- chaeol. I. § 2 1 5) assumes in the word the name of a disease, whereas it denotes merely a symptom. This shining white spot (hts niH3) is, ac cording to the Mishnah (Neg. II. 1), in a perfectly white man (¦'Siai;, a German) darker than his skin, where as even a darker spot on the skin of a negro appears of shining white ; but as the Jews are neither like the one nor the other, but stand in the midst between them, their complexion resembling "box- wood" (siisass), a middle colour of the affected spot is generally to be taken as a test. — These three unusual appearances grow , or are developed , into the pla gue of leprosy, saai • • • mil, so that the particle i has its proper force. — The etymology of nsis, only used for white leprosy in men (Arab, jeu), the black leprosy or elephantiasis being "nil? , is uncertain ; it may be trace able to siss cognate with su to scrape. — a scabby disease (Gesen.) — ; or to the Arab. %jyo scourge, sc. of God, from cyo to strike down (Michael. Orient. Bibl. XVII. 13 ; Typ. Gottesg. p. 101; Virchow, SpecieUe Pathol. IH. 410 sqq.; see also Fiirst, Hand- worterb. H. 290); or, as is hardly probable, to nia: or hit to break out, an. eruption(Knob.). — s;a., though usually signifying plague or disease, is by way of metonomy, employed for dis eased part or spot (vers. 3, 30 — 32, etc.), or for the affected person (vers. 4, 12, 13, etc.) or garment (vers. 50, 55) ; in a similar manner, pna is both scab (vers. 30 sqq.) and a scabby per son (ver. 33) ; see also Augustin. Quaest. XLI in Lev. — The passive form S31H1 (ver. 2) may imply, as Ebn Ezra. supposes, that the person who ex hibits the symptoms alluded to, is to be brought to the priest, whether he be willing or not, and that any one who notices the symptoms is bound to take active steps in the matter: it has above been pointed out that it was certainly in the interest of such a person as well as of those who as sociated with him, to bring the case to an issue. — In ver. 4, the Sept. adds after pi "tbh si aiixTj 8e eaxiv du.aupa (as in vers. 6, 21^}. nns *wn). — ¦ The sense of the words ias saan vwa (ver. 5) cannot be doubtful — "the plague has stood stUl in its ap pearance", that is, has remained the same ; vs^a is, therefore, synonymous with Wsiaa (comp. vers. 3, 4); so Onk., Jon., Syr. (nin-s bjj), Rashi, Ebn Ezra, a. o. (comp. ver. 55 ; Num. XI. 7 with reference to the manna nii3n -p ss 13-si) ; the sense is feeble if the suffix in i*s-S3 be referred to the priest — "the plague stoodstill before his eyes" (Sept. p.£vzi evavxiov auxou,. and in ver. 37 evojtuov auxou . . . JtiL ¦^wpas; Keil "in seinen Augen", that is, in his view or opinion). — The plague nns (ver. 6) has lost its bright LEVITICUS XIII. 1—8; 9— 17. 227 9. If the plague of leprosy is in a man, he shall be brought to the priest; 10. And the priest shall see him: and, behold, if a white rising is in the skin, and it has turned the hair white, and there is quick raw flesh in the rising; 11. It is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he shall not shut him up, for he is unclean. 12. But if the leprosy breaks out upon the skin, and the leprosy covers all the skin of him that has the plague, from his head even to his feet, wheresoever the priest looks; 13. And if the priest looks, and, be hold, the leprosy has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that has the plague: if all is turned white, he is clean. 14. But from the day that raw or striking aspect or its resplendent whiteness, i. e. has become pale or dim (Sept. dp-aupa, Rashi on ver. 39). Onk., however, has snss and Jon. sss, it has become darker; so Vulg. ob- scurior (ver. 56) or subobscurus (vers. 21, 26, 39), yet also non satis clarus (ver. 28), and the Engl. Vers, "some what dark" or "darkish white" (ver. 39); but entirely unfounded is Ebn Ezra's interpretation who, without any proof, considers nns to be iden tical withnsu si and explains — "if the plague has neither spread in the old place, nor has extended to a healthy part." — 'ninoi (ver. 7) is "for his pu rification", that is, for the purpose of being declared clean; not after his purification, which rendering is indeed admitted by the preposition i (comp. Num. I. 1; 1 Ki. IH. 18; etc.), but is less probable, since the sense of after is immediately before expressed by "'ins. 9 — l1?. Inleprous affections show ing themselves directly in the skin without premonitory plague-spots, another criterion, in addition ,to the white colour of the hair, was deemed decisive — the appearance of red raw flesh, which seemed to in dicate a complete deterioration of the .constitution, and to point to deep- rooted disorders. Its presence made the patient at once unclean, and com- peUed him to live in seclusion. But a white eruption covering the whole body was lookeduponas a favourable contingency; it was considered to bring out all the unhealthy matter that vitiates the system, and to secure renewed vigour. Yet if, at some later period,raw flesh appeared,the distem per was regarded as possessing a ma lignant character, which ceased only when the flesh became again white. Philological Remarks. — The verb ~-~\! (fern., ver. 9) accords with the dependent noun nsis, not with the principal one 3-;a, because the former contains the chief notion ; see Gramm. § 77. 19. — Targ. Jon. adds (in ver. 10) after iisa "like white wool" (lass ipa), and then continues "and if it (the rising) has turned the hair into a. white colour like the shell of an egg" (comp. Mishn. Neg. I. 1 ; see supra). — The term ¦<« iisa n^na (ver. 10) seems to have caused needless trouble; it is simply "the growth of raw flesh" ; for as living and growing may be viewed as correlative notions, ryta Q2 228 LEVITICUS XIII. 9—17 ; 18—28. flesh appears in him, he shall be unclean. 15. And if the priest sees the raw flesh, he shall pronounce him to be unclean: the raw flesh?'* unclean, it is leprosy. 16. Yet if the raw flesh changes again and becomes white, he shall go to the priest; 17. And if the priest sees him, and, behold, the part affected with the plague has turned to white , the priest shall pronounce him clean that has the plague; he m clean. 18. And if there is on the skin of the body a boil and is healed, 19. And if in the place of the boiLthere is a white rising or a bright spot of white^reddish co lour, it shall be shown to the priest; 20. And if the priest looks at it, and, behold, its appearance is lower than the other skin, and the hair thereof is turned in reference to flesh is growth, and ^n ittisthe raw or growingflesh(comp. 1 Sam.II. 15 ; Rashb. "not like boiled, but like raw meat", since the flesh within the plague-spot gets larger); Engl. Vers, not inaptly quick raw flesh; Luther simply rohes Fleisoh. Hence »n ima is not merely the expla nation of n*na (Ebn Ezra), nor is n^na only the spot which contains -n i»a (Simon, Lex. s. v.), which re dundancies are open to well-founded objections (comp. Rosenm. in loc); the Aramaic translators render that word inaccurately by "sign" or "mark" (Onk., Jon. Bian, Syr. saail), and so later expositors (as Rosenm., Gesen., a. o.); while Rashi explains it strangely by taa'^aaiw (sainement) recovery (analogous to Gen. XLV.5 ; 2 Chr. XIV. 12;, and the Sept. trans lates as if n-na were contracted from -a and n-n, xal dato xou u^iou? xfjs oapxos. — After isatai (in ver. 11) Jon. inserts K^tain^i "he shall declare him affected" with leprosy (tain to belong to a class or order, hence ver. 5 1 ssia; sttina leprosy to be held utterly un clean); and he adds after ^nsn "3*S (iri ver. 12) "and they (the eyes of the priest) are ready to declare clean or unclean." — The words *vs nsia isi psn (ver. 12), which mean simply "wheresoever the priest looks", have by Jewish tradition been declared to imply that the examination of the suspected leper by the priest is not to be attempted at such hours of the day nor in such places which do not afford a proper light, neither early in' the morning nor at dusk,, neither in-doors, nor on a cloudy day, nor in the: glare of noon, but in the. 4th or 5th, the 8th or 9tt hour; nor by a one- eyed or weak-sighted priest (see Mishn.TSeg. Ii. 2, 3). On the mode of inspection, the chief object of which was to obtain a good view of all the hairy parts , see the rules given ibid. 4. — The two verbs "s-.ai . . - . 3'.*; (ver. 16) form one notion "if it is changed again" (comp. Hos. II. 11, •Mipii 3lius; see Gramm. § 103. 2), •gii being added by way of qualifi cation — namely into white; Vulg. quod si rursum versa fuerit in albo- rem: there is no necessity for sup posing that aian and n,snai have two different subjects -.,. the former, the flesh, and the latter the patient. 18 — 38. Leprous disorders ori ginating, as they often do, in the LEVITICUS XIII. 18-28. 229 white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague of leprosy; it has broken out of the boil. 21. But if the priest looks at it,; and,, behold, there are no white hairs therein, and if it is not lower than the other skin, and is pale, the priest shall shut him up Seven days: 22. And if it spreads on the skin, the priest shall pro nounce him unclean; it is a plague of leprosy. 23. But if the bright spot stays in its place, and spreads not, it is a scar of the boil, and the priest shall pronounce him clean. 24. Or if there is on the skin of the body a hot burning, and the- quick flesh of the burning becomes ia white-bright spot of a reddish or white colour \ 25. The priest shall look at it, and, behold, if the hair on the bright spot is turned white, and its appearance is deeper place of healed boils or of a burning caused by hot coals or ashes, and ma nifesting themselves in white or red dish-white elevations, were treated more leniently than the preceding cases, in so far that if the hair had not turned white, and the spot had assumed no deeper appearance than the rest of the skin — which were the two critical symptoms — , they were looked upon with suspicion for one week only , and not for two : if after the first seclusion, the anomaly had not spread, the patient was at once pronounced clean, the eruption being considered merely as a scar like remnant of the boil. — "The mixture of red and white", observes the Mishnah (Neg. I. 2), "has the ap pearance of red wine poured into water, and is either of a palish white or somewhat darker" (comp. ibid.iil. 4; IX. 1). Philological Remarks. — On the construction llisa 13 . . . iwal (ver. 18), the principal notion standing first in an absolute sense, to be , in the pro per place, referred to by the perso nal pronoun (13), which is again qua lified by H1S3 ("and the flesh — if there is on it, namely its skin", a boil),, see- Gramm. §,75- 5; comp.also ver. 24. — ¦ -nnw arises, according to the Mishnah (Neg. IX. 1), from a blow with wood or a stone, or from scalding, as with the hot, water of Tiberias, in contradistinction to nisa, which is caused by actual burning whether with fire or hot ashes; the word (derived from fiv to be .hot or in flamed) implies the meaning of heat or inflammation, and is, therefore, no doubt boil or ulcer (Sept.e'Xxo«, Vulg. ulcus). The symptomatic spots are occasionaUy "white reddish" (nssi naiais, ver. 19), though more usually white (so observes Schilling, De Le pra, p. 7, "coloris mutatio duplex est, nam vel rubrae nascuntur maculae in pallidum vergentes , vel albae ad colorem flavum, lividum aut rubrum tendentes") ; and the same difference happens in the change of the hair on those spots ("in priori casu pili qui in parte adfecta sunt, subflavi aut subrubri apparent, in posteriori casu albi conspiciuntur" ; comp. vers. 30, 32, 36) : the words naiais nasi are, therefore, not to be translated, "white or reddish." — The Sept. adds at the end of ver. 22 , iv xo") e'Xxei i^vftvjoev (nnis -j-nss) from ver. 21; similarly 230 LEVITICUS XIII. 18—28; 29—37. than the other skin ; it is leprosy, it has broken out of the burning; and the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy. 26. But if the priest looks at it, and behold, the hair on the bright spot is not white, and it is not lower than the other skin, and it is pale, the priest shall shut him up seven days. 27. And the priest shall look at him on the seventh day: if it spreads in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him nnclean; it is the plague of lepro'sy. 28. And if the bright spot stays in its place, and spreads not in the skin, and is pale, it is a rising of the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him clean: for it is a scar of the burning. 29. If a man or woman has a plague upon the head or the beard, 30. The priest shall see the plague; and, behold, if its appearance is deeper than the skin, and there is in it yellow thin hair, the priest shall pronounce him unclean ; it is a dry scall, it is leprosy upon the head or in ver. 27 (comp. ver. 25). — ninnn (ver. 23) "in its place", on the same spot (comp. Ex. X. 23). — nayis, ap plied to y-r-,v and to nisa (vers. 23, 28), both of which are expressive of burn ing, has no doubt a similar meaning; sis, kindred to sp», is to be scorched or burnt (Ezek. XXI. 3) , and the ad jective bis is burning or consuming (Prov. XVI. 27) ; ¦pnwi nsis is, there fore, the burning of the boil, the effect •of the healed wound , which subse quently shows itself in a white swell ing or spot apt to produce inflamma tion; Ebn Ezra explains ami ip*a nsnii, and Rashi "contraction of the -skin through heat" ; Gesenius derives the word from ans as equivalent to 313 to scratch, to be scabby, and renders scab, but that meaning of ai3 is doubtful; others understand scar or mark left by the boil on the skin, Sept. 06X7} or Y_apaxxi]p; Vulg. cicatrix , Onk. nsjii , Syr. snaw, Jon. npiis (scar; comp. Mishn. Neg. IX. 2, .and Levy , Chald. Worterb. II. 329); Ltashi also taaaa"-itai~i retrecirse- ment (scar); but this sense, appa rently suggested by probability, is not supported by etymology; and the same applies to the explanation of the Mishnah (1. c), that the wound is called na^s, if it is covered with a crust of the thickness of a garlick shell (ai»n n£->ip3 Blip). — The mean ing of 'si nisan n-na nn-ni (ver. 24) is clear from the remarks above made on n-«a (ver. 10) — lit. "if the growth of the burning becomes a white bright spot reddish or white", that is, if the raw flesh that springs up and grows in the place of the burning appears brightly reddish or white ; Sept. in correctly, xal YEVTjxai . . . xo uYiacdev xou xaxaxauu-axo? aiiYaCov xxX. 99 — 33. Leprosy not unusuaUy attacks first hairy parts, as the head and beard, and in such cases changes both the quality and the colour of the hair, which becomes thin and yellow ish. This symptom, like the gradual extension of the plague-spots, was, under all circumstances,deemed fatal, not onlv if it showed itself nftcr LEVITICUS XIII. 29—37. 231 the beard. 31. And if the priest looks at the plague of the scall, and, behold, its appearance is not deeper than the other skin, but there is no black hair in it; the priest shall shut up him that has the plague of the scall seven days; 32. And on the seventh day, the priest shall look at the plague, and, behold, if the scall has not spread, and there is no yellow hair on it, and the appearance of the scall is not deeper than the skin; 33. He shall be shaven, but the scall shall not be shaven ; and the priest shall shut up him that has the scall seven days again; 34. And on the seventh day, the priest shall look at the scall: and, behold, 7/ the scall has not spread in the skin , nor is in appearance deeper than the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his clothes and be clean. 35. But if the scall spreads in the skin after his having been pronounced clean, 36. The priest shall look at it; and behold, if the scall the first and second week of isolation, but if it re-appeared at a later pe riod, and even after cleanness had been pronounced by the priest; how ever, spreading of the spot was con sidered decisive, even irrespective of the change of hair (comp. Mishn.'Neg. IH. 5; IX. 1 sqq.). If after the con clusion of the second week, the dis ease had not advanced and was de clared harmless, washing of garments sufficed to restore levitical purity: if bathing had been required, as some suppose, the text would not have failed to enjoin it (see p. 165). Philological Remarks. — 3hs (ver. 30) prop, shining, then yellow, prob. the colour of gold (ant, comp. ins, nnT, nrrz, inta etc), Rashi (on ver. 37) sis" lis or pale, Kimchi insi sup ye\i anTH, the colour being like that of the new plumage of young pigeons after they have lost their first feath ers (comp. Talm. Chull. 22b; Mishn. Midd. II. 3). — pn?, from pna, prob ably in the sense of breaking (Isai. V. 27; Eccl. IV. 12; etc.), is a disorder of sores or wounds that break (comp. suprap.219; JobVn. 5), a scall, Sept. #pau)¦ The spots are very little high er than the skin; they appear usually on the neck and face, but rarely on the hands or on the hairy parts of the head; they spread for some time, and then vanish of themselves, with out having caused much inconven ience or apprehension. Orientals be lieve that this slight affection is often occasioned by sudden and excessive joy, never by care or depression; and they apply sulphur as a remedy (comp. Niebuhr, Beschr. von Arab. pp. 135, 137, 138). PhilologicalRemarks. — Theterm pnais in the text sufficiently explained (comp. Syr. pnas to be white, Chald. pH3 to shine) ; the Sept. renders dX- cpoc (akin to albus), and Rashi inter prets "like the white that shines in the flesh of a red man (i"»ls, rosso)". There exists, therefore, no uncer tainty on the subject. 40 — 44. Baldness was doubtless looked upon by the Hebrews, as by other eastern nations proud of a luxuriant growth of hair, as a dis grace, and often as a Divine punish ment (comp. 2 Ki. II. 23 ; Isai. HI. 1 7 ; Jerem.XLVIH. 37) ; but it is inno part oftheBible distinctly connected with leprosy ; in our text it is even in it self, and if unattended by other symp toms, declared to exercise no influ ence upon levitical purity, whether it be baldness on the crown of the head, or at the temples and the forehead. Yet it may either be the herald or the com panion of that disease. The leper's hair, both of the head and beard, gra dually becomes thinner, splits at the LEVITICUS XIII. 40—44; 45, 46. 233 bald; yet is he clean. 42. But if there is on the bald crown or bald forehead, a white reddish sore, it is leprosy springing up on his bald pate or on his bald forehead. 43. Then the priest shall look at it; and, behold, if there is a white reddish rising of the sore on his bald crown or on his bald forehead, in appearance like the leprosy on the skin of the flesh; 44. He is a leprous man, he is unclean; unclean shall the priest pronounce him; his plague is on his head. 45. And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head shall be bare , and he shall points, and shows at the roots small pustules ; often the bare parts of the head are covered with a reddish- white eruption resembling that which arises in the place of healed boils (ver. 19); and these were proofs of the presence of leprosy on the head, which was socially and levitically treated like any other form of the same disorder. According to Jewish tradition, it was judged by two usual symptoms — the growth of raw flesh, and extension of the eruption, within two weeks; or extension beyond this time if, after the declaration of cleanness, either of the symptoms re-appears (comp. Mish. Neg. HI. 6). Philological Remarks. — taia is properly to make smooth or bare (comp. Syr. taia), hence in Niph. to be made or to become bald; Sept. p.a8av (comp. Aristoph. Plut. 266). — A person losing his hair from the crown of his head downward towards the neck is nip, a person losing it "towards his face" (i-a2 nssa), that is, in the front part, at the temples or the forehead, is nas; hence nnig (like nnip) is baldness on the crown of the head, nrja; baldness on the front part; and metaphorically, the former is a threadbare spot on the nether side of any stuff or texture, the latter a threadbare spot on the outer side (ver. 55, see notes in loc); the Sept. renders the two adjectives ipaXaxpo? and dvacpdXavxo?, the Vulg. calvus and recalvaster; Onk. expresses the latter by tiiis (Syr. si; to deprive of hair),'Jon. iBjisjij, and Saad. f^. Ac cording to the Mishnah (Neg. X. 10), nnip is baldness from the crown down wards to the first vertebra of the neck (isiaj iu npis is), and nnaa from the crown forward to the extreme hair in front; and in both cases it was supposed to arise from eating, or putting on the head, anything that prevents the growth of hair, or from" a wound which has the same effect. Arabic poets also distinguish between "noble baldness" (nnsa) and "servile baldness" (nnip), the former being frequently occasioned by the wearing of the helmet. The meaning attributed to nip "one that has boils, therefore originally a leper" (Michael. Mos. R. IV. 180), is more than doubt ful, the etymological sense of nip be ing lo be smooth. — The two words naiais nasi (ver. 43) form a com pound notion "white-reddish"; the Sept. inserts between them, unne cessarily, ¦/}, and the Syr. is. 45, 46. The leper, looked upon as stricken by the hand of God, was in every respect to appear as the mour ner did in the time of his bereave- 234 LEVITICUS XIII. 45, 46. cover his beard, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. 46. All the time that the plague is on him, he shall be unclean, he is unclean; he shall dwell apart, without the camp shall his habitation be. ment — with his garments rent, his head uncovered, and his beard, the pride of the Oriental, veiled (comp. Mich. HI. 7; Ezek. XXIV. 17, 22), though Jewish tradition decorously released women from rending their garments and uncovering their heads (Mishn. Sot. III. 8). But both dis gust and fear prompted the Asia tics to exclude the abhorred leper from their society. For instance, among the Persians, at least in later times, he "was inaccessible to all"; at his sight a solemn prayer was re cited; he was forbidden to enter a city or to have intercourse with his countrymen; if a foreigner, he was expelled from the land as one who had grievously sinned against the sun (Avesta, Yesht Sade 49 ; Herod. 1. 139 ; Ael. N. A. X. 16 ; Plut. Symp. IV. v. 3 ; Cles. Pers. 41; comp. Rhode, Heil. Sage pp.501 — 504). But the laws and cus toms prevailing in Christian coun tries during the twelfth century were awful. The priest, wearing his stole and holding up the crucifix, con ducted the leper into the church. Here he ordered him to exchange his clothes for a peculiar black garment, read to him the mass, and performed the full service for the dead. Then the leper was brought into a seques tered house, where the priest, after repeated exhortations, threwa shovel of earth upon his feet, warned him never to appear otherwise than in his black garment andbarefooted, and enjoined upon him on no account to enter a church, or any place where corn was ground or bread was baked, nor ever to approach a well or a, fountain. The unhappy outcast for feited both the right of inheritance and the right of disposing of his own property ; for before the law he was considered a, dead man (comp. Ersch und Gruber, Encycl. I. vi. 452). Philological Remarks. — The leper's head shall be sub bare, un covered (Sept. dxaxaxdXuTtxo?, Vulg. nudum), prop, loosened (comp. Ex.V. 4; XXXH. 25), without the head-co vering which holds the hair together (see Comm. on Lev. I. 285 note 13) ; not "with freely growing hair" (iilia ist, Siphra, Rashi). — BEiB is un doubtedly beard (comp. 2 Sam. XIX. 25, B£» n»s to trim or to arrange the beard), probably derived from Btia in the sense of growing ; bsw is ntas is, therefore, to cover the beard, which is repeatedly mentioned as a mark of mourning (see supra; Onk. isi n,tasni si-3SS BStt, similarly Jonathan); but as beard and chin may, by way of metonomy, be substituted for each other, div has probably also the mean ing of chin, which it must have if ap plied to women (comp. -j^t bearded chin, Syr. S3pi beard and chin, Rashi "hair on the lips", i"i:u grenon mous taches). The connection of be» with nsiu lip, or with ytio to cover is doubt ful (Sept. ax6p.a, Vulg. os). EbnEzra who adopts this interpretation (nisei nstona), explains that the leper had to cover his mouth lest he injured others; which is incompatible with the parallel passages in which is ntas B£ia is mentioned not in reference to disease but to misfortune in general; moreover, the patient could not pro claim his uncleanness, if his mouth were covered up. Onk. and Jon. render the last words of ver. 45 freelv : the LEVITICUS XIII. 45, 46; 47-59. 235 47. And if a garment has the plague of leprosy, whether it be a woollen garment or a linen garment; 48. Whether it be cloth or stuff of linen or of wool; whether in a skin or in anything made of skin ; 49. And if the plague is greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, or in the cloth, or in the stuff, or in any utensil of skin; it is a plague of leprosy, and shall be shown to the priest. 50. And the priest shall look at the plague, and shut up that which has the plague seven days. 51. And he shall look at the plague on former "do not defile yourselves (sil ^issncn), do not defile yourselves, shallbethe cry;" the latter, "a herald shaU call out, 'Keep aloof, aloof from the unclean!'"; and after sv 113 Jon. adds "nor shall he approach the side of his wife". 4S — 59. "Leprosy of garments," a term peculiar to the Bible, like ¦"leprosy of houses", must imply a dis order analogous to leprosy of persons, since it is expressed by the identical words (nsis saa). The simplest and most obvious explanation seems to be the safest, namely, that it denotes an infectious condition of clothes and stuffs, caused by contact with leprous matter, and therefore subject to changes and effects similar to those of leprosy itself. The leprous substance of wounds and boils is so strong, that it corrodes and injures all kinds of textures and clothes; the marks it produces not only resist repeated washing, but spread by the process (comp. Mead, Med. sacr. pp. 14 sqq.). Wool and linen are here, as elsewhere, named as the sole materials of gar ments (comp. Deut. XXII. 11; Hos. II. 7, 11 ; Prov. XXXI. 13) ; for cotton seems to have been long unknown to the Hebrews, as it was to the Greeks (Voss, Mythol. Briefe, III. 264, 265). Now, any manufacture made of wool or linen, or of skins, is liable to be impregnated with the obnoxious mat ter. Greenish or reddish spots ap pear, which, often extend "and prove so malignant that the manufacture cannot be saved. Therefore, the treat ment of leprous garments and leprous persons was strikingly similar (see Summary). It seems hardly necessary to seek for another interpretation ; certainly none that has been proposed is more acceptable. It has been conjectured, that the diseases of men were, by a figure of speech, applied to bad conditions of things ; as in Egypt and Palestine certain disorders of trees, occasioned by the hurtful activity of insects , are stiU called leprosy, and the Swiss speak of a "cancer" in buildings (comp. Maim. De Lepra XII. 13; XVI. 9). But the Biblical parallels are, in both cases, so dis tinct and so specific, that the sup position of a vague metaphor appears to be out of the question ; and if simi lar terms are used in modem lan guages, they have commonly been borrowed from our passage. Or it has been contended (by Michaelis, who is followed by others), that the law refers to garments made of "dead wool" and to objects made of "dead skins", that is , to woo! and skins of sheep that havenotbeen slaughtered, but have died of some lingering dis ease ; such wool and skins are coarse and useless, and easily infected by 236 LEVITICUS XIII. 47—59. the seventh day: if the plague has spread in the gar ment, or in the cloth, or in the stuff, or in the skin, whatever object is made of skin; the plague is malignant leprosy; it is unclean. 52. And they shall burn the garment, or the cloth, or the stuff of wool or linen, or any utensil of skin wherein the plague is; for it is ma lignant leprosy; it shall be burnt in fire. 53. But if the priest looks, and, behold, the plague has not spread in the garment, whether in the cloth, or in the stuff, or in any utensil of skin ; 54. The priest shall command that vermin; and the garments and ob jects manufactured from them are dangerous to health, and soon be come threadbare, and full of cavities and holes (comp. Mich. Mos. R. IV. § 211; Rosenm. Schol.adver.47). But it is difficult to see how such "dead wool" could at all be treated as ana logous to leprosy, to which it has not the remotest resemblance ; it has never been proved that such wool takes a greenish or reddish colour; and supposing even that the explana tion were plausible with respect to woollen stuffs, it does not account for leprosy in those of linen. Others un derstand "mouldy stains" which, produced by dampness and want of air, assume various colours, extend, and gradually destroy the texture, which at last crumbles away like tinder; they are particularly marked in paper, linen, and leather, in which they form considerable depressions, and take whitish, greenish, or reddish shades, like the minute cryptogamic plants which spring up in the affected spots (Sommer, Abhandl.1. 224; Keil, Lev. p. 93). Or the evil has been traced to certain atmospheric vapours which, settling in the clothes, pro duce stains that look and smell like leprosy (Schnurrer, Chron. der Seuchen, I. 191); or to microscopic insects which consume the wool, arid leave suspicious marks (Calmet, Jahn); orithasbeendeclaredto be no natural, but a miraculous affliction, sent by Godin ancient times to punish or to warn the IsraeUtes (comp. f. i. Pfeiffer, Dub. Vex. pp. 295—297): all which hazards prove the perplexity which the subject has, we believe unnecessarily, created. Philological Remarks. — The generic notion (in vers. 47, 48), of which the remainder are specifica tions, is iaa garment, that is, any ma terial suitable and ready for wear ; hence the much disputed words ins? and 31s (vers. 48, 51, etc.), which are co-ordinate with ias i33andBins>3 133, can only denote two kinds of stuffs or textures, which signification is fully compatible with their etymology (Syr. -nas to weave, Ar. ^~* IV to fix the warp in the loon ; and 31s in Chald. and Syr. to weave, properly to mix, to plait, to braid), and may have reference to the colours — ^T-a striped in the direction of the warp, 3is with mixed colours or many- coloured (Houbig. vestis texturae diversae; i. e. quae constat filis spis- sioribus et tenuioribus; De Wette simply am Tuche oder am Zeuge). It seems impossible to take these terms here in their more usual sense of warp and woof (Sept. Iv x3a yip), — On the Hothpael Basn (ver. 55), instead of Ca*nn, see Gramm. § XL VIII. 18; and on the construction of this pas sive form with ns ibid. § 76. 2. — nnns is no doubt depression, cavity (comp. nna pit), Targ. Jon. ssiis ss-pto (deep-lying leprosy), Syr. snns, Rashi sai; -ji'ci or sm niss, Menah. ben Saruk pais -pas; the root is in Syr. to dig or to excavate, in the Talm. to diminish, whence Ebn Ezra explains the noun by ]iien, and Rash- bam by itnal nnsaj'Onk. renders in accurately v.~f2n wounding, prop break ing or rupture, while he translates « wisps (in XIV. 37) by ^nna or -pnns depressions (see notes in loc). — The meaning which the words nnip and 238 LEVITICUS XIII. 47—59; XIV. still in the garment, or in the cloth, or in the stuff, or in any utensil of skin , it is a spreading plague : thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire. 58. And the garment, or the cloth, or the stuff, or any utensil of skin,, which thou washest , if the plague departs from them, it shall be washed a second time, and shall then be clean. 59. This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a gar ment of wool or linen, or in cloth, or stuff, or any utensil of skin, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean. nnaa have in this place (ver. 55), viz. n»ninins is n*nip- the mat ter admits; we have here also the two clean birds, the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the crimson band; the killing of the one bird over an earthen vessel filled with "living" water, and the release of the other into the open field; the immersion of those three objects in the mingled blood and wa ter; and lastly the sevenfold sprink ling (vers. 49 — 53). These are lustra tions for real leprosy and for no thing else. Nor is it difficult to under stand, how in very virulent cases of personal leprosy, some of the diseased matter, which is powerful enough to cause the mutilation , the falling off, and mortification of whole limbs, may corrode the paint or the stones, and especially the mortar of the leper's house, change their colour, cling to them, and spread irresistibly. Living in such houses may become as dangerous as contact with lepers themselves, and requires, therefore, the same rigid control. This expla nation appears at least more plau sible than any other that has yet been suggested (comp. Schilling, De Lepra, pp. 189 sqq. ; Knobel in loc; etc.). Many decide in favour of "the nitrous scab" (Salpeterfrass), an efflo rescence, on the walls, of common salpetre or "mural salt" , resembling hoarfrost, and formed by a nitrous acid with the admixture of a fixed vegetable alcali. That nitrous incrus tation, fostered by uncleanness, and absorbing the moisture of the atmos phere, penetrates through the stones, and marks them with greenish and other spots, though it is seldom seen higher than the ground floor ; it loo sens the mortar which slowly crum bles away, and weakens even the 250 LEVITICUS XIV. 33—57. the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days. 39. And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look, and, behold, if the plague has spread in the walls of the house, 40. The priest shall com mand, that the stones in which the plague is, be removed, and cast into an unclean place without the city; 41. And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and the mortar that is scraped off shall be thrown without the city into an unclean place. 42. And other stones shall be taken, and put in the place of those stones; and other mortar shall be taken, and the house be plaistered. 43. And if the plague returns, and breaks walls , which ultimately collapse, though often after a long resistance ; it occurs mostly in houses built on a marshy soil; it renders the objects near it mouldy or putrid, and causes fusty exhalations, which disagreeably settle in clothes ; it thickens the at- mosphere,impedes the breathing, and is, therefore, most injurious to health, especially to persons sleeping in such a house (comp. Michael. Mos. R. IV. 187—197; Volney, Reisen I. 55; Fa- ber, Archaol. I. 362; Rosenm. Mor- genl. II. 185, 186; Friedreich, Zur Bibel, I. 234, 235; Winer, Real-W6r- terb. I. 468 ; a. o.). Some again trace the evil to animalcules working in the stone, like mites in a cheese (Cal- met, Diet, sub Lepre) ; others to ve getable structures appearing on de composed stones and mouldy walls, especially those which are built of many heterogeneous materials, and bearing a great resemblance to her petic eruptions of the skin (Sommer, Bibl. Abhandl. pp. 219, 220; Rein- hard, Bibelkrankh. I. 92, 93); and others think that the fungus is meant, which often grows on walls in extra ordinary quantity, and by attracting dampness gradually corrupts thehou- ses, and is exceedingly noxious to health (Wundcrbar , Bibl. Med. II. j. 8). But it is difficult to perceive the slightest affinity between these con tingencies and leprosy, whether in name, appearance, or character ; the "nitrous scab" is usually whitish, and rarely greenish or reddish (ver. 37) ; like the other irregularities al luded to, it affects the exterior of houses also and even predominantly, whereas the precautions with respect to "leprosy of houses" are restricted to the interior (ver. 41), and evidently point to a connection with the in mates. If we may suppose that the term "leprosy" (nsm) includes several kindred diseases which , though dif ferent in form and in their degree of virulence , are all dangerous by con tagion, theprecepts of our law, bear ing so close an analogy to those on leprosy of persons, win be even more intelligible. The assumption that, in the imaginative Eastern style, the peculiarities of leprous persons are naturally applied to "house-pa tients", is inadmissible in sober le gislative ordinances. Perplexity has here, as elsewhere, prompted inter preters to take refuge in miracles, and to assert that the disorder was supernaturally inflicted, whenever God deemed it necessary to remind His sinful people, that they owed to LEVITICUS XIV. 33—57. 251 out in the house after the stones have been removed, and after the house has been scraped, and after it has been plaistered ; 44. The priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague has spread in the house, it is a malignant leprosy in the house; it is unclean. 45. And the house shall be broken down, its stones, and its timber, and all the mortar of the house, and they shall be carried out of the city into an unclean place. 46. And whoever goes into the house during the whole time that it is shut up, shall be unclean until the even ing; 47. And whoever lies in the house shall wash his clothes, and whoever eats in the house shall wash his Him not only their lives, but also their raiments and their houses ; and in support of this idea they have even adduced a Biblical text , "If I put ("nnai) the plague of leprosy in a house" (ver. 34) : however, the trans cendentalism of the Bible attributes all occurrences, even those resulting from the necessary laws of nature, to God as the primary cause. — It is against the spirit of the Old Testa ment to consider the uncleanness of leprous houses not as "external defile ment or infection", but as "ideal and symbolical", teaching that the sin of man "spreads from him to the things he touches or uses , or to the places he inhabits, in a manner which needs not be taken as physical con tagion" (Keil, Lev. pp. 98, 99), a mys tic view, the singularity of which is but little removed from the typical conceit that leprosy of houses is an emblem of the Hebrew cities,especial- ly the Temple, certain to be destroyed by God on account of Israel's per versity (Michaelis, Typ. Gottesgel. p. 106). Philological Remarks. — The place which this section occupies, is cer tainly irregular; leprosy of houses would most naturally have followed after leprosy of garments (XIII. 47— 58); yet the laws onthese two kindred subjects are separated by the expia tory ordinances prescribedfor leprosy of persons. The conclusion seems al most irresistible, that our section is a supplementary addition to the laws of leprosy, which originally com prised only those regarding persons and garments; while leprosy of houses, no doubt of rare occurrence, was at first not considered to require legis lative control, but was later subjoined with a distinct heading (ver. 33), and with evident reference to the pre ceding injunctions, since the cere monies of purification are manifest repetitions (see supra). The houses were probably destroyed in extreme cases only, and the loss was seldom very great, as Eastern dwellings are, as a rule, small, frail, and poor. — It has been supposed, that the commands here given were meant to apply to the Holy Land only, which contained the Sanctuary, the abode of God's glory (comp. Ebn Ezra on ver. 37); but the contingency of the dispe.rsion of the Hebrews is never considered in the special laws of the Pentateuch. — The clearing out of the house, previous to the priest's in spection, was intended as a boon and favour to, the inhabitants ; for if the 252 LEVITICUS XIV. 33—57. clothes. 48. But if the priest comes and looks, and, behold, the plague has not spread in the house, after the house was plaistered, the priest shall pronounce the house clean; for the plague is healed. 49. And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and crimson thread, and hyssop; 50. And he shall kill the one of the birds over an earthen vessel over running water; 51. And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the crimson thread, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times; 52. And he shall thus cleanse the examination proved the house to be infected by leprosy, all objects found therein were unclean (comp. Mich. Mos.R.IV. 194). — For a reason which will be understood from preceding remarks, Targ. Jonath., anxious to transfer the accident from the phy sical to the moral sphere, inserts af ter ninsi (ver. 34) , "And if there is a man who has built his house from stolen goods" (¦nsitana). Jewish con ceptions may be seen in Mishn. Neg. IH. 8 ; XII; XIII. — The utterly un tenable theory, that this entire cycle of laws is traceable to the old Elo- hist , renders it necessary to declare the words from B1E3 to ssan (ver. 36) as a later Jehovistic interpolation, since the Elohist never uses the par ticle bib (Knob.): that a historical analysis of the composition of Levi ticus leads to a much later time, and demands very different principles of interpretation, will be evident from the whole tenour of ourobservations. — Targ. Jonath. , in harmony with Jewish tradition, fixes the size of leprous spots which suffice to make a house unclean, at "two beans" (¦pb"i3 vms; comp. Mishn. Neg. XII. 3; Kel. XVII. 12; Sifra fol. 62b, 63a ed. Schlossb.). — The word n-'mspa; (ver. 37) is rendered by the ancient versions with singular unanimity cavities or hollow places (Sept. xoiXd- Ses, Vulg. valliculae , Onk. -pnnE, etc.), and it has been so explained by later interpreters ; but it is of uncer tain etymology; it seems hardly a compound of two roots , as of Sp» to sink down and oj to be deep (Michae lis, Gesenius), or of spw and in to be damp (Cleric, comp. Ebn Ezra), or a forma shaphelica of isp to be deep (Knob.); but rather a quadrilitera formed from spw by the addition of the liquid i, which is repeated to ex press the notion more emphatically (comp. Gramm. H. §. xviii. l , 2). — The Talmud (Sanh. 71a) calls the places to which the stones of leprous houses were removed sni"3B sn3im. The period during which the new stones and mortar were watched for the appearance of suspicious spots (ver.43),wasby Jewish traditionfixed at one week ; the term after the expi ration of which their soundness may be presumed (ver. 48) at two weeks (Siphra). — Rashi, availing himself of the Talmudical principle, that the Law observes no systematic order in the arrangement of details, places the 44th after the 47th verse, thereby producing an illogical sequence. — V*~ (ver. 43) is an anomalous infin. like ysa (2 Sam. XII. 14, see Gramm. II. § xliv. i. 2): that it is the infin. and not the preterite is evident from the parallel forms n/tsn and nispn, LEVITICUS XIV. 33-57; XV. 253 house with the blood of the bird and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the crimson thread. 53. And then he shall let the living bird fly out of the city into the open field , and make an atonement for the house, that it may be clean. 54. This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, 55. And for the leprosy of a gar ment and of a house, 56. And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot; 57. To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy. though the latter, standing for n-'apn, orare. — niiini (ver. 57) refers back has also chirek instead of pathach to Hi-'nn ns'T (ver. 54) — literally "this in the first syllable (see Gramm. H. is the instruction for every plague § xlv. i. 2. a). — The words i*;cn -a? of leprosy ... to afford instruction (ver. 46), used elliptically for "a? in the time of uncleanness and in the i"3Bn IBs, form one notion "the days time of cleanness", that is, when a of closing", and therefore the con- decision is to be given with respect struct state "»? is employed, as is not to cleanness or uncleanness of a per- unusual before relative sentences, son, a house, or a garment. Targ, whether they have the particle IBS Jon. has the Midrashic rendering, or not (see Gramm. § 87. 8. f, g.). — "that the priest may teach the peo- san (vers. 49, 52) is "to free from sin, pie concerning the dark day when to expiate", the Piel involving priva- no leprosy is to be examined , and tivemeaning(Gramm.II.§xxxvn. 3.b), concerning the bright day, etc." and it is synonymous with iss (ver. (comp. Siphra fol. 74b; see supra 53 ; see Comm. on Lev. I. 477), which p. 228). the Vulgate here also renders by CHAPTER XV. Summary. — 1. On running issue in a man (sit, vers. 1 — 15). Mucus discharged from or stopping a man's member, constitutes a disease rendering un clean not only the patient himself, but every couch, seat, or object, on which he lies or sits, and all persons he spits upon, or touches with his- body or with unwashed hands. Such persons as well as aU those who carry any object on which he has been sitting or lying, are unclean tin the evening, when they must bathe, and wash their garments; thos& who merely touch any such object, are also unclean tiU the evening, but require no lustration ; earthen vessels touched by the patient must be broken, wooden ones rinsed with water (vers. 1 — 12). On the seventh day after the discharge has ceased, he must wash his garments, and bathe in running water; and on the eighth , he has to present two turtle doves or two young pigeons, one for a sin-offering, and the other for a holocaust (vers. 13 — 15). — 2. Nocturnal accidents of a man render him. 254 LEVITICUS XV. 1 — 15. unclean tiU the evening, when he must bathe, while all stained gar ments require washing (vers. 16, 17). — 3. Sexual intercourse makes both parties unclean till the evening, when bathing restores them to cleanness (ver. 18). — 4. A woman in her courses (nia) is unclean for seven days; all things whereon she sits or lies become unclean, and, on their part, defile any object that happens to be upon them; touching such object causes uncleanness till the evening, and so does any perso nal contact with the woman ; but whosoever touches her bed or any ob ject whereon she has been sitting, has, besides, to wash his garments and to bathe. If menstruation ensues before or during the intercourse, without the man being aware of it , he is unclean for seven days , and renders, everything unclean whereon he lies (vers. 19 — 24). — 5. Pro longed or irregular issue of blood (ox bit) on the part of women is leviti- cally treated like menstruation (vers. 25 — 27; comp. vers. 19 — 24), and is cleansed by sacrifices identical with those ordained for the running issue of men (vers. 28 — 30; comp. vers. 13 — 15). — 6. General Rule (ver.31) and concluding formula (vers. 32, 33). 1. And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, 2. Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, If any man has a running issue out of his flesh, his issue is unclean. 3. And this shall be his unclean ness in his issue: whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped on account of his issue, it is his uncleanness. 4. Every bed, whereon a person lies that has the issue, shall be unclean; and every object, where on he sits, shall be unclean. 5. And whosoever touches his bed, shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. 6. And he that sits on 1—15. The ritual effects of the hemorrhoids, whether open or blind disorder here treated of are indeed (Beyer, a. o.), as these do not flow ¦copiously described, but we are al- from the genitals, and a loss of blood most completely left in doubt as re- is never mentioned. It cannot be an gards its symptoms. We have, in involuntary discharge of semen from fact, only this to guide us, that the weakness (or gonorrhoea benigna), malady is a running issue (bit) from whether arising from self-abuse or "the flesh" of a man, that is, from from excessive sexual intercourse his genitals ; that this issue occasio- (Mishn. Zavim n. 2 an&Maim. in loc. ; nally stops up the member; and that Nazir IX. 4; Maim. De Indig. Piac. both in the one case and in the other cc II, IH. pp. 189—196 ed. De Veil, uncleanness is caused. However,even a.o.); for the semen thus secreted does these few criteria, in conjunction not stop up the genitals, as it is quite with some incidental allusions,enable fluid, while when it ceases to flow, us at least to contract the circle of the complaint is cured, and the un- probabilities. The disorder cannot be cleanness ought to be at an end; be- LEVITICUS XV. 1—15. 255 any object whereon a person sat that has the issue, shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself m water, and shall be unclean until the evening. 7. And he that touches the flesh of a person that has the issue, shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even ing. 8. And if a person that has the issue spits upon one that is clean, the latter shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. 9. And any saddle, on which a person that has the issue rides, shall be unclean. 10. And whosoever touches any thing sides, the moral stain which such an evil involves, would in some man ner have been intimated by the au thor either in the statement of the evU or in the purificatory rites. It cannot be syphilis (gonorrhoea viru- lenta, Michaelis, a. o.); for this dis ease seems to have been unknown before the fifteenth Christian cen tury; and it is described neither by Greek, nor Roman, nor Arabic phy sicians. Had it been prevalent in Palestine, its striking features and fearful effects , peculiarly malignant in the hot Eastern climate, would doubtless have been dwelt upon by a legislator so accurate even in sub ordinate details. It is not necessa rily a contagious disorder ; the most careful precautions are indeed pre scribed in reference to even the slightest and most indirect contact with the discharged matter (see the Summary) ; but similar precautions are ordained in connection with other discharges which are unquestionably harmless, as the menstrual fluid (vers. 19 — 27); their object was not to pre vent physical injury, but that leviti cal uncleanness which was to be shunned by all citizens of the theo cratic commonwealth. It is probably no seminal disorder in the stricter sense ; for though a "discharge" (aiT) is repeatedly mentioned, the term seed or semen (sit) never occurs (comp. vers. 16 — 18); and elsewhere a person suffering from running is sue (aiT) is clearly distinguished from one who emits semen (sit n3S», XXH. 4). What then remains? To judge from its varied effects, the discharge must be more copious than is usual in a spontaneous loss of semen , and must be able to stop up the member without ceasing to be internally se creted; and yet it is harmless, and may be touched with impunity. It can, therefore, only be an inordinate secretion of mucus (blenorrhoea ure- thrae) , caused by some catarrhal condition or relaxation of the mu cous membrane, and usually originat ing from intercourse with uncleanly, menstruous, or unhealthy women. Considering all this, and taking into account the physical degeneracy to which the evil points , we cannot be surprised that it was treated with ' some severity, which was perhaps the more justified as the sufferers themselves are apt to slight and ne glect it, and , if carelessly treated or prematur-ely stopped, it may grow into a much more serious evil. Hence persons afflicted with a "running is sue" were included among those who had to remain without the camp (Num. V. 1 — 4) ; they were debarred from partaking of the paschal meal, and, at later periods, from appearing on Mount Moriah , and even within 256 LEVITICUS XV. 1—15. that was under him, shall be unclean until the evening; and he that bears any of those things shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. 11. And whomsoever a person that has the issue touches, without having rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself va. water, and be unclean until the evening. 12. And the earthen vessel, that a person who has the issue touches, shall be broken; and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water. — 13. And- when a person that has an issue is cleansed of his issue, he shall number for himself seven days for his the precincts of the holy city itself (Joseph. Bell. Jud. V. v. 6; VI. ix. 3; Mishn. Kelim I. 8). The ceremonies of purification were, on the whole, very simple. When the cure was considered cer tain, that is, on the eighth day after the complete cessation of the dis charge, bathing in "living" water was required ; for as every irregula rity in the functions of the organs was looked upon as dissolution akin to death, the idea of restoration to health or perfect life was in some man ner to be symbolised. Two birds suf ficed as sacrifices of atonement, which were a holocaust and a sin-offering — the one to acknowledge the sove reign power of God who sent the trial, and the other to expiate the offences by which the troubles were supposed to be merited: for the teaching of the Book of Job , that God often af flicts the pious for inscrutable ends, had not even at so late a period as that of our section superseded the old doctrine of retaliation. Philological Remarks. — It is weU known, that isa is euphemistically employed for the private parts (VI. 3 ; XVI. 4; Exod. XXVIIL 42), espe cially of men (Ezek. XVI. 26 ; XXIII. 20), but also of women (infra ver. 19), and in this sense it is here used (vers. 2, 3): the objections that have been raised against this acceptation (f. i. by Sommer 1. c. p. 233; Keil, Levit. p. 99; Archaeol. I. 276), are removed by comparing the analogy of ver. 19 (mioa bbt). Therefore, ^ T t : • T ' 7 while the translation of the Vulgate and others is too specific (qui pati- tur fluxum seminis), that of the Sept. is too vague (dvSpl to edv Y^vrjxai p6- oii ivi. xou aiup.axos auxou), though the Sept. subsequently renders 3T by •jO\of>burji (vers. 4 sqq.). In ver. 13, 11B3 is of course "his body", as in ver. 16, etc.; in ver. 7, its sense is more doubtful, but is probably there also euphemistic (so Mich. Mos. R. IV. 198; Orient. Bibl. XXII. 1—11: Rosenm. in loc; Bahr, Symb. II. 456 ; a. o.) ; and the touching need not be limited to the physician or surgeon for medical purposes. — The auxi liary verb n-n accompanying the par ticiple, gives to the latter the mean ing of an adjective or of a perma nent attribute; therefore bt n- in the meaning to pour out (Job XXXVIII. 37; comp. ian rasa Exod. XVI. 13, 14, and Arab. ^,C«); the signification oiconcubitus, nasa being derived from 33a; in its more frequent sense , can, in some passages, only bemaintained by a forced hypallage (concubitus seminis for semen concubitus, so Vulg. semen coitus, Engl. Vers, seed of copulation, Glass, Rosenm., a. o.), while in others, where sit is omitted, it is entirely inapplicable. The Sept. renders literaUy, but indistinctly, xo(xt) 0-rcepu.axos, and Onkel. intro- LEVITICUS XV. 16, 17; 18. 259 be unclean until the evening. ¦ — 18. And if a man lies with a woman with discharge of semen , they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening. duces the verse by the addition "if a man commits a fault" ("'insns bus). 18. It is difficult to decide whe ther sexual intercourse was, in the consciousness of theHebrews,brought in to connection with the disobedi ence of the first couple, and was there fore, because involving a debasement from a state of passionless innocence, considered as inherently defiling ; the Scriptures contain no allusion to such a view ; and the old and wide spread legend referred to included also the Divine institution of matri mony. Yet it seems undisputed that, if not sexual intercourse in itself (concubitus), certainly the attendant effusion of semen (coitus), was from early times regarded to cause un cleanness, extending, according to Josephus , both to the body and the soul (C Ap. H. 24). Keeping aloof from women was deemed a necessary preparation for holy acts , and was in later periods consideredby many as an indispensable condition of a holy life, whereas connection always re quired "sanctification" (Exod. XIX. 15; 1 Sam. XXI. 5, 6; 2 Sam. XI. 4; comp. 1 Cor. VH. 3 sqq. ; see Comm. on Exod. p. 336; on Levit. I. p. 167). The levitical law declared both the man and the woman unclean till the evening ; and the matter was, there fore, of special importance to the priests, and to all those who desired to visit the Temple, whether on ordina ry days or on the great national festi vals. The Sadducees and the Karaites interdicted connubial intercourse on Sabbath as a profanation of the sacred day; whereas the Pharisees, though prohibiting it on the Day of Atonement, held it on Sabbath pe culiarly appropriate (comp. Mishn, Yom. VHI. 1 ; Talm. Bab. Kam. 82a). Our law may, by the serious re straints it imposed , have tended to promote moderation in conjugal life, and thus to have been conducive to health and a vigorous progeny, though it was hardly framed with these objects in view; but it was cer tainly not intended to check polyga my, nor had it this effect (so Michael. Mos. R. IV. p. 209; Jiahn, Arch. H. 343; a. o.). It has many parallels among other nations; thus inter course with women is also declared defiling by theKoran(V. 9), andby the Hindoo ordinances, which, moreover, fix the propitious days and nights ; it was so considered by the Egyptians and the Greeks, by the Arabians and Babylonians: among the latter, it was customary for both parties , af ter the act, to sit down opposite each other with a vessel of burning in cense between them, and to bathe at the dawn of day, when they were again permitted to touch their house hold utensils (comp. Manu V. 135, 144; HI. 45—47; Herod.i. 198; II. 64; Strabo XVI. i. 20, p. 745; Porph. Abst.IV. 7 ; Ovid, Metam. X. 434, 435). Philological Remarks. ¦ — This verse contains, as most of the ancient and modern interpreters acknow ledge, a new precept on conjugal in tercourse, whereas the two preceding verses refer to involuntary loss of semen in sleep. The arguments that have been adduced by many to prove, that our verse also treats of nocturnal accidents, are biassed and faUacious (Sommer, 1. c pp. 226, 230 — 238; comp. also Luther, "ein Weib, bei welchem ein solcher liegt") ; so understood , our verse would be a superfluous appendage j the Masorah S2 260 LEVITICUS XV. 18; 19—24. 19. And if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days; and whosoever touches her shall be unclean until the has indeed failed to separate both precepts by g or B, but it is, in this re spect, neither exact nor consistent; the concluding formula (vers. 32, 33) may well be considered to allude to conjugal connection in the words sit nas» isbb sain ims. — Jonathan renders, "If a man has intercourse with a woman a second time" ; for according to Rabbinical views, the first coitus does not defile, since it never results in pregnancy. — as» with the accus. (nns) is not simply "to lie at her side", but "to have con nection with her" ; it expresses this sense more distinctly (comp. ver. 24; XX. 18; Gen. XXVI. 10; XXXIV. 2, nas^l nns 3S»"1 ; XXXV. 2 ; 1 Sam. II. 22; etc), and more directly, than 33» and as (Gen. XXX. 15, 1 6 ; XXXIX. 12; 2 Sam. XI. 4; etc.; comp. Ger man beschlafen), which may also be "to sleep near her" (ver. 33), or than veiled expressions such as is »sa(Exod. XIX. 15; comp. 1 Sam. XXI. 5 ia»a ¦jb). The words sit n33» explain the verb 33'in, and form its qualifying complement — to sleep, viz. so that effusion of semen ensues (Num. V. 13; see Gramm. § 86. 4C). lO — 34. Contact, however slight and indirect, with a menstruating woman was rigorously forbidden and guarded against, not only among the Hebrews , but among nearly aU the nations of the ancient world. At first, it was no doubt avoided merely on account of the repulsive "unclean ness" of the discharge, and especial ly its ill-odour, which is particularly offensive in warm climates; but in later times, it was shunned on ac- countof its real orimagined dangers. Por it was supposed to produce the most varied and almost marvellous effects. Connection with a woman in her courses was deemed most in jurious to health, and to result in diseased and deformed children: it causes indeed occasionally a slight inflammation of the member with blennorrhoea, pustulous eruptions on the foreskin, and obstinate issue of mucus from the urethra ; but all se rious apprehensions are, as a rule, unfounded (comp.i\^'eA«i%r,Beschreib. v. Arab. p. 139). This seems at least to have been the view of the Hebrew legislator ; for if he had anticipated real harm, he would have prescribed a cure varying in duration, he would perhaps have threatened a severe punishment; moreover, if a man consorts with a woman who, without his being aware of it, be comes unwell either before or during the connection, he is indeed declared unclean for seven days; but he is then restored to all his social rights , and the effects of that connection are considered to have entirely vanished (ver. 24; see, however, Phil. Rem.). Again, it was supposed that at the approach of a menstruating woman, the edge of steel is blunted, the po lish of ivory fades, and copper vessels contract a fetid smell and are covered with verdigris; brass and iron be come instantly rusty, and emit an offensive odour; linen boiling in a cauldron turns black ; must gets sour ; the brightness of mirrors is dimmed ; the very hard bitumen of the Dead Sea, which yields to nothing else, can be cut asunder by a thread dipped in the fluid ; seeds touched by the wo man become sterile; grafts wither away; garden plants, young vines, rue, and ivy are parched up; and the fruit of trees beneath which she sits LEVITICUS XV. 19—24. 261 evening; 20. And every thing that she lies upon in her im purity, and every thing that she sits upon shall be unclean; 21. And whosoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, falls off; bees die or hasten to escape from their hives ; caterpillars, worms, beetles, and other vermin, fall from the ears of corn ; the ants drop the grains which they may happen to carry, and never return to them; dogs tasting of the blood go mad, and their bite is incurably venomous; ¦pregnant mares, and even women miscarry; children conceived in the period of the menses are subject to leprosy , elephantiasis , or a hideous formation of the limbs. — Yet on the other hand , the menstrual fluid was credited with remedial properties in many cases , such as gout and erysi pelas, scrofulous sores and ulcers, defluxions of the eyes andhead-ache, tertian or quartan fevers, the bite of a mad dog, and the evU spells of ma gicians! (comp. Plin. VH. 13 or 15; XXVHI. 7 or 23; also Joseph. Bell. Jud. TV. viii. 4; Tacit. Hist. V. 6 J Meiners, Gesch. der Rel. n. 108, 109 ' Friedreich, Zur Bibel, I. 133—138). It is needless to observe, that these influences of the catamenia , which we have selected from a number of others too monstrous to be believed even by the ancients, are utterly fa bulous, ^though they were partially admitted even in the middle ages and still more recent times. But such views being entertained, is it surprising that religious legis lators deemed the subject worthy of their serious attention? According to the Hindoo law , a person touch ing a woman in her courses, becomes unclean like herself and requires bathing (Manu V. 66, 85), and anyone having connection with her at such a time, must fast three days, and then purify himself by eating clari fied butter (Yajnav. ni 288). Simi lar rules obtain among the Moham medans, who look upon menstruation as "a defilement", in consequence of which the women of the sect of the Hanefites are forbidden to say their usual prayers during ten, those of the Shafites during fifteen days (Ko ran n. 217; Niebuhr, Beschreib. v. Arab. pp. 39, 40). But no people treated the matter with so much earnestness as the Parsees, who made it a, part of their mytho logy; for they taught that when Jahi , the most dangerous of aU the wicked female demons (Pairakas), and the spirit of incest and fornica tion, saw Ahriman enraged at Or- muzd's growing power and glory, she encouraged him to fight boldly against his adversary ; as a reward for this friendly disposition, Ahri man kissed Jahi , who then for the first time felt the uncleanness of men struation coming upon her; just as the Talmud teaches, that Eve became menstruous after her connection with the serpent Sammael (comp. Vendid. XVI. 1—44; XXI. 35; It. III. 9, 12, 16; VIII. 59; XVII. 54, 57; Bundeh. IX. 8; Talm. Yevam. 103b; Shabb. 146a; Av. Zar. 22b; Yalk. Chad, init.; etc. ; see supra p. 76 note 3). In har mony with this fabled origin of men struation, the enactments of the Par- see codes on the matter are extreme ly rigorous and almost terrible: a man cohabiting with a woman at such a period , commits one of the twenty-five crimes regarded as the roots of all sins, or of Ahriman's mis chievous works; he must provide food for a thousand hares, sacrifice to the fire the pure and holy fat of many animals, and burn with it a thousand bundles of dry wood, the branches 262 LEVITICUS XV. 19—24. and bathe himself 'in water, and be unclean until the evening; 22. And whosoever touches any object that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself va. water, and be un- of fragrant trees, and choice aroma- tics ; he must carry pure water, slay a thousand serpents moving along on their bellies or coiled up , two thou sand other snakes , and a vast num ber of frogs; unless he comply with all this, besides doing' severe perso nal penance, he can, after death, ne ver enter the abodes of the saints, but he will be hurled into a pit of dense darkness, there to suffer eternal tor ture (Vendid. XVI. 1—44; XVIII. 134—152; Jesht Sade 15). Among many nations, the menstruous wo man was isolated from society, to prevent injury and pollution. In Per sia, she was forbidden to speak to any- one,not even to those who brought her food, which they were obliged to set down at some distance from her. Among the Zabii, she remained seclu ded in her room ; the places on which she had been treading were purified with fire ; and a breeze that passed both over her and another person, ren dered the latter unclean (Maim. Mor. Nev.HI. 47). Some tribes both in the old and new world, as the negroes in Issing, the Calmucks, and Hotten tots , and many others , provide spe cial houses for menstruating women before each town or village. At the river La Plata, they are, besides, sown into hammocks, with only a small aperture for the mouth, and are thus kept until the discharge ceases. In Oeylon, not only the wo man herself, but all persons who have been in the same house with her, are forbidden to enter a pagoda. The Red Indians deem all objects touched by her unfit for use. At her first men ses, she remains secluded for thirty days, at the expiration of which the fire used by her during this period must be extinguished ; in Delaware, her head is closely tied up for twelve days , during which time she has to take frequent emetics, must eat little and do nothing; afterwards she is bathed and newly clad, and is for two months more strictly forbidden to see anyone. The Hebrew legislator fixed the duration of uncleanness at seven days ; for although he was no doubt aware that , as a rule, the discharge ceases much sooner , he was anxious to associate the significant number seven with so remarkable a pheno menon, which is peculiar to the hu man female (comp., however, iYz'n. H. N. VII. 13 or 15). He prescribes in deed no special acts of lustration for the woman herself; but as he enjoins ablution even after the most indirect contact with her, it is in the spirit of his laws to suppose that, after the lapse of seven days, she is to take a bath of purification. On this point, Jewish tradition is extremely scru pulous, and has very minutely set forth the construction, the size, and the supply of the baths to be used on such occasions (comp.Mishn. Tract. Mikvaoth; Yor. Beah § 201; see also Friedreich, Zur Bibel, I. 142—153; Trusen, Sitten, pp. 16 — 20). Inter course during menstruation was vi sited with the death of both parties (XVIH. 19; XX. 18; comp. Koran H. 221). In the East, girls begin to have their menses from their ninth and even their seventhyear (comp. Mishn. Kel. I. 8). Philological Remarks. — Targ. Jonath. renders the first words of ver. 19, "If a woman has a discharge of red or black blood, or issues blood of the colour of saffron or clay, or LEVITICUS XV. 19—24. 263 clean until the evening; 23. And if anything is on her bed, or on any object whereon she sat, and any one touches it, he shall be unclean until the evening. 24. And if any man like the mixture of red wine with two parts of water" etc. ; and this is in harmony with the teaching of the Mishnah (Nidd. H. 6, 7 ; comp. Talm. Nidd. 19; Yor. Beah § 188; and in general Mishn. Nidd. I, II, TV sqq.; Kelim I. 3 ; Yor. Deah §§ 183—202). — As the words hiibbs hst nhn" bi (ver. 19) define those immediately preceding HaT ppnn "3 nasi , they are added by way of asyndeton — "if s. woman has an issue, that is, if the issue in her flesh is blood", which notion is expressed by other euphe misms also, as B"»3 -n or B"»33 nis (Gen. XVHI. 11; XXXI. 35). — The construction in ver. 23 ssaan is bsi 'si sin is doubly elliptical, sin im plying not only the auxiliary verb, but an indefinite pronoun — "if any thing is on her bed"; the apodosis begins with isaas, but this word itself involves a conditional sentence — "if anyone touches it" (lit. by any one's touching it): the athnach is, therefore, required under vis, not under 13. The ancient and most of the modern translators render the verse inaccurately or uninteUigibly, and the Vulgate omits it entirely. The words sin and 13 cannot be re ferred to Bi, which is not mentioned inthe preceding verses ; and itwould, after the other injunctions, certainly have been superfluous to declare that persons become unclean by touching the blood itself. — If harmony be tween the various levitical precepts were to be assumed, the 24th verse could hardly be understood other wise than has been explained above (comp. Ebn Ezra in loc. ; Bahr, Symb. II. 455; Knobel; a. o.). On the one hand, the phrase nns «n« 33»" can onlv be referred to actual intercourse (see supra on ver. 18) ; but on the other hand, intercourse with a woman in her menses was declared a heinous offence inexorably to be punished with the death both of the man and the woman (XX. 18) ; whereas in our passage the result of such connection is merely uncleanness of the man during seven days: such contradic tion could only be accounted for by supposing that in the latter case the man was not aware of the woman's condition, or that it came on during the act; while in the former case the legislator desired to visit the wanton heedlessness of the offender, which is perhaps even intimated in the text ('si ni?l XX. 18). However, harmony between the various levitical precepts is a mere assumption. There is in the wording of the two laws nothing which compels so different an inter pretation; the intercourse may in either passage be intentional ; and if so, the discrepancy could only be ex plained historically. Our chapter is apparently a very late composition; it attempts a systematic and almost exhaustive treatment of discharges from the generative organs ; it dis plays a subtle minuteness in the ef fects of uncleanness ; anditprescribes not only purifications but expia tory sacrifices. But the twentieth chapter, desultory in form, and bar barous both with regard to the of fences forbidden and the punish ments enacted (comp. vers. 2, 5, 6, 9, 13 — 16, etc.), exhibits traces of a less advanced age. In this earlier period, connection with a woman in her menses was forbidden under pe nalty of death, not only because pri mitively punishments were in gene ral more severe and summary, but 264 LEVITICUS XV. 19—24; 25—33. lies with her, and her impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days , and any bed whereen he lies shall be unclean. 25. And if a woman has her issue of blood a long time out of the period of her monthly impurity, or if it runs beyond the time served an intelligible 14), who in his descriptions copies purpose; they were neither an idle the second Temple, has no weight. ornament, nor an "opus reticulatuntf-' „. ' , above the door to allow the vapour 4 1 Ki. VI. 16 does not refer to a ,,, . of the incense to escape, nor a mere closed door before the Holv of Ho- , , . . ,. , ., , , . J symbol to indicate the absolute se- lies, but alludes to thepartitien-wall, clusion of ^ Holy of Holies _, twenty cubits high, which divided Der Salomon_ T the two mam parts of the structure 9 t? ek XLI 23 24 (comp. Mishn. Midd. IV. 1). ,n T ', -„ ' ' , ' v * - ' l0 Joseph. Bell. Jud. V. v. 5 (xaxa- 5 x Ki- vm- 6> 7- liima^o.) ; comp. -Matth. XXVH. 51. 6 Exod. XXV. 13—15. n According to Jewish tradition, 268 DAT OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. mitted to the High-priest on one single occasion in the year J. Now, if it be remembered, that in the precepts regarding the Day of Atone ment repeated mention is made of the vail (roiB), through which the High-priest has to pass in order to reach the Holy of Holies2, it follows, that the solemn day could, in the prescribed manner, not have been kept during the time of the first Temple. Ezekiel, writing in the fourteenth year after the destruction of Jerusalem (B. 0. 574)3, and describing the future reorganization of public worship, introduces indeed expiatory ceremonials designed "to cleanse the Sanctuary" and "all who have sinned from error or simplicity"4; but these ceremonials differ widely from those of Levi ticus. We find discrepancies with respect to the very time of the celebration. While the Pentateuch prescribes one day, namely the tenth of the seventh month, the prophet sets apart two days, viz. thefirst and the seventh of the first month. This difference may easily be ac counted for, and forms a strong link in the chain of our arguments. In Ezekiel's time, the year still commenced, as it had commenced among the Hebrews from immemorial ages, at the season of the vernal equinox, or in the first month Aviv (Nisan)5; therefore, desirous to mark the new cycle of time by religious solemnities, the prophet recommended rituals of expiation to be performed on the first of Aviv, and to be repeated on the seventh day, a number familiar to the Hebrews as holy and significant6. However, after the Babylo nian exile, the Jews not only employed those Chaldean names of the months7, which occur in the later Books of the Hebrew Canon8, but, however, a stone stood in the place 6 See p. 207. of the Ark (Mishn. Yom. V. 2, ps - ,T. T „. ' ' ' Nisan, Iar, Sivan, etc. nsipa nmrt rrwi ... aia nn^n); see Comm. on Lev. I. p. 30 note 6. s in Zechariah, Esther, Ezra, Ne- 1 Later traditions supposed be- hemiah, and then in the Books of the tween the Holy and the Holy of Ho- Maccabees and subsequent writings ; lies even two curtains , with a space comp. Talm. Jer. Rosh. Hash. I. fol. of one cubit between them (Mishn. 56 ed. Krotosch. (bis3 iVs> d"33B); Targ. Sheni Esth. IH. 7 (am-* 2 Lev. XVI. 2, 12, 15. nsaip). The division of the day in 3 Ezek. XLL 1 ; comp. in general hours (nia>») has the same origin ; the ch. XL sqq. word nyti does not occur in the Old 4 Ezek. XLV. 18—20. Testament(exceptDan.IV.16, where 5 Exod. XII. 2 and notes in loc. It it has not the meaning of hour) ; up is a gratuitous assumption, that in to the Persian period, we find no trace Ezek. XL. J, Tishri and not Nisan is of any other division of time than understood as "the beginning of the morning, noon, evening, and mid year" (na-on wsib). night, besides three, and later four, DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. 269 accommodating themselves to east-Asiatic customs, they began to date the civil year from the autumnal equinox, or the seventh month Ethanim (Tishri9). When they had made this change, they deemed it advisable to distinguish the first day of the seventh month as a reli gious festival or a "holy convocation"; as such it was appointed in the latest Books of the Pentateuch, in Leviticus and Numbers, under the names of "Day of Memorial" (fftsWi Sp) or "Day of blowing the trumpet"(ns!inF) tal'i), anditwas then simply called New Year (SistBti ttilih). In the course of time, the tenth day of the same month was fixed for penitence and self-affliction, and for the restoration of inward purity through Divine forgiveness ; for the number ten was consid ered as hardly less significant than seven ; it was chosen to convey that God's spirit or power descended to manifest itself on earth; and thus we must understand the revelation of Ten Commandments and the infliction of ten Egyptian plagues10. Those who attribute the whole of the Pentateuch to Moses, have ever been unable to explain the disagreement under discussion, and have asked themselves in utter perplexity — How could Ezekiel venture to blot out from the new theocracy the holiest day of the year, and to substitute for it two days of his own arbitrary selection ? The indignation of the Rabbins at this imagined heresy was so vehement, that they were anxious to banish the Book of Ezekiel from the Canon; they attempted to lower its authority by ascribing it not to Ezekiel, but to the men of the Great Synagogue; while some urged, both against reason and against the plain context of the passage, that Ezekiel did not ordain an an nual festival, but alluded to an exceptional ritual performed in the time of Ezra ; yet they finally acquiesced in the hope that, in due time, the prophet Elijah would harmonise the apparently fatal contradic tions 1 x- It is impossible to suppose that Ezekiel, a pious and learned priest, would have ignored or deliberately altered the most striking and most solemn day in the whole Hebrew year, if in his time that night-watches (niiatis; comp. Talm. Septenar. c. 23, -i] Ik -j]p.spa x-7)? v-r)- Berach. 3a). cxeta? A^exou Sexcixig u.T]vdc, 8xi i\ 8e- 9 iittjffl from siffl to open, that is, xds TtavxeAeia. Januarius; comp. Hieron. Comm. in Ezech. I. 1, Apud orientales populos li Talm. Shabb. 13b ("if it had not post coUectionem frugum et torcu- been for R. Hananiah, the Book of laria, quando decimae deferebantur Ezekiel would have been suppressed, in templum, October erat primus because his words contradict those mensis et Januarius quartus; see also of the Law"); Chagig. 13a (ttass laps Ideler, Chron. I. 432, 492, 522. bspirp ibb); Menach. 45a (wri* IT rvchb io See supra p. 59; comp. Philo, De msiii -row). 270 DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. day had already been generally kept or authoritatively fixed : the fact that he knew of no such day, is sufficient proof that it was then not yet fixed. But he deviates from the Pentateuch not merely in the time of the celebration : he prescribes rituals totally different from those of Leviticus. Apparently aiming at the expiation of the Temple rather than of the people, he merely ordains, that the blood of a young bul lock slain as a sin-offering shall by the priest be put "on the posts of the Sanctuary, and upon the four corners of the ledge of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner Court" l. Is it necessary to point out how little this agrees with the complicated, significant, and imposing ceremonial of Leviticus ? It may, therefore, be taken as certain, that the Day of Atone ment is of later origin than the earlier part of the Babylonian exile (or B. C. 570). When the first colony of Jews who, by permission of Cyrus, returned from Chaldea under the leadership of Zerubbabel, arrived in Palestine (B. C. 538), we are told that, at the approach of the seventh month — ¦ that is, still the month Ethanim — they all as sembled in Jerusalem, set up the brazen altar in its old place, "and offered burnt-offerings thereon to the Lord morning and evening; they kept also the Eeast of Tabernacles as it is written, and offered the daily burnt-offerings by number according to the custom, . . . from the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt- offerings to the Lord"2. It is surely surprising that, in this notice, the Day of Atonement is neither mentioned nor alluded to3: when the first and the fifteenth of the month are named, though the for mer evidently not yet as a day of particular distinction, why was the intervening tenth day omitted, which, if celebrated even par tially in the striking manner of the Law, must have produced a power ful impression upon the minds of men providentially released from a land of bondage, and just restored to their old homes, to commence a new and uncertain life full of struggles and dangers? No historian would, at that peculiar juncture, have failed to record the celebra tion of the Day of Atonement — if a celebration of any kind had taken place. 1 Ezek. XLV. W. Lord that were consecrated" (ver. 5, 2 Ezra HI 1—6 anuipannwianaWsi), for these words apply to the festivals solemnised af- 3 It cannot be referred to in the ter the Feast of Tabernacles (p ^insi), words, "And of all the festivals of the that is , after the 23rd of the month. DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. 271 In the twentieth year of the reign of Xerxes (B. C. 445), Nehe miah obtained permission from the king to proceed to Judea, about the condition of which he had heard most discouraging reports, and to preside over the province as governor, armed with extensive powers. When he had for some time, exercised his new functions ; when through his energy the walls of Jerusalem had under the greatest difficulties been re-built and fortified; when the most flagrant social abuses had been remedied, and the civil organisation of the community been considerably strengthened: the people demanded, that Ezra, who zealously assisted the younger Nehemiah , should read to them "the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel"4. Ezra, complying with this request, assembled the people on the first day of the seventh month in an open place before one of the gates, and there recited to them portions of the Law, while learned priests and Levites explained the text. "The whole people wept when they heard the words of the Law" (ver. 9). Why did they weep ? Because they had become aware, that from ignorance they had transgressed its precepts ; just as king Josiah under similar circumstances had given vent to his bitter grief and vexation5. But they were told by their religious teachers — "This day is holy to the Lord your God; mourn not, nor weep"; and they were ordered to celebrate it by festive repasts, and by sending portions to the poor; "for", said Nehemiah, "the joy of the Lord is your strength" (ver. 10). On the following day, the reading of the Law was continued, and the people were in structed how to build and to adorn booths for the coming Eeast of Tabernacles; and this they celebrated, on the fifteenth day of the month and the following seven days, by sacrifices, public recitals of the Law, and convivial rejoicing, in a manner as it had not been kept "since the day of Joshua the son of Nun" (vers. 13 — 18). Did the people receive no directions with respect to the Day of Atone ment, which, according to the Pentateuch, falls between the first and the fifteenth day of the seventh month? It appears that they received none. The tenth day of Tishri was not solemnised. The detailed account, which chronicles the events almost from day to day, has. nothing to record with regard to the tenth day. Under such circum stances, the silence of the text is in itself highly significant; but it becomes decisive by the statement that follows — "On the twenty- fourth day of this (the seventh) month", continues the narrative, "the children of Israel assembled with fasting, and with sackcloths, and earth upon their heads, . . . and they stood and confessed their sins, , 7 _ * Nehem. VIII. 1. 5 2 Ki. XXII. 11, 19. 272 DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. and the iniquities of their fathers ; and they rose in their places, and read in the Book of the Law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day, and another fourth part they confessed , and worshipped the Lord their God" '. Then the Levites, in a long speech, dwelt upon the untiring love of God, and the constant trespasses of the Hebrews, from the earliest time down to their own days; and finally they drew up a covenant of allegiance to God's Law, to which the leading Jews put their seals, and which the people swore to observe2 . Hence a Day of Atonement was indeed kept in that memorable year, but it was not the Day of Atonement prescribed in the Pentateuch ; for it was solemnised, not on the tenth, but on the twenty-fourth day of the month, and it was solemnised in a singular manner. Therefore, it may be stated as a result, that the Day of Atone ment as ordained in the Pentateuch, is of later origin than Nehe- miah's first governorship of Judea, or later than B. C. 440 3- i Neh. IX. 1—3. 2 Neh. IX. 4— X. 32. 3 George (Jiidische Feste, pp. 301, 302), leaning upon uncertain argu ments , fixes the middle of the exile as the date ; comp. also Wechsler in Geiger's Jiid. Zeitschr. II. p. 124. — There is no cogent reason to prove that Isai. LviH. 3 sqq. refers to a regular or annual day of fasting and '.penitence , still less to "the Day of Atonement'" ; nor was that chapter of Deutero-Isaiah composed "long af ter the rebuilding of the second Temple"; it belongs inseparably to the section comprising chapters XL to LXVI, and written by the same author in the time of the exile. — In Zechar. VIII. 19 (comp. VH. 5), it is not stated that aU fast days shall be abohshed, nor even that the fasts there mentioned were then already repealed. — The fourteendays' conse cration of the Temple by Solomon in the seventh month affords no proof on either side ; for it commenced only on the Feast of Tabernacles (ana, 1 Ki. VHI. 2, 65), that is, after the tenth of the month : therefore, the supposition of Rabbi Jochana-n that. the Hebrews exceptionaUy omitted the celebration of the Day of Atone ment in that year, is gratuitous (Talm. Moed Kat. 9a). — These remarks ob viate possible objections to our re sults. — The arguments, or rather assertions , of Bahr against the late origin of the Day of Atonement are extremely weak (Symb. H. 695 — 698); he observes truly, "Nothing is so in- dissolubly connected with all the chief parts of public worship as that festival" : all the chief parts of public worship, and the organisation of the hierarchy are indeed of equally late origin. Movers (Phoen. I. 368) dog- maticaUy contends, that "the rites of the Day of Atonement belong to the time of Moses as indisputably as any other portion of the Pentateuch"; but he is biassed in his arguments, for he vainly strives to identify Aza- zel and Typhon, and to prove that both imply remnants of the old Phoe nician Moloch worship; and he, there fore, refers the 16th chapter to early Egyptian influence (see notes on XVI. 6—10). — Knobel (Lev. p. 487) admits , that the celebration of the T)av nf A tnnpmnnt. Tipfnvp +"hp ovila DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. 273 We may now attempt to trace the origin of the Day of Atone ment down to its final and permanent introduction. For a long time after the conquest of Canaan, the Hebrews, mainly engaged in agricultural pursuits, had, except the Sabbath and the Newmoon, no other festivals than those connected with the produce of the soil, that is, they had virtually none but harvest festi vals. Three such celebrations were naiurally suggested by the cli mate of Palestine — at the beginning of the corn -harvest, at its completion , and at the ingathering of grapes and other fruits; they were appropriately designated by the corresponding names of the Feast of the Ears of Corn 12(, the Feast of the Harvest or of the First- fruits13, and the Feast of Ingathering 1 * ; and as the latter marked the' termination of the agricultural year with all its labours, hopes, an.d results, it was described as being solemnised "at the end" or "at the revolution of the year"15. The Israelites kept these festi vals chiefly with feelings of joy and gratitude, not unmixed with awe of that Power , in whose hands are plenty and famine. They presented, therefore, in addition to the firstfruits, thank-offerings and holocausts. Yet it can hardly be supposed, that every member of the community celebrated all the three festivals at the common Sanc tuary ; as a rule, each family seems to have visited the Tabernacle once a year, probably at the conclusion of the harvest or the vintage, and then to have offered up sacrifices and gifts, vows and prayers16. When, in the course of time, the Hebrews developed and fixed their historical traditions, which they dated back, as much as feasible, to the age of Moses, they were anxious to connect them with the three great agricultural holidays, the regular recurrence of which seemed particularly fitted to perpetuate their remembrance. The great ver- cannot be proved, but he adds vague- 10, a'lwan a-'- ; Num. XXVHI. 26 ; la- ly, that it may yet "essentially" have ter also called mssn an, Festival of been fixed by Moses, but was, like Conclusion, see Comm. on Exod. the ordinances concerning sacrifices pp. 453,455; comp. S. Cassel, Aze- andpriesthood,neverobserved! How, reth, in Sunem Part I. in support of this view, "the age of 14 Tv^n an, Exod. XXIH. 16; the Elohist", to whom Knobel attri- XXXIV. 22. butes the 16th chapter, can be urged, 15 Exod. XXIH. 16 (namn nsaaa); ' .is indeed surprising (comp. also ibid. XXXIV. 22 (nasun nripn). — Two an- pp. 529 sqq., 541). nual agricultural festivals were com- 12 3"3sn an ; comp. Exod. XIH. 4 ; mon amongst most ancient nations XXHI.T15; XXXIV. 18; Deut. XVI. and tribes (compare Knobel, Levit. 1 ; see infra p. 274, note 4. pp. 533, 534). 13 -''iS;* "?B? i-ajsn an, Ex. XXIH. 16 1 Sam. I. 3, 21; comp. XX. 6; 16 ; XXXIV. 22 ; comp. Lev. XXIH. 1 Ki. XII. 32, 33. T 274 DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. nai festival was the first to be thus enriched in meaning and import ; it became the great anniversary of the release from Egyptian thral dom, the Feast of Passover1, or the Feast of unleavened Cakes2, which names themselves were meant to recall remarkable incidents of that miraculous deliverance. It received those additions at an early time for various reasons. The beginning of the corn-harvest3 is, especially in a country of such varied conformation and climate as Palestine, not sufficiently marked and uniform to serve as a suit able epoch; nor is it in itself an occasion for rejoicing or a guaran tee of abundance, as many anxious weeks follow till the final inga thering of the crops. It is, therefore, hardly surprising, that the histo rical significance of the festival should soon have outweighed its ori ginal or agricultural object, and that the names with which it is de scribed refer more distinctly to the former than to the latter*. Yet the offering of a firstfruit sheaf of barley (nai>) tended to preserve its pri mitive character in constant remembrance; it was occasionally even considered as a separate celebration apart from the Pesach and from the Feast of unleavened Cakes ; and it may have imparted to Passover the name of Feast of the Sheaf (lasri arj) 6. It appears that the Hebrew legislator found no historical event to be fitly grafted upon the second great agricultural festival, the Feast of Harvest. This is in itself so important and so clearly de fined that it seemed to require no additional support; it was also termed Feast of Weeks6, a name helping to prevent the obliteration of Passover as that agricultural festival from which the seven weeks down to the conclusion of the harvest were counted. Yet Jewish tradition, everywhere working out the Biblical notions, believed there was reason to assume that the Feast of Harvest coincided with the day of revelation on Mount Sinai, and thus established in this instance also a union of the natural and historical element, which 1 net- an, Exod. XXXIV. 25. Pentateuch (see Comm. on Exod. 2n;uBn;n,Exod.XXIII.15;XXXIV. p. 184): the term .oiapax^pia "the 18 ; Deut. XVI. 16 ; Lev. XXIII. 6. crossing or passing over" (Plut. Lu- 3 Deut. XVI. 9, na-3 main Vnna. cull. 24), which is used by Philo (Vit. 4 The term 3'3sn an does not even Mos. HI. 29; De Septen. cc. 2, 18), occur in the Old Testament; whether Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. VII. 32), and the word nfea points to some cosmic others, is simply a translation of n&B. origin of Passover,because celebrated at the vernal equinox, when the sun 5 ComP- PMl°' De SePte*ar- cc io on "passes over" into the sign of Aries, must be left undecided;, such origin 6 niyati 5li, Exod. XXXIV. 22 ; Deut. can certainly not be traced in the XVI. 9, 16. DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. 275 was the more desirable at a time when, by the dispersion of the Jews, the former had entirely ceased to be applicable7. With regard to the third great festival , the process of amalga mation, though very slow, was yet accomplished in the Biblical times. In Deuteronomy, that festival is designated, not as in the older code of Exodus, as "Feast of Ingathering", but as "Feast of Tabernacles"8; but it had evidently still its former meaning and none else, for it is explicitly described as being celebrated "when the corn and the wine are gathered in"9, which words correspond to "the end" or "the revo lution" of the year ; it was probably "the festival" par excellence (Jlih), as it took place when all the labours of the year were completed and all its rewards secured10. However, the new name, which is used in all the later historical Books11, points at least to a new ceremony that had in the mean time been introduced — that of dwelling during the days of the festival in slight booths or tabernacles, temporarily constructed from the branches of thick or large-leaved trees, such as the myrtle, the palm- and the olive-tree12. The custom arose probably out of the ordinary circumstances under which the fruit is usually collected in vine-yards and' olive-groves ; and the wealth and liberality of nature, to which man owes his sustenance, could not have been more suitably represented or acknowledged. But the new name and the new custom suggested a welcome historical meaning of the festival: in Leviticus, all native Israelites are earnestly com manded to live in tabernacles during seven days ; and it is in Levi ticus that this reason is for the first time assigned — "that your generations may know, that I caused the children of Israel to dwell in tabernacles when I brought them out of the land ofEgypt"13. How ever, both this reason and the precise law concerning the various vege table productions to be employed on the Festival ] 4, originated many generations after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile; for in the time of Nehemiah, such a law was hardly known, and the practice differed from that prescribed in Leviticus15. T Comp. Maim. Mor. Nev. HI. 43. 14 Lev. XXIH. 40. s niBBn an, Deut. XVI. 13; Philo, De 15 Comp. Neh. VIII. 15 : three of the Septenar. cc. 2, 24, -ijxcuvox-ifjvuiv^opx-^ trees there named do not occur in or simply oxrjvai. Leviticus, which, on the other hand, 9 -3p'»l 'falsa n,£BS3. has two productions not mentioned 10 Comp. 1 Ki. XII. 32, 33. in that passage of Nehemiah; the 11 2Chr.VHI.13; EzraHI.4; Zech. concluding word of the verse 3inB3 XIV. 16, 18, 19. "as is written" or "prescribed", viz. 12 Comp. Neh. VIII. 15. in the Law, is very strange, since is Lev. XXIH. 42. 43. we find in no part of the Law a pre- T2 276 DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. But simultaneously with the historical , the inward and spiri tual expansion of the Hebrew festivals was worked out. This ex pansion was the fruit of that growing conviction of the sinfulness of man, and of his need of expiation before a holy and perfect God, which is the main attribute of a pious frame of mind, and which, if manifested with earnestness and purity of purpose, invariably indicates the last and highest stage of religious life. We have on previous occasions attempted to describe this feeling of moral dependence and self-humiliation, as evinced in the Hebrew Scrip tures, and especially in the Pentateuch i ; it was naturally fostered and strengthened by the misfortunes and struggles of the exile, which the guilty and remorseful conscience of the nation readily attributed to past iniquities2; and it gave rise to the sin-offerings, the latest deve lopment of the noblest class of sacrifices, those of expiation. As these grew in depth and popularity, they were associated with all festive and solemn days, and were superadded to the older holocausts and thank- offerings3. They could not, before the Babylonian exile, have been invested with the minute ceremonials and the subtle gradations spe cified in Leviticus4, as we have before proved; in the first Temple, they could not have been presented in the manner described by the levitical legislator, because that Temple had no curtain5 against which the blood could be sprinkled6; in fact, they attained their highest and final form only during the time of Zerubbabel's Temple. And the crowning stone of that religious edifice, which demanded the incessant labour of more than a thousand years, was the Day of Atonement as instituted in Leviticus. It combined, as in one fo cus, all the scattered rays of spiritualism which in successive pe riods had helped to dispel superstition and frivolity; and it kindled a flame of devotion which, if rightly directed, might well cleanse the heart from egotism and pride, and raise the mind from worldliness to a yearning after light and truth. cept identicalwith that of Nehemiah 2; IX. 16—37 ; X. 32 sqq.; XIII. 18; — a difficulty which will be dis- Zechar. I. 2—6; Tob. III. 3 sqq.; cussed in the notes on XXIII. 40. On Prayer of Azar. vers. 5 sqq. ; Judith the three harvest festivals in general VII. 28 ; Bar. I. 13, 17—22 ; III. 1 sqq. ; see Comm. on Exod. pp. 458, 459. Mishn. Taan. II. 1 ; Yom. VIII. 9 ; etc. i See Comm. on Levit. I. pp. 3, 3 See Num. XXVIII and XXIX. 249-251, 495, 496; comp. also Ps. 4 Q espeoially chapt. Iv and XXXIX.9;LXV.4;Cin.3^,Prov. notes inL. * 2 Comp. Ezra V. 12 ; VIII. 6, 7 ; IX. 5 See suPra> P- 267- 6 sqq.; X. 1 sqq.; Neh. I. 6, 7; VHI. 6 Comp. Lev. IV. 6, 17. DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. 277 Thus the vast circle was completed : the festivals of the Hebrews, like nearly all their institutions , had passed through three distinct phases — the natural or cosmic, the historical or commemorative, and the ethical or spiritual — , and they were by this process more and more enlarged, enriched, and refined. It is remarkable, that we are able to trace those three phases in the preserved fragments of Hebrew literature, and, what is even more interesting, that we can trace them in the Pentateuch itself. The "Book of the Covenant" in Exodus7, which embodies the most important of the civil and religious laws, mentions, besides the Sabbath , only the agricultural festivals 8 — "three times thou shalt celebrate a feast to Me in the year", and "three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God"; two of them are simply de scribed as relating to husbandry, viz. the Feast of Harvest (n^sjBrj Sri) and the Feast of Ingathering (Cpbijin 3fi), whilePassover, though stated to take place in the month of "the green ears of corn" (2i2xn Uin'n), is already designated as the Feast of unleavened Cakes (niaasi an), in reference to the exodus from Egypt9. No distinct directions are given with respect to the time and mode of celebration, except that the Feast of Ingathering is to be kept "at the end of the year", "when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of thy field" ; and that, with regard to Passover, allusion is made to a previous injunction10. At the renewal of the Covenant after the worship of the golden calf, the same principles are maintained * ' : three festivals are com- mandedj all the laws are coupled with agriculture and its produce; even with respect to the Sabbath it is observed, "in the time of ploughing and of reaping thou shalt rest" ; the names are the same as before , except that the Feast of Harvest is called the Feast of Weeks (HisaiB i,ti) indicating its connection with Passover12, and that the Feast of Ingathering is said to be kept at "the revolution of the year" (iisiari Ffilpi-i) , which is synonymous with "the end of the year". Detailed injunctions are wanting, as in the preceding or dinance. The Book of Deuteronomy preserves essentially the same point of view ! 3. It amplifies, rather than extends, the older statements. It is more fluent in language and more regular in arrangement, as may be i Ch. XX. 19 — XXIH. 33; see ™ Exod. XXIH. 15 (-7 vis 1»S3; Comm. on Exod. pp. 376 sqq. comp. XH. 15 sqq., 39; XIII. 3). 8 Exod. XXIII. 14—17. 11 Exod. XXXIV. 18, 21—23. 12 See supra, p. 274. 9 See supra, p. 274. 13 Deut. XVI. 1—17. 278 DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. expected from the literary advancement of the time ; but it supplies no- new materials. It attempts a fuller description and a kind of system; yet it knows no other than the three time-honoured agricultural festivals. It brings the celebration of these festivals into closer and more direct alliance with the national Sanctuary, or "the place which the Lord chooses to let His name dwell there" '; but it assigns to them no higher meaning and gives no additional reason. It insists upon offer ings and free-will gifts to be presented in the House of God; but it appoints them to be used for social and charitable, rather than purely religious purposes2. As regards the names, there is but this dif ference that the Feast of Ingathering is termed the Feast of Taber nacles (rriSbri an) , but this new name involves no change of meaning in the festival itself3 In the middle portions of the Pentateuch — Leviticus and Num bers — we enter upon an entirely distinct phase. In those Books the festivals appear in their complete and final extension. We find in two passages a well-digested survey of all the sacred days in the- year, together with a statement of their origin, their nature, and their mode of celebration by means of sacrifices and other rites 4 ; and in addi tion to this, a special description is given of one day of peculiar sanc tity 5. Besides the Sabbath and the New-moon, the three ancient agri cultural festivals are introduced; with respect to the Feast of Ta bernacles, a historical is coupled with the natural reason — because the Israelites dwelt in booths during their wanderings in the desert;. and in all instances , sin-offerings are added to the older holocausts. Then for the first time mention is made of two new festivals — "the- Day of blowing the Trumpet" (rointi bii) or "a Memorial of blowing the Trumpet" (nsTiri yi"i=?), to be kept, as a day of rest (finaio) and of holy convocation, on the first of the seventh month6, and "the Day of Atonement" (oinBsn dl'i) set apart for the most perfect rest (¦p'naui rauJ)7, for fasting, and the expiation of sins through the in tervention of the High-priest 8. The dignity and position in which this functionary here appears, and the rigid distinction made be tween "priests" and "Levites", which is not yet known to the Deu- i Deut. XVI. 2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16. s in Exod. XXX. 10 also , the Day 2 Comp. vers. 10, 11, 14 — 17. of Atonement is mentioned or rather 3 See supra p. 275. pre-supposed,"AndAaronshallmake 4 Comp. Lev. XXHI and Num. an atonement upon its horns once XXVIH. XXIX. in a, year with the blood of the sin- 5 Lev. XVI. offering of atonement ; once in the 6 Lev. XXIII. 24; Num. XXIX. 1. year shall he make atonement upon 7 Lev. XVI. 31; XXIII. 32. it throughout your generations; it DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. 279 teronomist9, bespeak, like the sin-offerings, the very late origin of the whole ceremonial ' °. Yet the introduction of the Day of Atonement can easily be understood ; for it is essentially the institution of sin-offerings con centrated and intensified; days of general fasting and penitence were in all periods proclaimed on particular occasions, whether of public danger, misfortune, or guilt11; and at least four such days were, from the beginning of the exile, kept as regular anniversaries, in mournful remembrance of the siege, the capture, and the destruc tion of Jerusalem , and of the final overthrow of the last remnant of independent nationality12. But how can we account for the origin, and explain the meaning of the "Day of blowing the Trumpet", which both in Leviticus and Numbers is so obscurely alluded to, that it almost appears a.^ if is most holy to the Lord"; but the section of which that verse forms a part (XXX. 1 — 10), and which clearly stands in a wrong place (since it ought to conclude ch. XXV), is acknowledged to be a very late in terpolation. 9 See Comm. onLev. I. pp.598 — 600. 1° See on the very gradual rise of the office of High-priesthood, 1. c. pp. 631—633. n Comp. Judg. XX. 26; 1 Sam. VII. 6; XXXI. 13; 1 Ki. XXI. 9, 12; Jer. XXXVL 6, 9; Joel. I. 14; II. 12, 15; Esth. IV. 3, 16, 17; Ezra VIII. 21; Neh. IX. 1 ; 2 Chr. XX. 3 ; 1 Mace. HI. 47; Judith IV. 9, 13; see also 2 Sam. I. 12; XII. 16 ; 1 Ki. XXI. 27 ; Isai. LVni. 3; Jer. XIV. 12; Jon. HI. 5, 7; Ps. XXXV. 13; LXIX. 11; CIX. 24; Ezr. IX, 5; X. 6 ; Neh. I. 4 ; lChr.X.12; JudithVIII.6; Mishn.Taan. 1.4—7; ?Wm.Taan.26a; Matth. IX.14 ; Luke H. 37; XVHI. 12. The Essenes fasted during three, nay often during six successive days (Philo, Vit. Cont. c. 4). Justinus (XXXVL 3), in the con fused account he gives of the Jews, ob serves, that they fast every Sabbath (septimum diem ... in omne aevum jejunio sacra vit); which Jewish tra dition expressly forbids (Mishn. Taan. U. 10; comp. Judith VHI. 6; Mar tial. IV. iv. 7 ; Sueton. Aug. 76). In Exod. XXXIV. 28,, and in Matth. IV. 2 and Luke IV. 2 (the 40 days of Mo ses on Mount Sinai, and of Christ in the desert), no proper or ordinary fasting is meant; nor in 1 Sam. I.7,'8. 12 Viz. (1.) In the fourth month (on the ninth day , when Jerusalem was taken; Jer. XXXIX. 2; LH. 6, 7; Zech. VIH. 19 ; later changed to the seventeenth day, the supposed date of the storming of Jerusalem by Titus; comp. Talm. Taan. 26); (2.) In the fifth month (on the seventh or tenth day, when Jerusalem was burnt and destroyed; 2 Ki. XXV. 8— 10;, Jer. LH. 12—14; Zech. VH. 5; VHI. 19; later changed to the ninth, the alleged day of the destruction of Jerus. by Titus ; comp. Jos. B. J. VI. viii. 1,5); (3.) In the seventh month (Zech. 11. cc. ; according to tradition the third day; see Talm. Rosh Hash. 18b; when the Jewish governor Gedaliah was murdered, 2 Ki. XXV. 25; Jer. XLL 1 ; Talm. 1. c.) ; and (4.) In the tenth month (on the tenth day, when the siege of Jerusalem, commenced ; 2 Ki. XXV. 1; Jer. XXXIX. 1; LII. 4; 280 DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. its origin and its meaning had been intentionally veiled1? We may answer these questions with some distinctness. From the preceding deductions it cannot be doubtful, that that festival was instituted in the post-Babylonian time. Now, when the Jews, after the establish ment of the Persian rule, returned from the captivity, they so far conformed to east-Asiatic customs that they began the year, not as before , with the spring or the first month (Nisan) , but with the au tumn or seventh month (Tishri, p. 268). This change was carried out gradually and with some difficulty 2, since it stood in direct opposition to a distinct command of the Pentateuch3. But when it was once adopted, the first day of that month, or the New-year's day, was deemed to require some striking solemnity, and was, therefore, raised into a festival , just as Ezekiel , considerably more than a century before, when Nisan was still the beginning of the year, proposed a holy festival on the first and seventh day of that month4. A kind of historical support for this new institution may have been found in the memorable meeting, held on that day in the time of Ezra and Nehe miah, when the former read the Law to the people, and exhorted them to piety and rectitude5. Nor is it impossible, that the desire of having seven days of holy convocation during the year 6, facilitated the introduction of an additional festival completing that number Ezek. XXIV. 1, 2; Zech. Vni. 19; IV. 52; X. 21; 2 Mace. XV. 36). But Talm. 1. c). It would be impossible to Philo (De Septenar. c. 19) describes prove that these fast-days were estab- Nisan as "the seventh month both lished "simultaneously with the Day in number and order, according to of Atonement" (so George, I.e. p. 294). the revolutions of the sun, but the 1 Comp. Lev. XXTTI. 23 — 25; Num. first in power" (2|38op.os . . . dpiftp.i7j XXIX. 1 — 6. xe xal xa£ei xaxd xov -qXiaxov xuxXov, 2 It took deeper root when the 8uvd(j.ei TCpujxos) ; and Josephus (Ant. Jews , in common with all Syrians, I. hi. 3) calls the second month when adhered to the Seleucidic era (B. C. the Deluge began (Gen. VI. 11) Mar- 312, niiow -paa aera contractuum), cheshvan, and counts, therefore, from which also commenced about the Tishri, but he may have done this autumnal equinox, and which the with respect to events before the Jews preserved till about A. C. 1000, exodus, in reference to Exod. XH. 2. when it gave way to the present era 3 Exod. XXI. 2 ; see notes in loc. of the Creation of the "World. Yet 4 Ezek. XLV. 18—20 ; see supra p. 268. even in the first Book of the Macca bees , the years still commence with Nisan , though in the second Book 5 Neh" VIIL ls99-i «» supra p. 27 1 ; with Tishri. The months also are, comP- also Ezra m- * *& throughout the Old Testament, and 6 yjz. 2 on Passover, 1 on Pente- even in the Books of the Maccabees, cost, 2 on Tabernacles, 1 on the Day counted from Nisan (comp. 1 Mace. of Atonement, and 1 on New-vear. DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. 281 -which the Hebrews almost uniformly associated with their reli gious ordinances7. The nature and import of the New-year's day were readily fixed. The commencement of a fresh period, with all the uncertainties it shrouds, with all the trials it may possibly have in store, was apt to call forth among a people like the Hebrews — so serious and so little sanguine, yet so impressionable and so easily awed — feelings of anxious anticipations, against which they struggled with prayer, self-humiliation, and expiatory sacrifice. This character was given to the New-year by Ezekiel in his ideal descriptions8, and it was greatly intensified when, in the course of time, the first day of Tishri was linked with the tenth; for then the New-year was considered as the commencement, and the Day of Atonement as the -culmination of the penitential season extending over the significant number of ten days, of which the first and the last were signalised as particularly momentous9. This is not the place to point out how eagerly later Judaism unfolded the precepts regarding those two days which , in holiness and solemnity, were raised infinitely above all other festivals of the year10. With respect to the Day of Atonement, the Pentateuch 7 Philo (De Septenar. cc. 2 sqq.) counts ten festivals — "ten being the perfect number" (-zi\z\os dpi9(j.6?) — -adding to the five named in the pre ceding note "every day" (rfi.ipa icaoa), the Sabbath, the New-moon, and di viding the Passover into three dis tinct holidays — "the killing and eating of the paschal lamb" on the 14th day of Nisan, the "feast of un leavened cakes" from the 15th to the 22nd, and the offering of the first -sheaf (Ipdfpo., la's) on the 16*h day : but this separation has no basis in the Bible. The frog and nisan an were indeed originaUy two different pha ses of Passover, but the term nB6 was not long restricted to the eating of -the paschal lamb, but was used, like nisan an , for the entire festival (see Comm. on Exod. p. 181). s In Nehem. VHI. 9—12, elements •of joy prevail in accordance with the peculiar circumstances of the time: -when the Law was read, as there stated, the first day of Tishri was not yet an appointed festival (for the reading was continued on the second day), though that fact may have helped togive rise to its introduction. 9 On the connection between the two days see Talm. Rosh Hash. 16b ('31 n"i3 innsa B'isB 'j); Maim. Mor. Nev. HI. 43, "New-year is like a pre paration and introduction for the Day of Atonement." " See Talm. Rosh Hash, and Yoma; Orach chayim §§ 581—624; etc. In the Pentateuch , the Day of Atone ment is not exactly called "the greatest of the festivals" or "the most holy of the holy times", as Philo (De Septenar. c. 23) observes; the term -pnao nasi is also applied to the Sabbath (Exod. XXXI. 15 ; XXXV. , 2; Lev. XXIH. 3), and to the Year of release (Lev. XXV. 4) , and yina» alone to the Sabbath (Ex. XVT. 23), New-year (Lev. XXIH. 24), Taber- 282 DAY OF ATONEMENT AND OTHER FESTIVALS. itself gave a strong proof of the singular importance which was at tached to it very soon after its introduction; for it ordained, that on that day the Hebrews were to proclaim the year of jubilee with all its privileges and all its social changes1. Later tradition, anxious to connect so holy a celebration with some remarkable event in Hebrew history, and thus to stamp it, like all other festivals , as a comme morative anniversary, contended that it was on the tenth day of Tishri that Moses, after having stayed forty days on Mount Sinai (for he is supposed to have gone up on the first of Elul), came down with the second tablets of the Law, and announced to the people God's gracious pardon for their worship of the golden calf 2. The Jewish doctors and scribes might have looked with just pride upon the institution of the Day of Atonement, which testified to the vast progress that had been made in religious thought and theocratic organisation: we in our age, who view it by the light of so many new truths, indeed appreciate its spiritual depth and power, but we cannot help being astonished at finding, even in so late a pe riod, the admission of a pagan element — the sin-laden goat sent into the wilderness to the evil demon Azazel — a fiction of Persian dualism and superstition, which almost counterbalances the value, and certainly dims the purity, of the other features of the ritual, and which should warn us not to accept any intellectual achieve ment of past times as final. The introduction of that element is so significant in its bearings and inferences, that it seems desirable to examine its origin, and to consider the organic relation in which it stands to kindred conceptions. This will be attempted in the fol lowing treatise. nacles (XXHI. 39), and the Year of on the Feast of Tabernacles (comp. release (XXV. 5). Deut. XXXI. 10). 2 See Exod. XXXTV. 27—29; Pirk. i Lev. XXV. 9; see notes in loc. R. Eliez. c. 46; Maim. Mor. Nev. The Year of release (ntaaia) began HI. 43. B. THE DOCTRINE OP ANGELS AND SPIRITS, OB THE MONOTHEISM OF THE BIBLE. The idea of one incorporeal and omnipresent God, "whom the heaven and the heaven of heavens do not contain", may have been fathomed by some profound and gifted minds among the Hebrews, but it proved too abstract and too refined for ihe mass of the people. At no period polytheism lost its hold upon the community, and the causes and conditions in which it rooted, though at times miti gated or modified, never ceased to operate. Even when the existence of one eternal Deity was acknowledged, a compromise with paganism was indispensable; and it was accomplished by the mythology of angels and spirits. These represented to the popular mind the visible manifestations of God's power, and its individual effects in nature and in human life; they revealed the Infinite in a finite form, and made it accessible to external perception; they clothed the spirit in a material form, and engaged the senses, if they did not fascinate the imagination. Though hardly remnants of old and degraded Hebrew idols ', they may be regarded as the tribute by which idolatry was reconciled to Hebrew monotheism, and was prevailed upon to tolerate it. They were themselves the mystic ladder reaching from earth to heaven. For according to the simple notions of the Bible, the earth is the centre of the universe, while heaven, with the sun and moon and the myriads of stars, is a canopy over the earth, and the abode of God, from whence He descends to visit the earth2- Whenever He does i Comp./teJfWfe,Bibl.Dogm.I.§108. 1 , 2, 17; etc.; see Comm. on Genes. 2 Comp. Gen. HI. 8 ; XI. 5, 7 ; XVHI. pp. 20—26. 284 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. descend, He appears in bodily shape, or as an angel, He and the an gel being identical. Hence there was at first no distinction of good and evil angels; being all alike the organs of God's will, they were, all good and holy ] ; and they vanished when they had fulfilled their mission, to reappear when a new miracle of Divine intercession was to be wrought2. In later times, the Hebrews abandoned a child like conception which limits God in space, and makes Him cor poreal almost like a heathen deity; but, still desirous to establish a personal intercourse between heaven and earth, fliey conceived Him as the lord of angels, whom He sends in forms perceptible to mortal eyes, while He Himself remains in His celestial realms, an unchangeable spirit. Thus the notions concerning angels fluctuated and changed; and a clear result on this important subject can hardly be arrived at unless we distinguish and examine the literature of different periods, namely — (l.)the Canonical Books composed before the Babylonian exile; (2.) those compiled during or after it, together with the Apocrypha, and the works of Philo and Josephus ; (3.) the New Testament; and (4.) the Talmud and the Rabbinical writings. 1. THE ANTE-BABYLONIAN TIME. At an early period, the belief in spirits was introduced into Pa lestine from eastern Asia through the ordinary channels of political and commercial interchange. We find the Hebrews at all epochs familiar with angels in nearly all their varied qualities and func tions. The angels are the "messengers" or "servants" or "sons" of God3, "exceedingly awful" in appearance and wonderful in attributes, endowed with more than human intelligence and wisdom, and conspi cuous for more than human righteousness 4. Though no mortal can see them without forfeiting his life, they present themselves on earth in human shape, wrestle with human beings, or taking them by the hand in times of danger, lead them away in safety 5. They are there fore called "men"6; occasionally they share the human wants, and i See infra ch. II. '311 aaVs3 Bis)andXI.7(n^3ainiia)im- 2 See Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 418 sqq. ply angels, cannot easily be decided; 3n,v^ '?=?> D'rtisn *sa, b-^s -as; comp. also Isai. VI. 8 (uar-rVi ^ai). Gen. VI. 2, 4 ; Job I. 6 ; H. 1 ; IV. 18 ; 5 Gen. XIX. 16 ; XXXII. 25. XXXVHI.7 ; Ps.XXIX. 1 ; LXXXIX. 6 ».*, D^as, Gen. XVIII. 2, 16, 22 7; Dan. IH. 25; etc. (comp. XIX.' 1); XXXII. 25 (where 4 1 Sam. XXIX. 9 ; 2 Sam. XIV. 17, Targ. Jon. has 13a niais S3S5») ; Josh. 20 ; XTX. 28 ; Zech. XH. 8 ; comp. Gen. V. 13 ; Ezek. I. 5 (bis niai) ; Zech. I. III. 5, 22. Whether Gen. I. 26 (niwa 8—10. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 285 having connection with the daughters of men, they become the pro genitors of hero- and giant-races7 — to which notions heathen my thology offers striking analogies8. They are sent as God's representatives, whenever His holy and awful presence cannot be endured by sinful men9. We find — usually as dei ex machina — angels who help and protect i °, save and redeem i ', and provide food for the forlorn and helpless12; who announce re markable incidents and disclose the course of future events13; who console and comfort i 4, advise and direct 1 5, and stimulate men to deeds of courage or heroism16; or who warn reprove, and punish17. Angels inspire and teach prophets18, who are themselves called "angels" or "messengers of God"19, like the priests in later times20. Their number is infinite. They form the "camp of God", or are "His hosts", "His army"21, and "His mighty heroes"22. They belongto His celestial Court or "Council"23, and surround His throne as His ministers or as the executors of His decrees24. Hence their ordinary 7 Gen. VI. 2 , 4 (where that inter course is not, as in later writings, re presented as iniquitous, or as the "fall of the angels" ; comp. 2 Petr. II. 4 ; Jude 6, 7; Testam. Rub. c. 5 ; Hen. VI. 2-8; X. 11; XH. 4; XV. 2 sqq. ; XIX. 1 ; LIV. 6 ; (see also Kurtz , Die Ehen der Sonne Gottes etc. 1857 ; Die Sonne Gottes in 1 Mos. VI. 1—4 etc.1858); Gen.XVI.13; XVIII.2^}.; XIX. 1 sqq. ; Judg. VI. 22; XHI. 6, 16, 18, 20, 22; comp., however, infra. s Comp. Herod. H. 143 ; see Preller, Griech. Myth. II. 4—6. 9 Exod. XXXIH. 2, 3 ; comp.XXXII. 34. Hence the later Rabbinical ma xim VsiinV V-ja i"s (Talm. Shabb. 156; etc.) , that is , God entrusts the wel fare of Israel not to a, guardian an gel 0=tb) , but watches over it Him self; whenever He deviates from this rule, He does so to punish the He brews for disobedience or other trans gressions (comp. Talm. Berach. 7a; see infra). i° Gen. XXIV. 7, 40; Ex. XIV. 19; XXIII. 20— 23; XXXH. 34; XXXIII. 2 ; Ps. XCI. 1, 11, 12; comp. Gen. XXXII. 2, 3 ; 2 Ki. VI. 17. n Gen. XLVIH. 16; Num. XX. 16; Ps. XXXIV. 8. 12 1 Ki. XIX. 5, 7. 13 Gen. XVI. 10 — 12; XVHI. 2; XIX. 1; XXII. 16— 18; Judg. XIH.3. 14 Gen. XXI. 17, 18. 15 Gen. XVI. 9; XXII. 11, 12; XXXI. 11. is Judg. VI. 11; 1 Ki. I. 15; comp. Josh. V. 14, 15, nin-' S3:;i». " Judg.II.1,4 ; V. 23 ; Ps.XXXV.5,6. is 1 Ki. XHI. 18; 2 Ki. I. 3; comp. Dan. VIII. 16. 19 Isai. XLIV. 26 ; Hagg. I. 13 ; Mai. HI, 1, 23 ; Eccl. V. 5 ; 2 Chr. XXXVL 15, 16 ; comp. Isai. XLII. 19 ; see also Midr. Rab: Lev. I. 1 (a*s"3an isipa b^>s!>b) ; ifo'tf.Num.XVI.l ; Yalk. Shim. I. § 427 Lev. init. 20 Mai. II. 7 ; comp. Midr. Rab. Num. XVI. 1 (a^3sVa!= lioaa B-an3n). 21 Comp. thelater designation S"5bd na>3>a ?» "the upper host" (family). 22 Comp. bVsis, Isai. XXXIII. 7; (13 -i;3.;, Ps. CHI. 20. 23 lit, Ps. LXXXIX. 8. 24 Gen. XXVIIL 12; XXXII. 2, 3; Deut. XXXIII. 2; Josh. V. 14, 15; 1 Ki. XXII. 19; 2 Chr. XVHI. 18; 286 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. abode is in heaven1, and God Himself is called the "Lord of Hosts"'. Yet the term "host of heaven"3 means usually the stars4; for these were, especially in later times, looked upon as a well-organized army fighting the battles of God's favourites5, like the Fravashis or tutelary star-angels of the Persians6; or they were simply pictured as living and sentient beings, like the XJoa. Xofixd of Plato7; they shouted and rejoiced when the world was created8, and they were filled with dismay when they beheld the devastation of the Holy Land 9 ; they worship the glory of God 10 and submit to His decrees ' i ; yet, not being spotless12, they sometimes rebel against His sovereignty, and refuse to appear or to shine at their appointed times, for which offen ces they are kept fettered in a heavenly prison13. There are "angels of peace" (Diauj 'a), who feel pity and compas sion, and weep bitterly at the sight of desolation and human misery i 4 ; there are the fiery Seraphim with six wings, who stand round God's throne in His celestial Sanctuary (la^ri), ready to execute His com mands, and thus praising Him in alternating choirs, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory"15; and there are the Cherubim, symbols of God's presence 1 6, the ministers of His Isai. VI. 1—7 ; Job I. 6 ; II. 1 ; comp. Isai. XXIV. 21 ; Ps. LXXXIX. 7 , 8; CHI. 20, 21; CXLVIII. 2; Dan. VII. 9, 10; Henoch I. 9; XIV. 22, 23; XL. 1 ; LX. 1 ; LXXL 8,13; Matth. XXVI. 53; Luke II. 13; Philo, De Somn. I. 22 (iadpi.8p.oi aaxpoic). i Gen. XXII. 11; Judg. XIII. 20; comp. Dan. IV. 10; LukeU.15;XXIL 43; etc. 2 mass nw or 'aa ^nss ; 1 Sam. I. 3, 11; IV. 4; XV. 2; 2 Sam. V. 10; Ps. LXXX. 5, 8, 15, 20; LXXXIX. 9. 3 B-aiun sass ; Deut. IV. 19 ; XVII. 3 ; 2 Ki. XVII. 16; XXI. 3,5; XXHI. 4, 5; Isai. XXIV. 21 (anan sas, comp. ver. 23); XL. 26; Jer. VIII. 2; XIX. 13; Zeph. I. 5; Ps. XXXIII. 6; Neh. IX. 6 ; comp. Job XXV. 5 ; Matth. XXIV. 29 (ai 8'jvdp.ei« xuiv o'jpavuiv). 4 Comp., however, 1 Ki. XXII. 19 <2 Chr. XVIII. 18, God sits on His throne, and at His right side stands a-wn sas Va) ; Ps. CXLVIII. 2 (where l-'Ssis and i»sas are parallel); Dan. IV. 32 (kiso Wi, in juxtaposition with sans •'isi); Luke II. 13 (cxpaxtd oupdvioc); sometimes angels and stars are used promiscuously, as in Job, XV. 15 (where anoiip and Wa-o stand in parallelism). 5 Judg. V. 20, B'33i3n lanVa B^asin fa Bm^EBB. 6 Boundehesch c. 5 ; comp. Spiegel, Avesta, III. p. XXXI. 7 Comp. Gesen. Comm. iiber d. Je- saias, on XXIV. 21. 8 Job XXXVIII. 7, 1p3 -3313 mi 113. 9 Isai. XXIV. 21, 23. i» Nehem. IX. 6. n Dan. IV. 32. 12 Job XXV. 15; comp. XV. 15. 13 Henoch XVII. 13—16; comp. Jude 13, daxipss itXavyjxai; Job XXXVIII. 31, 'bi na^3 niaia-'a i-iipnn. !•' Isai. XXXIII. 7. 15 Isai. VI. 1—7. i°Exod. XXV. 18—20; XXVI. 1; 1 Ki. VI. 23— 28; VII. 29; therefore one of His attributes is B-uisn aun, 1 Sam. IV. 4; 2 Sam. VI. 2; Isai. XXXVII. 16. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 287 power and will, and the guardians of the unapproachable paradise17. On the other hand, we have angels of death (nia 'a) 18 and angels of revenge or punishment19, a destroying angel (n^nffisn a) who spreads pestilence20, a "deceiving angel" who misleads prophets as a "lying spirit" 2 1, and Satan himself ()ti&i), the wily tempter," who in the form •of the serpent enticed the first couple to disobedience, and thus robbed them of a deathless existence of innocence and happiness22. It would be unwarranted to distinguish between "the established belief of the Hebrews" and "popular superstition" 2 3 ; we have no means of fixing the boundary line between both; we must consider the one to coincide with the other, or we should be obliged to renounce all historical enquiry. The belief in spirits and demons was not a concession made by educated men to the prejudices of the masses, but a concession which all — the educated as well as the uneducated — made to pagan polytheism. 2. THE POST-BABYLONIAN TIME. When the Jews, ever open to foreign influence in matters of faith, lived under Persian rule, they imbibed among many other re ligious views of their masters, especially their doctrines of angels and spirits, which, in the region of the Euphrates and Tigris, were most luxuriantly developed. The old notions were indeed partially retained24, but they were also modified, enlarged, and infinitely mul tiplied. From this time, the angels, never again identified with God, assume a greater independence, display a more busy activity as in struments in the government of the world, and appear in regular gradations of rank and dignity ; and some of them are specially " Comp. Ps. XVIII. 11 ; Gen. III. 23 So, f. i., Colin, Bibl. Theol. I. 198, .24; see Comm. on Exod. p. 480. 199; II. 73, 231 ; etc. 18 Prov. XVI. 14. 21 Comp. Isai. XXIV. 21 ; LXIIL 9 1° Ps. XXXV. 5, 6. (a"3£nnsiB);Ps.LXVIII.18;LXXVIH. 2° 2 Sam. XXIV. 16, 17; 2 Ki. XIX. 49; LXXXII. 1; LXXXIX. 7, 8; CIII. 35; Isai XXXVII. 36; 1 Chr. XXI. 20, 21; CIX. 6; CXLVIII. 2; 1 Chr. 12, 15; 2 Chr. XXXII. 21; comp. Sir. XXI. 1; Zech. I. 8 sqq.; III. 1—3; XLVIII.21; lMacc.VIII.41; 2Macc. IV.4; XII.8; XIV.5; Mai. HI. lsqq.; XV. 22; 3 Mace. VI. 5. Dan. III. 25; IV. 10, 14; VH. 9, 10; 21 1 Ki. XXII. 19—22. VUI. 16; XV. 15; Sir. XLV, 2; Ba- 22 Gen. III. 1 sqq. (see Comm. on ruch VI. 7 ; Song of Three Holy Chil- Gen. pp. 123, 124); comp. 1 Sam. dren, vers. 26, 27; Susan, vers. 55, 59; XXIX. 4; 2 Sam. XIX. 23; 1 Ki. V. 2 Mace. XV. 23: see the notes supra 18; XI. 14, 23, 25. passim. 288 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. distinguished by names, which the Jews themselves admit to have borrowed from their heathen rulers, like the names of the months1. The best and purest of the angels possess Divine intel ligence2, and act as God's stewards and delegates on earth3, or as "ministering angels" (nnian a), like the Persian Jazaias or Izeds*. They perform by God's direction the work deemed beneath His great ness or holiness, such as the creation of sinful men, and the punish ment of the wicked which would not become the Lord of mercy. They are the mediators and arbiters 5 between heaven and earth, since men, never completely purified, must dread to approach the Divine presence. As "interceding angels" (yi^a a) they teach and guide the pious,. bring their supplications before the celestial throne, and bear wit ness to all virtuous deeds6. Their chief is Mittron or Metatron7, corresponding to the Persian Milhra, the mediator between eternal light and eternal darkness ; he is the embodiment of Divine omni potence and omnipresence 8, the guardian of the world 9,.the instructor of Moses10, and the preserver of the Law, but also aterrible avenger of disobedience and wickedness • ', especially in his capacity as su preme judge of the dead. There are seven chief or arch-angels created from the beginning 1 2, and they harmonise with the Persian Amshaspands (Ameshagpentas), the immortal overseers of the world, conceived in accordance with the seven- chief councillors at the Persian court, who were the only persons privileged to appear at pleasure before the great king 13. Four of them, standing on the four sides of God's throne, and from thence i Talm. Jer. Rosh Hash. I. fol. 56h to other angels also, as Michael ed. Krotosch. (-pa isai B'3sa>an ma» (Yalk. Shim. I. § 940, fol. 304 vol. 2, iaaB) ; Midr. Rabb. Gen. XL VIII. 9. i^aVns •> rrr\ smi 313 -n^n 'as) , or 2 01 xou ftsou Ufoi. Sagnugael (Targ. Jon. on Exod. HI. 3 *T7to8idxovot,Tcpeo-peuTa(,5itnp^oi. 2, and Menach. Rekan. in loc). 4 I. e. worthy of sacrifice; comp. 11 He was supposed to be meant by Talm. Rosh Hash. 24b. the severe and unpardoning angel 5 MeaiTtu xal Siaix-rjxai. who accompanied the Hebrews in the 6 Comp. Job XXXIII. 23 ; Zech. I. desert instead of God (Ex. XXIII. 21 ; 12—14; Tobit XII. 12—15; Philo, De Talm. Sanh. 38b; comp. Albo, Ikkar. Gigant. co. 3, 4; De Plant, c. 4; De II. 28; see also Hengstenb. Christol. Confus. Ling. cc. 35, 36; De Migr. I. pp. 239—245). Abr.cc. 22,23; DeMundo c.3; Porph. 12 a-iii or B'atexin B^van, Dan.X.13; Abst. II. 38. XII. 1 ; opyd'tfzim, 1 Thess. IV. 16 ; "> -pitsc-a, siiaia-a. Jude 9. 8 Talm. Sanh. 38h, 'ai bs» iao*. u Esther I. 10, 14; Herod. HI. 84; 9 B^-iin no, Talm. Sanh. 94a. comp. 1 Ki. X. 8; 2 Ki. XXV. 19; see 10 Though this office is attributed Kohut, Jiid. Angel, pp. 21—23. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 289 sent forth on their missions to the four quarters of the world, are singled out as "princes of the angels of the Divine presence" 14, and entrusted with clearly defined duties. They are not only the holy protectors or watchful "guardians" of individuals * 5 — the Persian Fervers or Fravashis, or human souls16 — but they are also the defenders of communities and empires17; appearing, like the Homeric gods, as blooming young men18, they accompany their favourites, Mentor like, on dangerous voyages to distant lands19; and they come to assist the Hebrews or to terrify their enemies20. They usually bear the names of Michael, the patron oflsrael21; Gabriel, the interpreter of visions and the keeper of Paradise; Uriel, the Lord of light and fire and the heavenly luminaries ; and Raphael, the great healer22. Yet, as is natural in popular fancies slowly, if 14 B-asn -osVa 'liu; comp. Isai. LXIH. 9. 15 Comp. Gen. XLVIH. 16, -jsVan a.'i 33a -ns isian. i° Dan. IV. 10, 14, 20, 'pis (comp. Henoch XII. 2,3; XX. 1, "the holy angels that watch" ; even the faUen angels are caUed "guardians of heaven" or "holy guardians", Hen. 1.5,10,12,15; XH. 4; XIV. 1,3; XV. 9; XVI. 1, 2; as the prophets are designated BiiftB or B"B;aa, Isai. XXI. 11,12; LII. 8 ; LXH. 6 ; Jer. VI. 17; etc.); Symm. and Aquil. z-^pi^o- poi; this became, in later times, the usual designation of angels among Christian writers, and it partly coin cides in meaning with Amesha-^pen- tas, that is , "the holy ones that ne ver sleep" (comp. Bopp, Vergleich. Gram. § 45); l-s and sinp are gene rally coupled; the pns seems certain ly to denote angels of higher rank and position, and to form a heavenly council (comp. Lengerke on Dan. IV. 10, pp. 164—170, 176, 177). " Dan. X. 13, 20, 21; Acts XH. 15; Revel. I. 20 ; etc. ; comp. Herod. VII. 53; Hesiod, Op. etDi. 250 sqq.; Apulej. De Dogm. Plat. Lib. I. med. (p. 155 ed. Nisard). is Comp. Jos. Ant. V. vi. 2 (veavt- oxou p:op(f>7J); VIH. 2, 3 (veavia xaX<£ , -rcapaTtXijaios xal u-eydXip) ; comp.Ezek. IX. 2; Zech. I. 8; Dan. VHI. 15; ix; 21. 19 Dan. XH. 15 sqq.; Tobit HI. 17; V. 4, 21; IX. 5; XII. 12—19; Wisd. XVI. 20. 20 2 Mace. III. 24—26, 33, 34; X. 29, 30; XI. 6, 8, 10; 3 Mace. VI. 18; comp. 2 Ki. VI. 17. 21 He is designated BBiiuiiS £itixpo- tios, and is paraUel with the Persian Vohumano , "Ahura's first master piece" ; comp. Kohut 1. c. p. 24. 22 Comp. Talm. Yom. 23a; Derech Erets c. 4 (sect, snn bVws); Origen. in Num. Hom. XIV. 2 (officium Ra- phaelis quimedicinaepraeest); Volk- mar, Das vierte Buch Esra, p. 12 ("Uriel ist der Abglanz des Urlich- tes, das in die irdische Nacht leuch- tet"). Raphael is also called is-liB "he who causes disease to disappear" ; Talm. Berach. 51a; see Tobit 11. cc. ; Zech. HI. 9; IV. 10 (where -a-S is not to be changed into 'pa; "guardians", comp. in. 9 a-a-?) ; Dan. VHI. 16 ; IX. 21 ; X. 13, 21 ; XII. 1 ; 2 Esdr. IV. 1, 36; V. 20; 4 Eidr. IV. 1; V. 20; X. 28; Luke I. 19; 1 Thess.IV. 16; Jude 9; Revel. IV. 5; VHI. 2, 3; XH. 7; Henoch. IX. 1; XXI. 9; XXVH. 2; XXXHI. 3 ; XL. 2—10; LXXV. 3, 4; LXXXVIL 2, 3; XC. 21, 22; etc.; U 290 ANGELS AND SPIRITS.- ever, fixed as dogmas, the names fluctuate; for the latter two are promiscuously given as ITrjan andSurjan1, or as Raphael andPha- nuel (3X15S)2; or other archangels besides those four are mentioned by name3; and occasionally no more than six are counted, to whom God Himself is added to make up the holy number of seven4; just as Ormuzd is sometimes simply one of the seven prince-angels or Am- shaspands, a created being with bodily form, and an emanation of the first principle of all things, the Zeruane-Akerene, but sometimes the all-powerful creator of the universe and of the other six Am- shaspands, and the revealer of all heavenly wisdom 5. They are invested with fanciful attributes, by which they ap peal to the imagination, and by which they may be identified. As agents of Divine punishment, they hover between heaven and earth holding in their hand a drawn sword6. They are clothed in priestly linen7 ,and girt with a belt of the finest gold. Their body is like chry solite, and their arms and feet resemble polished brass; their head is surrounded by a resplendent halo, their face flashes like lightning, and the sound of their voice and of their wings is as the din of a vast multi tude, or as the noise of mighty waters 8. They ride on horseback, in complete armour of glittering gold and precious stones 9 ; or they dart comp. Ezek. IX. 2; Targ. Jon. Gen. XI. 7, 8; Pirk. R. Eliez. u. 4; Midr. Rabb. Exod. XVHI. 2. i Identical with Urjal Vsiils and Surjal 3S-11B, / and n being inter changed. 2 Comp. Henoch IX. 1 ; X. 1 ; XL. 9 ; LIV. 6 ; LXXL 8, 9, 13 ; Talm. Be rach. 51a. 3 As Raguel (Vsisl) and Sarakiel (ias-siB, Henoch XX. 4, 6), and others (4 Esdr. IV. 36; Targ. Jon. Deut. XXXIV. 6). 4 Comp. Ezek. IX. 2 sqq. 6 Comp. Rhode, Heil. Sage, pp.315— 317; Spiegel, Zend-Avesta, Einleit. p. VII. — Other names of angels oc cur, as s"pi or spi (Pers Areduyao), the angel of rain (Talm. Yom. 21b; Taan. 25b), and ;apii", the angel of hail, who was anxious to extinguish the flames of the furnace into which the three friends of Daniel had been thrown (Talm. Pesach. 118a); Vsanaaj, who appeared to Moses in the burn ing bush (Targ. Jon. Ex. HI. 2), and Vsajat who, with Michael and Gabriel, was engaged at the death and burial of Moses (Midr. Rabb. Deut. XI. 5) ; nna> and bsty, who came down to the earth and consorted with the daugh ters of men (ibid. ; see notes on XVI. 6—10) ; comp. Henoch VI. 7 ; LXIX. 2; Talm. Pesach. lllb; Gitt. 31b. 6 1 Chr. XXL 16,30; Susan, vers. 55, 59; comp. Num. XXII. 23; Jos. Ant. VII. xm. 3. 7 See Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 531, 532. 8 Ezek. I. 7, 13 ; IX. 1—3, 11 ; XL. 3; Dan. X. 5, 6; XH. 6, 7; 3 Mace. VI. 18; Henoch XXXVIII. 4; LVIH. 3-6; LXI. 1; LXXL 1; Yalk. Shim. II. § 925; comp. Ps. CIV. 2; Matth. XXVHI. 3 ; Mark XV. 5 ; Luke H. 9 ; XXIV. 4; Acts X. 30; Revel. I. 13— 16; X. 1. 9 2 Mace. III. 25; X. 29; XI. 8; comp. V. 2 — 4. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 291 through the air "on the swift wings of the wind", and flit unchecked through the universe 1 °. Yet, on the other hand, their bodily frame is purely ethereal or spiritual • ! ; they see , but are not seen ; they require no food, for they subsist upon the radiant beams of God's glory, although they sometimes appear to take sustenance during their earthly missions. They are exempt from sin and passion, and subject to no human desire and temptation. They live for ever, and work joy fully in unison and peace, free from hatred and envy. Imbued with God's light and truth, they are initiated into all knowledge and all secrets of the future12. The visions of Ezekiel describe agile and fiery Cherubs andChajoth (ni*4i), andOphannim (dis&ix), that is, wheels •of chrysolite, closely following the movements of the Cherubs and Chajoth, whose spirit in the wheels : they are hardly angels, but ra ther emblematic creatures typifying the rapid approach of God; they are enveloped in a blaze of fire like bright amber (Paten), or like torches and the glare of lightning ; they are provided with four wings and four faces, the face of a man, of a lion, an ox, and an eagle ; and they have straight feet walking onward without turning, and eyes every where, with which they see in all directions13. Then the evil spirits also were considerably multiplied, and, though at first mentioned only as strange and isolated beings, they were soon brought into relation with established dogmas, and at last formed an essential part of an enlarged religious system. They are either designated by the general terms of "lords" (O^nuS) 14, "wicked 10 Bel and Drag. 36 ; Avoth R. Na- c. 37 ; Talm. Chag. 14—16 ; Bab. Mez. than 37 (isis isi aVisn qiBa piin); 861'; Midr. Rabb. Gen. XL VIH. 12 oomp. 1 Ki. XVHI. 12; 2 Ki. n. 16; (a^sVas t:Vm> »m isv fs), 19 (-psia Dan. IX. 21. p3is3); LHI. init., 1; ibid. Exod. " "Whence Josephus caUs them XXIII. 2, 3 ; ibid. Lev. XXIV. 3 ; ibid. usually cpavxdc]j.axa (Ant. I. xx. i ; V. Num. XXI. 7 (aw: an nrs» ns) ; vi. 2; viii. 2; etc.; so also "Wisd. XVII. Yalk. Shim. § 1071 (ad Nehem. IX. 4, 15); and Maimonides (Yesod. Hat- 6); Albo, Ikkar. II. 28. In Wisd. tor. II. 3) attributes to them S33 mils XVI. 20 manna is caUed "angels' V» bVis, without n^iai S|la; comp. Mor. food" ; and the Sept. renders in Ps. Nev. I. 49. LXXVIH. 25 a^l-as Bna> by dpxov dy- 12 Tobit XII. 19; Targ. Jon. Gen. ~(zX\ nail) ; id. XIX. 13 Ezek L 4_21 . x_ 9_17 . -j^ .3 ; Henoch XV. 3 sqq. ; Matth. XXII. lg_20 . comp_ pirL R EUe^ c 4 . 30 ; Luke XX. 36 ; Joseph. Ant. I. xi. 2 Talm Eosh- Hash 24b {86£av itap£o-v_ov £ are rendered by 8aip.6via, so that de- stands instead of fD» (arab. Ah^iJ\f mons were considered heathen idols syr. Nat3Di etc.) . comp. Ps. CIX. 6*. (see infra sect. HI., p. 301; Bar. IV. 7 m-u t. .. • n t ¦ ¦* y ' > r ; 7 The verb ¦pst is usually lo incite 7 ; Hen. XIX. 1). (2 ga;m_ SIX> 23 . comp 1 Cllr0n_ 3 See Lev. XVII. 7, and notes in wT , _...% ni.T,„ -u •* , ' XXI. 1, noil), although it occurs also loc.;Deut.XXXn. 17;Isai.XHI. 21; . ,, '" . ... , ,. ' in the sense of resislinq or checkmq XXXIV.14;Ps.CVI.37;2Chr.XI. xxn 15; Sir. XXI. 27; Baruch IV. 7, 35; Henoch XL. 7 ; LXV. 6 ; comp. Targ. * Job L n ' where Satan is by na Ps. XII. 9; Matth. XII. 43; Luke XI. means a Sood anSe1' emPloyed as 24; 1 Cor. X. 20; Rev. IX. 20; Mai- overseer over tae moral conduct of mon. Mor. Nev. HI. 30; see Comm. men; comP- Hen9Stenb. Christol. L onLevit. 1. 368, 374 ; Hdhlemann,T5ene 35' 36' Bibelstudien, pp. 343—364. 9 zech. HI. 1, 2.. 4 See infra sect. IV. i° See m/ra, and notes onXVI.6— 10. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 293 This remarkable advance in demonology cannot be surprising, if we consider that the Persian system known as that of Zoroaster, and centring in the dualism of a good and evil principle11, flourished most, and attained its fullest development, just about the time of the Babylonian exile. The Jews were sufficiently prepared for the partial adoption of that system by their current views of saving and destroying angels; and they could readily ^familiarise themselves with the Amshas- pands and the Devs, the one the creatures of the beneficent Ormuzd (Ahuramazda) , the others those of the pernicious Ahriman (Agro- mainyus). Now we find this heathen dualism nowhere expressed with greater plainness than where we should least expect it — in the ordinances regarding the Day of Atonement, which enjoin, that "Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel"12. "The Lord" and "Azazel" stand in clear contradistinction. Even if the exact functions of Azazel should ne- ' ver be ascertained, the position which he was supposed to occupy in the moral world cannot be mistaken. Compelled to shun the . cheerful life of towns and communities, and to withdraw to dreary and deserted regions, he yet lures men to transgression and offence, disturbs their inward peace, and tries to undermine their happiness. In order to indicatee, that harmony of mind has been restored, the sins of the Israelites , symbolically transferred upon the head of a goat, are sent back to him who occasioned them; and thus removed from the hallowed abodes of God's people, they remain for ever as sociated with the evil demon and his native wilderness. So far the Hebrew rites agree with the pagan fiction, and they are indeed at variance with a pure and rational creed. But they follow their prototype no farther, and do not essentially forsake the path of monotheism. The goat was no sacrifice presented to Azazel, no offering meant to appease his wrath13; it was not slaughtered, but left in the desert — somewhat cruelly — to its fate 14; it did not work the atonement of the people, which was effected solely by the blood 11 See Comm. on Gen. pp. 53, 54, hatred of sin on the part of the being 87, 88. to whom it is presented". 12 Lev. XVI. 8. 14 In later times, it was hurled 13 So, f. i. Movers (Phoeniz. I. 369), down a rocky precipice (Mishn. Yom. who inappropriately compares the VI. 6 ; see notes on XVI. 6 — 10): then ¦expiation of the Egyptians in times at least the Hebrews did not believe, of pestilence or drought (Plut. Is. 73 ; that "Azazel, the executor of Divine .see Hengstenb. Mos. und Aegypten, judgments, would inflict due punish- pp. 169 sqq.,' "the notion of a sin- ment on the -vicarious goat sent to offering pre-supposes holiness and him into the desert" (Movers 1. c). 294 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. of the second goat killed as a sin-offering ? ; it served, in fact, merely as a symbol of complete removal. Azazel himself possesses no inde pendent power ; his anger cannot harm, and his favour cannot grant pardon; he is not approached with prayers or lustrations; he is reckoned of no account, and in the hands of God alone is remission of sins. Although, therefore, Azazel and his goat are in themselves a stain on the levitical legislation, they do not taint the main prin ciple of Judaism — God's absolute and undivided sovereignty. The same remarks apply to all the angels and spirits of the Old Testament. These are completely subordinate to the dominion of the Deity ; they have no more authority than is entrusted to them by God for special purposes ; they are devoid of all personal weight and influence; they serve the one omnipotent Lord as His ready in struments ; and to Him they arebound to offerpraise and glorification 2. Occasionally indeed they represent the powers of the physical world — "He makes the wind His messengers (angels), the flaming fire His servants"3; yet they are not personifications of nature. Nor are they ever deified or invoked, whether as cosmic forces or as saints4: their worship is not expressly forbidden, because it is excluded by the first two Commandments5- Though they divided, they never shared the majesty of God. Their position of dependence is expressed in their very names. They are neither deities nor Divine emana tions, but created by God like men, and not begotten by Him, as- has been vainly inferred from the appellation "sons of God" (iia BVi'3k); yet not even their creation is mentioned in the Hebrew Scrip tures, for there is no place for them in the Hebrew cosmogony6. They are indeed the "holy ones"7; yet in the searching light of God they are not exempt from moral failings 8. They are not all- 1 Vers. 15, 16. merely summarise the detailed ac- 2 Ps. XXIX. 1; CIH. 20, 21. count of the first chapter, and add 3 Ps. CIV. 4; comp. CXLVIH. 8. no new element- As regards Rabbi- ,_._., ^ , „T nical speculations see infra. 4 Job V. 1; comp. Deut. IV. 19; . . „ ' XVTT o 7 °*'^'"i?. r^"E. aYl°i. lep°i; Ps. LXXXIX. 6, 8; Job V. 1; XV. 15; 5 Comp. Ex. XXH. 19; Deut. IV. Zeoh. XIV. 5; Dan. IV. 10, 14, 20; 35, 39: the interdiction is not im- vnL 13; Tob_ vm 15. XI u. gir plied in the command to abstain XLV. 2 (where angels, and not priests^ from paying homage to the "host of are meant) Hen- xn 2 ; XX. 1 , 4 ¦ heaven" (Deut. IV. 19 ; XVII. 3), for LXI. 10 ; Targ. Jon. and Jerus. Deut! here this term denotes the sidereal XXXHI 2 3- etc bodies and nothing else; see p. 286. 8 Job 'IY' ^ . xv_ 15; comp_ 1 Cor> 0 It is certainly not implied in the VI. 3, "Know you not that we shall words bsbs Va (in Gen. n. 1), which iudee ane-els?" ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 295 powerful, and Jacob, wrestling with his celestial opponent, gained the mastery 9. They cannot accept Divine honours : thus the an gel who appeared to Manoah and his wife deprecated sacrifices, and said, "If thou wilt offer a burnt-offering, thou must offer it to the Lord"10; the angel Raphael, in much later times, impressed upon Tobit, "Not of any favour of mine, but by the will of our God I came , wherefore praise Him for ever" 1 1 ; and the Talmud and the Midrashim unswervingly clung to the same views12. The angel charged to lead the Hebrews into Canaan, was indeed to be revered and implicitly obeyed, and he pardoned no rebellion; yet he was himself powerless, and he derived all authority from God, whose "name was in him"13. The destroying angel was simply an instrument of God, who commanded him when to deal perdition, and when to stay his hand14. The serpent, fatal to the first couple, could tempt and mislead, but it had submissively to bear God's curse and retaliation i 5. In the time of king Ahab, the "lying spirit" proposed to create con fusion, but he received his mandate from God, "Thou shalt deceive and prevail, go forth and do so"16. Satan himself, though looking with fiendish envy upon Job's piety and happiness , was unable to disturb the one or destroy the other; charged by God with the strict. est commands which he dared not to overstep, he was obliged to render a regular account of his actions ; and baffled in his schemes, he had no share whatever in deciding Job's ultimate fate; in a word, he waged war against Job, but not against God. When he attempted calumny against the High-priest Joshua, he was resisted and curbed by the Divine malediction17. He appears, in fact, invariably as one of the celestial ministers at God's throne; he pays Him allegiance like the angels ; and, unlike Ahriman who is constantly at war with Or muzd, he never ventures opposition or rebellion i 8. Yet it would be unwarrantable to divest the spirits of the Bible of their personality, and to reduce them to abstract powers executing God's will19, to mere emblems of His presence20, or symbols of His working in nature, in great events, andinhuman thoughts or emotions 2 '; 9 Gen. XXXH. 29; Hos. XH. 5; « See Comm. on Gen. p. 88. see supra pp. 25—27. « 1 Ki. XXH. 22. 1° Judg. XHI. 16. 17 Zech. HI. 1, 2. 11 Tobit XH. 18. !8 Comp.Comm.onGen.pp.399— 401. 12 See infra; comp.^#o,Ikkar.n.28. 19 Colin, Bibl. Theol. I. 191, 192, 13 I3ip3 "aw; Ex. XXIH. 21 ; comp. 410, etc. Eccl. V. 5. 20 narawi 1133, Midr. Rabb. Ex. u 2Sam.XXIV. 16 sqq.; 1 Chr.XXI. XXXH. 4. 12 sqq. ; 2 Ki. XIX. 34, 35. ¦ 2t Maimonides, apparently in this 296 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. to incarnations- of His word, or beams of His essence, into which they re turn without an existence or "meaning of their own" ] ; and still more to "metaphors of a pious fancy" 2 , employed "for the dramatic ani mation of the scene" 3, or "for poetic adornment" \ Angels and spirits were certainly not conceived with uniformity by all, nor in the same man ner atdifferent periods ; yet they obtained steadily a stronger hold upon the national mind, and gradually became objects of doctrine and creed. It is true, the angelology of the OldTestament is fragmentary, without unity and organic connection ; and the notions on the subject were at all times vague and floating : but so were the notions on many other points of Hebrew theology, and on'God Himself. The main interest of the inquiry lies in that fluctuation. The Israelites, always ready for progress and change, felt their way like all other nations; and adopting or assimilating new ideas, they built up a comprehensive system by the labour of ages : that system in all its completeness was then, by a natural operation of the mind, represented as having been worked out from the beginning on fixed principles, and, for greater sup port, it was finally attributed to some great and revered name of antiquity, if not to Divine revelation. This process was repeated with respect to all important institutions ; and it affords the only safe clue to a rational interpretation of the Scriptures, whether of the Old or the New Testament. But in spite of the beneficial and creditable restrictions referred to , the admission of ange s and of a tempting and accusing demon was too dangerous a laxity to remain without deplorable effects. The unity of God was threatened from two different sides. First, God Himself might be identified with His messengers or manifestations, and thus be endowed with bodily form; and secondly, the power of evil, which often enjoys temporary triumphs on earth, might be re presented as an irresistible principle, and thus be invested with in dependent authority antagonistic to that of the Deity Himself. Both instance also unable to appreciate i^Ti^/eW,Quenend.Genesis,p.218. Biblical notions with impartiali- 2 Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon, I. 111. ty, and eager to graft upon them 3 Hupfeld, Theosoph. oder Mythol. Aristotelic and Arabic conceptions, Theol. pp. 9, 11. converts the angels into "prophe- 4 The fact that tjsVa is etymologi- tic visions" (nsiaan nsia3, Yesod. cally message, not messenger (Sack, Hattor. H. 5 , 7 ; Mor. Nev. I. 49 ; n. Comm. theol. p. 19; Ewald, Krit. 6), or into "physical and inteUectual Gram. § 134, p. 245), affords no proof; forces" (Mor. Nev. H. 71, e. g. the the word never actually occurs in force that works in the germ is the abstract, but always in concrete true angel of God; etc.). meanins-. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 297 these mistakes were actually made; for a later religious phase taught an incarnate God and a contumacious Devil. The Old Testament effectually paved the way for such errors. For in many passages, especially in earlier writings, it introduces angels, who, in the course of the narrative, prove to be God Himself5; and thus the Hebrews were made familiar with the idea of.impersonation, even irrespective of the influence of other Eastern systems. Hence we can hardly be as tonished to find that the Fathers of the Church, with few exceptions 6, considered in all passages throughout the Old Testament "the an gel of the Lord" to be identical with Christ, and understood the three messengers who came to Abraham as the second person of the Godhead, or the Logos, accompanied by two created angels7, which view, though now indeed discarded by critics, still occupies its place in dogmatic works8. On the other hand , the Old Testament occasionally attributes to Satan the power of leading even God's favourites astray, and bring ing upon them disgrace and misery. Thus "Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel"9: it is true that, ac cording to the older account, God Himself incited the king to com mit the offence10; but this was justly deemed incompatible both with Divine holiness and Divine justice, and was therefore abandoned, like the questionable hardening of Pharao's heart J !. In the time of the exile, and for centuries after it, thoughtful men urged indeed, that God is the Author of both good and evil, of blessing and pun ishment, of light and darkness, since they acknowledged only rela- 5 Gen. XVI. 7 — -13; XVHI. 2, 3, 17 writers — "the messenger speaks in sqq.; XXI. 17—19; XXH, 11, 12; the name of the sender" (ia-i nissan XXXI. 11 , 13; XXXn. 25, 29, 31; (mViW fobs, Ebn Ezra on Exod. HI. XL VHI. 15,16; Exod. IH. 2—7 ; XHI. 2 ; Hamburger, Real-Encycl. p. 506 ; 21 and XIV. 19; Judg. VI. 11 sqq.; a. o.) : this applies to the prophets XHI. 21, 22; see also Gen. XVHI. 10 who, forthe sake of brevity, aresome- and XXI. 1 (comp. Albo, Ikkar. II. times said to have done themselves 28); Num. XXH. 9, 20, 22 sqq. what they did by the power, or an- 0 As Augustine, Jerome , and Gre- nounced in the name, of God (comp. gory. Gen. XXVII.37 ; XLIX. 7 ; Ezek. XIII. 7 Oomp. Pfeiffer, Dub. vex. pp. 137 19 ; XXXII. 18 ; XLin. 3), but it does sqq. not apply to those angels who are at 8 Comp. f. i. Hengstenb. Christol. I. once messengers and Sender. 215 — 251 (the argumentation is, in 9 . q, XXI 1 the author's usual manner, subtle and adroit, but untenable); so also ,0 2 Sam- XXIV- li comP- 1 Sam. Hofmann, Baumgarten, Kurtz, a. o. XXVI. 19. Inaccurate is the view of Jewish i> Comp. James I. 13, 14. 298 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. tive, not absolute misfortunes, and regarded "all partial evil" as "universal good"1. In fact, the distinction between" good "and "evil" angels is foreign to the Old Testament: the angels charged to over throw Sodom and Gomorrah, were the same as those who saved Lot and his family ; the angel sent to destroy Sennacherib's army was dis tinctly called "a good angel" 2 ; and "a holy guardian" came to punish the pride of Nebuchadnezzar3. Yet Zoroaster's doctrines gradually exercised a perceptible influence ; and then sinful deeds were traced, not so much to the innate perversity or weakness of the human heart4, as to the allurement and seduction of the arch-enemy of all virtue. The Wisdom of Solomon declares that "through envy of the devil came death into the world, and they that hold of his side find it"5; and these notions became in later times current both among Christians, and Jews6. Sirach contends, "When the ungodly man curses Satan, he curses his own soul"7. Philo speaks of "unholy angels (dviepoi) un worthy of any address", and of demons who, properly wicked mortals, assume the name of angels, and entice men to sensual excesses8. Josephus is indeed extremely free in his treatment of Biblical spi rits. He either entirely omits the angels in his narrative9; or he substitutes for them God Himself 10 or Divine Providence ' ' ; or he as sumes in their stead indistinct superhuman visions and oracles12, a mysterious voice13 or even some human being14; while he occasion ally changes a theophany into the appearance of an angel or spirit,. i Isai. XLV. 7; LIV. 16; comp. 6 Comp. Targ. Jon. Gen. IH. 6, 1 Sam. XVI. 14, 16, 23; XVHI. 10 (snia ?[s!?a ?s»b n- snns nam); Revel. (nin- nsa nsi nn) ; Judg. IX. 23 (nVsni XII. 9. nsi mi B-n comp. Song of Three Holy both the accuser and the defender of men); ibid. Gen. I. 8 (everything is good, even judgment and punish Children, ver. 26. 12 Ant. I. xix. 1 ; V. ii. 7 ; IX. n. 1 ; ment, audit is wrong to say, "two wmP- Gen' XX^HI- ™i Judg- II. principles" (ni-Vii -na) have created 1 SW' 2 Ki- L 3 SM' the world). 13 Ant. II. xii. 1 ; VHI. xiii. 7 ; 4 Comp. Gen. VI. 5; VHI. 21; Jer. comp. Ex. in. 2 ; 1 Ki. xix. 5,7. XVII. 9, 10. u Ant. VHI. xm. 7; comp. 1 Ki. 5 "Wisdom II. 24. xix. 5. 7. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 299 as in Jacob's wrestling with God15. Yet he as often follows the Bible in noticing angels16; and, though like the Palestinian Apocrypha Baruch and Tobit, he never mentions Satan, he frequently introduces demons and malicious spirits, which he considers as the departed souls of the wicked, as did the Greeks and later Jews17; he contends that they take possession of men and strike them with foul and incurable diseases , especially disorders of the mind ; but that they may be exorcised by incantations and mysterious spells, especially by those ascribed to the ingenuity of Solomon • 8; and he declares that he himself saw how a certain Eleazar "drew out a demon through the nostrils" of a tortured sufferer by means of a "burning" root (fiaapa;) and of Solo monic formulas, and how at Eleazar's command the spirit, as he went out of the man, overturned a basin of water19. On such fruitful soil had the Persian teaching fallen among the Jews. 3. THE NEW TESTAMENT. More remarkable still is the expansion in which the spirit-world appears in the New Testament. The angels ceased entirely to be mere types or symbols of Di vine Providence, and were, in all cases, regarded as personal beings endowed with a well-defined individuality. In the speeches of Christ, it is true, they are introduced without mythological adornment, without classification, names, or fanciful appearance; nor are they charged with authority over empires or with intercession for indivi duals. But in the writings of the apostles, an exuberant imagination busily invests them with the most striking attributes and the most marvellous powers. Encompassed by a cloud with a bright radiance, and a rainbow encircling their heads, with faces like the sun or »5 Ant. I. xx. 2; see p. 25. Herod. III. 33; Heliod. Aeth. IV. 10; 1° As Ant. I. xi. 2 (Abraham in Lucian, Philopseud. cc. 16, 17 ("there Mamre); IV. vi. 3 (Bileam); etc. are people who by formulas can free 17 Hor. Epod. V. 91 sqq. ; Philostr. the possessed from demons. I need ApoU. HI. 38 ; "to have a demon" hardly mention the great master of was synonymous with being insane the art, the famous Syrian, who (Aeschyl. Choeph. 566; Eurip. Phoen. cures the patient for ever, if necessary 888; Plut. Marcell. c. 20; etc.). by threats, where spells are unavail- is See infra ch. IV. ing. I have myself once seen such a 19 Jos. Ant. VI. viii. 2; xi. 3; VIII. spirit come out, who was black and n. 5 ; Bell. Jud. VII. vi. 3 ; comp. To- smoky in appearance" (pitacva xal bit VI. 7, 16, 17; Vm. 2, 3; see also xauvoiST] x-^v y_p6av). 300 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. lightning, and feet like pillars of fire1; the Seven Spirits stand on the four corners of the earth to command and rule the winds2, and to perform God's behests among men3. Vast numbers — "ten thou sand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" — all clad in fine white linen, and riding on white horses, surround the throne of God, glorifying Him, offering incense on a golden altar, and bringing before Him the prayers of the righteous. One preaches the everlasting gospel to all lands and all nations, another declares the Divine wrath to the godless, and some scatter terrible plagues over the earth with the blast of their trumpets; while others, visibly appearing among men, announce to them great and remarkable events, especially 'such as concern the new dispensation. They lend their aid to pious sufferers, shield those for whom they have been appointed as spe cial guardians, and carry the souls of the virtuous into heaven4. One of them was supposed to "come down at certain seasons into a pool and to trouble the water", so that, "whosoever first after the troub ling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatever disease he had" 5 — a conception so strange that the passage has, though without reason, been suspected as spurious6. But they decline worship; for they are merely servants of God like the apostles, and subject to His tribunal7. They are neither perfect in knowledge nor in wisdom8, yet are they able to interpret heavenly visions and revelations9. Full of love and compassion, they rejoice at the sinner's repentance and the growth of God's kingdom10. For both in heaven and on earth they minister particularly to their lord Christ, whom they will surround at his second advent, and whose decrees they will execute in the day of judgment11. iRev.X. 1 ; XIV.6 ; Matth.XXVni. 9 Rev. I. 1 ; XXH. 6, 16 ; Origen. in 2, 3; Luke XXTV. 4; Acts I. 10; X. Num. Hom. XIV. 2, et rursus angelis 30 ; XII. 7 ; see supra p. 290. opus est qui praesint operibus sanc- 2 Rev. VII. 1. tis, qui alternae lucis intellectum et 3 Rev. I. 4; IH. 1; IV. 5; V. 6 ; occultorumDei agnitionem acrerum VHI. 2. Divinarum scientiam doceant etc. 4 Luke XVI. 22. lo Luke XV. 10 ; 1 Pet. I. 12. 5 John V. 4. n Comp. Matth. I. 20; H. 13, 19, 20; 0 De Wette observes (in loc. p. 89 IV. 11; XHI. 39—42, 49; XVI. 27; •ed. 4) : "existing testimonies do not XVHI. 10 ;XXH. 30 ; XXTV.31 ; XXV. suffice to pronounce the passage spu- 31 ; XXVI. 53 ; XXVUI. 2, 3 ; Luke I. rious." 11—22; II. 9— 14; XX. 36; XXII. 43; 7 Col. II. 18; 1 Cor. VI. 3; Revel. John I. 52; Acts X. 3—7; XH. 7— 11, XIX. 10; XXII. 8, 9. 15; XXVII. 23, 24; Rom. VIII. 38; 8 Matth. XXIV. 36 ; comp. 1 Pet. I. 1 Cor. IV. 9 ; XHI. 1 ; Gal. I. 8 ; 1 Thess. 12; Hebr. I. 4 sqq. IH. 13; IV. 16; Hebr. I. 4, 5. 13. 14: ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 301 But singular and surprising are the notions of the New Testa ment regarding men' possessed by demons12. They are so perplexing that it seems difficult to understand by what perversion of thought and by what anomalies of historical development, such fancies could possibly be grafted upon any monotheistic religion. The chief and ruler of the demons is Satan, who now stands out in all his moral hideousness. His nature is sufficiently indicated by his names: he is described as the "Slanderer" or "Devil" (Sia|3oXo;) ; the "Accuser" of men before God day and night; "Beelzebub"13 or "Beelzebul"14 and "Belial" (Beliar); the "great Dragon" or the "old Serpent" who deceives the whole world; "the Liar and the father of lies"; the "Wicked"; the "Prince" or "the God of this world" of frivolity, sin, and ignorance, or "the Prince of the Power of the air"; the "Adversary" who "as a roaring lion walks about seeking whom he may devour"; the "Messenger of death", "the Author of all evil", ofdeceit and calamity, from the beginning of the world; the wily "An tagonist" of God's kingdom, of Christ's followers and his work; the cunning "Seducer" of the weak, and the shameless tempter of the pious and of Christ himself15. His subjects or "angels" are the de mons or the wicked and unclean spirits ] 6, often identified with the pagan idols 17, and classified according to their rank as principalities, powers, and rulers of darkness 18. Now these demons enter into the bodies of men, where thy dwell often large numbers, up to a "legion" in one individual. They afflict their wretched victims with melancholy or raving madness, with epilepsy and paralysis, with loss of speech, XII. 22; 1 Pet. HI. 22; 2 Pet. n. 11 ; pdxXijxos), BzzXZzfiobp (BeeXCePo6X), Jude 9, 14; Rev. V. 11, 12; VII. 1 — 3, BeXiaX (BeXiap), 8pdx ns n"3pn sna ai-i ai- 333; •Gen. I. 2, 3, 8; ib. Exod. XXX. 5; Maimon. Mor. Nev. H. 6, 10, "God comp. Yalk. Shim. I. § 5 ; Pirk. Av. has created all intelligences (angels) V. 6; Talm. Sanh. 38a. andheavenlyorbs", whereas Aristotle 8 Yet certain modern schools of considers them as eternal, and as ema- theology, misled by a fallacious logic nating from the deity of necessity. and the semblance of philosophic ar- io Talm. Sanh. 38. X 306 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. account of their actions, and are liable to punishment 1, and even to death, if they presume to penetrate into mysteries beyond their ap pointed sphere. They must, therefore, not be represented in images for the purpose of worship2, nor be appealed to in prayer, which would be regarded as blasphemy3, and certainly not be honoured by one of the four chief modes of homage — prostration, sacrifice, burning of incense, and libation4. However, it is their office to bring man's supplication before God5; therefore, as "they do not under stand the Aramaic dialect"6, except Gabriel who is familiar with all languages, individuals ought not to pray in Chaldee7, though con gregations may offer up their prayers in any tongue, since God Him self is present among them8. The angels are permitted to exercise only rigid justice ('plri his), and do not share the Divine privilege of granting pardon. They stand in need of mutual assistance9; nay, they are frequently called upon to serve mortals10; and it was a current maxim, that "good men are superior to angels" 1 1 : thus while the latter were unable to give names to the animals, Adam did so without difficulty12. Like the Persian Fervers, the angels are numberless. When Jacob, after his flight from Laban, feared the perilous encounter with Esau, he was protected by two "camps" of well-equipped hosts, each consist ing of 120,000 angels13- They are constantly increasing; for every i Talm. Chagig. 16a- 6 -tt-,N >iid?3 ¦pi-aa man -bsVb i-suj. 2 Targ. Jon. Ex. XX. 20; Mechilt. 7 Comp. Talm. Shabb. 12b: the in loc. p. 80 ed. "Weiss, B-3sVa niai sV Scriptures were translated into Chal- '31 ; Talm. Rosh Hash. 24b (-posn s? dee, lest the angels oppose and dis- mwn -3s^a . . . mai3 ; comp. Bechai on parage them. Exod. XX. 4, p. 70a ed. Lemberg, S3W 8 Talm. Sot. 33a; comp. also To- '31 B-3s!=an mis nw). saph. Berach. 3a. 3 Talm. Jer. Ber. IX. 1 ; Talm. Chag. ° Midr. Rabb. Lev. XXX. 1 (a-ai-Vsn 15a- Yet in that remarkable apoca- iVsa iVs npia: i"3-is). lyptic work , the fourth Book of Es- i° Talm. Taan. 1 la ; Midr. Rabb. Gen. dras, prayers are addressed to an- LXXV. 3,6; etc.; comp. Talm. Sanh. gels (XIH. 13), because these appear, 59b, "Adam was sitting in the garden as in the earlier Canonical Books, as of Eden, and ministering angels nearly identical withGod,or as His vi- roasted meat for him" (iwa 13 l-six). sible embodiments (see Volkmar, Das llYalk. Shim. I. § 427 (Lev. init. vierteBuchEsra,pp.l2,185,321,401). muin -sssaa mi- a-p-is a-Vna); Midr. 4 Talm. Sanh. 60b; comp. Maim. Rabb.lien.YIli. 1. Hiloh. Akk. II. 2 (si . . . H3S3 ssiu 12 Pirk. R. Eliez. c. 13 ; Midr. Rabb. '31 -[ssa); IH.3,11 (...nan man iiass iiss Gen. XVII. med. (B33iua n3iia inasn). B-osVai) ; Albo, Ikkar. II. 28. 13 Midr. Rabb. Gen. LXXV, 6; 5 Talm. Shabb. 6. LXXXTV. 2. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 307 word which God utters becomes an angel 14; every good deed which a man performs, becomes a tutelary angel who never forsakes him15; the souls of the pious, as Henoch, Moses, and Elijah, are after death offered by Michael , the heavenly High-priest, on the celestial altar, and are then converted into angels16; new angels are perpetually created to glorify God17, and 694 myriads join daily at His throne, singing hallelujahs, playing the timbrel, and dancing * 8. There are two chief groups of angels — those charged to extol the Divine majesty, and those entrusted with heavenly missions to men19. The former — divided into four sections led by Michael and Gabriel, Uriel and Raphael 2 ° — emerge daily by God's behest from the stream of fire (lU I'n iris) which flows beneath His throne, and thither they return after having sung His praises21; or they pass away altogether to be replaced by new creations , since no angelic choir exalts the Lord twice 22: the great chiefs only (Diito), as Michael and Gabriel, Metatron and Sandalphon (11&313&), are exempted from this transi tory existence, in deference to the holiness of the six days of Creation, during which they were produced23; Sandalphon, who, when standing on the earth, reaches with his head into heaven, and is so much b. 14 Talm. Chag. 14a, 11311 1-31 S3 31 n"3pn -eb sasi-iB, derived from Ps. XXIH. 6. 15 Midr. Rabb. Ex. XXXH. 3. '6 Talm. Chagig. 12b; comp. Midr. Rabb. Deut. XI fin. « Midr. Rabb. Lament. HI. 22 (fol. 57 ed. Stett.) ; see infra. « Midr. Rabb. Gen. LXV. 12; Pirk R. Eliez. c. 12; Talm. Sanh. 591 comp. Dan. VH. 10; see supra p. 288. A stm more lavish number of stars is given — there are 291,600,000 heaven ly captains, under each of whom serve 365,000 stars (Talm. Berach. 32b). 19 Later Rabbins propounded a di vision in ten classes — the number of heavenly spheres (nii-£B) —- based upon descriptions of Ezekiel and no tices in other Biblical Books — viz. Holy beast-angels (»ipn m-n), the highest of aU ; "Wheel-angels (a-asis) ; Light-angels (b-skis, Isai. XXXHI. 7); Amber- angels (a-3B»n); Fire- angels ( b-bio ) ; Messenger - angels (B-3S3B); gods (a-nss); Sons of God (a-na>s-33); Cherubs (a-aiia) ; andMen- angels (b-io-s); see Maim. Yesod. Hat- tor. H. 7. 20 Pirk. R. Eliez. o. 4 ; Midr. Rabb. Num. n. 8 ; Maim. Mor. Nev. II. 10. 21 Talm. Chag. 14a; Midr. Rabb. ad Lament. HI. 22 (fol. 57 ed. Stett.) ; comp. Dan. VII. 10; Henoch XIV. 19 ; LXXL 1, 2 ; Targ. Jon. and Jerus. Gen. XXXH. 27 (s-3s?ai -jinnsiB ntaa sn3fflB3); Midr. Rabb. Ex. XXIH. 2, 3 ; ib. Lev. XXXI. 3 ; comp. ib. Gen. LXV. 12. 22 Talm. Chagig. 14a, sai-i sal- 33 mnu nasi 11a -i inaa man -3ssa -psiaa 131331; Midr. Rabb. Gen. LXXVIH. 1, '31 naian nB3pa n?sa ?» na -ps; ib. La ment. IH. 22 , n"apn sua bi-i bi- 33a nwm ni-» -paisi B-oin b-3n!jb Vb ns ana> -pVini. 23 Midr. Rabb. Gen. LXXVIH. 1 ; Bechai on Gen. XXVIH. 12 p. 86a, '31 1»3 a-nasa a-a-p b-bssb »-. X2 308 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. taller than his companions "as the distance a man can walk in 500 years", usually takes his place behind the Divine chariot (rHBIa), and wreathes crowns for his Maker1. The messenger-angels receive their orders "behind the curtain" (11515(1 iiinxa) 2 , like the ministers of the Persian kings ; for God is mysteriously enthroned in the seventh heaven3, which is also the abode of the Chajoth, the Ophannim, and the Seraphim, who carry the Divine chariot4. He executes no decree without having first consulted His heavenly host 5. As a rule, a single angel never per forms more than one mission at a time, nor are several angels charged with the same mission6. They must not stay on earth longer than seven successive days ; if they exceed this time*, they are forbidden to return into heaven7. They plead before God for the pious : thus they offered to cool down the fiery furnace into which, according to a Talmudic legend, Abraham was thrown by Nimrod ; they interceded for Isaac when he was about to be sacrificed; they saved Moses when Pharaoh sought his life, "an angel descending from heaven, and taking the place of Moses, who in the mean time escaped" ; and they delivered Hananiah and his two companions from the flames8. — Everyman has his own guardian angel9, or even two10. Corresponding to the seventy nations and the seventy languages which were supposed to exist on earth, seventy chief protecting angels were counted • 1 ; and though in reality i Talm. Chagig. 13b- ia i-n- n-i-3 nV*vjri saiia -3sVa -ja ins 2 Talm. Berach. 18b; Sanh. 89b; sin ss-a); comp. Talm. Bab. Mets. Yom. 77*; Pirk. R. Eliez. c. 4. 86b; Derech Erets u. 4 (sect. aVisV » Comp. Midr. ftaW.Gen.LXXVHI. snn); Maim. Mor. Nev. H. 6; see, 32, am- -s-3»3i a-s-pi ntaffl n«w n"apn; however, Tobit HI. 17. Av. R. Nath. c. 37. i This happened to nns and Vsts 4 Comp. Talm. Chag. 12b, 13. (see [p. 290 note 5), who then be- 5 Talm. Jerus. Sanh. I. fol. 18a ed. came evil demons. Krotosh. ; Talm. Sanh. 38b (n"apn -ps « Talm. Pesach. 118 (. . . 3s-iaa ias s-sasa n^aa 3"s sis 131 [i»?isa] nww '31 ¦jatsassi us, and us ... lapii- las n?sa 3» [-j-i n-aa]); Targ. Jon. Gen. '31 -psi); Midr. Rab. Gen. LV. 3, 6; XI. 7 (where nVaaa.l nila. is thus pa- ib. Ex. I. 22; Yalk. Shim. H. §. 969. raphrased: "God said to the seventy 9 Targ. Jon. Gen. XXXIII. 10(s3ssa angels that were standing before 7ii-i) ; id. XL VHI. 16 (-3 na-Bti S3S3B Him"); Midr. Rabb. Gen. VIH. 2; -n- pisaV). ibid. Eccl. II. 12 (13-1 n-3i n"3pn 10 y«/m.Chag.l6a; Taan.lla; comp. inisws); comp. Maim. Mor. Nev. n. Matth. XVHI. 10; Acts XII. 15; 6 ; Bechai on Gen. I. 26. Origen. Contr. Cels. VIH. 34; also 8 Midr. Rabb. Gen. L. 1 (-jssa fx Max. Tyr. Diss. 26 fin.; Arrian, Epi- '31 m-ns» -na nsis ins); Targ. Jon. ctet. 1. 14 ; Censorin. De Die Nat. c. 3. and Jerus. Gen. XVHI. 2 (ibb-s n-3 n Sept. Deut. XXXII. 8 (xaxd dpi*- ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 309 the Hebrews require no tutelary or interceding spirit, since, by virtue of their faith, they can always approach God Himself12, they are yet watched over by the arch-angels Michael and Gabriel18, who ever defend them. Thus Michael warded off Haman's calumnies14; and an gels were supposed to have been concerned in all important inci dents, especially the revelation on Mount Sinai, when twenty-two or sixty myriads of them descended with God15; although the Law pro ceeded from the Lord Himself and from Him only. The stars, then still more closely associated with the angels than in the Biblical times (p. 286), were considered to exercise a para mount influence over men as well as over the animal and vegetable kingdoms: "the stars make rich, and the stars make wise", saidBabbi Chanina16; they grant life, children, and sustenance17; they join the angels in their glorification of God18; they existed from the beginning as intellectual and highly endowed beings ; and though their know ledge does not equal the wisdom of the angels, it far surpasses that of men19. Like the Persian Fravashis, they are both the prototypes and the guardians (nibja) of all visible creations, and "there is no single plant on earth which has not its pattern in heaven" 2 °. p.6v d.YYeXiuv 9eou fora*sii>- -aa istaaV); Targ. Jon. Gen. XI. 7, 8; Midr. Rabb. and Yalk. Shim, ad 11. cc. ; Midr. Rabb. Num. H. 1; XIX. 4; Talm. Sot. 33a. 12 See supra p. 285 note 9. is Midr. Rabb. Ex. XVIII. 2 (-jsas 3S1SI-3 i-iai» n"apn); Targ. Jon. Gen. XXXH. 25; id. XXXVHI. 25. " Midr. Rabb. Esth. III. 8, fol. 9 ed. Stett. , 3sib- ns aitapa -]an n-n«u na Va s-na-aB an-ss iasa ss3-a n-n neasa nVs»?a ; ib. Exod. XVHI. 2, >s3-a nai 'bi -j-ia "pais iia-sapi iis-ao? -pan isaBi. 15 Midr. Rabb. Num. H. 2; Tanchum on Exod. XX. 1 (iin- 16) ; Bechai on Ex. XIX. 16, p. 64a. This idea was derived from the Bible itself: Deut. XXXIH. 2, Sept. Ix 8e£i»a a-ana sta 1-csa; comp. Albo, Ikkar. HI. 18. 17 Talm. Moed Kat. 28a, . . . sniars S3 snia s->n s3*aa sss. • is Comp. Maim. Mor. Nev. H. 5; he contends that the stars are not "dead bodies like the fire or the earth", but "intelligent beings", "worshipping God by song and praise" ; and he ex pressly protests against the metapho rical acceptation of such terms as "the heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps. XIX. 2); see also I. 72; II. 7, 12 sqq. 19 Maim. Yesod. Hattor. II. 9; Albo, Ikkar. n. 11 (n-fflsai B-au ani n 12 Midr. Rabb. Gen. XVH. 2, -p-a 13-Bsl ninn i?-bsi . . . -[?an ns ]-s-bb nay yam siaa nsiaais ; Bechai on Gen. mwn -3Si>a 13-Bsi a-iw); ibid. Num. XL II. 21. p. 24b (ad iii.8-1 — "here the 3, 6 ; Jos. Ant. VHI. 11. 5 (p.a$etv . . . letter D occurs for the first time , to xal x-rjv xaxd xuiv 8aip.6vu)v x^vtjv zls teach that Satan — -jbb — was created <6tplXeiav xal dspajteiav xois dv&poV together with the woman" I). 312 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. Babel ; and they are continually generated from the shades and mis deeds of the wicked ', from the spine of the godless who never bend down to worship their Creator2, and from unchaste dreams and noc turnal accidents3. When, after the Fall, Adam was doomed to die, he lived apart from his wife for 130 years, because he was unwilling to produce sinful and perishable beings; but during that time, both werejoinedby male and female demons, and became the fruitful pa rents of mischievous goblins and evil spirits4. The demons are not less numerous than the angels; for they "surround mortals as the earth surrounds the root of the vine" ; and' every man has at all times thousand shedim on his left, and ten thousand on his right side, all ready to ensnare him ; if he could see their crowd,. he would wonder how he was able to live in the world5; though any one might behold them by throwing upon his eyes the ashes of cer tain parts of black cats6. They hover mainly in the lower regions of the air, which they completely fill7. When they descend on the earth , they delight in taking up their abode on certain shrubs or trees, as the caper-bush (ihlS) and spearwort (i5St), in companies of at least sixty on one plant8, or on nut trees in groups of nine; it is, therefore, most dangerous to sleep under or near such plants. Often they dwell in ruins and deserted solitudes, which should, therefore, be- scrupulously avoided9, or in privies10, and under gutters11. It once happened, that porters, who were carrying a cask of wine, desirous of resting themselves , set down their burden beneath a gutter ; not long afterwards a demon came and broke the cask. .The men went to Babbi Mar Bar Ashi, who, blowing a trumpet, summoned the spirit, and asked him sternly, why he had committed the offence? "Because they put the cask on my ears", he replied. "But you have no business", rejoined the Babbi, "to stay at a frequented place ; you must pay for the wine". A certain time was allowed him to procure the money ; the term had long expired when he at last made his appearance ; upbraided i Talm. Sanh. 109a; Pirk. R. Eliez. ' Comp. Ephes. II. 2 ; see also Biog. c. 34; Yalk. Shim. Ji. § 196. Laert. Prooem. 7 (eiSoiXurv uX^pr) 2 Talm. Bab. Kam. 16a. elvai xov dlpa); VHI. 32; IX. 7(7idvxa 3 Comp. Sohar on Gen. VI. 1 sqq. . At no time is it advisable to drink from any utensil without having previously poured out some of its contents, because demons may have quenched their thirst from the same vessel. When once the minister ing shed of Rabbi Papa, who had been sent to fetch water from the river, was rebuked for having stayed out too long, he said, "I was obliged to wait till the bad water of which the demons had drunk, had flowed away"2 ; but when he saw his master pour out some of the water before he drank , he said , if he had been aware that such was his custom, he might have come back sooner. Rabbis and students of the Law are particularly persecuted by demons : their clothes wear off and tear sooner than those of other people, because "the shedim constantly rub themselves against them"3. According to some, especially Palestinian doctors, the demons are incorporeal , or consist of air and fire ; for God, having created their souls towards the evening of the sixth day, was prevented from fashioning their bodies on account of the approaching Sabbath4. Yet, ordinarily, they are conceived, like the angels, as being provided with wings, which enable them to move rapidly from one end of the world to the other0 For the sake of mischief and deception, they often as sume the "image" (nxiia) of a man 6, and, in fact, any shape ; one of them, for instance, appeared as a dragon with seven heads7, and another taught Rabbi Chaninah the whole Law in the guise of a frog; one resembles a calf* with a revolving horn issuing from the middle of the forehead, and another (Ketev) has one eye fixed on the heart, and any creature, whether man or beast, that looks at it, must die8- They eatand drink like men — in this respect unlike the Persian devs, who take no food, because eating in the present state of the world is a good thing — , and like men they propagate and die9. As a rule, i Talm. Pesach. Ill, 112; Avod. image" (nsiaai nsias) ; Talm. Yevam. Zar. 12b; Midr. Rabb. Num. Xn. 2. 122a; Gitt. 66a. 2 Talm. Chull. 105b, 106a, iBsm is 7 Talm. Kidd. 29b. a-sin a-a. 8 Midr. Rabb. Num. XII. 4. Satan 3 Talm. Berach. 6a, iaan -asa -an appeared once in the shape of a bird ini-i s-bwb isai. (snis-aaa) ; Talm. Sanh. 107a. 4 Midr. Rabb. Gen. c. vii. fin. ; Yalk. 9 Talm. Chag. 16b; Av. Rab. Nath. Shim. I. § 12. o. 37 ; Nachman. on Lev. XVII. 7. 5 Talm. Chag. 16a; Av. Rab. Nath. Cain was considered as the son of «"¦• 37. Eve and Sammael (Yalk. Chad. la, 6 Though not "the image of his § 12. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 315 one hundred demons expire daily ' ° ; and Noah therefore took a cou ple of them into the Ark, lest the race became extinct11: Lilith alone and her offspring are except from death. They may be bound and chained12. Often they quarrel among themselves, nay they kill «ach other, and summon the aid of the pious against their opponents 1 3. They know the future which, like the angels, they hear "behind the curtain" * 4 ; yet they ought not to be consulted on Sabbath ; indeed to avoid danger , it is prudent not to consult them at all ; if yet their advice is sought, it should be done by means of oil or of egg-shells15. Some of them even frequent the places of worship, and study the Law like the Jews, and are hence called "Jewish de vils" (pNTim 'plttJ); thus it often happens in Synagogues on Sabbaths, that, although there appears to be ample room, the people feel in conveniently crowded, because the demons press between them to listen to the sermon or religious discussion16. The female demons are subjected to the rule of their queen Li lith 1 7, who is pictured with wings and long flowing hair 1 8, and who, delighting in wild gambols, like most spectres, is called, "the evil dancer" or Mochlath19. Yet Mochlath and Lilith are occasionally treated as two distinct she-devils, the former being attended by 478, the latter by 480 companies of demons20, the one dancing and singing, the other incessantly howling21: both live in constant enmity against each other ; yet they meet in open feud only on the Day of Atone ment, and while they are thus engaged in strife, the Jews are enabled to send up to God their prayers and confessions, unmolested by accusers and slanderers. i° Seph. ben Sir. 9a (quoted by Ei- is Talm. Berach. 6a, -im spnn -sn senm. Entd. Judenth. H. 417), bi- !»a -in in-3-a nssa. B-i»n -ja nsa a-na. " Talm. Gitt. 68a- n Bechai on Gen. VI. 19 ad -r,n 33a, 18 Talm. Erub. 100b; Nidd. 24b ; she p. 37a (l-isa ma- -]B); they came of is sonsidered to correspond to the themselves into the Ark , and are Persian Bushyancta , the female de- hinted at in the words spa 33 (Gen. mon of indolence and sleep. VH. 14) — i-isa b-sb ana. 19 ^FS '""? *?&& Talm. Pesach. 112b; *Pirk. R. Eliez. c. 45; Talm. Be- *''*¦ *"**• *um" ^ 4 <" ™* , a nnaaiai nina) ; comp. Isai. XHI. 21. 20Accordingtothe numerical value is Yalk. Shim. II. § 680. Qf their respeoti;e names nhm and 14 Talm. Chag. 16a; Av. Rab. Nath. ^,1,. c. 37; supra, p. 308. 21 Accordingto the real or supposed 15 -jna 31SB3 -pnia' -j-as-a -iwi yiv -i»; meaning of their names, from bbn Talm. Sanh. 101a. and 33-. 316 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. The male demons, as has been observed, are ranged under their chief Ashmadai (Asmodeus, isttoffiK)1, the Persian Aeshma, who is the auxi liary of Ahriman in his warfare against Ormuzd2; or they obey the rule of Satan or Sammael3. Asmodeus is consistently pictured as malignant, wrathful, and insatiably lascivious; he weeps at men's happiness, and exults at their misfortune; he mocks the weak, and strives to weaken the strong; he abuses his marvellous skill for villany, and he ruthlessly employs his knowledge for mis chief4. He is the demon of matrimony and "the patron of faithless couples"5. Sometimes he is identified with Sammael or Satan him self, as the type of moral and physical evil: for Sammael (S>NB&) is the angel of death6 who, by instilling a drop of gall (no) into the mouth of the sick, causes the sudden cessation of life; and Satan is, like Ahriman, at once the Deceiver, the Accuser, and the Destroyer of man and of all organic life, and therefore, even more usually than Sammael, the Angel of Death. This character of Satan and his associates is systematically worked out in the Midrashic expositions of the history of the pa triarchs and other eminent men. It is developed with particular ful ness in connection with Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac7. At the time of the exodus, Sammael, presenting himself before God, ex pressed surprise that He was dividing the Red Sea for a people defiled by the worst forms of idolatry ; then, in order to turn away his at tention, God delivered up to him the pious Job, "who was one of Pharaoh's counsellors", and, like Balaam and Jethro, one of his con jurors; and while the Accuser was busy in harassing his victim, the Israelites crossed the sea in safety 8. Fifteen hundred myriads of accusing angels (pilupa) endeavoured, to prevent God from favour ing the Israelites with His glory (naistu). After the worship of the golden calf, at which Satan was present dancing and singing9 and de luding the Hebrews 1 °, he exultingly impeached them before God; but i Talm. Gitt. 68; Pesach. 110a; 5 Talm. Pesach. 110. Targ. Eccles. I. 12. 6 Comp. Targ. Jon. Gen. III. 6. 2 The etymology from sa\os and 7 Comp. Talm. Sanh. 89b; Pirk. R. -si or dev, and the meaning "he who Eliez. c. 32 ; Midr. Rabb. Gen. LVI. has vehement desires" , seem pre- 1 ; Yalk. Shim. I. §§ 98, 99 ; Tanchum. carious. _ Gen. XXH (p. 39a ed. Stett.). 3 Pirk. R. Eliez. c. 13, Viian nun Vxbb 8 Midr. Rabb. Exod. XXI. 4. B-aoaiu ; Midr. Rabb. Deut. XI. 3, -jx3» 9 Targ. Jon. Ex. XXXII. 19, sataDi B-ata-inVBBsisamisaB; Talm. Gitt.68a. m»ai tgtaa n-ua nin. 4 Talm. Gitt. 68; comp. Eisenmeng. i° Comp. Pirk. R. Eliez. c. 45, 3SBO Entd. Judenth. I. 350—362. si msnn? nsia n-ni "asn 71.13 bbbj. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 317 Moses put him to flight, and pleaded for the people11. When the arch-angels Gabriel and Michael shrank from the Divine behest of taking away the soul of the great lawgiver, Sammael was entrusted with the mission. He found Moses writing the holy name of God, his face radiant like the sun, and in appearance like an angel. The prophet, recounting the great deeds of his life, refused to give up his soul to the demon, who, returning to God, asked for fresh in structions ; and when the charge was renewed, Sammael rushed with his drawn sword upon Moses , who by touching his adversary with his staff, forced him to flee; he pursued him with the holy name of God, tore off his horn from between his eyes, and made him blind; whereupon God Himself, accompanied by the three arch-angels Gabriel, Michael, and Sagsagel, took back the soul of His greatest and most faithful prophet12. Undaunted by the failure of his subordi nate, Satan now contended with Michael for the privilege of bury ing the body of Moses, but was as signally humiliated as Sammael; and the great chief was buried by "immortal powers" i 3. All these conceptions, however strange and fanciful, contrast favourably with their Persian prototypes : Ahriman and Ormuzd are "twins", both existed from the beginning, and the former is a creator like the latter ; whereas the Jewish Satan, not coeval with God, was created like the angels and like men ; he was originally even a good spirit, a great prince in heaven, endowed with twelve wings, while the Seraphim have only six and the Chajoth four; but then he grew contumacious, and was expelled from the celestial abodes, when he rode down to the earth upon the back of the serpent14; finally he will be curbed by the Messiah, who will at the same time subdue death, and , bring hell within the boundaries of Paradise J 5 ; then he will be thrown into the flaming abyss 16, and, in the time of resurrection, will be at tacked by the angel Gabriel and annihilated for ever17. Yet in spite of this moderation, which is more prominent in the 11 Midr. Rabb. Exod. XLIH. init. again, but is at last sHenced by Mi- f'll 3.0 J " 12 Midr. Rabb. Deut. XI. 4 ; Yalk. u ^ SMm_ L § 2 ^. ^ w m Shim. I. § 940, fol. 304 col. 2, 3. B,B(B3> 13 Philo, Vit. Mos. HI. 39 (Ixdcp-r]... 15 Midr. Rabb. Gen. XXX. 5; ibid. Y_epolv 06 dvrjxaic, dXX' ddavdxois 8u- Num. V. 12. vdp.eiiv); Jude 9; comp. Lightfoot, Op. '6 This ultimate triumph is typi- I. 353 ; see also Midr. Rabb. Exod. fied by a light preserved under God's XVHI. 2, "Michael and Sammael throne; comp. Talm. Suco. 52a; Yalk. stand before God, Satan accuses, and Shim. II. § 359. Michael defends Israel; Satan speaks " Comp. Talm. Bab. Bathr. 75*. 318 ANGELS AND SPIRITS. Palestinian doctors who were less exposed to Persian influence, it would be erroneous to represent the Jewish demonology as a harmless fancy, and to consider the spirits, not as powers of mischief, but simply as "wayward goblins"- The shedim bear the distinctive names of "in- jurers" and "destroyers" ', they send every kind of disease and infir mity, as heart-burn, erysipelas, and asthma3, leprosy of garments and of houses ; even death is inflicted by the demons Ketev (SBp) and Meriri (^nia)4, who rage most fiercely during the three weeks prece ding the anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem , and kill any one who happens to look at them, in which manner king Hezekiah is believed to have met his death5. The shedim fill the whole world,. and if those that are shut up in the depths of the seas were let loose, they would destroy the earth6. They keep man in perpetual alarm, and force him to unceasing warfare. They have indeed, like Satan and Ahriman, no power over the pious ; they keep aloof from those who> are praying or studying the Law; and they may be disarmed by the prescribed exorcisms and incantations7. But who can look upon. himself as perfectly pious ? And who can maintain a breathless study of the Law and unbroken devotions, or be ever ready with potent spells, to ward off the terrible hosts? From the preceding sketch, two popular views will be recognised. as untenable: first, that the Bible — whether the Old or the New Testament — teaches an unalloyed monotheism; and secondly, that. the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity a people of Puritans hostile to all sensual notions of the Deity. On the contrary, the Bible is the foundation of the exuberant demonology of the Talmud, the Fathers, and the Catholic Church; and after the Babylonian period,. the Jews abandoned more and more the pure spiritualism of the prophets,and,in their conception of the supernatural world, approached the strangest forms of paganism. They never ceased, it is true, to look upon Good as the absolute Lord of all spirits , though the danger of 1 'V7>=. rhsns ^Va. 6 Bechai on Exod. XX. 4, p. 70a 2 Bip-iup, xapSiaxo?, xapSiaXyta. ns B-a-ina i-n ni3S3 nioi sns nsns S3B3ST 3 Talm. Gitt. 67b; Sanh. 101a. asisn. 4Deut.XXXH.24;comp.Ps.XCI.6. 7 Talm. Mace. 10a; Shabb. 30bj. 6 Midr. Rabb. Num. xn. 14, in-pin Kiddush. 29b; Sanh. 44b; etc.; comp. nai i-3t 3S SBiai mis ns-. Bundehesh c. 1. ANGELS AND SPIRITS. 319/ adopting a double principle was not always avoided8: yet the num berless spirits, recognised as real powers both by the people and their learned teachers, and the assumption of a busy interference of those beings in all the concerns of life, plainly implied the desertion of an unqualified monotheism. Dividing man's attention in many directions, they could not fail to disturb that harmony which flows from the principle of one all-pervading and all-ruling Deity. 8 Comp. Talm. Chag. 15a; Acher (Elisha ben Abujah) recognised -nw M-1W1, see p. 298 note 3. TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY. CHAPTER XVI. Summaky. — After the death of Aaron's two eldest sons, God commands him through Moses to enter the Holy of Holies only on one day of the year (vers. 1, 2), and then not in his usual official robes, but exclusively irj garments of white linen ; on that occasion he is to provide himself with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a holocaust, while the people has to furnish two kids of the goats for expiation, and a ram for a holocaust (vers. 3 — 5). "While he is preparing to offer up the bul lock, the two goats are placed at the entrance of the Tabernacle, and by lot he sets apart one of them for God, -and the other for Azazel, to whom it is to be sent into the wilderness ; he appoints the one as a sin-offering for the people, and expiates the other by causing it to stand at the Tabernacle "before the Lord" (vers. 6 — 10). He now sacrifices the bullock as a sin-offering, to secure atonement for himself and the whole priesthood (ver. 11). Then taking a censer and filling it with live coals from the brazen Altar in the Court, and two handfuls of pounded incense, he enters the Holy of Holies for the first time ; there he throws the incense on the coals, so that the rising cloud covers the Mercy-seat on the Ark (vers. 12, 13). Returning to the Court, he takes some of the blood of the bullock, enters for the second time the Holy of Holies, and sprinkles a part of the blood with his finger on the front or eastern side of the Mercy-seat itself, and a part, by a sevenfold aspersion, on the ground before it (ver. 14). He goes back to the Court, where he depo sits the vessel with the remaining blood of the bullock; kills the goat .appointed as a sin-offering for the people, passes a third time into the Holy of Holies with some of the blood of that goat, and proceeds with it exactly as he has done with the blood of the bullock (ver. 15): thus the expiation of the Holy of Holies is completed (ver. 16). Now he re turns to the Court, puts some of the buUoek's blood (which he had left in the Court) together with some of the goat's blood (which he stiU holds in his hand) all round the horns of the brazen Altar, and sprin kles seven times upon its surface: thus he expiates the Holy and the Court (ver. 17—19). Now he orders the live goat to be brought to him; he lays both his hands upon its head , confesses all the sins of the peo ple, and transfers them to the animal, which a man, appointed for the purpose, leads into a lonely part of the desert (vers. 20—22). The High- LEVITICUS XVI. 1, 2. 321 priest now enters again the Holy, where he lays off the linen garments ; he then bathes himself in water and puts on his splendid official vest ments. Appearing in the Court, he sacrifices the two rams as holo causts , the one for himself, and the other for the people ; and thus the expiation is finally accomplished. He throws the fat and the fat parts of the two sin-offerings into the flames on the brazen Altar (vers. 23—25) ; while the flesh of both victims with their skins and their dung is burnt beyond the boundaries of the camp ; the man who performs this duty becomes unclean, and must bathe himself and wash his garments before he is allowed to return into the camp ; and the same lustrations are required of the person who takes the goat to Azazel into the desert (vers. 26 — 28). — These ceremonies shall, in perpetuity, be performed by the High-priest every year on the tenth day of the seventh month, when all the members of the Hebrew community, both natives and strangers , are to fast and to abstain from any work whatsoever (vers. 29—34). 1. And the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they approached be- 1, 3. The varied compilation of Leviticus attempts, though with in different success, a certain continuity or even system of arrangement. The hand of the final reviser, labouring to reduce the miscellaneous materials at least to some semblance of unity, is manifest in various links and trans itions ; and it is unmistakable in the connection which he desires to estab lish between a preceding narrative and the rituals of the Day of Atone ment: Nadab and Abihu died be cause they had entered the Sanctuary in an unlawful manner and at an ir regular time (X. 1,2) — thus the High- priest, if he wishes to avoid a similar catastrophe, must not go into the Holy of Holies at all seasons, but only on one day in the year, and has then to perform certain minutely prescribed ceremonies. Yet this connection is slight, if not artificial ; and the Day of Atonement is so circuitously and so indirectly approached that its date and nature are only mentioned at the end of a long description, as if by way of appendix (vers. 29 sqq.). This peculiarity of style adds weight to the internal evidence which tends to prove, that we have before us the first written law on the Day of Atonement, which is not even mentioned by its current name (a-issn Bi-) ; and it stands in marked contrast to the clear and precise injunctions later given on the same subject :" — Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a holy Day of Atonement; it shall be a convocation to you ; and you shall af flict your souls, and offer an offering madebyfiretotheLord. And you shall do no work in that same day; for it is a Day of Atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God ... It shall be to you a perfect Sabbath, and you shall afflict your souls : in the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening, shall you celebrate your Sabbath" (XXHI. 27, 28, 32; comp. also Num. XXIX. 7—11). But it must be confessed that, up to a certain point, the means prescribed are thoughtfully adapted to the ends which they were intended to serve; and they embrace almost the whole of the impressive ritual which an ad vanced hierarchy had been able to devise. In unfolding the text we may, Y 322 LEVITICUS XVI. 1,2. fore the Lord and died; 2. And the Lord said to Moses, Speak to Aaron thy brother, that he must not come at therefore, find opportunities of point ing out the genius of Hebrew sym bolism. It would hardly be possible to carry farther than is done in these ordinances, the caste-like division of the people and, in exact correspond. ence with it, the strict separation of the different parts of the Taber nacle (comp. Exod. XL. 34, 35 ; Num. IV. 15, 19; see Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 578, 588—591). The manner in which the High-priest had to pre pare himself for his functions, was scrupulously prescribed by . Jewish tradition. Seven days before the festival, he was separated from his wife, a.nd conducted into a special cell (-j-iinss). During this week he zealously practised the numerous manipulations required by his of fice; and the elders read and ex pounded to himtheordinances of our chapter. In the night from the ninth to the tenth day of Tishri, when it was deemed expedient to ward off sleep , he explained the rituals , if he was a scholar; and if not, they were explained to him by others; or he read, and if he could not read, others read to him, from interesting Books, such as Job , Ezra , the Chronicles, and Daniel. Should drowsiness over come him, the priests were to keep him awake by all possible means, as by snapping their fingers, or bymak- inghim walk on the cold pavement of the Court. Thirteen priests were ap pointed by lot for the ordinary du ties of the festival. When the ashes had been removed from the brazen Altar, and the chief of the priests (naiaan or -jat) had ascertained that morning had dawned, and the time for the early sacrifice had arrived, the High-priest was conducted to his bath, and the ceremonials of the day commenced (Mishn. Yom. I. l^HL 2). To meet the emergency of his be coming disqualified for the service, a substitute was selected. Philological Remarks. — The pre sumed connection of ourchapter with the completion of the Tabernacle (Wechsler 1. c. p. 121.), which was erected on the first day of the first month (Exod. XL. 2), is not obvious. The statement with regard to the golden Altar in Exod. XXX. 10, "And Aaron shall make an atonement upon its horns once in a, year with the blood of the sin-offering of atone ment", is hardly the germ out of which the institution of the Day of Atonement with its complex cere monials has grown (Gramberg, Rel. Id. I. 123); the statement seems, on the contrary, to refer to that institu tion as firmly established; it implies, therefore, an instructive hint as to the date of the Pentateuch and the mode of its composition (p. 278). An artificial division of the chapter in to ten commands has here also been proposed by Bertheau (Sieben Grup- pen, pp. 193 — 196), but with the usual unsatisfactory result; he as sumes that new injunctions begin at each of the eight verses which contain the name of Aaron up to ver. 25 (viz. at vers. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 21, 23), that two more commence with vers. 26 and 27, while vers. 29 — 34 are merely an exhortatory appendix — as if the injunctions of fasting and complete rest were not as essen tial as any other command of our chapter. — arai^ their coming near is the construct infinitive Kal with the feminine termination (nsip, Exod. XXXVL 2; comp. XL. 32), ' like rtV?s, "ST1?' 71r3*?,?> etc5 see Gramm. H. LEVITICUS XVI. 1, 2; 3—5. 323 all times into the Sanctuary within the vail before the Mercy-seat which is upon the Ark, lest he die; for I appear in the cloud upon the Mercy-seat. 3. Thus shall Aaron come into the Sanctuary: with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a nach which is under nsiE3 would more appropriately stand under ma- ; it has been supposed that that accentuation is meant to express the view of the Pharisees, that the High-priest was to throw the incense on the coals in the Holy of Holies itself (vers. 12, 13), though at some distance from the Ark, in opposition to the view of the Sadducees, who held that the incense was to be put on the coals already in the Court, since it could not reve rently be done "before God", and since otherwise the High-priest, when entering, would see the Ark (Talm. /er.Yoin.39aed.Krotoseh.;7Wm.Yom. 19b, 53a) : with the received accents the words in question are to be thus translated — "Speak to Aaron thy brother that he mustnot come at aU times into the Sanctuary within the vail, nor must he proceed to the Mercy- seat which is upon the Ark" (comp. Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschr. II. 29 — 31). There can be no doubt that the fumigation commenced in the Holy of Holies itself (ver. 13); and the Biblical text is unconcerned about thePharisaic scruples thatthe High-priest, after having passed through thevail from the Holy,might possibly see the Ark. §. XXXIX. 1. The translation of aip as a transitive verb is, therefore, in correct (so Sept. 4v xui Ttpo?tpEpeiv outoiij zup .aXXoxptov; comp. X. 1, nit »s ' ' -ia-ip-1 ; Vulg.offerentes ignem alienum; Engl. Vers, when they of fered before the Lord; etc.). — The High-priest was to expiate thepeople on one day of the year (ver. 34), yet was he, on that day, to enter the Holy of Holies, not merely once (anas, Hebr. IX. 7), but four times, as the detailed rituals show (see Sum mary). — 'iiip (ver. 2) is in this chap ter frequently employed for the Holy of Holies (so vers. 3, 16, 17, 20, 27), and is described with great minute ness as the place "within the vail, before the Mercy-seat which is upon the Ark" (Sept. to Syiov to £s. — The High- priest was, on the Day of Atonement, indeed not to wear the "golden" (-i;a ant)but the "white garments"(-]a3 -iaa), nor was he even to be "distinguished by a greater number of garments" (a-iaaa nana) ; yet it would be quite inappropriate to consider the linen raiments of resplendent white as un sightly "robes of mourning or pe nance", like "sackcloth and ashes" (Baumgarten, Keil, a. o.). We have already referred to the surprising di vergence between the statements of Josephus and those of our passage ; for he observes , that the white gar ments were used on all ordinary occasions, the golden ones only on the Day of Atonement, or also on the three great festivals (Bell. Jud. V. v. 7 ; Ant. XVHI. iv. 3 ; see Comm. on Lev. I. 575, 581); and it has not unnaturally been supposed that the text of Josephus is corrupted. In the time of the second Temple, it was customary for the High-priest to wear in the morning the "golden" vestiments at the ordinary or daily burnt-sacrifice and the other regu lar ministrations in which he took part ; and then, before he commenced the rites of expiation peculiar to the day, to put on the white gar ments, of which he possessed two sets, the one of Egyptian (Pelusian), the other of less expensive Indian linen ; the former he wore in the ear lier part of the day, the latter to wards the evening when he brought the censer out of the Holy of Holies ; for both sets the community allowed him 30 minae, to which, however, he might add at pleasure from his own means (Mishn. Yom. III. 4, 6,7). — ns'ta (ver. 3) "with this" or thus, the feminine standing for the neuter ; see Gramm. § 84b- — iiioa 3S (ver. 4), a euphemism, Vulg. feminalibus lineis verenda celabit(comp.XV.2 andnotes inloc.p.256). — oija -i?3 is the generaL and usual term for the pontifical vest ments (Exod. XXVin. 2,4; XXIX.. 29 ;XXXI.10;XXXV.l 9,21; XXXIX.. 1, 41; XL. 13). — The Samar. Vers. renders -a nana (ver. 4) by nsan-3 nias evidently connecting ia with the Arabic joO to be while (similarly in ver. 32 and VI. 3). — According to tradition, the two goats ought to be like each other in colour (nsiaa), in size, in value, and in purchase money (]nn-ps) , though , in practice, this rule was not insisted upon (Mishn. Yom. VI. 1 ; comp. Epist. Barn. c. 7 ; Yalk. Shim. I. § 572). — Minute regu lations were fixed in case one of the goats died before the Day of Atone ment , whether previous to or after the decision of the lot: in the latter case a new pair wa's provided, and the survivor of the original couple was "fed till it became faulty" (nsi- asn&-i) is), when it was sold, and the 326 LEVITICUS XVI. 3— 5; 6—10. two kids of the goats for expiation of sins, and one ram for a burnt-offering. 6. And Aaron shall bring near the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself, and make an atone- money paid into the sacred treasury, though one Rabbi thought the ani mal ought to be starved to death (Mishn. Yom. VI. 1). — nsan!? (ver. 5) does not exactly signify for a sin- offering, as the one goat was no sacri fice (see p. 295), but more generally for expiation of sins (Sept. 7tspl dp.ap- xia;) ; nstan is indeed strictly sin-of fering, but the author used that term for the sake of brevity, because it applies to the principal goat. © — lO. After the refined con ceptions of the preceding verses, it is not a nttle startling to meet with a notion befitting, not the final, but the most rudimentary stage of re ligious education — the notion of the evil demon or devil Azazel, the au thor and the originator of sin, inha biting deserts, and receiving back, through the medium of a goat, the trespasses to which his malignity has incited the Hebrews. The anachro nism is indeed so surprising that it would leave the expositor in helpless perplexity, did not the history of the time in which this chapter was com posed, afford a sufficient clue, which, in its turn, furnishes a strong corro boration of our conclusion concern ing the date of the section. The pre ceding treatises attempt to elucidate this subject. The ideas here conveyed nearly coincide with those of the Book of Zechariah (written about B. C. 520). In the latter work we read , that the High-priest Joshua was standing be fore the angel of the Lord, while Sa tan appeared at his right side to op pose him; but God said sternly to the evil demon, "The Lord rebuke thee, 0 Satan, even the Lord that has chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee" ; whereas He addressed theHigh-priest with these comforting words, "I have caused thy iniquity to pass from thee"; and in confirmation of this assurance, Joshua's unclean gar ments, the symbols of his own and the people's sins, were replaced by raiments spotless and festive (Ze- char. IH. 1 — 4). The analogies are so striking that an acute theolo gian has declared the passage in Ze chariah to be "the oldest commen tary on our chapter preserved to us" (Hengstenb. Biicher Mose's und Aeg. p. 168) : but the relation between the two sections is rather the reverse ; our chapter, if not exactly a commen tary on the passage in Zechariah, is a development of the notions it im plies; for the Azazel of Leviticus is a later phase of the Satan of Zecha riah ; and the Day of Atonement with its remarkable rites was instituted after the time of that prophet (comp. Rev. XII. 10, 11). If the Satan of Zechariah appears as the more ma lignant spirit , not content to remain in the background, and is neither dreaded nor propitiated, it ought not to be forgotten how zealous in doing mischief Azazel musthave been con sidered, as all the sins of the people were attributed to his instigation. In Apocryphal and later Jewish writings, the character, life, and fate of the demon Azazel or Azael (ssjs) — for both names seem identical — * are more fully unfolded. He was ori ginally a good angel, and one of the chiefs of the two hundred who went down to the earth, stayed longer than the lawful time of seven days, and held r.a.rnn.l intprp.rmrso wifh rvuiyfoi LEVITICUS XVI. 6—10. 327 ment for himself and for his house. 7. And he shall take the two goats, and let them stand before the Lord at women, upon which they were con- -vertedinto evilspirits(seepp.308,311; Henoch VI. 2—8 ; LXIX. 2). As such they instructed the women in sorcery, incantations, and conjuring by means of cut roots and faggots (Hen. VH_ 1 ; comp. Jos. Bell. Jud. Vn. vi. 3 ; Ant. VIII. n. 5). Many of them made men familiar with various pernicious and alluring arts (Hen. VHI. 3). Thus Azazel, the most dangerous of all, taught them the manufacture of swords and knives, shields and ar- mours,of looking-glasses and trinkets, and the use of the dyes and of paint for the face and the eye-brows, of the pre cious stones and the metals; he intro duced, in fact, both instruments of de struction and articles of effeminating luxury (Hen. VIH. 1 ; comp. however LXIX. 6) ; he above all others fostered moral corruption among men, though he was occasionally aided by Sem- jaza, the chief of the fallen angels (IX. 6, 7; X. 8, 11). Incensed at his evil works, the arch-angels accused him before God, that "he diffused all iniquity on earth", disclosed to the world the heavenly mysteries (IX. 6), and incited men to blasphemy, vio lence, and crime (XHI. 2). Then God commanded Raphael to throw iim with pinioned hands and feet into a pit in the desert of Dudael, to pile upon his body a heap of sharp stones , and to encompass him with dense darkness; and in this condi tion he remains untU the great day of judgment, when he will be hurled into the burning abyss, together with his subordinate host of malig nant demons (X.4— 6 ; XIH.l, 2 ; LIV. 5; LV. 4; comp. LXIX. 1 sqq.; 2 Pet. H. 4; Jude ver. 6). If surprise be felt at the distin guished position which Azazel, here introduced forthe first time, later oc cupies in the spirit world, it should be remembered that promotions of rank were not unusual in Hebrew demo nology; thus Asmodeus, at first only a lascivious gobHn, graduaUy rose to the dignity of prince of demons ; and Satan himself grew step by step in attributes and power. Azazelmust have been a prominent figure in po pular belief before he could be em ployed for the part here assigned to him in the ritual of the holiest day of the year. The sources of the Jew ish fictions respecting his nature and sphere activity, are not the obscure allusions made to him in our chapter, but the Eastern legends which for centuries had been gathered round his person. While the High-priest was casting lots for the two goats, the young bul lock intended for his own sacrifice was standing in the Court, and by so waiting in the sacred place , it was supposed to be hallowed, exactly as Azazel's goat, by waiting at the door of the Tabernacle or "before the Lord", was cleansed, and rendered fit to be used for its important pur pose (vers. 6, 10). Both goats were indeed meant to effect complete ob literation of transgressions (nstans), and both alike were subjected to the Divine decision of the lot ; yet it would be too much to consider both virtu ally as one sin-offering presented to God; the two worked out the desired object in a very different manner; one was a victim intended to atone for sins, the other carried away sins already atoned for; the one was de dicated to God, the other to a dif ferent power (ver. 8). Therefore, they represented indeed no proper dualism; yet they implied the acknowledg- 328 LEVITICUS XVI. 6—10. the door of the Tent of Meeting. 8. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord, and ment of two opposite and opposing forces in the moral world, since Aza zel, though passive in the ceremo nial of the Day of Atonement, was considered to have been most active throughout the year as a tempter and instigator to sin. The lots consisted of small tablets of box- or ebony- wood (subius) or of gold, and were kept in a wooden chest. Accompanied by the head- priest ()iO) and the chief of the heb domadal division (as n-a wsi), the High-priest rapidly took out one lot with each hand, and put that which he held in his right hand upon the goat that was standing on his right side, and that in his left hand upon the goat at his leftside, exclaiming at the proper time, "To the Lord a sin- offering 1" This was the practice in Herod's Temple (Mishn. Yom. HI. 9; IV. 1) ; but as our text speaks of the lot "coming up" (n^s, vers. 9, 10), it seems probable that, in earlier times, the usual method was observed of shaking the vessel till one lot "came up" or "came out" ( s^- ; Num. XXXIH. 54; Josh. XVIH. 11; XIX. 1, 10, 17, 24, 32, 40). On the head of Azazel's goat a red woollen thread was tied (n-iini bv yob), the colour symbolising the sins that were put upon the animal ; and it was expected that finally that red thread -would turn white, the colour of innocence and forgiveness. — As God and Azazel are contradistinguished, so are the Sanc tuary and the wilderness, the one the abode of life and serenity, of blessing and holiness, the other a place of dreary isolation and hopeless steri lity, and therefore the suitable haunt of goblins and evil spirits, who from their gloomy solitudes delude and mislead the minds of men. Moving in the same circle of ideas, the Tal mud declares, that at the time of the Messiah "the seducer (Sin is-) will be driven into a deserted and desolate land, where he will find no one a- gainst whom he can employ his wily arts" (Talm. Succ. 52a). Philological Remakes. — The term a-ipni (in ver. 6) is to' be taken in its literal sense, "and Aaron shall bring near the bullock of his sin-offering"; for the killing or offering ensues later, after the lots have been cast for the goats (ver. 11). — Aaron's "house" (in-a) means the whole priesthood forming one family, of which the High-priest is the head. — The word 3*sjs from the root STS (Jjc) to re treat , to work in seclusion , stands probably for V'Vts, the repetition of the two last radicals intensifying the notion of loneliness (as lasiaan for lajiaan, -jiVg-p for ybpbp; comp. 332 for 3a?=3, r'b'sbs and Syr. sn^j'j skull ; etc. j see Gramm. H. p. 100; Gesen. Lehr- geb. p. 869 ; Ewald, Lehrbuch § 158. c); and it is probably identical with ^sjs, which occurs also in Henoch ('ACa^X^besides'ACaX^Xand'E^X. There can be no doubt whatever that Azazel is a personal, a superhuman, and an evil being — in fact a wicked demon. This is so obvious that it would never have been questioned but for dogmaticreasons. The eighth verse is in itself decisive — "one lot shall be for the Lord (nin-V) and one lot for Azazel (3TSTS3)" : we have here a clear antithesis ; and as "the Lord" is a personal Being, so is "Azazel"; but as the one is appeased by a real sacrifice at the altar, the other re ceives back his due in the lonely de sert frequented by unholy spirits. This acceptation fully suits all pas sages — ¦ "the goat on which Azazel's LEVITICUS XVI. 6—10. 329 the other lot for Azazel. 9. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and appoint it lot fell" (VrstS3 siian, ver. 10); "to send it to Azazel into the wilderness" (ibid.) ; and "he that takes away the goat to Azazel" (ver. 26). It was adopted by many Rabbins, some of whom identified Azazel and Sammael (see p. 316), or regarded the goat sent to the former as "a bribe" to the latter (Pirk. R. Eliez. c. 46), or as an atonement for the conduct of Hza and Azael (p. 200; Talm. Yom. 67b; Yalk. Shim. I. § 572); and it was ap proved of by early Christian writers who identified Azazel with Satan (Origen. C. Cels. VI. 43, p. 305 ed. Spencer; Iren. Adv. Haer. I. 12 ; Epi- phan. Haeres. XXXIV. 11), and by many later and modern scholars (as Spencer, Amnion, Rosenm., Conn, Gesen., De Wette, Ewald, Vatke, Hengstenb., Maurer, Baumgarten, Reinke, Eiirst, B. Bauer in Stud, und Krit. 1865 p. 351; Knobel, Hoelemann, Keil, Haevernick, a.o.; comp. also Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenth. II. 439, 440) , though they differ in the iden tification of the demon, and in the explanation of some details of the ritual. The objections which have _ been raised against this view, are of little weight. Thus it has been urged that "the belief in an evil demon, to whom a goat bearing the people's sins might be sent, cannot be proved before the Babylonian exile" ( Winer, Real-Worterb. n. 659; Ewald, Krit. Gram. p. 243; Gesen. Thes. p. 1012): but our chapter was not written be fore the Babylonian exile; its date is considerably later than the Book of Job with its active Satan, and even later than the Book of Zecha riah with its more developed Accuser ; Azazel is, therefore, not merely "a liturgical idea"; nor is he "an iso- latedbeing" unconnected with the re ligious system of the Hebrews ( Winer 1. u. 384): appearing as the represen tative of every guilt and trespass , he is analogous to, if he does not coincide with, Satan, who occupies a clearly defined position in thehistory of Jew ish theology. Hence it is hardly ne cessary to reply to the remark that "the Mosaic Azazel cannot be a hea then demon, since Moses never adopted such plain elements of poly theism", but that he is "the angel of destruction", who overthrew Sodom, kiUed the Egyptian firstborn, and decreed pestilence against David ( Mo vers, Phoeniz. 1. 369) : is it more "Mo saic" to regard Azazel as a power co-ordinated to God and independent of Him? — But the view we have adopted appears even more accept able if we glance at other opinions, most of which have been prompted by the desire of ridding the text of the obnoxious evil demon. Azazel has been regarded as the name of the goat itself, the word Visjs being derived from i-j and bin to go away; so the Septuagint (vers. 8, 10) and Philo (aTtoTropTtalos the goat that is to be sent away, which word hardly coincides, as Gesenius believes, with 'ATroTpoiiaTos/AXe^txaxo^DeusAver- runcus), Symmachus (Tpdyo? diizp- y_6p.zvos), Aquila (aTtoXXoou-evo?), Theodotion (d and 31S7S3 (ver. 8) would evidently be lost. — Azazel, then,- is an evil demon; but he cannot be Typhon (Hengstenberg , Mos. tied Aegypt. pp. 175, 178—181; Ewald,. Alterth. p. 370 ; i^«<,W6rtrb.s.v.),nor"Mars- Typhon" (Movers 1. c. 367 sqq:), nor Set, who inflicts onmen the pernicious hot winds and all other calamities (Roskoff, Gesch. des Teufels,I. ;184); for he belongs to Babylonian or Per sian, and not to Egyptian mythology. Numerous other derivations have been proposed, as from t-ts or m the strong one (comp. ww Isai. XLn. 25) and Vs (by transposition instead of 3sns, ?sns) might of God, he being properly a fallen angel (comp.Vs-iaa ; see Biestcl in Zeitschr. fur histor. Theolog. 1860, pp. 20, 195; Dozy, a. o.), or he attacks or defies God (t iv taken like qpn) ; or from bi and nt s complete abomination (comp. also Ewald, Krit. Gram. p. 243 "impurity, unholiness, or sin"). These and many other equally curious explanations prove the perplexity that has been experienced on a subject which some Jewish doctors not unnaturally de clared a mystery into which men ought not to enquire. That the word 3TS-rs"was expressly coined for thepre- sent occasion" (Hengstenb.THios.n.Aeg. p. 167) is not probable; on the contra ry, it must have been perfectly fami liar to the people in the author's time. — The words nsan wiiusi (in ver. 9) mean "and he shall appoint (not pre sent) it for a sin-offering", since the slaughtering of the goat ensued af- LEVITICUS XVI. 6—10; 11—19. 331 make an atonement for it, and to send it to Azazel into the wilderness. 11. And Aaron shall offer the bullock of the sin- offering which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself. 12. And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and both his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail ; 13. And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the Mercy-seat that is upon the testimony, lest he die. 14. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and sprinkle terwards (ver. 15). — The goat des-' tined for Azazel was to be placed at the door of the Tabernacle 1833 l-is (ver. 10), which words can, ac- ¦cording to Hebrew usage, only mean to make atonement for it (comp. vers. 16, 18; see Comm. on Lev. I. 476), that is, to expiate or sanctify the animal, and thus render it fit for the high religious purpose it was in tended to serve. All other explana tions are contrary to grammar and the context — -f.i. "to make expiation through it", or "with it", or "upon it", or "to appease God" : the preposition 3S in connection with 1E3 refers al ways to the thing or person ex piated, and never to God; the suffix both in i-?s and ins applies to the same object, the goat; and the ex piation of sins was mainly effected through the blood of the slaughtered goat. The Vulgate renders freely, ut fundat preces super eo. It appears that the "standing before God" alone ¦expiated the animal, and that for this purpose no blood was applied, as has heen supposed (so Bahr 1. c. 684). 11 — 19. After these prelimina ries the proper acts of expiation commenced. To render the sacrifice of his -bullock more solemn, the High-priest put, according to later usage , animal both his hands upon the and made this confession: "0 Lord, I have failed, I have tres passed, I have sinned before Thee, I and my house. 0 Lord, grant atonement for the failings and tres passes and sins with which I have failed and trespassed and sinned be fore Thee, I and my house, as it is written in the Law of Thy servant Moses, Eor on this day shall atone ment be made for you" etc. (ver. 30). To which the congregation replied : "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever." The High-priest repeated his confession once more, including in it "the children of Aaron", God's "holypeo- ple" (Mishn. Yom. IH. 8; IV. 2); and then he killed the bullock, "received the blood in the sprinkling bowl, which he handed over to a priest, to stir the blood, lest it coagulated while he performed the fumigation" (Mishn. Yom. IV. 3). He next took burning coals from the brazen Altar in the Court, and put them into a censer; and after having provided himself with two handfuls of the finest incense, he entered through the vail into the Holy of Holies, and advanced to the Ark, or, in the time of the second Temple, to the 332 LEVITICUS XVI. 11—19. it with his finger upon the front of the Mercy-seat east ward, and before the Mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times. — 15. Then he shall kill the goat of the sin-offering that is for the people, and bring its blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the Mercy-seat and before the Mercy-seat. — 16. And he shall make an atonement for the Sanctuary on account of the uncleanness of the children of Israel,. and on account of their transgressions, indeed on account of all their sins : and so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting, stone (n-niu) which formed its sub stitute. Between the two staves of the Ark, or on the stone, he de posited the censer, and cast the in cense upon the coals, so that the whole place was filled with a cloud of smoke, and that especially the Mercy-seat and the Cherubim were enveloped in the cloud: it was death to omit this ceremony. Then he left the Holy of Holies— according to the Mishnah walking backward, lest he turned his back upon the Ark — and, arriving in the Holy, he pronounced the following short prayer : "May it please Thee, 0 Lord, my God, that this year, if it was intended tobeone of drought, be one of rain; let him who rules over the house of Judah not die; may Thy people not be in want, so that one Israelite may not be forced to beg his sustenance from another or from strangers ; and do not accept the prayer of travellers" (who deprecate rain; Mishn. Yom. V. 1, 2). Then returning to the Court, he took the blood from the person who had meanwhile stirred it, entered with it into the Holy of Holies, and stopped at the same place as before. There, according to tradition, he sprinkled with the blood once upward, and seven times downwards, so that the eight asper sions formed on the ground "a con tinuous line (c]-?SB3)"; while per forming these acts , he counted the numbers in a prescribed manner; and then he went out of the Holy of Holies , after having put the vessel on the golden stand placed there for the purpose (Mishn. Yom. V. 3). The Biblical text prescribes, besides a sevenfold aspersion on the ground, sprinkling on the eastern side of the Mercy-seat itself, which did not exist in the second Temple (vers- 13 — 15; see Summary). Having thus expiated himself and the priesthood, he proceeded to ex piate the whole community. Return ing to the Court , he killed the goat which had by lot been destined for God, received its blood into a bowlr went again into the Holy of Holies, and standing on the same place as before, he sprinkled and counted as- at first, and put down the vessel on another stand (Mishn. Yom. V. 4). After the atonement of the High- priest and of the people, the holy edifice itself remained to be expiated (vers. 16 — 19). For both the struc ture in all its parts , and its sacred utensils andimplements,were deemed to have been defiled by the trans gressions of the Israelites through out the year. But no separate animal was killed for the purpose, and the expiation was accomolisbp.d LEVITICUS XVI. 11—19. 333 that remains among them in the midst of their unclean ness. 17. And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting, when he goes in to make an atonement in the Sanctuary, until he comes out; and thus he shall make an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for a,ll the congregation of Israel. 18. And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atone ment for it; and he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. 19. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse through the blood of the victims slaughtered for those whohad caused the defilement — - through the blood of the High-priest's bullock and the people's goat ; the mingled blood of both was put partly round the horns of the brazen Altar in the Court, and partly, by a sevenfold aspersion, on its surface itself: this Altar, at which the daily holocausts , the dis tinctive feature of the national wor ship, were offered, and upon which a perpetual fire was burning, fitly re presented the entire Tabernacle or Temple and all its service (see Phil. Rem.). The Mishnah, holding that the golden Altar in the Holy is meant, thus describes the rites : In the Holy of Holies, the High-priest sprinkled the blood of the bullock upon the vail opposite the Ark once upwards and seven times downwards , pro ceeding and counting as before. Then he sprinkled with the blood of the goat also. He next thoroughly mixed the blood of the bullock with that of the goat; went out into the Holy, and expiated the golden Altar, beginning at the north-eastern cor ner, then advancing to the north western, then to the south-western, and finally round to the south-eastern corner. He then sprinkled seven times upon the middle of the Altar; and the remainder of the blood, he poured out at the western and south ern sides of the Altar, whence it flowed, through a canal, into the brook Kidron (Mishn. Yom. V. 4 — 6). When all these rites had been per formed , God , the Holy, could again dwell and manifest Himself in the purified Tabernacle. Philological Remarks. — The High-priest took the "burning" coals from the brazen, not from the golden Altar (ver. 12); on the latter there were no such coals; the words -3£SB nin- must, therefore, be. understood in a general sense (as in vers. 10, 18; I. 5). — The context favours the opinion of the Pharisees, who con tended that the High-priest was to put the incense on the live coals in the Holy of Holies (nin- -ass, ver. 13), and not, as the Sadducees believed, in the Court; the former view pre vailed, and hence the elders of the priesthood made the High -priest swear on the eve of the Day of Atonement, that he would, while alone in the Sanctuary, make no change whatever in the traditional customs (Mishn. Yom. I. 5; see on, vers. 1, 2). — The mode of sprink ling (vers. 14, 15), which differed from that observed with ordinary sin-offerings (Lev. IV. 7, 17), is suf ficiently intelligible. The Sept. takes 334 LEVITICUS XVI. 11—19. it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. nigsn -as Vs and msan -3S3. as iden tical, and hence arbitrarily omits 1 in -3>ii ( kTzi to tXaoTi^ptov . . . xaTa irpocumov tou iXao-T-^piou) ; the Vulg. even suppresses the words -3B ;s niB3n, and in ver. 1 5 merely ren ders, ut aspergat e regione oraculi; and some later translators have imitated these inaccuracies (Luther both in ver. 14 and 15, a. o.). The text is explicit and clear in ver. 16 — the blood was to be sprinkled "upon (>s) the Mercy-seat, and before (-ar^i) the Mercy-seat." Josephus (Ant. III.x. 3) declares, that the High-priest "sprin kled upon the ceiling (tov opo'^ov) with his finger seven times, also upon the pavement (to e'Satpos), and again as often upon the most holy shrine" (z'n tov vaov): but the sprinkling on the ceiling is at vari ance with the Scriptural ordinance. — The three main parts of the Taber nacle which were to be expiated, are — The Holy of Holies (si-pa ^hp" ver. 33, or simply aiip vers. 16, 20); the Holy, also called "the Tent of Meeting" par excellence (is;a Vns), since it is the largest portion of the structure (vers. 16, 20, 33); and the Court, described by its chief imple ment, the Altar (vers. 18, 20, 33). The peculiar use of these terms is clear from ver. 17 — "And there shall be no man in the Holy (snsa isia) when the High-priest goes to make an atonement in the Holy of Holies" (oipa): during that time not even priests were to enter the Holy, to which they were usually ad mitted. It seems , therefore , clear that the 17th verse hardly stands in its right place ; it interrupts the ac count of the expiation of the Sanc tuary, which commences in the 16th and is continued in the IS111 verse; and it alludes only to the atonement of the priests and the people; it would, therefore, more logically fol low after ver. 15, and would then well conclude the expiatory rites as far as persons are concerned. — b in 333 (ver. 16) summarises the details — "even all their sins" (so also ver. 21; see notes on XI. 26; comp. Au gust. Quaest. in Levit. LIH). — The holy edifice "dwells" (frm) among the Hebrews (comp. Josh. XXII. 19; Ps. LXXXV. 10). — The Altar on which the acts of expiation are per formed (vers. 18, 19), can only be that of the Court , not of the Holy ; the verb ss;i "and he shall go out" is more suitable for the one than for the other ; wherever the latter is meant, it is clearly described (comp. IV. 7, 18); and if one rite of atone ment was to purify all the parts of the Tabernacle, the Altar which typified the active life and the daily struggles of the people was certainly more appropriate than that which symbolised prayer and devotion. — nin- -j£ is in ver. 18 to be taken as in vers. 10 and 12, where surely nothing else than the Court can be meant. Supposing the golden Altai- were intended, the repeated enumera tion of "Holy of Holies, Holy, and Altar" (vers. 20, 33), would be strange ly illogical, as it would amount to "Holy of Holies, Holy, and Holy;" whereas the brazen Altar most fit ly stands for the whole Court. Yet both Jewish tradition and many modern interpreters consider the Altar in this passage (vers. 18, 19) to be that of the Holy. Compiled at a time when a Temple no longer existed, the Mishnah frequently de viates from the Biblical rituals ; but Josephus, who had witnessed the LEVITICUS XVI. 20—22. 335 20. And when he has finished making an atone ment for the Sanctuary, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, the live goat is brought to him. 21. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goatr service of the Temple, clearly names the "larger Altar (tov p.e(£io) in the open Court" (ai&ptov ; Ant. HI. x. 3). — Some manuscripts have in vers. 16 and 19 the singular nsataa instead of the more appropriate plural nsataa (De Rossi, Var. Lect. I. 98). SO— 33. While the preceding ceremonies were performed, the goat appointed for Azazel had been stand ing in the Court "before the Lord" ; it was now brought to Aaron, who imposed upon its head not, as was the case with victims intended for sacrifice, onehand, but both his hands, in order to convey in the strongest possible manner, that the animal most particularly concerned both himself and the community he repre sented. He then made a full confes sion of the people's sins — according to tradition, in the words above cited (p. 331.); "and the priests and the people who were in the Court, when they heard the holy name of God (¦ziiisan aw) coming out of the High- priest's mouth, bent their knees, and worshipped, and fell upon their faces, and said, Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever." He put the sins of the people upon the head of the goat, which a trust worthy person then led away into the wilderness, to carry back to Aza zel the offences into which he had enticed the Israelites, and to take them to a lonely and pathless region, just as pardoned sins are elsewhere said "to be thrown into the depths of the sea" (Mic. VH. 19). It was customary in later times, to employ for that purpose no Hebrew but a heathen, probably because the dis tance was considerably more than the legal "Sabbath-way," and be cause the Hebrew might besides be led to a desecration of the holy day : the author of our chapter evidently had no such scruples ; for he states that the messenger, after having per formed his task , "returned into the camp" (ver. 26). Again, he simply orders that the goat should be con ducted into "the wilderness" or to "a lonely land" , where it was to be left to its fate, whether it perished or not. But the later Jews were an xious that the animal should unfail ingly suffer death, which was to them a pledge of the removal of their sins. Therefore, from the Temple up to within two miles of the appointed place in the wilderness — which was, the steep mountain Zuk (pis) — booths,ten in number, were erected at intervals of one mile ; in each of them persons were in readiness to accom pany the messenger to the next booth, and in each refreshments were of fered to him. When the man had ar rived within a mile of the mountain Zuk, he went on alone, but the occu pants of the last booth watched his proceedings, and saw how he divided the crimson thread, half of which he fastened to the rock, while he tied the other half between the two horns of the goat ; how he then thrust the ani mal from the height; and — obser ves the Mishnah — "in thus rolling down, the goat was dashed to pieces before it had reached the middle of the mountain." The man then re turned, and remained in the last- booth till dusk (Mishn. Yom. VI. 2 — 6). — On elevated places persons were stationed to observe the move ments of the goat, and they signalled 336 LEVITICUS XVI. 20—22. and confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, indeed all their sins, and put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send it away by the hand of an appointed man in to the wilderness; with handkerchiefs to the priests in the Court, when the animal had ar rived in the wilderness; though, ac cording to Rabbi Ishmael, signals were superfluous, since the fact was known when the crimson- thread tied to the Temple-gate was seen to turn white (comp. Isai. I. 18). Then the High-priest read from the Law the sections relating to the Day of Atone ment (viz. our chapter, Lev. XXHI. 26— 32, and Num. XXIX. 7—11), and concluded with eight benedictions on the Law and the public service, on confession and forgiveness of sins, on Jerusalem and the Temple, on Israel and the priesthood (Mishn. Yom. VI. 8 ; VII. 1). Philological Remarks. — It needs hardly be repeated that the goat of Azazel was no victim meant for sacri fice; it did not cause pardon of sins, but merely carried away sins already pardoned, to symbolise that they were removed from God's holy pre sence, and that communion between Him and His people was restored. The goat was still less an offering intended to appease the anger of Azazel; for this demon was indeed believed to have the power of cor rupting men, but not of punishing them (comp. XVII. 7). Therefore, the imposition of hands expresses neither substitution nor chastise ment, "as if the goat suffered death for the guilty Israelites, or was it self considered as having committed the sins" (Michael. Typ. Gottesgel. p. 72, a. o. ; comp. Rosenm. Morgenl. II. 197 — 200): according to our text, it was not essential that the animal should perish, only that it should be removed out of sight; and the later . Rabbinical practice affords no proof to the contrary. Very curious inter pretations have been ventured; for in stance, the sending away of the goat denotes an "abnunciation" or "re nunciation" of the devil, both dis tinct from each other, the one being total rejection of the evil demon, the other merely a message to him, "to let him know what has been done, and to show him that he has lost his power over Israel, owing to God's forgiveness and mercy" (Kurtz, Bib. und Astron., ed. 1865 p. 187); but as the ceremonial was regularly repeat ed every year, a complete and ab solute deliverance from the tempter was evidently deemed hopeless. Un tenable is the analogy between Aza zel's goat and the bird which, in the purificatory rites of the leper and the leprous house, was sent alive in to the open field (Lev. XIV. 7, 53): the released bird symbolised that the convalescent had recovered com plete freedom to move about at plea sure, and even to join the holy com munity, and to enterthe Sanctuary; whereas the goat was led away, could go nowhere else but into the wilder ness, and was removed from the holy community and the Sanctuary (see supra p. 241). Equally precarious is the analogy with the Hindoo horse- sacrifice or Aswamedha, which was in reality a sacrifice; for although the horse was sent away to graze freely for twelve months, it was dur ing this time anxiously watched, and then actually killed as an offering, not to an evil demon, but to the high est gods, as Brahmah, Vishnu, Shiva, and the ten tutelary deities of the earth. Nor is any other alleged LEVITICUS XVI. 20—22: 23—28. 337 22. And the goat shall bear upon it all their iniquities to a lonely land; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. 23. And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there ; 24. And the holy place, he shall and put paraUel more plausible (comp. Spen der, 1. c. p. 1052). — The Vulg., in rendering (ver. 21) quae imprecans ¦capiti ejus , introduces a notion for eign to the context : the animal was not execrated , as among the Egyp tians in certain cases (Herod.U.39, xe- be sacrificed, viz. oxen, lambs, and goats, they are invariably to offer them upon the common Altar with the usual sprinkling of blood and burning of fat, lest they continue to worship the demons of fields and deserts ; disobedience to this law is declared equivalent to bloodshed, and menaced with excision (vers. 1 — 7). Both Hebrews and strangers are, under the same penalty, to present offerings at no other place but the national Sanctuary (vers. 8, 9), and to abstain from eating any blood whatever, and therefore also any nkaa and nsita ; since the blood, which is the life of the animal, is reserved for the Altar, to effect the expiation of sins ; the blood of quadrupeds and birds killed in hunting, is to be covered with earth ; and bathing and washing of garments are earnestly enjoined as lustrations after tasting rfjaa or n£ita (vers. 10—16). 1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2. Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Is- 1—9. It would be difficult to point out an organic connection between this chapter and the pre ceding sections. Beginning with a double code of sacrificial laws, the Book of Leviticus proceeds to detail the ordinances of purity, and then returns to the sacrificial laws, to which it joins other precepts on diet. However, the additions are not repetitions, but supplements; for they either enforce new commands, or they support old precepts by new reasons ; in both respects they exhibit a decided advance in levitical rig our; and they seem indeed to belong to the very latest portions of the Pentateuch. While the older legislation, as re flected in Deuteronomy (XII. 13 — 15, 21), merely demanded the slaughter of sacrifices at the common Sanc tuary , our author boldly insists, be sides , that all sacrificial animals, even those intended for food, must be treated as offerings, and be killed at the national Temple and under the supervision of the prie=t.= ;NTr,v does he proclaim this lawwaveringly or timidly; for he delares its disre- gard as not less criminal than wanton blood shed and the murder of a man ; and he announces to the trespasser, in the name of God , the penalty of excision, that is, absolute exclusion from the holy community. And why this almost fierce severity? He can have had no mean motive or object — which was in fact no other than to prevent the Israelites "from of fering any more their sacrifices to demons (a-i-siaV) , after whom they were going astray" (ver. 7). It seems indeed surprising that, even in his time, it should still have been necessary to adopt such coercive measures for weaning the people from the worst forms of idolatry; but we have proved in another place that the Hebrews clung to their superstitions in every period of their history, and long after the Babylo nian exile ; and in explaining the rites of the Day of Atonement, we have shown that, even after the age of "NTpliPTminTi +"hp-*j n t.+.viVmtorl fl-i a ti(\.ir_ LEVITICUS XVII. 1—9. 343 rael, and say to them: This is the thing which the Lord has commanded, saying, 3. Any man of the house of Israel, who kills an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or who kills it out of the camp, 4. And does not bring it to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to offer an offer- «rs of temptation and seduction to the evil demon Azazel, to whom they annually sent a goat laden with the sins which they deemed his work {pp. 292—294 ; I. pp. 377—379). Thus we are brought far into the Persian period, when the above command, burdensome under any •circumstances, was at least not quite impracticable ; for at that time the Jews lived together in a compa ratively small circle round Jerusalem, from whence access to the Temple was easy. But not even the bold est or most ambitious priest could have ventured to frame such a law for the time when the whole land was inhabited from "Dan to Beersheba ;" however, the writer, though as usual faithfully preserving the period and scenery of the Hebrew wanderings in introducing Aaron and his sons, the camp and the Tabernacle, really in tended to legislate for Hebrew settle ments in Canaan ; this is evident from the words with which he concludes this ordinance : " This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations" (ver. 7); and in order to mark its importance, he addresses it, under God's supreme authority, to every member of the community, both priests and Israe lites, because aU were directly con cerned in its execution (vers. 1, 2). Yet Jewish tradition, shrinking from the exorbitant demands it imposes, declared, against the obvious tenour of the passage, that it is only meant to apply to real sacrifices (a-oipiaa lain ainan), and forbids their slaugh tering, whereas the following law (vers. 8, 9) and that of Deuteronomy interdict their offering, beyonid the precincts of the Temple; and some Rabbins were of opinion that, even while the Temple existed, it was only operative in places near Jeru salem (and tradition taught which places were caUed near), whereas in more distant localities the clean animals were freely killed and eaten, a view which Karaite writers strong ly opposed (comp. Mishn. Zevach. Xni. 1; Talm. Chull. 17a; Siphra in loc, fol. 83b ed. Schlossb. ; - Rashi and Ebn Ezra in loc. ; Maimon. Maas. Hakkorb. XVIH. XIX, and in Seph. Hammits. yina a-ttnp tain»3 sst», the 90th negative precept; but on the other hand, Aaron II in nun ina on our passage). It may be doubtful whether the priests received the portions which, in all proper thank-offerings , were allotted to them by the Law, since our command, while mentioning the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fat, is silent about the disposal of the breast and right shoulder; but the priests could not be left unrewarded, and at the meals that followed even thank - offerings in the wider sense, Levites were always among the invited guests. Certain it is that we have here no parallel to primitive usages J such as prevaUed, for instance, in Ho meric times : then the slaughtering of animals was indeed connected with a sacrifice, but it was presided over by the chief of the family him self, and performed in his own house; and the repast was strictly a domestic feast haUowed by pious gratitude towards the gods; whereas- 344 LEVITICUS XVII. 1—9. ing to the Lord before the Tent of the Lord; blood shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people : 5. In order that the children of Israel may bring their sacri fices, which they offer in the open field, even that they the levitical regulation tended to deprive the Israelites of all personal authority in matters of religion, and to subject them entirely to priestly control: that these pretensions met with no large share of success, may be gathered from the constant struggles carried on between the hierarchi cal and the popular party down to the Roman time. Not more decisive are other apparent analogies : thus, whenever the Persians sacrificed, they took away the flesh of the vic tim, and ate it themselves (Herod. I. 132 ; Strab. XV. 732) ; but it does not follow, that whenever they de sired to eat flesh, they sacrificed the animal to the gods. The Mohamme dans regard no meat as lawful, un less the slaughtering of the beast is accompanied by a Divine invoca tion (see supra p. 22); but such ex pressions of submission and piety are widely different from a sanctification of the animal on the national Altar by means of the priests. Nearest akin to ourlaw are the ordinances of the Hin doos, who are permitted to partake of meat mainly in connection with sacri fices and other acts of devotion (Manu V. 31 sqq.); but those ordinances are too wavering and uncertain to be reduced to well-defined principles (see supra pp. 41 — 43). The second law (vers. 8, 9) is chiefly remarkable for its peremp- toriness and its comprehensiveness; for it enjoins the offering of aU sacri fices at the national Sanctuary under penalty of excision, and it expressly includes the strangers. The former point proves that the priesthood now felt themselves strong to op pose menace to popular disobedience j and the latter, that the organisation of the community had begun to be accomplished from a theocratic point of view ; and both the one and the other are unerring criteria for the date of this section. On more than one occasion we have shown, that during long periods the chief Sanctuary was utterly disregarded as a religious centre, and that at all times heads of families and leaders, kings and prophets, offered sacrifices wherever they deemed fit or convenient ; and our law appears to convey as much a remonstrance as an injunction (see Comm. on Gen. pp. 737—740 ; on Lev. I. pp. 27 sqq.-r and espec. pp. 19 — 24). It is not easy to determine the false deities after whom the He brews were going astray, and who in our text are described by a term meaning "he-goats" (a-i"S»). Now it is well-known, that goats were, on account of their proverbial lascivi ousness, regarded by the ancients as the types of prolific generation, and were honoured as such by many and peculiar rites of religion. The Egyptians inhabiting theMendesian district, or worshipping in temples dedicated to Mendes, abstained from offering goats, and sacrificed sheep instead; and though it may be doubtful whether Mendes, whom Greek writers identify with Pan, or any other Egyptian deity, was, like Pan, represented with the face and legs of a goat, it is certain that in some provinces this animal, espe ciaUy the male , was held sacred to Mendes, whom the EervDtians counted LEVITICUS XVII. 1—9. 345 may bring them to the Lord, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest, and offer them for thank-offer ings to the Lord. 6. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and burn the fat for a sweet odour among the eight great or most an cient gods, preceding the twelve deities of the second order, and whom, almost like Khem, they con sidered as universal nature, as the god of vegetable as well as animal life, and in fact as presiding over everything generated. It is even related that in Mendes goats were allowed to have intercourse with women , as elsewhere goat-shaped demons were fabled to have and to satisfy similar propensities. Hence the Egyptians were said to venerate the goat for the same reason which prompted the Greeks to pay homage to Priapus ; namely because they at tributed to that animal the greatest desire and power of generation, which they supposed to manifest itself as early as seven days after its birth; and they chose the he-goat as the hiero glyphic sign for fruitfulness. These would indeed be intelligible reasons why the levitical legislator should express detestation against the wor ship of "he-goats", or against de mons resembling them in appear ance and attributes, because such worship clashes with the first prin ciple of his creed — the absolute sovereignty of God over nature and all her powers. It seems that this form of idolatry prevailed at least in the northern kingdom, for Jero boam is related to have set up for adoration not only calves but also he-goats (b-i-ss?), and to have ap pointed special priests for this ser vice (2 Chr. XI. 15). But did it still linger among the Jews at the date of our chapter, that is, in the Persian period? There can be no doubt that, after their return from Babylon, the Jews of Palestine maintained an ac tive intercourse with the Eastern empire and with Egypt, and were familiar with the institutions of both ; thus notions borrowed from the Persian creed were combined with Egyptian conceptions ; of this amalgamation we have a remarkable instance in the Book of Job , which was written about the same period,. and which, on the one hand, intro duces the Persian Satan and council of angels, and on the other describes the hippopotamus and the croco- dUe in a manner as they can only be described by one who personally ob served them in their native Egypt. Therefore, while we believe that the "he-goats" of our text, like Azazel who periodically received a sin-laden goat, are chiefly meant for Persian demons or satyrs , wildly dancing and yelling in deserts and on ruins (Isai. XHI. 21; XXXIV. 14), they also include the goats which were held sacred among the Egyptians, and which were by the Hebrews under stood as pagan symbols. Some sects of the Zabii likewise supposed that their deities frequently assumed the form of goats , and therefore simply called them goats: this belief may have sidereal significance, and may symbolise the fructifying power of the vernal sun (comp. Herod. H. 42, 4g — -]\>io\-t\ TpoYO? ip.iaY£T0 dwa- tpavSov — , 145, and Wilkinson's re marks in locc; and Anc. Eg. I. 260; Bunsen, Eg. I. 374; Strab. XVH. I. 19, p. 802, chapter have been characterised as "laws for the sanctification of the Israelites in their aUiance with God" (Baumgarten, Keil); but this de scribes very imperfectly a large num ber of precepts which comprise among others the laws of matrimony and of charity towards the poor. To sum up, all attempts at proving a systema tic arrangement have as yet been un availing. — It is difficult to under stand the assertion of a critical inter preter that the laws under discussion "may, as regards their matter, be Mosaic", thoughhe admits that "with respect to vers. 8 and 9 this is not entirely the case" (Knob. Lev.p.495); deceived by the successful represen tation of the Sinaitic age, he as sumes, with many others, that the first law — that which commands the slaughtering of all animals at the Tabernacle — was meant to be valid for the time of Moses only , and he is thus compelled to put a strained construction upon the plain words, "this shaU be a statute for ever (npn a^is) to them throughout their gene rations" (ver. 7): if the growth of hierarchical principles among the Hebrews be well considered, aU un certainty disappears. Talmudical au thorities supposed that contraven tion of our law waspunished with ex cision if intentional; but that it was atoned for by a sin-offering if acciden tal. It is a matter of course that ner- LEVITICUS XVII. 1—9. 347 8. And thou shalt say to them, Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, that offers a burnt-offering or thank-offering, 9. And does not bring it to the door of the Tent of Act animals only, such as were duly ¦qualified for the Altar, came within the scope of the precept (comp. Talm. Zevach. 106 ; Kerith. 2 ; Maimon. Maas. Hakk. XVIII). Some manuscripts read, in vers. 3, 8, 10, and 13, -33.B ~3Sie- instead of '- n-aa (and thus the ¦Sept. tujv uidjv 'IapavjX, and*, other ancient versions); the difference is -unessential, but the received reading ¦seems preferable, because less com mon. The Sept. adds after ssi»- n-aa ¦(ver. 3) 7] tujv 7iposiqXiJTv iv 6p.iv , thus including the stranger in the operation of the law ; this addition , if genuine , would be important (see infra), but it is not confirmed by other ancient trans lations, nor by the manuscripts. Of no greater authority are the words inserted by the Sept. and the Sama ritan text in ver. 4 after is"an, name ly, ojote TroiTJsai o6to eis oXoxauToi- y.a -J) a<»>Ti5piov xoptip SexTov eic 8ap.T]v £iiu8(ae , xal 8c av acpa£rj e£uj, xal km. tt)v ftiipavTYJi; 0-x-iqvfjCToCSp.apTupioU'p.Tj Ivlyx^j auTo. — The sense of the words 'ai stern. Bi (ver. 4) is clear , and has been expressed by Rashi: "it is as if he sheds the blood of a man, and thus forfeits his life" (Luzzatto : "cidverra considerato a quell' uomo qual omi- cidio ; egli ha versato sangue uma- no"). — The traditional explanation of the words '31 tu-sn ni33l (vers. 4, 9) is , "his progeny shall be destroyed, and his days shall be shortened" (so Rashi in loc). — The construction in ver. 5 BS-ani • ¦ • is-a- ifcjs -jsa^ is rather loose ; the first verb introduces the object, the second has, besides, other complements — "in order that the children of Israel may bring their sa crifices . . ., and may bring them to the Lord to the door of the Tent of Meeting" etc. — The term niisn -36 the open field conveys the notion ofperfect and unrestrained freedom (comp. XIV. 7, 53; Num. XIX. 16), which, in this case, rises to uncontrolled licen tiousness; it implies, therefore, a double contrast to 3s isia 3ns nna psn — a circumscribed place stand ing underpriestly supervision. — The accusative an-s (ver. 5) has an unusual and almost, forlorn position at the end of the sentence (see Gramm. H. § lxxiv. 5).— a-i-Si) may simply be "goats" , or goat-like creatures (i. e. the "hairy" or "shaggy", like hircus from hirtus or hirsutus, Aq. and Sym. TpiYiuSve?, Saad. ^^ y& wild goats, Dathe, Luzz. a. o. satyrs; some sug gest "monkeys", Saalsch. Mos. R. I. 302), living in fields and deserts, in accordance with the explanation above given (Luther Eeldteufel or Eeldgeister ; Gesen. Waldteufel) ; or it maybe the "dreaded beings" (from isto in the sense of holding in awe, Deut. XXXH. 17), and would thus coincide with B-ite lords or rulers, to whom boys and girls were sacrificed (Deut. 1. c. ; Ps. CVI. 37) ; the word is indeed rendered B-i» by Onk., Jo nath., Syr., Rashi, Ebn Ezra, a. o. (Vulg. daemones, Engl. Vers. devUs, Zunz Teufel; Philipps. Hnholde). But it is , less probably, traceable to isi in the sense of shuddering , so that it wouldbe "creatures causing a shudder to those who behold them" (thus Ebn Ezra, Bechai, Spencer, a. o.). The Sept. has prorata (i. e. B-3-3S), which term is too vague; still less can the b-i-ssb, to whom sa crifices were offered in the open field, and who are mentioned in contra- 348 LEVITICUS XVII. 1—9; 10—14. Meeting, to offer it to the Lord; that man shall be cut off from among his people. 10. And any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eats any blood — I will set My face against that person that eats blood,. distinction to nin-, be "beast-images of the deity , such as were common among the Egyptians" (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis , I. 433; comp. Hoele- mann, Neue Bibelstudien, pp. 351 — 354). — Idolatry is consistently re presented as "faithlessness" (mat), since God and Israel have concluded a covenant, which is allegorically or poetically described as a matri monial alliance (see Comm. on Exod. p. 333). — Some interpreters, as Ebn Ezra and Nachmanides, point out, that the word lis (ver. 7) shows that the Hebrews had practised "goat- worship" in Egypt ("and they shall no more offer their sacrifices to de mons") ; that particle implies indeed that the abuse was still prevalent in the author's time; but this was not the age of Moses , but about a thou sand years later. — The traditional text has aaina in vers. 8 and 13, and B33ina in ver. 12, but in all these pas sages the ancient versions and the ma nuscripts vary (see De Rossi, Var .Lect. I. 98 , 99). — nat (ver. 8) is thank-of fering (as in Exod. XVHI. 12; Lev. XIH. 37; Num. XV. 3, 8; etc.), for which the more usual term is na} B-aitu or B-aita (see Comm. on Lev. I. 241). lO — 11. Our author now forbids the eating of blood with a fulness as if the subject had never been treated of before, and with an earnestness, as if he were dwelling on the very essence and kernel of religion. And indeed he views the matter in a new light, and he blends it with the chief ideas of his creed. He prohibits blood mainly in connection with the laws of sacrifice, and he reserves it for the purposes of atonement. To him the Altar was the centre of national life,. and to him the expiatory offerings were so decidedly the crowning stones of the sacrificial system, that he in vested all classes of sacrifice, even holocausts and thank-offerings, with the force of atonement (comp. I. 4)_ These two points involve both the excellence and the weakness of levi- tism ; the ends which it endeavoured to secure were admirable, but it- strove to secure them by means which- almost defeated their object; for it- aimed at purity of the heart, humi lity, and unselfish devotion, but by extending formalism and especially the sphere of sacrifices, it fostered. hypocrisy and self-righteousness. It rendered inward regeneration de pendent upon a multitude of me chanical rites, which in an uncom mon degree intensified the inherent dangers of ceremonialism. But the author was by his theories placed in a perplexing difficulty. He= commenced with the broad principle : "The life of the flesh is in the blood;, and I have given it to you upon the Altar to make an atonement for your lives , for it is the blood that makes; an atonement by the life of the ani mal" (ver. 11). Hcrwever, a few only of the clean beasts were lawful vic tims : should the blood of all the other animals be permitted? Such was indeed the natural consequence of that principle ; and yet the eating of any blood whatever had from times immemorial been regarded with utter abhorrence , which the levitical au thor was certainly not inclined to abate. In this dilemma- bp. -urqo f>nm_ LEVITICUS XVII. 10—14. 349 and will cut him off from among his people. 11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your lives: for the blood makes an atonement by the life. 12. Therefore I say to the children of Israel, No soul pelled to have recourse to the ori ginal principle which forbade blood simply because "the life of all flesh is its blood" (ver. 14); and thus he was enabled to bring within the range of his law the blood of the clean quad rupeds and birds not admitted on the Altar, and of those killed in the chase. His theory is, therefore, he terogeneous and wanting in unity : unwilling to acquiesce in a merely physical reason, he elevated it to the sphere of religion and atonement; yet , as , in doing so , he greatly nar rowed the operation of the law, he returned to the physical reason, sim ply because it is more comprehen sive. The subtlety of religious spe culation did not wholly cover the popular practice. All these points, together with the successive stages of the law , have before been more fully dwelt upon (pp. 2 — 9; and I. pp.121 — 126); nor need we here again explain why no blood, not even that shed in hunting , was to be left un covered, since it would defile the earth, and, representing the spirit of life breathed into the animal by God, would "cry to heaven" (see Comm. on Gen. p. 218; comp. Job XVI. 18; Ezek. XXIV. 7). The importance of this passage is ¦evident; for it contains the plainest expression of the idea of vicarious- ness : the blood is the soul of the ani mal; and that soul is to be offered up to God on the Altar as an expia tion for the worshipper's soul or life, which God might have demanded for his sins ; and it is impossible to deny the great weight which that notion possesses in Hebrew theology (see Part I. pp. 291—302). Yet our passage can hardly be called "the key to the whole sacrificial theory" (so Bahr, Symbol. H. 199 sqq.); for it does not touch the large number of bloodless offerings (nn;a), which were often presented alone, and even as sin-offerings (seel. pp. 220, 262); nor does it embrace the cases in which ex piation was wrought by priestly fu migation or by money dedicated for the use of the Sanctuary (seel. p. 274) ; it merely dwells on the disposal and significance of the blood of victims for the purpose of expiation (see I. p. 125). Philological Remarks. — "I will set My face (-as -nnai) against that person" (ver. 10), evidently means "I will make him feel My wrath" ; hence Onkel. renders -i3ii, and Zunz "meinen Zornblick". — The words is?- trisaa sin Bin -3 (ver. 11), which include the principal reason, from a levitical point of view, for the inter diction of blood, can, as regards lan guage and context, only mean — "for it is the blood which makes atone ment by the soul", that is, the blood of the victim expiates the worship per's sins by the soul of the animal, which is identical with its blood: thus the words express clearly the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice, which is also implied in the antithesis of WS3 and B3-ntu£3 (so Ebn Ezra — am i£3- ia tu-tD tasaa, — Abarban., Bahr, Winer, Kurtz — mittelst der Seele — , Delitzsch — vermoge oder kraft der Seele — Saalsch., Zunz, Philipps., Hofmann , Gerlach , Oehler , Knobel, Keil); others render "for the blood (of the animal) is an atonement in stead of (the worshipper's) life" (so 350 LEVITICUS XVII. 10—14. of you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger that so journs among you eat blood. 13. And any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who hunts and catches any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall pour out its blood, and cover it with earth. 14. For the life of all flesh is its blood through Sept. to ydp alp:a auTou o.vtI tyi-ffis JijtXaasTai, Vulg. et sanguis pro ani- mae piaculo sit, Jonath., Luther denn das Blut ist die Versohnung fur das Leben, Rashi tsssn 3S learn »£3 ssn, Nachman.); or simply "the blood atones the life" or the soul of the worshipper (so Onkel., Engl. Vers., Dathe, Gesen., De Wette, Hengstenb., Luzzatto, and many others) : but the person or thing expiated, in connec tion with isa, is never introduced by a , but usually by ;s (as in this very verse B3-WDE3 bi its?), and sometimes by iSa or -ja (see I. p. 476); and the phrase, instead of being explanatory, as Tve must expect from the particle -3, would be a feeble repetition of the idea that is to be explained. When the preposition a with i£3 does not express the place (as Lev. VI. 23; XVI. 17, 27), it denotes always the means or instrument of expiation (Gen. XXXH. 21; comp. Lev. V. 16 ; VH. 7 ; XIX. 22 ; Ex. XXIX. 33 ; Num. V. 8; 1 Sam. III. 14; 2 Sam. XXI. 3; Isai. XXVII. 9; Ezek. XLIII. 22; Prov. XVI. 16; and so in our pas sage lesaa "by the soul"). Hofmann, Kliefoth, Bunsen, a. o. , taking a as a essentiae, translate "das Blut siihnt als die Seele", or as Oehler gives it, "in der Eigenschaft der Seele". — Too subtle is the exposi tion of Bahr (Symbol. II. 209), who supposes that the human vis, being the medium of ^7it9-up.ia, is the birth place and home of sin, the source of all selfishness ( — because »S3 is in Hebrew used as a personal pro noun — ), and must, therefore, be ex piated. But the »E3 of the animal is- merely its principle of life or of phy sical existence, while the tues of man,. in the context of our passage, is the soul as organ of the moral functions (see Comm. on Gen. pp. 107, 218^ and on Lev. I. p. 294). Not more plausibly observes Kurtz (Opferc, pp. 54 — 58), that the soul of the ani mal, which is guiltless because guided by a necessary instinct, is fitly cho sen to expiate the soul of man, which is guilty because free and -respon sible : but according to Biblical no tions the animals also are liable to depravity (see Comm. on Gen. p. 179). — In the fourteenth verse, the word i»£3a causes some difficulty: the phrase in which it occurs (-33 C£3--3 sin itBEsa ;ai i-ia) seems to mean, "for the life of all flesh is its blood with, or through, its life" or animating power, that is, the blood is to be held sacred , not in itself or for its own sake, but in so far as it contains the elements or conditions of animal life ; and those words may possibly be in tended to prevent the superstitious awe with which pagan nations looked upon the blood, and which led to- many irrational usages. Another translation is, "for the life of all flesh is its blood in or during its life",. that is , as one interpreter explains it , "the life of all creatures consists- in its blood, but only in as much and. as long as this is allied with its WE: and encloses and contains it , lest coagu lated or dried blood also, from which. the ibes has passed away , be consi dered as the life" (Knob., similarly LEVITICUS XVII. 10—14; 15, 16. 351 its life: therefore I say to the children of Israel, You shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is its blood; whosoever eats it shall be cut off. 15. And any person that eats that which died of itself, or that which was torn by beasts, whether it be a native or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and Luther "denn des Leibes Leben ist in diesem Blute, so lange es lebt", and probably De Wette, denn das Leben alles Fleisches ist sein Blut in seinem Leben") : but it is doubt ful whether the suffix in itus-aa can be referred to the subordinate noun itoa-33; and stiU more so, whether its&sa can be paraphrased, "as long as it lives" or "during its life-time"- Equally questionable seems Rashi's exposition, which, itssaa aai being ren dered "instead of its life" (t»£an aipaa), almost produces a tautology, "for the life of all flesh is its blood, which is instead of its life". Ebn Ezra ex plains, "its blood that is united with its life", which is neither quite dis tinct as regards the construction nor as regards the sense. Nachmanides and others render ItBEaa "in its body" (Luzzatto: la vita d'ogni animale e il sangue ch'esso ha nel corpo), and Ewald (Alterth. p. 39), as doubtfully, "its blood itself, and so »E33 in ver. 11. The Chaldean translators liter ally reproduce the Hebrew text, and offer, therefore, no assistance; and the Septuagint and Vulgate entirely leave out the embarrassing word WEaa (-f) ydp ^"X'T 'rcaa-f]? aapxo? alp.a o'jtou 4oti , and anima enim omnis carnis insanguineest). Wemightwell adopt the translation "as regards the life of all flesh, its blood forms its soul" (iw'saa, so Keil), if such a free applica tion of a essentiae were warranted by usage. Other versions are vague or mystical (f. i. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych, p. 196, "sein in seiner Seele wesendes Blut"; Baumgarten, Comm. p. 198, "das Blut ist in der Seele, in- sofern das Blut als die Erscheinung in der Seele sein Wesen hat" ; Oehler in Herz. Real-Encycl. X. 630, "sein beseeltes Blut", a. o.). — The legis lator commands the covering of blood spilt in chasing animals, or in kiUing such as have been chased(ver. 13 ) : but this does not prove that the Hebrews were, at the author's tjme, accus tomed "to suck at once the warm blood of hunted animals" (Ghillanyr Menschenopfer, p. 608) ; our passage implies merely what is elsewhere explicitly stated, that they ate the flesh"with the blood"(ain-3»),and that they did so even in very late periods, as in the time of Ezekiel and after wards (ISam.XIV. 32 ; Ezek.XXXHL 25; etc. ; see supra p. 3). — We must translate '31 -nias -p-ss (ver. 1 2) "there fore I say to the children of Israel", not "I said" ; for in no previous "Si- naitic" law is the prohibition of blood extended to the stranger as well as to the Hebrews (comp. HI, 17 ; VII. 26 , 27) ; our chapter bases- that prohibition on entirely new grounds, and its unity and harmony with preceding sections cannot be upheld (see, f. i. , the apologetic re marks of Ranke, Untersuch. H. 81). 15, 1G. The transition from blood to the flesh of animals that have died of themselves (n^3a), or have been torn by wild beasts (nsio) is natural and intelligible, as such flesh was partiaUy, if not chiefly, inter dicted, because it allowed but an im perfect removal of its blood (see- pp. 15, 20). And this law also tends: 352 LEVITICUS XVII. 15, 16. bathe himself in water, and shall be unclean until the 16. But if he does not evening; then he shall be clean. to prove the advanced date of our chapter. The strangers living among the Hebrews are included in nearly an the enactments — in the command permitting sacrifices at the common Sanctuary only, in the prohibition of blood, and in the ordinances con cerning nsaa and nsita; the idea of a holy and united community, pro tected against all dangers of idolatry, had at last been deeply rooted , and was striving after complete realisa tion. In the first law only — that which converts the slaughter of every beast into a sacrifice — the stranger is not mentioned ; for though non-Hebrews, forming part of Hebrew settlements, could be compelled to abstain from pagan worship, they could not be compelled to revere the God of the Hebrews; therefore, whenever they were inclined to offer a sacrifice to Jehovah, they were commanded, like the Israelites , to offer it at the na tional Sanctuary; but whenever they simply desired to kill an animal for food, they were free to do so at any place they chose. As regards n^aa, the earlier Deuteronomist, less strict in ritual matters,expressly allows it as food to the stranger (Deut. XIV. 21); and even a preceding portion of our Book (XI. 40) prescribes , in cases of transgression , only washing of gar ments and uncleanness till the even ing ; but our section adds , besides, bathing in water, which it enjoins whenever n^aa has been eaten ; and an other law ordains the same lustration for priests who have merely touched suchflesh (XXII. 5,6; see supra p. 181). If we, moreover, consider that our au thor treats nsita, which had long been more leniently viewed , with exactly the same rigour as n^aa, and that, with respect to both, he warns tres passers to dread the consequences of their "iniquity" : it will be admitted that this section breathes the most thorough and most developed levi- tism. We must, however, in conclusion, allude with a few -words to a remark able discrepancy. A previous law enforces a sin-offering for the inad vertent touch of nVaa (V. 2, 5, 6) ; while our verses demand merely bathing and washing of garments for the in tentional eating of n3aa. It is not im possible that the former passage treats of the carcass of unclean, ours of clean animals (like XI. 39, 40), though there is nothing in the word ing of our verses which claims, or even favours , this restriction ; but it is more probable to suppose that at the date of this chapter the. prin ciple had fully prevailed that sin-of ferings should only be presented for undesigned trespasses, andnot, as had before been usual, for intentional of fences also; therefore, the legislator could treat the voluntary eating of nVaa only as an ordinary defilement, but he took care to brand this defile ment with unusual severity. Thus the gradual growth of the levitical system inevitably engendered many incongruities. Philological Remarks. — The Ka raite Aaron, in his Commentary, dis tinctly refers this law to cases of in advertency (asi»n by sin), and thus confirms the disagreement with V. 2 sqq. The same writer considers the stranger here mentioned to be "the stranger of righteousness" (pis ia), who shared all religious duties and privileges with the Hebrews, whereas he supposes that in Deuteronomy (XIV. 21) the "stranger of the gate" (ism ia) is meant, who was required LEVITICUS XVII. 15, .16. 353 wash his clothes, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity. to observe no more than the seven Noachic laws , but was merely a to lerated citizen, and no member of the religious community (see Comm. on Exod. p. 433). As the interdiction of blood was presumed to be one of those primitive laws (p. 9), the stranger mentioned in ver. 10 is "the stranger of the gate". — Jewish interpreters give this explanation — he who eats nVaa or nsita is guilty if, without pre vious lustration,he enters the Temple or eats of holy things (so Herxhei- mer, Johlson, Salomon, Luzzatto, a. o.) : but the operation of the laws of purity is not confined to matters connected with the Sanctuary (p. 193). — The term ""he shall bear his ini quity" (1'3'is sisai) does not mean "he shall suffer death" ; both expressions are clearly distinguished from each other (comp. XX. 17, 19). IV. MORAL AND MISCELLANEOUS LAWS. CHAPTERS XVHI TO XX. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. THE MATRIMONIAL LAWS OF THE BIBLE AND THEIR LATER DEVELOPMENT. It seems expedient to begin with an historical sketch of the matrimonial laws and customs which prevailed among the Hebrews from the earliest times down to the completion of the levitical code. For many centuries, marriages with non-Hebrews were freely contracted, without calling forth either censure or comment. Joseph took to wife the daughter of an Egyptian priest ', and Moses married first the daughter of a Midianite chief, and then an Ethiopian woman; against this latter alliance Aaron and Miriam indeed murmured, but, weare told, God punished them severely for their presumption2. The sons of Elimelech of Bethlehem took Moabite wives, and one of these, Ruth, was, after her husband's death, married to Boaz in the land of Judah, not only with the knowledge, but with the full approval of his fellow-townsmen3. During the period of the Judges, "the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hit- tites, and Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and Jebusites; and they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons"4: the displeasure pronounced by the historian at i Gen. XLL 45. 3 Euth I. 4 ; IV. 9—14. 2 Exod. II. 21; Num. XII. 1 sqq. * Judg. HI. 5, 6. MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 355 this conduct only shows how it was viewed in his own much later time. Hiram, the famous artist, was the son of a Hebrew woman and a Phoenician workman; and he was employed by King Solomon for the adornment of the holy Temple5. Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, was first the wife of "Uriah the Hittite"6. It is uncertain whether she was likewise of Canaanitish descent : if she was not, a Hebrew woman took a heathen husband; and if she was, a Hebrew king took a heathen woman. Solomon married the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh ; and the historian, having recorded this fact, added, "And Solomon loved the Lord, and walked in the statutes of David his father"7. It was only when the king had taken, besides, numerous foreign wives, who in his old age tempted him to idolatry, that the author, who wrote after the Babylonian exile, expressed his strong indignation8. The Deuteronomist does not object to the marriage of Hebrews with captive women of the heathen9. And even Esther, living in the Persian period, is related to have married a heathen king, without any effort being made by her pious relative Mordecai to prevent or to dissolve the union10. When, however, in the course of time, the nationality of the Hebrews became more marked and more distinct, they showed a growing disinclination to matrimonial alliances with other tribes; and proud of their race, they were anxious to preserve it pure and unmixed. The author of the patriarchal history in Genesis attributes to Abraham an injunction given to his steward not to take a wife for his son Isaac from the daughters of Canaan, but to select one in his Mesopotamian home ' * ; and he relates that Isaac and Rebekah were deeply grieved because their son Esau had intermarried with Hittite families, and that they sent Jacob away to seek a wife beyond the Euphrates12. "When Samson was desirous of marrying a Philis tine maiden of Thimnathah, his parents earnestly dissuaded him, saying — "Is there no woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all thy people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncir- 5 1 Ki. VII. 13, 14. Josephus (An- " Deut. XXI. 10—14; comp. Selden, tiq. VHI. in. 4), taking offence at De Jur. Nat. et Gent. lib. V. c. 13, this statement, converts the Phoeni- pp. 617 sqq. cian father of Hiram into an Israe- 10 Sometimes circumcision seems lite, and calls him Uriah (ira-rpos 8e to have been required from non-He- Oiipi'ou, yevo? 'laparjXiTuiv). brews who wished to marry Hebrew 6 2 Sam. XI. 3 ; XXHI. 39. women; comp. Gen.XXXIV. 14—17. 7 1 Kings in. 3. n Gen. XXIV. 3, 4. s 1 Kings XI. 1 sqq. I2 Gen. XXVI. 34, 35; XXVII. 46; AA2 356 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. cumcised Philistines?" Yet the writer observes that Samson acted by a Divine impulse, that he might find means to humble the Philis tines '. In a succeeding stage of Hebrew history, religious objections were added to national antipathies, and rendered marriages with for eigners doubly hateful in the eyes of Jewish patriots. They denounced such marriages as a snare to their faith, as a fatal inducement to idola try 2 ; in order to remove the temptation and the danger, they forbade any treaty or alliance of whatever kind to be concluded with non- Hebrews3; and at last they did not even allow idolaters to dwell within the Hebrew settlements4. The Law enjoined that the off spring of an Edomite or of an Egyptian should be excluded from the Hebrew community down to the third generation; and that no de scendant of an Ammonite or a Moabite should ever be admitted as a member of the chosen people 5. But these principles were very tardily adopted. Long after the Babylonian exile, Ezra saw with sorrow and dismay that people and priests alike had intermarried with the heathen tribes in and around Palestine, and that thus "the holy seed had been mingled with the people of strange lands." He made the most determined efforts to purge the commonwealth from these obnox ious elements ; yet not long afterwards Nehemiah and Malachi found heathen alliances again so prevalent that .the children almost ceased to understand Hebrew6 However, mainly owing to the zeal of these reformers, marriages with strangers were from that time scrupulously shunned as criminal 7 ; and hence the Samaritans or Cutheans, the pro geny of Israelites and Assyrians, were regarded with a fierce enmity which has hardly a parallel in history 8. Prom these facts we may draw some significant inferences throw ing light upon the date and composition of the Pentateuch. Moses XXVHI.1,2,6— 9;XXIX.19;XXXVI. comp., however, Judg. I. 19, 21, 2, 3. Lot, however, selected Canaan- 27 — 35; II. 21 — 23; HI. 1 — 5, etc. ite husbands for his daughters (Gen. 5 x>eut. XXIH. 5—9; comp. 1 Ki. XIX. 14). Comp. Augustin. De Civit. xi. 2. Dei XV. 16^ 6EzraIX.l^?.;X.lW;Neh.X. Judg XIV. 1 - 4 ; comp. also m 23_2? Mal> ^ XVI. 1, 4. 2 Exod. XXXIV. 16; Deut. VII. 3; - 7 Comp. TWif. Hist.V. 5, projectis- comp. Talm, Tevam. 76b ; Kid- sima ad libidinem gens, alienarum dush. 68. concubitu abstinent. SExod. XXIII. 32; XXXIV. 12, s Comp. Joseph. Ant. XI. iv. 9 ; XX. 15 ; Deut. VII. 2. vi. 1, etc.; comp. Selden loc. cit. lib. * Exod. XXXIV. 33 ; Deut. VII. 2 ; V. c. 12, pp. 612 sqq. MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 357 took for his second wife a woman from the detested race of the Hamites 9, and this he is said to have done after the promulgation of the Sinaitic laws, which rigorously proscribe such a marriage.10 These laws can, therefore, not have been promulgated by Moses. — The Book of Ruth was evidently written at a time when marriages with the heathen were frequent and were still looked upon as unobjectionable; for it sets forth the descent of the great King David from a Moabitish wo man; and the author, so far from condemning the marriage ofBoaz and Ruth, represents it as a pious and praiseworthy act on the part of both. And yet such an alliance is in the Pentateuch declared an ahomination; the offspring issuing from it were for ever banished from the community; they were illegitimate outcasts with regard to whom the Hebrew was enjoined — "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever" 1 1. Can these commands of the Pentateuch have been in force at the time when the Book of Ruth was composed — that is, at the earliest, in the reign of David or Solomon? And as David was the descendant of a Moabitess, so was Rehoboam the son of an Ammonite woman Naamah12, and yet no objection was raised to their occupying the throne of Israel as theocratic kings. Turning to marriages of affinity and consanguinity, we find that, for a long time, the customs of the Hebrews closely resembled those of other ancient nations. Like the Egyptians, the Persians, and others, the Israelites do not seem to have shunned marriages with sisters 13. According to the cosmogony in Genesis, all human fa milies are derived from one primitive couple ; the author must, there fore, have deemed conjugal connection between brothers and sisters blameless 14. Abraham, the son of Terah, married his half-sister Sarah, Terah's daughter15. The wife of Amram was Jochebed, his aunt, the 9 Num. XH, 1, see supra. acceperunt ; Selden loc. cit. lib. V. c. 10 Exod. XXXTV. 16. 8, pp. 576 sqq. 11 Deut. XXIII. 7; comp. ver. 4. 15 Gen.XX. 12. Later Jews, assum- 12 1 Ki. XIV. 21, 31. ing that the ordinances on incest (1133 '3 Comp. infra on XVHI. 6. nins) were enjoined upon aU men at 11 Comp. Talm. Sanhed. 58b, where the time of Noah (see supra p. 10), the words ma? ion oVia> (Ps. LXXXIX. and anxious to free Abraham from the 3) are explained, "An act of itan (i. e. stain of having married his sister, marriage with the sister, comp. XX. asserted that Sarah was the daughter 17) has built up the world"; Targ. of his brother Haran (Joseph. Ant, Jon. on XX. 17; August. De Civit.Dei I. vi. 5; Michael. Ehegesetze § 23; XV. 16, viri sorores suas conjuges comp. Rashi on Gen, XX, 12, "grand- 358 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. mother of Aaron and Moses '. More noteworthy is the instance of Amnon and Tamar, David's children. When Amnon was bent upon doing violence to his sister, she thus implored him, "Now speak, I pray thee, to the king, he will not withhold me from thee" ; and when, after the commission of the outrage, Amnon bade her leave him, she remonstrated — " This evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst to me"2- However, the Deuteronomist already set a curse upon marriage with a half-sister3. Jacob had simul taneously two sisters for wives. This double marriage, which indeed the patriarch did not originally contemplate, was not stigmatised by the historian, though it was afterwards by the legislator4. Gradually, however, principles were adopted which resulted in a distinctive system of matrimonial laws. Purity of race and pu rity of creed were no longer the only objects kept in view. Matri mony was not merely regarded in its social , but in its moral bear ings ; it was estimated less by the influence it exercises upon the community than by its effects upon the families ; and it was designed not only to cement the nation but to improve the individuals. It was almost raised into a sacrament. There was, on this point, no antagonism between Church and State. Neither of them disputed to the other the right of sanctioning marriages, for both alike endea voured to promote the moral education of every Hebrew. Husband and wife were now regarded as "one flesh" (nnx 1'ttja). The beautiful narrative of the creation of the first woman was framed to show that "a man must leave his father and his mother, and cling to his wife"5; children are like children, and in this individual case "have granted a dis- way Sarah was Terah's daughter" ; pensation" : but no one had the power and similarly other Jewish writers); of suspending the statutes of the the same view is also entertained by Law , which professed to emanate the Arabs (comp. Abulfed. Hist. An- from an authority higher than even teislam. p. 20 ed. Fleischer; Cleri- that of a Hebrew king. cus on Genes. XX. 12, and on Lev. 3 Deut. XXVII. 22. XVIII. 9). * Comp. Lev. XVIII. 18. The nar- 1 Exod. VI. 20. rative, prompted by national hatred, 2 Comp. 2 Sam. XIII. 13, 16, 20. of the alleged crime of Lot's daugh- Ancient Jewish expositors assumed ters, and Absalom's connection, for that David was not the father of Ta- political reasons , with his father's mar, but that he merely reared her up concubines , afford no proof with re in his house , after he had married gard to Hebrew customs (comp. Gen. her mother (comp. Ebn Ezra on XIX. 33 — 36; 2 Sam. XVI. 21, 22; XVIII. 11). Michaelis (Ehegesetze, XX. 3; also Gen. XXXV. 22; 1 Ki. p.l2)observes,thatitmighthavebeen II. 13—22). expected that David would ;n ihi? s (i««.tt "<< ¦ »™.- ".«i. -u-w-xr - MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 359 and conjugal infidelity was deemed an offence so heinous that it was forbidden in the fundamental Commandments by the side of theft and bloodshed, and was punished with implacable severity0. The Deute ronomist attempted no complete enumeration of forbidden degrees; he mentioned only three instances of affinity, the step-mother, the half-sister, and the mother-in-law'; and it may be concluded that he considered consanguinity as an insuperable barrier to a matrimonial alliance. Puller lists were subsequently furnislfed by levitical writers in two different sections. In one of them (ch. xx.) are proscribed, in addition to the cases specified by the Deu teronomist, marriages with the daughter-in-law, with the brother's wife, and with the aunt — whether the father's or the mother's sister, or the wife of the father's brother8. The other and still more ela borate list (ch. xviii.) begins with the general prohibition, "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him"0; and inter dicts, besides, the marriage with the mother, the grand-daughter, and with the wife's sister during the lifetime of the former10. But even this last list is incomplete. It omits the mother-in-law, who is named in the two other passages ' '; and, like these, it does not make mention of the daughter: if it be urged that the legislator con sidered marriage with the daughter an enormity too unnatural to be ever committed, why did he specify the mother12? It is important to keep these facts in mind in order to arrive at a just and rational estimate of the levitical marriage ordinances. The thirteen cases actually set down do not exhaust the prohibitions; they are merely the chief instances, which must be supplemented in accordance with the two principles above referred to, namely, that husband and wife are one flesh, and that it is unlawful to marry a blood-relation. The same reasons which militate against the mar riage between nephew and aunt, militate against the marriage between niece and uncle ; for if a man must avoid living in matrimony with his father's or his mother's sister, why should a woman be permitted to live in matrimony with her father's or her mother's brother?13 Mark X. 7,8; Ephes.V.31; see Selden, 10 Comp. Lev. XVIII. 6—18. De Jur. Nat. et Gent. lib. V. cap. 2, h Lev. XX. 14; Deut. XXVII. 23. pp. 541—544. " The Koran (IV. 27) expressly in- 6 See Comm. on Exod. pp. 369, eludes the daughter (f*^4j). 422—425. 13 The assertion that "Orientals re- 7 Comp. Deut. XXVII. 20 — 23. gard the niece as a more distant rela- 8 Comp. Lev. XX. 11 — 21. tion than the aunt" (Michael. Mos. R. 9 Lev. XVIII. 6, ii»a isaj. § 117), may be well-founded or not; 360 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. And again, there is no reason why, if marriage with the wife of the father's brother is forbidden1, marriage with the wife of the mother's brother should be allowed 2. In the former case the degree of consanguinity, in the latter the degree of affinity, is identical in the one direction and in the other. Yet Jewish tradition, though including in the interdictions the wife of the mother's brother, not only permitted but encouraged marriages between niece and uncle, si#ce Sarah was supposed to have been Abraham's niece3. In pro nouncing this decision, the Rabbins unquestionably misconceived the spirit of our laws. The silence of the Bible affords no proof, or else the marriage of a father with his daughter might be legalised, since it is not expressly forbidden. The levitical author argued that, as a son is not allowed to marry his mother, so, as a matter of course, a daughter must not marry her father ; and as a man is for bidden to wed his aunt, so, by parity of reasoning, must a woman not become the wife of her uncle. The Hebrew legislators ordinarily addressed their commands to the men, and they might well have expected that the precepts on matrimony would be fairly and ration ally applied to women. The matter appears to be plain beyond a doubt, and the marriage between uncle and niece was indeed rejected by most of the sects which derived their laws from the Bible4, as it was but it can in no case be used for the lis (Ehegesetze § 8) renders, "Oth- explanationof the Hebrew law which niel, the grand-son of Kenaz, a rela- determines relationship by the de- tive of Caleb", which is against the gree of consanguinity, not of pre- genius of Hebrew. sumable familiarity of social inter- i qt 0f the patruus. course. In earlier times, the marriage ,„ .^ , ° 2 Or of the avunculus. between uncle and niece seems in- deed to have been common. Nahor 3 See suPra P- 357 note 15' Many is said to have married Milcah , the have ar§ued thus : ~ "the nePhew is daughter of his brother Haran (Gen. frequently in his uncle's house and XI. 29). Again, in Josh. XV. 17 and constantly meets his uncle's wife; Judg. I. 13, we read -4W rap-p taro but the uncle is not so frequently ab : if we translate these words, «6th- in his nePne^'s k°^e , and seldom niel , the son of Kenaz , the brother meets the wife of the latter" (so Mai~ of Caleb", then Achsah, Caleb's «"«. Mor. Nev. IH. 49 , and others) : daughter,whomarriedOthniel,would n0t such exterllal considerations, be the niece of the latter ; and so the but the reSard of *^% ^ determined passages were understood by the ^e laws of matrimony. Masprites , who provided tap with a 4 As by the Karaites and their fol- inotive accent. However, if we lowers (comp. Fiirst, Karaerthum, I. hslate, "Othniel the son of Kenaz, 84 '¦> Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, V. 202), of the brother of Caleb", Achsah and and the Mohammedans (KoranTY. 27, Othniel would be cousins. Michae- C*a*V] >^»^j £2)1 ^^j)- MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 361 also disapproved by the Romans. When the Emperor Claudius desired to marry Agrippina, the daughter of his brother Germanicus, he at tained his object only by prevailing upon the Senate, with much pres sure and persuasion, to sanction a new law which permitted the mar riage with the niece to all Roman citizens 5 ; yet later authorities re pealed this law, and returned to the old and deeprooted usage6. The apostolic constitutions and the earliest Christian Canons, supple menting the Biblical and the Roman laws of matrimony, prescribed, that "whosoever marries his niece can fill no clerical office." St. Ambrose declared against Paternus, a man of great distinction, that "such a marriage was forbidden by the law of nature and by an inborn feeling"; and Cranmer included the niece (filia fratris) in the list of forbidden relations 7. There are connected with this subject two points which are of peculiar interest because they permit us a deep insight into the ori gin and economy of the Law. In the lists of Leviticus, the marriage with a brother's wife is twice clearly forbidden, and once it is denounced as a defilement and an abomination 8, sure to be visited with the penalty of childlessness9. But, on the other hand, in Deuteronomy, such a marriage is, under certain circumstances, as clearly and as emphatically enjoined as a sacred duty — namely, if a man had died without leaving a son, his brother was obliged to marry his widow, and the first son born of this matrimony took the name of the deceased. If the brother refused to marry the widow, he was branded with public disgrace as a traitor to his family10. How is this manifest contradiction to be accounted fori Por all attempts at harmonising it are necessarily unavailing. St. Augustine, and many others after him, supposed that the prohi bition was confined to the case of the deceased brother leaving children, or that it restrained a man from marrying the divorced wife of his brother during the lifetime of the latter 1 1. These qualifications, it need hardly be remarked, are mere hazards devoid of the slightest Bibli cal support. It is usually asserted that, in Deuteronomy, "a concession s Thus Domitian married Julia, '» Deut. XXV. 5— 10; comp. Matth. the daughter of Titus. XXII. 23—28. 6 Comp. Tacit. Annal. XII. 5—7; n Quaest. in Lev. LXI, non licere Suelon. Claud. 26. cuiquam defuncti fratris ducere uxo- 7 Reformatio Legum Eccles. p. 48 rem, si defunctusposterosdereliquit; ed. Cardwell. aut etiam illud esse prohibitum, ne 8 nia, see supra p. 212. liceret ducere fratris uxorem, etiamsi 3 Lev. XVHI. 16; XX. 21. afratrevivoperrepudiumrecessisset. 362 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. was made to the old and widespread institution of the levirat," or "an exception was granted in favour of a special case" '. But if the cus tom of leviration existed, and was to be preserved, the marriage with the brother's wife could not be unconditionally forbidden. If, on the other hand, such a marriage was described as uniformly detest able, the custom of leviration could not be upheld ; the prohibition and the custom cannot have existed simultaneously ; they must belong to different periods. This appears, in fact, to be the case, and it involves the only rational explanation of the difficulty. Let it be remembered that the law concerning the levirat occurs only in Deuteronomy, and not in Leviticus, and that the interdiction of the marriage with a sister-in-law occurs only in Leviticus, and not in Deuteronomy. Now the levirat, which prevailed among the Hebrews from primitive times2, as it obtained, and still obtains, among many eastern nations3, was intended to protect the agrarian rights of Hebrew families, and to prevent the extinction of representatives of Hebrew households , as is so well illustrated by the transactions related in the Book of Ruth. Therefore, the Deuteronomist, writing at a time when the old tribal and agrarian division was still in force, at least in a portion of the Hebrew territories, confirmed the old practice of leviration , and refrained from including in his matri monial ordinances a prohibition against the marriage with a sister- in-law. But the levitical author, living in the post-Babylonian period, when that agrarian division was not carried out in the poor and scattered settlements, had neither a political nor a social reason for maintaining the levirat. He had, on the contrary, every induce ment to suppress it, if possible; for to him the principle that "hus band and wife are one flesh" had become a reality. He regarded therefore, the husband's brother also as his wife's brother ; a mar riage with a sister-in-law was to him like a marriage with a sister. 1 Comp. H. W. J, Thiersch, Das Ver- 3 As the tribes of Siam, Pegu, and botderEhe innerhalb dernahenVer- Afghanistan, the Circassians, Tar- wandtschaft etc., 1869, pp. 31, 32; tars, and the Gallas in Abyssinia; see also Michaelis, Mos. R. § 101; see Comm. on Gen. p. 620. According Eheges.Mos. § 71 ; Baumgarten, Theo- to Hindoo law, funeral ceremonies log. Comment, p. 206 ("der Fall der for the peace of the soul might be Leviratsehe ist billig eine Ausnahme, performed by the children of the de- weil dann der lebende Bruder in die ceased, or by the children born by Stelle des verstorbenen eingeht"); his widow to his brother or some and some recent Commentators. other near relative or Sapinda (com- ' 2 Comp. Gen. XXXVIII. 6—11; pare Goldslucker , Mahabharata, pp, Ruth IV. 14, 38). MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 363 and therefore incestuous ; and should he who forbade a man to marry the wife of his father's brother, have' allowed him to marry the wife of his own brother4? These facts afford, besides, one of the strongest proofs of the later date of Leviticus as compared with Deuteronomy. We can well understand a progress from the primitive institution of the levirat to the rigorous interdiction of a marriage with so near a relation as a sister-in-law ; but a retrograde step from such an interdiction to the levirat appears historically impossible. Later Judaism so strongly abhorred the alliance with a brother's wife that it expressly prohibited the levirat, in flagrant opposition to a clear law of the Pentateuch, and, by a strange and contradictory device5, forced the bridegroom's unmarried brothers to renounce beforehand all claims upon his wife, in case she should become a widow, and yet made them appear as if blamably evading a sacred duty imposed upon them by the Law. In some eastern communities, however, as among the Sefardim in Zafet, the levirat is still adhered to6. The second point relates to a question which has been long and warmly discussed — the marriage with the deceased wife's sister7. It appears to us that the matter may be decided by a few simple considerations. If the marriage with the deceased brother's wife is rejected as an iniquity, the marriage with the deceased wife's sister must be regarded in the same light ; for, according to levitical prin ciples, the latter alliance also is virtually one between brother and sister. And yet, looking at the command as it stands in our received text, we must admit that such an alliance is plainly allowed : "Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to cause enmity, to uncover her nakedness, beside her, in her lifetime"8 — that is, a man is forbidden to have simultaneously two sisters for wives, but he may marry the second sister after the death of the first9. Here we are again in a perplexing dilemma : analogy demands the absolute condemnation of the marriage with a sister-in-law, and yet the clear wording of the ordinance condemns it only under certain circumstances. Are we to attach greater weight to the spirit of these statutes, or to the apparent distinctness of the language? We confess that we would fain uphold the consistency of the levitical marriage laws, which seem to be thoughtfully framed ; but then we should be obliged to * Comp. Lev. XVIII. 14; XX. 20. Morgenlande, p. 5. 5 The so-called rrrbn; comp. Deut. 7 Lev. XVHI. 18. XXV. 10; Ruth IV. 8 Ibid. n->;na n^s nniis. nisj^ 113&. ii Comp. Lewysohn,Klange aus dem ° See notes on XVIII. 18. 364 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. regard a few words of the text as an interpolation ', so that the com mand would run thus : " Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to uncover her nakedness"; and we appeal to everyone familiar with the Hebrew idiom whether the term "in her lifetime" (iT^ra), which chiefly causes the difficulty, does not read like an addition hardly standing in its right place. In the Koran the corresponding com mand is simply, "You are also forbidden to take to wife two sisters"2. In comparatively early times marriages with the deceased wife's sister were not only deemed unobjectionable, but most commendable, since it was believed that a sister would treat her sister's children with greater care and affection than could be expected from a stranger 3 ; and when this view gained ground, the word rii^rja might have been added to effect the desired change in the sense of the command. It need not be remarked that this suggestion is no more than a conjec ture ; but if the received reading is considered authentic, unity of principle and harmony of detail are destroyed in the levitical lists of forbidden degrees. It is impossible to accede to the rule that, "whereas the wife becomes incorporated into the family of the hus band, the husband is not incorporated into the family of the wife; his relations become her relations, but her relations do not become his relations"4. This may be true from the social and civil, but it is not true from the ethical and religious points of view, and it is the lat ter which mainly underlie the levitical laws of matrimony. Therefore, to sum up, those who cling to the literal accuracy of the traditional text are free to permit the marriage with the deceased wife's sister, but in doing so they disregard the leading ideas of the Hebrew laws of matrimony, and sanction an alliance which, according to their spirit, the legislator unquestionably considered as objectionable and unlawful. We believe that the table of prohibited degrees, which was prepared in the reign of Queen Elizabeth (in 1563), and which since then has been acted upon in the Anglican Church, fully harmonises with the levitical precepts. It interdicts thirty alliances to men, and the same number to women, some of which are expressly for- ' Viz. the words n^na n^Vs, per- tion of Lev. XVIII. 18 etc. pp. 36— haps also iisV>. 38 ; comp. also Baumgarten, Theolog. 2 Koran IV. 27. Comment, p. 204, "im Alten Testa- 3 Comp. also Mishn. Yevam. IV. ment ist das Weib noch nicht zu der 13 ;X. 4. gleichen Personlichkeit mit dem M'Caul, The ancient Interpreta- Manne gekommen," MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 365 bidden in the Law, while others are deduced from them by analogy B. Exactly the same conclusions were arrived at by Melanchthon 6, and by the learned Johannes Gerhard, whose sound arguments and lucid deductions almost exhaust the subject7. However, Luther was of opinion that those prohibitions only are binding which are expressly set forth in the Bible8, and his authority could not fail to have a strong effect upon Protestant Churches. Thus Frederick the Great, at the beginning of his reign (1740), permitted marriage in ten cases which had till then been forbidden because they seemed to be proscribed by the spirit of the Law9. Some Protestant theologians not only supported this decree by historic and philosophical arguments, but went farther in the same direction. Joh. Dav. Michaelis, reducing the laws of marriage, as he reduced nearly all Biblical laws, to the level of social and political expediency, contended that there was not a single marriage which, if once concluded, needed be dissolved as being incestuous. Por instance, if a man had married his sister or his daughter, all that was required was to keep the matter secret ; and holding of no account the respectus parentelce, as he disavowed the horror and pudor naiuralis , he believed that "a Christian ruler would not sin" in permitting, by special license, such alliances as those with the father's and" mother's sister10. These principles were indeed not adopted in modern legislations, but they exercised no mean influence upon some of them; and in the Prussian code the following three categories only are prohibited : — ( 1 .) Marriages be tween blood-relations in ascending and descending line; (2.) Mar riages between brothers and sisters, or half-brothers and half-sisters, whether born in wedlock or not; and (3.) Marriages between step parents and step-children, and between father or mother-in-law and son or daughter-in-law i l. Alliances with the aunt and the uncle, the deceased wife's sister, and with the brother's widow,are not interdicted. With the exceptions referred to, the choice of the Hebrews was unrestricted. No one was obliged to marry within his own tribe or 6 Compare Richard Burn, Eccle- widow of the mother's brother, with siastical Law, ed.Tyrwhitt,H.438— the widow of the brother's and the 450. sister's son; with the half-brother's 6 De Conjugio, 1551. widow; with the father's and the 7 Loci theologici, Locus XXVT; mother's step-sister; and with the §§ 239 sqq. De Gradibus prohibitis. widow of the father's half-brother. s Vom ehelichen Leben, 1522. See notes on XVHI. 1—5. 9 Viz. with the deceased wife's 10 Michaelis, Von den Ehegesetzen sister; with the brother's daughter Mosis, §§ 91—104. and the sister's daughter; with the n Preuss. Landr., Th. H. Tit. I. § 3, 366 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. class \ not even the priests and the High-priest ; only women who, because they had no brothers, came into possession of the paternal fields, were bound to marry from their own tribe, lest its territorial extent be impaired2. In some points, however, the sacerdotal order was subjected to greater strictness : all its members were forbidden to marry divorced or dishonourable women ; and the High-priest was, moreover, to take no widow, but a Hebrew virgin, "lest he pro faned his seed among his people"3. Other legislations were, in many respects, much more burden some. The Hindoo law prescribed that a regenerated man must refrain from marrying a woman who, from the father's or the mother's side, is related to him in the sixth degree, or whose family name in any way seems to bespeak kinship with his own family4. Tal- mudists extended the Biblical prohibitions to the ascending and de scending lines of whatever degree D, though the practical effect was very slight on account of the great disparity of years between the parties. Por instance, as the mother is forbidden, so is the grandmother and great-grandmother; as the step-mother, so the grandfather's wife; as the daughter-in-law, so the grandson's wife ; as the granddaughter, so the son's or the daughter's granddaughter6- The same rules were laid down by the Canonical decrees, and also by the Roman law, which was framed upon the principle that "matrimony is not allowed between persons who occupy the mutual position of parents and children"7. The Biblical prohibitions were, moreover, applied to additional degrees in lateral lines: as the father's and the mother's 1 It was different among other an- 2 Comp. Num. XXVII. XXXVL cient nations: "Men of the regene- 3 See Lev. XXI. 7, 13, 14 and rated classes are recommended to notes in loc.; comp. Ezek. XLIV. 22; take as their first wives from their Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 563, 576. own class; andthosewho are inclined * Manu IH. 5. to marry again, must give the pre- 5 They were called m-a-ii secondary ference to women of their own or to or subordinate, viz. wiy?; comp. the next lower class" (Manu Til. 13); Mishn. Tevam. H. 4, nraio nisa lies "A Brahmin who marries a Sudra b^ieis insia. woman as his first wife, sinks into 6 Comp.7Vm.Yevam.21,22a; Talm. the sphere of agony, and if he begets Jer. Yevam. II. 4, Part HI. fol. 3a ed. a child with her, he loses his rank Krotosh. ('ai imk ns ni^aiun yi iVwi); as priest, . . . for he commits a crime Maimon. Hilch. Ishuth I. 6. which the laws declare to be beyond_ 7 Quiparentum liberorumve locum the possibility of atonement" (cc. 17, inter se obtinent ; see Gaji Instit. ed. 19); comp. in general, ManulTi. 5 sqq.; Goschen et Lachm., Bonn 1841, XI. 171, 176; Yajnav. I. 56, 57; Diod. pp. 15 sqq. (lib. I §§ 58—67; Digest. Sic. I. 73, 74. lib. XXIII. tit. 2, de ritu nuptiarum). MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 367 sister are forbidden, so are the grandfather's and the grandmother's sisters. Persons of very remote affinity, or even of no actual affinity whatever, were not allowed to intermarry for various extraneous reasons. According to the Talmud of Jerusalem and the Roman law, a man may not marry the widow of his step-son, nor the step mother of his deceased wife, for in the former case the widow must respect her husband's step-father like her own father, and in the latter, the widower must look upon his wife's step-mother as upon his own mother. Some, as the Karaites8, even proscribed the mar riage between persons who are step-brothers and step-sisters from both sides9, and who can, therefore, in no sense be called blood- relations > °. The Mohammedans extended the interdiction to foster- mothers and foster-sisters i K Marriages between cousins were deemed objectionable by the Karaites, who were most scrupulous in the application of the Biblical principles 12; by the Hindoos, who held that "a cousin is almost like a sister" [ 3 ; and by the early Romans, who, in conformity with their strict family organisation, regarded the children of brothers and sisters as growing up under the authority of the same grandfather, and therefore occupying, in some manner, the relative position of brothers and sisters ; and though such marriages were from the time of the secondPunic war not unfrequently contracted, and that without reproach14, they were prohibited by Theodosius under the threat of death by fire, and disapproved by St. Augustine 15, who observed that though not unlawful in themselves, they were condemned by custom, because they bordered closely upon the unlawful, and cousins were almost like brothers and sisters16; yet Theodosius' son Arcadius repealed his father's interdict, and Justinian adhered to this more lenient view. In the Byzantine Church, the Trullian Council (680) forbade such marriages under ecclesiastical penalties extending over 8 See Grdtz, Geschichte, V. 202. 14 Tacit. XII. 6, sobrinarum conju- 9 That is, between the children of gia diu ignorata tempore addito per- a widow and of a widower who enter crebruisse ; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 6. into matrimony. 15 De civit. Dei XV. 16. to Justinian, however, expressly 16 Verum tamen factum etiam lici- permitted such alliances. tum ProPter ^^^^ horrebatur illiciti, . . . et pene germani sunt (sc. n Comp. Koran IV. 27. , . ., £, , , , 1 consobrmi). They are shunned by 12 Comp. Grdtz, Geschichte, V. 241, some savage tribes of Africa, as. the 244> 504- Pertyt, south of Wadai and Darfur; 13 Manu XI. 172, 173. see Thiersch 1. c. p. 145. 368 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. seven years. The early Protestants condemned them with equal severity; but the Anglican Church, which disregarded both the Roman and Canonical law, and was mainly guided by the Scriptures and by national custom, interposed no obstacles to marriages between cousins, which are countenanced by the Biblical precedents of Isaac and Rebekah, and of Jacob and Leah and Rachel 1. The Eastern fathers, under the Isaurian emperors Leo and Constantinus, inter dicted alliances even between the grandchildren of brothers and sisters, whom they counted as standing in the sixth degree of rela tionship. The next or seventh degree was not long afterwards also forbidden2, but the eighth was declared lawful. True to this rule, the Greek Church still considers marriages between lateral relations within seven degrees ungodly3. No less stringent was the Greek Church with respect to affinity (dy^taTEia). Not satisfied with the old Latin "affinity of the first class"4, according to which either party has to regard the blood-relations of the other as his or her own blood-relations, that Church extended the same rigorous principle to the " affinity of the second class," or the relations by marriage. Por instance, as a man is forbidden to marry his wife's sister, so also is his brother; a woman is forbidden to marry the brother of her sister- in-law ; and finally, the Trullian Council pronounced the broad principle, that two families which have once intermarried must not intermarry again down to the sixth degree. These restrictions, for which neither the Biblical nor the Roman law affords any foundation, were adopted chiefly to prevent " confusion " (o-u-y^uaic) in the degrees of relationship. Por instance, if two brothers marry two sisters who are their cousins, they become at the same time brothers-in- law ; and their children would be cousins on their father's side, and second cousins on their mother's side5. The Roman Church passed even beyond these boundaries with regard to consanguinity ; for, adopting the old Teutonic computation of kinship, according to which brothers and sisters form the first degree, cousins the second, and so on, it interdicted marriages within i The same practice prevails among * Affinitas primi generis. the Arabs of Egypt and other coun- 5 Eor similar reasons were forbid- tries (Lane, Mod. Egypt. I, 209). den the marriages between two sis- 2 By Sisinnius and Caerularius, ters and two cousins, of uncle and patriarchs of Constantinopel, about nephew with two sisters, oftwobro- !000. thers with niece and aunt, etc. ; com- 3 Comp. Zhishmann, Eherecht der pare Zhishmann 1. c. pp. 243 sqq., oriental. Kirche, Wien 1864. 319 sqq. MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 369 seven such parallel generations ; it thus extended the prohibitions at least as far again as the Greek Church, and, in fact, annulled all alliances between persons of common descent, however remote their consanguinity 6. But this excessive rigour could not long be maintained ; it rendered marriage to royal personages and to people in small towns all but impossible ; unions were entered into with an uneasy conscience, and were fraught with fatal results for their off spring, or they were forcibly and abruptly dissolved. Therefore, the Popes Gregory the Great and Gregory II. deemed it expedient to grant more lenient statutes to the converted Angles and Anglo- Saxons 7, and to limit the prohibition to four degrees ; the same principle was, under Innocence III., confirmed in behalf of the western Church in general8, which was thus placed nearly on the same footingas the Greek Church9. But even these barriers, far extend ing beyond those set down in the Scriptures, were found oppressive ; for not even the great-grand-children of two brothers or two sisters, being related in the fourth degree, were allowed to marry one another. Therefore dispensations became often necessary. They were at first merely designed to secure equity in cases when the meaning of the law would have been perverted,and cruel wrong inflicted by an unbend ing adherence to the letter. But they soon degenerated into a most flagrant abuse ; they were often claimed and granted, in defiance of the Biblical precepts, from selfish or sordid motives. The Popes believed that they were invested with "plenitude of power" to sus- 6 Comp. Decretum Gratiani, P. II, eating thern grilled or raw with salt causa 35, Nulli Christiano liceat de and red pepper" ; andanalogous laws propria consanguinitate seu cogna- prevail among other barbarous races; tione uxorem accipere , usque dum see E. P. Tylor , Researches into the generatiorecordatur, cognoscituraut early History of Mankind, pp. 277 — inmemoriaretinetur; comp. Thiersch 284. 1. u. p. 82. In India, a Brahman may 7 in 601 and 726. not marry a wife whose clan-name or gotra is the same as his own, whereby marriage among relatives is prohibited in the male line indefi- 9 The fourth degree was adopted 8 In 1215, in the fourth Lateran Council. nitely ; the same is the law of China ; as a, limit , because there are four among the Tartars in Asia and Eu- elements in the human body , comp. rope, amongtheLapps and Samoieds, Thorn. Aquin. Suppl. tertiae partis intermarriage in the same family or summae quaest. 54 art. 4: in prima tribe is deemed impious, and the commixtione evanescit sanguinis people in Sumatra "punish such de- identitas quantum ad primum ele- linquents after their ordinary man- mentum, quod est subtilissimum; in ner by cutting them up alive, and secunda ad secundum; etc. BB 370 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. pend, not only the old Canons, but even the Scriptural ordinances, and in favour of certain persons to sanction acts illicit in themselves. They advanced on this dangerous path cautiously, and step by step. At first they gave dispensations when objectionable marriages had been entered into "from ignorance of the fact" of mutual relationship, or "from ignorance of the law." But in the course of time, they authorised such marriages even before they were concluded. Again, at first they acted so only for the promotion and in the interest of the public weal and of peace between rival princes ; but ere long, they sold their dispensations and turned them into a most lucrative traffic. There were hardly any obstacles to the rich. Marriages were allowed between uncle and niece, * and between aunt and nephew, 2 or between brother-in-law and sister-in-law,3 till at last the Roman Cardinal Cajetan, the famous contemporary of Luther, boldly promulgated the principle, that "the Pope may give dispensation of marriage with all relatives, except only with father and mother," since these alone are moral offences, while the rest are merely judicial prohibitions. 4 These and similar excesses, giving rise to the reproach that in Rome everything could be purchased with money, accelerated, if they did not call forth, the great schism of the Church. The Council of Trent anxious to avert still greater dangers, adopted indeed more prudent and more judicious views : withrespect to marriages already concluded, dis pensation was rendered more difficult; and as regards intended alli ances, it was only to be granted in rare and urgent cases, and always gratuitously. Yet exceptions were permitted "in favour of illus trious rulers, and from considerations of national safety ; " they were allowed "in the second degree," which includes not only cousins, but also uncle and niece, and nephew and aunt, although marriage between the two last named relatives is plainly interdicted in the levitical law; in fact, the Council threatened with anathema anyone who dared to deny the power of the Church to sanction alliances prohibited in the Bible. Thus, in the question of dispensations, no practical progress was made by the Synod of Trent ; and since then the principles of i The Archduke Charles married 3 Henry VIII and Catherin of Ara- his sister's daughter, by whom he gon; see notes on XVHI. 16. became the father of Ferdinand II. 4 Potest papa dispensare cum om nibus personis conjunctis, nisi cum 2 Ferdinand the younger, king of matreet patre,ut matrimonium con- Naples, married his father's sister trahant; Cajetanus, Thorn. Aquin. loan, by permission of Pope Alexan- secunda secundae cum comment. der Vi- Lugd. 1558, v. 537. MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 371 Cajetan have virtually prevailed among Catholic theologians a. Neither the Romans, nor the Jews, nor the Greek Christians, nor the old Protestants ever granted dispensations6: not. even the Emperor Claudius, though living in a most depraved age, was able to obtain exemption from the laws which were binding upon all (see supra p. 361). It is well known that the Roman laws of marriage were based upon two principles — natural decorum (pudor naturalis) 7 and respect of parental dignity (respectus parentelse). The latter principle invalidated marriages between persons connected by adoption or by guardianship (tutela) ; for in both cases such persons were regarded as standing in the relationship of parent and child. Marriage was unlawful even after the adoption had been dissolved by emancipation, though in the latter contingency the union with an adoptive sister was per mitted ; and not only was the guardian himself forbidden to marry his ward, but he was restrained from marrying her to his son or grand-son, unless she had been betrothed to the one or the other by the deceased father, or had been assigned to him by testament. 8 From the sixth century, a new obstacle of a peculiar nature, entirely unknown in the early Christian Church, became very promi nent, and gradually assumed most serious proportions, namely, "the spiritual kinship" (cognatio spiritualis). Such a relation, idealising the Roman adoption, but questionably confounding the spheres of nature .and religion, was, in the first instance, supposed to exist between a godfather and his goddaughter, for the former was con sidered as the spiritual parent of the latter, and was held responsible for her religious education; or, as Justinian explained it, "Nothing is so much calculated to create a truly paternal affection and, there fore, a valid obstacle to matrimony, than that bond by which, under 5 Comp. Kopp, Kathol. Eherecht, aus sein und nicht mehr irren"; I. 250, "Von den Moraltheologen und Zhishmann 1. c. pp. 713—715. Kirchenrechtslehrern wird einstim- 7 "Semper in conjunctionibus non mig nur das Eheverbot zwischen As- solum quid liceat considerandum est, cendenten und Descendenten im er- sed et quid honestum sit" ; Digest. sten Grade als injure naturali und 8 it is probable that this law, be- injure divino begrundet und daher sides being prompted by respectus absolut indispensabel gehalten". parentelae , was designed to protect 6 Comp. Aem. L. Richter, Evange- the liberty and the fortune of the lische Kirchenordnungen des 16ten ward. Comp. De Gradibus Cogna- Jahrhunderts, Weimar 1846, I. 125, tionum expositio (fortasse Ulpiani), "undwasbishermitDispensirenund in Buschke, Jurisprud. Anteiustin. am Geld erlangt worden ist, soil aUes pp. 511 — 517. 372 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. Divine mediation, the souls of the two are united"1- Therefore, the sponsor being regarded as the "second father" (compater) of the child, he was also forbidden to marry the mother of the latter if she became a widow2; yet some, as Boniface, deemed such a marriage unobjection able, declaring that else no Christian man would be permitted to marry a Christian woman, since baptism engendered religious relationship between all the members of the community. The Greek Church went in the matter to an extraordinary length ; spiritual affinity was by the Trullian Council pronounced to be more important than physical relationship ; and the Synod held under the patriarch Nicolaus III.3 declared that it precluded marriage within seven degrees, exactly like consanguinity: and this decision has ever since been adhered to. The Roman Church not only adopted the same strict rules of spiritual relationship, but extended them to the "con firmation sponsors," who are unknown in the Greek Church. The consistent application of these principles led to the preposterous conclusion that if either of the parents assists at the baptism or the confirmation of his or her own child, a spiritual relation is created with the other parent which prevents the continuance of the union4 ! However, the Council of Trent ordered that spiritual relationship existed only between the godfather and the officiating priest on the one hand, and the child and the parents on the other; and that it does not extend to the sponsor's children, so that "spiritual brothers" and "sisters" were no longer acknowledged. It is remarkable that, in some countries, the early Protestants, clinging to the old "impe rial law"5, and recognising the Roman principle of respectus parenlelw, counted adoption, guardianship, and sponsorship among the obstacles of marriage6. If, after this survey of later additions and expansions, we glance once more at the Biblical ordinances, it will be admitted that they appear thoughtful in principle and little burdensome in de tail. This is not the place to examine, how far they coincide with reason and the laws of nature, and whether just these are indispen sable to secure a healthful offspring and a pure intercourse between 1 Cod. Just. lib. V, tit. 4, § 26. had held her own son over the bap- 2 Concil. Trull, can. 53. tismal font. 3 A. C. 1084—1111. 5 That is, the Corpus juris civilis 4 In this manner it is said that and the law of the Pentateuch. Chilperich, the king of the Franks, 6 This was, f. i.. the law of Wiir- divorced his wife Andovera, who, in- temberg according to the statutes of duced by the wicked Fredegunde, 1553; see Richler 1. c. II. 130. MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 373 near relations7. "Natural abhorrence" and "natural decorum" are fluctuating sentiments. Caution in pronouncing judgment on these points is imposed by the fact that, with the exception of father and mother, there is not a single degree of consanguinity and of affinity which, with respect to matrimony, more or less civilised nations have not held unobjectionable8. It is diffcuft to draw the line of demarcation: is the "oneness of flesh" to end with the cousin or to include him ; is it to end with the niece or to include her ? Different religious sects in the same country have answered these questions differently. The matter rests essentially on legal and social con ventionality. We will now briefly refer to some other points connected with the matrimonial laws and customs. It would be idle to deny that polygamy, supposed to be a physi cal necessity in the East9, was lawful among the Hebrews. It even formed the basis of some of the ordinances of the Pentateuch, such as the institution of the levirat, which required that a surviving brother, though married, should take his brother's widow; or the law of inherit ance in cases when "a man had two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and both had born to him children" 10. But it must be admitted that, even in the Biblical times, the Hebrews showed a growing tendency towards monogamy, which, as a matter of fact, prevailed in later times11; till an authoritative decree issued in the eleventh Christian century made it compulsory under the threat of excom- 7 Comp. Maim. Mor. Nev. III. 49 have two sisters as wives at the same ("those relations being constantly to- time (Lev. XVIH. 18) implies that gether with the man in the same he may have two wives who are not house, they will yield easily to his sisters; comp. also Exod. XXI. 10; desires, etc.") ; Thorn. Aquin. Secunda Judg. VHI. 39 (Gideon) ; X. 4 (Jair) ; secundae quaest. 154 art. 9, quia per- XII. 9 (Ibzan), 14 (Abdon) ; 1 Sam. I. sonas sanguine junctas necesse est 2 (Elkanah) ; XXV. 42 , 43 (David) ; invicem conversari, sicque continuo 1 Ki. XI. 3 (Solomon); 2 Chr. XXW. haberent occasionemluxuriaenimis- 3 (Jehoiada); etc. etc. que emollescerent; Michael. Mos. R. il Comp., however, Talm. Succ. 27a § 108; Ehegesetze Mosis § 52; a. o. (a^aa *rw ¦£ «n« *sk) ; Kethuv. 80b; Kid- 8 Comp. Hugo Grotius, De Jure dush. 50b.; Yevam. 65% rm» Kffiian bi Belli etPacis, lib. n. cap. V, sect. 13; 'isi wbn bv, and bibs nas din Niuia Michaelis, Ehegesetze Mosis, §§91 'ai tnevib; Even Haezer § 1. 9 ("the sqq, Jewishsagesjudiciouslyadvised that 9 Comp. Montesquieu, Esprit des a man should not take more than four Lois XVI. 2 — 7. wives, so that he might be able to i° Deut. XXI. 15—17 ; XXV. 5—10. give to each her conjugal right once The command that a man must not a month"). 374 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. munication, and has since been adopted by all western Jews '. Nor did concubinage, which in earlier periods was certainly not unusual among the Hebrews2, assume a character dangerous to public mora lity; for it never supplanted matrimony, and in the course of time disappeared completely ; its status is not fixed in the Law, but it does not seem to have been degrading or oppressive ; the offspring of concubines enjoyed the rights of legitimate children, and shared their father's inheritance; thus the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were in every respect treated as the equals of the sons of Leah and Rachel, and were considered as founders of Hebrew tribes3. A primitive custom of associating with the wife's "maid-servant" 4, and of treating the children of the latter as if born by the former 5, fell soon into disuse 6. To secure his wife, the man, besides giving presents ("(Fra) to her self and her relatives, was obliged to pay a "price" ("irja) to her parents in proportion to his means 7, or he paid them by his services, as i See Comm. onExod.p. 370 ; comp. Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. V, c. 6, pp. 561 — 567. However, instances of legal bigamy occurred in Castile even in the fourteenth century (comp. Rabb. Nissim, n^laiop fix b-b: iniu sunV I3n3» taipts, Frankel, Monatsschrift, 1865, pp. 390, 391). In the East, Jews still have occasion- any two wives ; some congregations, especially of the Sefardim, permit bigamy in two cases — if the first wife is childless, or if she bears only girls. Many communities, however, adhere to the decree of Rabbi Gershom. Comp. Niebuhr, Reise nach Arabien, p. 70; Lewysohn, Klange aus dem Morgenl. pp. 5, 35. Among the Fa- lashas in Abyssinia bigamy is not legally forbidden , but it is looked upon as reproachful. The Jews in China acknowledge only one lawful wife, though they often have other wives of an inferior rank, whose children are not considered legiti mate (comp. Frankel, I.e. 1858, p.464; 1864, p. 276; 1868, p. 408). "Poly gamy" observes Niebuhr, "is not so general in the eastern countries as Europeans usually suppose" (1. c. pp. 73, 74). — ¦ "Polygamy is, at least at present, not the rule among the Parsees"; if the first wife has no children, the husband may take another wife, yet not without the consent of the former (Spiegel, Aves ta, II. p. xxxi). Por fuller explana tions we refer to our Commentary on Genes, p. 375; on Exod. p. 370; on. Levit. I. 576. 2 Gen. XXH. 24; XXV. 6; XXXV. 22 ; Judg. VIH. 31 ; IX. 18; XIX. 1 sqq. ; 2 Sam. XV. 16; XVI. 21, 22; XX. 3; 1 Ki.XI. 3; 1 Chr. I. 32; H. 46, 48; 2 Chr. XI. 27; etc. Concu bines (n^ffljais) are occasionally called nnua wives, Gen. XXV. 1 (comp. 1 Chr. I. 32) ; XXXVH. 2. 3 Talm. Jerus. Kethuv. V. 2 (Part IH. fol. 29b) ; Talm. Sanh. 19b; Maimon. De Regib.IV. 4; Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. pp. 570 sqq. 4 n»s or nnEB. 5 Gen. XVI. 2; XXX. 3, 4, 9. 6 Comp. Comm. onGen. pp. 375,376. 7 Comp. Gen. XXIV. 53 (maiaa); XXXIV. 12. The legal sum seems to have been fifty shekels (comp] Deut. XXII. 29). MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 375 Jacob did to Laban, Othniel to Caleb, and David to Saul 8. However, among other nations, as the Parsees and Arabs, it is not deemed proper for the bride to enter her husband's house emptyhanded, and the amount of the dowry of virgins and widows has been fixed by custom9 ; in conformity with this usage, Jewish brides also were, in later times, furnished with a dowry or "gift"10. A betrothal generally preceded the marriage 1 \ and the betrothed woman was regarded exactly as if she were married, faithlessness on her part being punished with death i 2. In later periods, betrothals were concluded in three different ways — "by money, by contract (ibib), and by connection" (iiijia); though the latter mode was looked upon as indecent13. The bride met her bridegroom closely veiled. The wedding was accompanied by festivities usually extending over seven days 14. At present, the marriage ceremony (nsn) 1 5 is, as a rule, performed by a minister or by any competent Israelite, in the pre sence of at least ten men, and is thereby stamped as a public transac tion16; several benedictions are recited, and the bridegroom puts a golden ring on the finger of the bride with the words, "Thou shalt be consecrated (nanpa) to me according to the law of Moses and Israel". These simple acts are usually accompanied by symbolical rites, though in this respect the customs vary17. Matrimony was looked upon not only as the normal condition of both men and women18, but as a religious duty19; and it was 8 Gen. XXIX. 18, 27, 30; Josh. XV. 4,'si niafiB «»s ns->aa »ip? iitas B-^an. 16 ; 1 Sam. XVHI. 25 ; see Comm. on 14 Gen. XXIX. 22—28 ; Judg. XIV. Gen. pp. 469, 529; on Exod. p. 425. 10, 12, 17. 9 Comp. Spiegel, Avesta, II. p. xxx.; 15 Either meaning the introduction Lane, Mod. Egypt, I. 211, "the giving of the bride into the house or under of a dowry is indispensable". the roofoi her husband ; or the retire- 10 tcans, which term occurs already ment of the couple into the bridal in Ezekiel XVI. 33, where it means chamber (Isai. IV. 5; Joel II. 16; Ps. a present given to a courtesan. Comp. XIX. 6); Talm. Kethuv. 7. and R. also Job XV. 19; Judg. I. 15. Nissim in loc; Maim. Ish. X. 1; etc. nin later times, twelve months 16 Comp. Ruth IV. 2 ; Maim. Mor. generaUy intervened between be- Nev. HI. 49, "there is only one way of trothal and marriage, if the bride securing lawful intercourse, and that was a virgin ; thirty days, if she was is, to take one wife, and to marry her a widow (Talm. Kethuv. 57). publicly." !2 Comp. Gen. XXXVIH. 24; Deut. 17 Comp. Talm. Kiddush. 5, 6, 13. XXH. 23 sqq. ; see Comm. on Exod. *8 Comp. Talm. Yevam. 63a, bi p. 422. bis 13-ss na nna» spa ; comp. (see p. 39), "the usage of our time is Talm. Yevam. 62b; Yalk. Shim. % 316, not tocompelanyoneinthisrespect". fol. 66b- 8 Talm. Kethuv. 57 ; Kiddush. 41a, 5 Comp. Gen. XXXVIH. 11; Ruth is natap s^nica ina ns oip*u bis? lies I. 13, etc.; see also Talm. Yevam. 62; nasli^s^aiVEaittsnipianffl; comp. Maim. Kiddush. 29b- Ish. HI. 19. 6 See Comm. on Levit. I. 576 note 9 Comp. Tosafoth ad Kiddush. 1, c. 3; Talm. Yevam. 80; Even Haezer § i° Comp. Niebuhr, Beschr. von Arab. 155; Mitzv. Hash. p. 106 rule 14. pp. 71, 72; Lane, Mod. Eg. I. 208. 7 Comp. Mishn. Avoth V. 21; Talm. n Vendid. XIV. 65; comp. Spiegel, Kiddush. 29b; Yevam. 62b,63b; Sanh. Avesta, II. pp. xxix. xxx. 378 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. Roman law fixed the ages of twelve and fourteen for girls and young men respectively, as the earliest periods for legally entering into wedlock. Marriage being regarded as making man and wife one flesh, it was meant to be indissoluble; and its nature is no doubt rightly expressed in the words attributed to Christ, "What God has joined together, let not man put assunder" l- Thus only could God's eternal covenant with Israel be compared with a matrimonial alliance2. In the early history of the Hebrews — as in the earlier annals of the Roman Republic3 — we read of no instance of dismissal, except that Abra ham was induced to send away Hagar, his wife's handmaid. How ever, so abstract a theory could not be upheld in practical life ; a concession was to be made to the people's "hardness of heart"4; and the Deuteronomist was compelled to give an explicit law of divorce5. He granted the right of initiative exclusively to the husband, but he seems to have restricted his power to cases of flagrant infidelity on the part of the wife6; and he permitted no one to dismiss a wife whom he had been compelled to marry on account of seduction by violence, or one whom he had defamed by falsely asserting that he had not found her a virgin7. Yet, after the Babylonian exile, divorces appear to have become so numerous, that prophets deemed it their duty strongly to oppose the prevailing levity. Thus Malachi declared: "And again you do this, that you cover the Altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying. . . . Yet you say, Wherefore? Because the Lord is witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, although she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant". And when the people pointed, in excuse, to the example of Abraham, who dismissed Hagar without thereby forfeiting the Divine Spirit8, the - prophet replied, that the patriarch's position was exceptional, and i Matth.XIX. 6; MarkX. 9; comp. mony, but the Greek Church aban- 1 Cor. VI. 16; VH. 11— 14, 27. doned this view. 2 See supra p. 348 , and Comm. 3 Comp. Gell. TY. 3, quingentis fere on Levit. I. 398 ; comp. also Eph. V. annis p. R. c. etc.; Val. Max. II. ix. 2. 31,32. The Persians look upon it as " Matth. XIX. 8 ; Mark X. 5. a compact or Mithra which can never 5 Deut. XXIV. 1 ; comp. Jer. III. 1. be annulled, nor can a betrothed pair 6 Deut. I.e. iai nns na ssa ^a, where be separated, not even if they are iai mis seems to be equivalent to still children (comp. Spiegel, Avesta, nns iai ; comp. Mich. Mos. R. §§ 119, H. pp. xxvi. xxx.) The Council of 120. Trent confirmed the permanency and 7 Deut. XXII. 19, 22. the sacramental nature of matri- 8 Mai. 11.15, ia> mi nsiui nws ins sVi. MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 379 that he acted as he did because he was seeking the Divinely promised seed9; and he continued, "Therefore take heed for your souls, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth ; for the Lord, the God of Israel, says, I hate dismissal"10. The prophet did not repeal the law of divorce enacted by the Deuteronomist, but he protested against the heartlessness which palliated a separation by the most frivolous pretexts, and which Christ, no doubt, had also in view when, in the Sermon on the Mount, he declared, "I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of forni cation, causes her to commit adultery" 1 1. The Sadducees and earlier Karaites unconditionally condemned divorce12, and this opinion seems also to be expressed in some passages of the New Testament13. But while the Roman Church adhered to the same principles, Protes tantism legalised divorce, at first only in extreme cases of faithless ness and desertion, but then for many other reasons, including "unconquerable dislike"14. The Mohammedan law permits divorce after a warning of four months on the part of the husband, except in cases of unchastity, when he may dismiss his wife instantly 1 5. Among the Parsees valid reasons for divorcing a wife are : — if she leads a reproachful life; if she conceals from her husband the time of her menstruation ; if she practises witchcraft ; and if she is barren. In the latter case, the Talmud not only permits but prescribes a divorce, which must take place if the wife bears no child within ten years after marriage16. However, this Talmudical command has never been enforced 1T. 9 B^nVs sit »pa*a. u This is one of the sixteen causes i° Mai. H. 13 — 16. fixed by the Prussian law. Some n Matth. V. 32; XIX. 9; see supra even advocated dissolution of mar- p. 118. The same view was taken riage without the statement of any by Shammai and his school, whereas reason, merely by mutual consent Hillel and his followers permitted (ex bona gratia; so Jbrg and Tschir- divorce for any cause that might dis- ner, Die Ehe aus dem Gesichtspunkte turb domestic peace. Comp. Talm. der Natur, der Moral und der Reli- Gittin 90b, iWik naiwsi was SJiaan ?s gion betraehtet, 1819, pp. 175, 260, nissi i^ps 11116 na*». 261). 12 Fiirst, Karaerthum, I. 30. 15 See KoranTi.226— 233; LXV. 1—6. « Mark X. 11,12, "Whosoever shall ™ Talm. Yevam. 64.a putawayhiswife.andmarryanother, »7 Comp. Talm. Gittin 90; Yalk. commits adultery against her; and Shim. Malach. § 589, fol. 87b; Even if a woman shall put away her hus- Haez. § 154, 10 ftisp pni3 -ps ntn }Wi band, and be married to another, she ?;>s) ; Frankel 1. c. pp. XLII— XLVHI. commits adultery"; comp. Luke XVI. If a non-Jewish couple embraoe 18; see Seldenl. c. pp. 567 sqq. Judaism, they are not separated, even 380 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. A divorced woman was, according to the Law, permitted to marry again; yet, as she had "contaminated" herself by her faith lessness to her first husband^ she was on no account to re-marry him, should her second husband divorce her or die ; if she did so, she was considered to commit an "abomination", and to cause a sinful defilement of the holy land '. High-priests and common priests, how ever, were forbidden to marry divorced women , because they were "holy to their God"2; and later and more rigorous moralists seem to have held marriage with such women altogether objectionable, if not criminal. Christ said, "Whoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery" 3 ; and St. Paul, "If the wife depart from her husband, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband"4. Among the Hindoos, the husband of a woman who had been married before, was excluded from various religious privileges, and though the burning of widows is not mentioned in the laws of Manu, re-marriage on the part of widows was regarded as contemptible5. Uncompromising monogamists rejected all second marriages as unbecoming and sinful ; Athenagoras, living in the middle of the second century, declared that good Christians either live in celibacy or marry only once, since "a second marriage is a sort of decent adultery"6; and similar views were, about the same time, expressed by Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian. Origen was of opinion that a second marriage dis qualified a man for the offices of bishop, dean, and priest, and was sure to cause his exclusion from the kingdom of heaven. The Council of Neo-Caesarea (314) forbade priests to be present at a second mar riage, and the Council of Valence (374) formally prohibited the or dination of those who had married twice. St. Basil thought it expedient to punish them with excommunication for one year, and he if they are so closely related that after the divorce, she had been the they fall within the forbidden degrees wife of another; comp. Koran II. 1. specified in the Pentateuch, because c. ; Lane, Mod. Egypt, I. 136, 137, by baptism they are deemed to be 237 — 239, and in general pp. 133 — regenerated, and to have renounced 140, 207 — 241. all their natural ties (comp. Talm. 2 Lev. XXI. 7 14. Yevam. 98 ; Yor Beah% 269) : this , ^ y ^ ^ g Luke xy]. may be regarded as a Jewish coun- . 4 1 Cor. VII. 11. terpart of the " spiritual relation ship" (supra p. 371). 1 Deut. XXIV. 2-4; comp. Jer. 5 i/an« III. 196; comp. Comm. on IH. 1. The Koran permits a woman to Levit. I. 335. re-marry her husband twice uncon- 6 '0 -yap Seu-tepo; fdp.os eiitpeit^s ditionally, but a third time only if, £a-u p.oiY_s{a. MATRIMONIAL LAWS. 381 characterised third marriages as "beastlike" (xTr)vw3r)), inhuman, and worse than fornication, and proposed to visit the offenders with ex communication for five years. Almost identical opinions were pro nounced by Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, by many subsequent Councils7, and by later authorities. A widow was free to marry again any Israelite except a High- priest8, though she was in the New Testament declared "more blessed" (u.axapuoT£pa) if she remained single9. Talmudical doctors enjoined that a woman who had lost two husbands must not marry again ' °, though this decision was set aside by later Rabbins i '. A wife was entitled to claim from her husband "her food, her raiment, and her conjugal right" [ 2; and she could expect affection and considerate treatment13; but as "the weaker vessel", she stood under the "rule", "obedience", or "subjection" of her husband, who was her "head", and whom she was bound to "reverence" and to love14. According to a Talmudical principle, "the wife rises with her hus band, but does not go down with him15", that is, she enjoys all the advantages of her husband's station if it be superior to her's, and she retains all the privileges to which she has been accustomed in 7 AsthoseofToledo(400),ofOrange (441), of Angers (453), of Agde (506), and of Orleans (541). 8 Levit. XXI. 14. 9 Rom. VII. 3; 1 Cor. VH. 39, 40; comp. 1 Tim. V. 3, 5, 11, 16. id Talm. Yevam. 64b. 11 Comp. Maim. Respons. 146. 12 Exod. XXI. 10, nna-n nnros Wise; comp. 1 Cor. VII. 3, T-jj y'JvaixiS' dvr]p T-nv 6ep£iXV]v dtTioBiSoTo); Gen. XXX. 15, 16. On these thrae points, espe cially the last, the Talmud has laid down very precise rules (comp. Mishn. Kethuv. V. 6, B^sisn, of ba yb**w, 'ai naiuaB-n-jj; Talm. Kethuv. 61—64, 77a, 103, etc.). "In Arabia", observes Niebuhr, "men are legally bound to maintain their wives comfortably, and to visit each of them once a, week" (Nieb. Beschreib. von Arab. p. 74 ; comp. Selden, UxorHebraica, lib. III. o. 6 ; Mich. Mos. R. § 118). is 1 Pet. III. 7, d-rcovep-ovTe? Tip.-(]v lbs xal 5UYxX-(jpov6[J.oi ^apiroj £ rnasani ieijs inw), 33 ; Col. HI. 19 ; Talm. Bab. Mets. 59a, "Let a man be careful to honour his wife, for all the blessings of his house come only through her". — In the Jewish marriage contract or nains, the bridegroom promises to hi s bride : "I shall work for thee, and honour andsupportthee"(-p'risi i^plsinVis sas -sn"'). " Gen. III. 16 ; 1 Cor. XI. 3 ; XIV. 34; Ephes. V. 22 ("wives submit yourselves unto your husbands as unto the Lord"), 23 ("the husband is the head of the wife"), 24, 33; Col. HI. 18; 1 Tim. II. 11, 12; Tit. II. 5; 1 Pet. III. 1, 5—7; Maimon. Hilch. Ishuth c. XV. » Talm. Jer. Kethuv. V. 6 (Part III. fol. 30a); Talm. Bab. Kethuv.48a, 61a, IMS nm- si ias ias nils mas. 382 MATRIMONIAL LAWS. her own family. That Hebrew wives occupied an honoured, if not an independent, position in their households, is evident from the history of the patriarchs ], of David2, and of many other prominent men3. A civil code might hardly be expected to include a law like the following: — "When a man has taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, nor shall he be charged with any business, but he shall be free at home for one year, that he may cheer his wife whom he has taken"4. It is not too much to contend that, however flagrantly the laws of chastity were violated by the Hebrews in earlier periods 5, they were, after the promulgation of the levitical code, observed with a scrupulousness that has hardly ever been equalled. In the time of Hadrian's relentless persecutions, the Jewish authorities enjoined upon the people to suffer death rather than to be guilty of " idolatry, iricest, or bloodshed"; whereas they deemed the transgression of all the other precepts of the Law excusable if necessary for the preser vation of life6; and at all subsequent periods the domestic life of the Jews has been recognised as exemplary. i Comp. Gen. XVI. 5, 6 ; XXI. 10—12; etc. 2 1 Sam. XXV. 18, 19; Abigail, without the knowledge of her hus band Nabal, sent to David a very liberal present of bread and corn, wine, meat, and fruit. 3 See Comm. on Exod. pp. 370,371. <• Deut. XXIV. 5. 5 Comp. 1 Ki. III. 16 ; Hos. IV. 2, 13, 14 ; VII. 4 ; Am. II. 7 ; Isai. LVH. 3; Jer. IX. 1; XXHI. 10, 14; XXIX. 23; Ezek. XVI. 38; XXH. 10, 11; XXHI. 37, 45; Mai. HI. 5; etc. 6 Comp. Talm. Sanh. 74a, nn*as ia lias-1 ainn isi lias aisi naiais bs niinaw nnis ''iVai B^Vis miasa yw Jin^ isi B-^ai wiawi; Maimon. Yesod. Hatt, V. 9. TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY. CHAPTER XVIII. Summary. — The Israelites are warned against the vices arid evil practices of the Egyptians and the Canaanites (vers. 1 — 5). They are especially enjoined to shunmarriages with the foUowing relations : — 1. Themother; 2. the step-mother ; 3. the half-sister ; 4. the grand-daughter ; 5. the sister; 6 — 8. the aunt, whether the father's sister or the mother's sister, or the wife of the father's brother; 9. the daughter-in-law; 10. the sister-in-law; 11,12. the step-daughter and step-grand-daughter; and 13. the wife's sister during the life-time of the former (vers. 6 — 18). They are, moreover, cautioned against sexual intercourse with menstru ating women, against adultery, the sacrifice of children in honour of Moloch, sodomy, and coition with beasts (vers. 19 — 23). These were the crimes on account of which the Canaanites forfeited their land, and from them the Israelites must scrupulously abstain, if they desire to escape a similar fate (vers. 24 — 30). 1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2. Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, I am the 1 — S. With this chapter the were to be trained by the Law. This Book of Leviticus enters upon a new arrangementis quite appropriate; for and, according to our modern views, it appears like » progress from the a higher phase. It was hitherto ex- husk to the kernel, from religious clusively devoted to ceremonialism emblems to religion, from the " sha- — to sacrifices and the functions of dow" to the spirit of the Law. Our the priesthood, to precepts on diet and chapter especially is remarkable external cleanness. But now follow for unity of design and execution; those moral laws which, unlike the it is complete in itself, and almost rituals, are not the. mean's and instru- exhausts the subject of which it ments of piety, but concern the very treats. That subject is the purity essence of a righteous life and of of man in his sexual relations; and inward purity. Their nature, there- it is brought into connection with fore, is not national, but human; not the very centre of the historical special, but universal; and they teaching of the Pentateuch, which, show the aims for which the Hebrews in briefest outline, is as follows. 384 LEVITICUS XVIII. 1-5. Lord your God. 3. Like the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do; and like When the nations, after the building of the Tower of Babel, were dispersed, God assigned to each of them its pro per abodes(Deut.II.5; XXXII.8); then the Hamitic Amorites and their kind red tribes received for their inherit ance the districts of Canaan; but their wickedness soon rendered them unworthy of that beautiful and fertile land, on which "the eyes of the Lord are always from the beginning of the year to the end of the year" ; and their degeneracy was apparent in nothing more than in their unchastity and li centiousness. God, however, longsuf- feringly delayed their expulsion for many centuries, until at last " their iniquity was full" (Gen. XV. 16). Then, and not before, the Israelites were permitted to conquer Canaan; but they were promised prosperity in their new territories only on con dition that they would keep aloof from the trespasses which had called down the chastisement of the Amo rites ; and if a native, or a stranger that sojourned among them, commit ted any of these abominations, then the land, which they defiled, would vomit them out also , as it had vo mited out the nations that had dwelt in it before them (vers. 26 — 28; comp. XX. 22,23). Thus the invasion and oc cupation of Canaan were by refined writers of a later age justified on high principles of retribution : though the Israelites were the chosenpeople, and could, therefore, never cease to stand under God's spiritual protec tion, they were to enjoy material prosperity only in so far as they de served it by a virtuous and God fearing life ; in this respect, they could hope for no favour and no privilege, but were subject to the universal laws of Divine government (comp. Comm. on Gen. pp. 369—371). Thus understood, the statutes of this chapter assume a higher importance; thus they reveal to us the "philo sophy of history" as read by the best and most gifted of the Hebrews. But for this very reason they prove the very late date of this singular composition, and point to a time when the annals of the people could be surveyed from the vantage-ground of a long and chequered experience, and when the words, "Let not the land vomit you out when you defile it", had a direct and melancholy sig nificance, because the sad fate fore shadowed in them had really hap pened when it was announced as a warning to the small and humble community which had settled in Pa lestine after theBabylonian exile: as their forefathers once, in the time of Moses and Joshua, had been the arm of God for punishing the misdeeds of the Amorites, so had, within their own memory, the Assyrians and Babylonians been the Divine rod for chastising the rebellion and idolatry of the Israelites, and so would God again raise up instruments of His anger, if they provoked it by their disobedience (comp. Isai. X. 5, etc.). — Those.who weigh thelast verses of our chapter carefully, must admit that they cannot apply to the Mosaic age : " And the land was defiled (sii'jn-), and I visited (ipEsi) its ini quity upon it, and the land vomited out (spni) its inhabitants" (ver. 25). In these and some of the following terms, the scenery in the desert of Sinai and the time at the beginning of the Hebrew wanderings, usually adhered to with so much fidelity, is changed; the veil thrown over the laws and events of a much later period LEVITICUS XVIII. 1—5. 385 the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall you not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. is here almost transparent, and his torical analysis enables us to lift it. The introductory verses suffi ciently prove that the matrimonial laws were conceived in a purely ethical spirit. They were not poli tical statutes designed to prevent a dangerous ascendency of individual families; they were not ceremonial ordinances, nor solely precautionary measures for obviating seduction and too great familiarity in the domes tic circle; and stiU less were they meant as devices for limiting, or for rendering distasteful, sexual inter course (Maim. Mor. Nev. III. 35, 49). Matrimony was regarded, not merely as a physical union, nor merely as a social covenant which might, at any time, be annulled by mutual consent. It was in some respects to mirror the holiness of God Himself, and unlawful alliances were considered as a fatal defilement of the landand its inhabit ants. The conclusion of a marriage partook indeed of the character of a contract, since it required the full agreement of both parties ; but as soon as the marriage was concluded, it was withdrawn from the arbitrary will of both husband and wife, and was removed to the higher spheres of duty and conscience. The levi tical laws of matrimony were binding alike upon the Hebrew and the heathen stranger (ver. 26); and like all moral precepts,they were intended to be unalterable in all times. This is certainly the view maintained in the New Testament. John the Baptist said to the tetrarch Herod Antipater, who had married Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, "It is not law ful for thee to have her" (Matth. XIV. 4; comp. Joseph. Ant. XVIII. v. 4) ; he said so with evident refer ence to our precepts ; for among the Romans the marriage with the bro ther's wife and with the wife's sister was not forbidden, because among them a matrimonial alliance did not effect so close an approach between the two families as among the He brews. And Paul vehemently de manded that the Corinthians should expel from their community a man who had married his step-mother, "a fornication which is not so much as named amongthe Gentiles", and that they should "deliver him up to Sa tan for the destruction of the flesh" (1 Cor. V. 1 — 5). So decided istheNew Testament even in cases of affinity ; it is, of course, unyielding in all cases of consanguinity ; and in many points, as the inseparable unity of wedded couples and the re-marriage of widows, it is even more rigorous . than the Old Testament (see pp. 380 ; comp. Acts XV. 20, 29, where irop- veia perhaps includes our laws ; comp. Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent, cap, XH.; Spencer, De Legg. Ritt. Dis sert. H. I. 2; m. 4; vol. I. pp. 591 sqq.). The error of regarding the matrimonial laws of the Pentateuch, at least partially, as judicial enact ments, and therefore as having been repealed after the extinction of the Jewish commonwealth, favoured the obnoxious "dispensations", which, by substituting ecclesiastical caprice or covetousness for the inviolable power and impartiality of the Law, helped to undermine the foundations of so ciety. It is true the Hebrew legis lators visited transgression of the matrimonial ordinances with death (ver. 29 ; XX. 11, 12, 14, 17); but this does not prove that they regarded them merely as penal laws; they earnestly considered the presence of CO 386 LEVITICUS XVIII. 1—5. 4. You shall do My judgments, and keep My statutes, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God. 5. And you certain criminals as contaminating, and therefore insisted upon their death ; in some instances, they fixed no punishment , but simply declared that the trespassers should "bear their iniquity" (XX. 19), or pro nounced against them a curse (Deut. XXVII. 20—23 ) ; in others , they used the strongest terms express ive of moral abhorrence, as "pollu tion" (ian) and "wickedness" (nsi), "ungodliness" (ion) and "defilement" (nia); or they threatened that the guilty should remain childless(a''i,is). Hence offences of incest were evi dently not believed to be amenable to the worldly tribunals only. In the Pentateuch, the boundary lines between the moral and the judicial spheres are not clearly marked; filial disobedience is punished with death, and the impulses of charity are regu lated by precise laws. It is well known that the Koran allows Mohammedan women to ap pear in the presence of certain rela tions unveiled, and that, with one ex- ceptidn, just these relations are in the Pentateuch forbidden to intermarry (comp. Koran XXIV. 31 ; XXXII. 55 ; Michael. Mos. R. § 109; Eheges. § 69 ; Lane, Mod. Egypt, I. 231, 232; etc.). However, these coincidences do not help us to explain the principle un derlying the Biblical marriage pre cepts, for they are evidently them selves contingent results of the latter: as the prevailing laws preclude all hope of a union between near relatives, a freer social intercourse between the sexes and a relaxation of a rigid Eastern custom have been deemed justified. The one exception aUuded to i s a brother's wife, whom according to the Pentateuch a man must not marry, unless it be as a levir, and whom yet according to the Koran he is not permitted to see unveiled. Philological Remakes. — Most critics agree that the chapters XVIII to XX belong together, and form a distinct section of the Book of Levi ticus (see Comm. on Lev. I. p.xxvi.); they contain not a few words which occur hardly anywhere else in the Old Testament or in the Pentateuch (e.g. i?n pollution XVIII. 23 ; XX. 12 ; i*s^ slander XIX. 16 ; ion ungodliness XX. 17; comp. Prov. XIV. 34; nst wickednessXYTTT. 17; XIX. 29; XX. 14; tausio mixture of linen and wool XIX. 19, comp. Deut. XXII. 11; rppn to cut round XIX. 27 ; nsina betrothed XIX. 20 ; n»sn liberty, ibid. ; nipa punishment, ibid. ; spsp_ nah? branding with marks XIX. 28; etc.). Nor could the fact that these chapters bear, in many points, a striking resemblance to the writings of Ezekiel, escape the notice of students ; it has, therefore, been conjectured, on the one hand, that Ezekiel is himself the author of these sections (XVni— XXH); and on the other hand, that, having eagerly read, he largely reproduced them; the former hypothesis was proposed by Graf (Die geschicht- lichenBiicher des Alten Testamentes, pp. 81 — 83), the latter by Noldeke (Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testamentes, pp. 67 — 71). We can agree with neither of these theories. The resemblance referred to lies neither in the style nor in the spirit : for the style of Ezekiel is full and rhetorical, that of our portion of Leviticus precise and condensed; and the spirit of the one is prophetic and ideal, of the other essentially legal and positive. The analogy is limited to the identity of a certain number of words and phrases, which the LEVITICUS XVIII. 1—5. 387 shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man do, he shall live through them: I am the Lord. legislator might as well have bor rowed from the prophet as the pro phet from the legislator, or which both alike may have derived from some older work. Deuteronomy has many laws and subjects in common with Leviticus, and the former Book which was diffused when Ezekiel was a child, and which could not fail to interest and attract him, might well have been his source or guide. The codes of Leviticus are proved to be the very latest of the whole Pen tateuch by their systematic order, their comprehensiveness, and their advanced and minute ceremonialism. It is, therefore, utterly inadmissible to suppose that our sections are at tributable to the early Elohist, and that he compiled them with the aid of anterior documents, some Jeho- vistic interpolations having merely been added at a later time (so f. i. Knobel, Lev. 500, 501 ; NSldekel. c.64). The unity of the eighteenth chapter is only marred by the twenty-first verse, which introduces a heteroge neous subject, "And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to let him pass to Moloch, and thou shalt not profane the name of thy God : I am the Lord". It is hardly probable that this verse was placed where we find it by the original compiler of the chapter. It seems to have been inserted by a later and less attentive or less logical reviser; but itwould beidle to specu late on his motives ; nor is it pos sible to decide whether to the same hand is due the even more irregular addition at the end of this division of Leviticus (XX. 27), where after an elaborate and general conclusion, a specific prohibition against sooth saying was appended, the more un called for as the same command is enjoined in that very chapter and in the preceding one (ver. 6; XIX. 31 ; comp. ver. 26). It is of no avail to attempt the proof that the laws and menaces of this chapter (espec. vers. 24 sqq.) originated in the age of Moses (see, f. i., Ranke, Untersuchungen, I. 105 ; II. 88 ; Hdvernick, Einleit. in den Pentat., ed. Keil, p. 416): in some of the statements the time of the Sinai- tic wanderings is indeed" studiously delineated, and distinctly in ver. 3, "Like the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do ; and like the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall you not do' ' ; but many of the laws were unknown even in the period of the monarchy (see p. 354), and the menaces refer to the Israelites as being in actual possession of Canaan (comp. also vers. 27, 28).— In this and the following sections, the phrase nin-' ¦'as andas'nix nin-' ->as occur very frequently, and are possibly charac teristic of a particular author (see Comm. on Lev. I. p. xxviii). — The relative isus in ver. 5 may either refer to the preceding nouns ('ai vpn ns) or to the following subject (aisn): both constructions are in accordance with Hebrew usage, and with the force of the principal verb ¦tn (comp. Neh. IX. 29; Zunz "die der Mensch thue, dass er ' durch sie lebe" ; the Sept., converting the relative into an independent sentence, 6 iroi^aasai-ca avftpiu-no? ^sE-rai h aittoXs). Onkel., Jonath., Rashi, a. o. understand im Bna as the future life ; Luzz. explains "life" by "well-being" (benessere); Rosenm. "isducetvitamtranquillam, ei nulla poena a magistratu timenda est" ; but all these interpretations are against the spirit of the Pentateuch 388 LEVITICUS XVIII. 6. 6. None of you shall approach to any that is near and its notions of, happiness ; life simply is meant, which was in itself regarded as the highest boon and the greatest reward ; whereas sudden or early death was, as a rule, looked upon as the dire punishment of sin. 6. "None of you shall approach to any (-is is) that is near of kin to him." Thus, after a general intro duction warning the Hebrews not to follow the practices of neighbouring nations, the laws of marriage are preceded b$ a broad principle, which would be superfluous if it did not comprise more cases than those men tioned immediately afterwards; it is so comprehensive in form and scope that it might have rendered any spe cial enumeration unnecessary, had not the legislator preferred explicit- ness in a subject of such paramount importance. Moreover, that principle was, as the context seems to suggest, the direct reverse of that acted upon by the Egyptians and the Canaanites ; and it was even more decidedly op posed to the usage of the Persians. Among the latter, marriages with near relations (called qaetvo-datha) — with mothers, sisters, and daugh ters ¦ — were expressly recommended as meritorious and as most pleasing to the gods; and they were unani mously advocated both by older and later teachers, who considered the off spring of such marriages "the most noble of all men , and worthy of the highest honour and authority" , pro bably because the Iranic nations, conspicuous for family pride, deemed it to be their highest duty to pre serve the purity of their blood and the strict division of their tribes (VisperedTTi. 18; Philo, Specc. Legg. HI. 3; comp. Khorda- Avesta XLV. 18; Spiegel, Avesta, II. pp. xxvin, cxiv, cxv, and n, 12; see also Herod. III. 31; Biod. Sic. I. 27; Strabo XV. in. 20 ; Lucian, De Sacrif. c. 5 ; Biog. Laert. Prooem. VI; Minuc. Fel. c. 31 ; Clem. Alex. Strom. IH. p. 431; Euseb. Praep. Ev. VI. 10, § 8; Phot. Bibl. p. 132 ed. Becker; Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. V. c. 11, pp. 601— 611). The common Egyptians de clared that, in sanctioning marriages with sisters , they only imitated the example of the happy couple Osiris and Isis , and of Typhon and Neph- thys ; and their history records many examples of such unions among their kings , as Ptolemy Philadelphus and his sister Arsinoe, andPtolemyEuer- getes and Berenice; whereas the ini tiated explained the mythological instances as symbols of the fertilising Nile and the fertile land (comp. Diod. Sic. 1. c. ; Pausan. I. 7 ; Lucian 1. u. ; Philo, Specc. Legg. HI. 4 ; Joseph. Ant. XII. ii. 6 ; XX. n. 1 ; Minuc. Fel. 1. c. ; Jablonski, Pantheon, lib. V. cap. 3; Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. II. 63). Herodo tus (1. c.) maintains that such mar riages were not" legalised in Egypt before the time of Cambyses ; and in support of this view we might ad duce that Abraham, when he arrived in Egypt, and desired to avoid the suspicion that Sarah was his wife, alleged that she was his sister (Gen; XII. 13; comp. XX. 2; XXVI. 7). Though the Greeks shunned themar- riage with the germane sister as "un holy" (~jdp.os avooio;), neither the Athenians nor the Spartans saw an objection in marrying the half-sister, the former if she had the same father as her husband, the latter if she had the same mother (comp. Aristoph. Ra- nae 850 ; Plat. Respub. V. 9 ; Eurip. Androm. 174 sqq.; Plut. Cim.4; The- mist. 32; Corn. Nep. Cim. 1; Philo 1. c). Such were the usages , not of barbarous and reckless tribes unused LEVITICUS XVIII. 6. 389 of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the to moral restrictions ,- but of nations that had attained a very high degree of civilisation. — It is, therefore, ob vious how important it was to insist upon the principle laid down in this ' verse at a time, when the Hebrews were constantly exposed to the in fluence of their Persian masters, and came into perpetual contact with their Egyptian neighbours. As to the Canaanites, their fearful depravity is, by writers of all periods, dwelt upon in the strongest terms of rebuke and abhorrence (comp. Gen. XV. 16; XIX. 5; Exod. XXHI. 24; Deut. XX. 17, 18; etc.). The specified list of prohibitions which follows , does not directly in clude the marriage with the mother- in-law (njiih), which is interdicted not only in another portion of Levi ticus, but already in Deuteronomy, and which was detested as impious by the Romans and other nations (Lev.XX.14; Deut.XXVTI.23; comp. Cic. pro Cluent. c. 6 ; Koran IV. 27 ; see?'n/raonver.l7); butthis omission does not involve an alteration of the law; if the step-mother was forbid den (ver. 8), it is not likely that it should have been deemed lawful to marry the mother-in-law; our list does not attempt completeness, for it does not even mention the daughter;- it discloses the principles of the pro hibitions, but does not attempt an exhaustive enumeration (see p. 359). Philological Remarks. — Ebn Ezra points out that our text enjoins generally, "None of you (sns o-s) shall approach", without adding "of the house of Israel", and he deduces therefrom the rule that the stranger also must be prevented from com mitting any of the crimes referred to, lest he defile the land (see p. 335, and vers. 24-30). — Thenot very usual word isti is coupled with its syno nym l»a flesh, to express the notion of consanguinity with greater force, and the term ilia isu; means "his flesh and blood", or "his flesh and bone" (Gen. XXIX. 14; Judg. IX. 2; etc.), literally "the flesh of his flesh" (Sept. -rcpo? ndvxa oJxetov oapxo? ai- tou, Vulg. ad proximam sanguinis sui; Onk. and Jon. m«n a-^ip); and so iiij nnafe (Ps. XLIH. 4) "my jubilant joy", etc.; but the same noun is more frequently repeated after a construct state to intensify the notion, as nsi Bsnsi (Hos. X. 15) "your fearful wickedness", D;wsn ims (1 Ki. .VHI. 27) "the highest heavens" (see Gram. § 75.7.b). Some take liraa merely as a periphrase for "his own" or "of him self (so Vater a. o.) ; but i»a never occurs in this sense, is* is joined with iwa elsewhere also (XXV. 49), and it is used alone in the meaning of "near of kin" (vers. 12, 13, and XX. 19; XXI. 2; Num. XXVTI. 11, where it is kinsman in general; comp. the abstract noun nisw "near rela tionship", ver. 17), or in the sense of "body"(Ps.LXXHL26; Jer.LI.35), and of "food" (Exod. XXI. 10 ; etc.). The fact that isb" "flesh" is em ployed also with reference to mere affinity (comp. ver. 17), goes far to prove thatman and wife are regarded as "one flesh", and that the relations of one become the relations of the other; itoa also denotes both near and distant kinsmen (comp. Gen. XXIX. 14; XXXVH. 27; Judg. IX. 2 ; 2 Sam. V. 1 ; etc.). Some old and modern interpreters render iifaa istp "the remainder of his flesh" (so Bon- frere, Michael., Bush, Herxheim.,a. o., and so also the marginal reading of the Author. Vers.) : though the word issi has hardly this meaning, and the phrase loses in emphasis, the general 390 LEVITICUS XVIII. 6, 7. Lord. 7. The nakedness of thy father and the naked ness of thy mother shalt thou not uncover; she is thy sense is the same as that of the usual translation — "none of you shall ap proach any one else who is of the same flesh", — The phrase nil? nis (Sept. ditoxaXuipai dc/Y]p.oauvT|V, Vulg. revelare turpitudinem), a euphemism for having carnal intercourse, is commonly used with reference to men , but once also with respect to women (XX. 17); comp. nisn iisc'-ns (XX. 19). — Bertheau (Gruppen, pp. 198 — 200) assumes in this chap ter, from ver. 6 to ver. 23, twice ten commands, reckoning vers. 17 and 23 as two commands each. — It has been strangely supposed that the laws enacted in the following verses (6-18) do not relate to marriage but to stu- prum (so f. i. Rosenmiiller, foUowing older authors, see Schol. in loc): if this were the case, why were men just forbidden to approach their "near relations", as if they might have unrestricted intercourse with other women; and how could, among others, the 17th and the 18th verses be explained? The phrase nils nia means, generally, to have carnal con nection , whether in wedlock or not ; it seems to be employed in these laws in order to point more strikingly to the moral hideousness of their trans gression; and in a parallel passage (XX. 1,4) marriage is plainly and un mistakably expressed (ns npi ms ttrsi 'ai ni»K). 7. The arrangement of our list is clear and systematic. It begins with the cases of consanguinity both direct and collateral — mother, sister, grand-daughter, father's sister, and mother's sister (vers. 7 — 13); then follow the cases of affinity in two subdivisions, first the wives of the blood-relations — the father's bro ther's wife, the daughter-in-law, and the brother's wife(vers. 14 — 16) ; and next the wife's blood relations — wife's daughter and mother, wife's grand-daughter, and wife's sister (vers. 17, 18). The horror felt in the ancient world at maternal incest, even if uncon sciously committed, is powerfully described in the Greek legends which cluster round the name of Oedipus, who, cursed by the gods and shunned by men, inflicts fearful punishment upon himself, till he dies a. forlorn exile, to bequeathe to his family fra tricide and domestic feuds, and to his country civil war and sad desolation. Even Plato, who in his ideal republic recommends that "whenever either the women or the men are past the age of procreation , the men should be allowed to cohabit with any wo men they like", yet bids his citizens keep aloof from their mothers and daughters , their grand- mothers and grand-daughters (Respub. V. 9); Aristotle clings to the time-honoured view that the alliance with the mo ther clashes with a primary law of nature to which even irrational beasts submit; and the Roman code repeats the same axiom (Justin. In- stit. nov. XII. c. 1 ; Lex Dei, Tit. VI. 2, "inter parentes et liberos connu- bium non est"). Among the Hebrews contravention was no doubt punished with the death of both offenders, since even marriage with a step-mo ther was a capital crime (XX. 11; comp. Deut. XXIH. 1; XXVH. 20; Philo, Legg. Spec. III. 3, Op. H. 301). Philological Remarks. — The par ticle i in s^ias niisi (ver. 7) means and, not or (Engl. Vers. a. o.), nor that is (Brentano, Vater a. o.): the commands are addressed to the men only, and father and mother are here LEVITICUS XVIII. 7, 8, 9. 391 mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8. The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover; it is thy father's nakedness. 9. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father or the daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home or born abroad joined, as in marrying the latter, the son commits an offence against the former also; the subsequent words sin *)f?s, and the conclusion of ver. 8 (sin "pas mis) remove every doubt (comp. also vers. 8, 14, 16; XX. 11; Ezek. XXII. 10; Talm. Sanh. 54a). Therefore the explanation of -pas mis given by Rosenrmiller and others, "earn quam nudavit aut nudare po- testatem habet pater tuus", is as un- caUed for as it is grammaticaUy questionable. Those words certainly do not refer to disgraceful conduct like that of Ham (Gen. IX. 22, 23). — niin in pausa instead of nian (comp. XX.19; see Gramm. § LXVIL 14.a). 8. As according to Biblical no tions, husband and wife became "one flesh", a step-mother was regarded as a blood-relation, almost as near as father and mother themselves; and hence St. Paul implacably branded marriage with a step-mother as "for nication" so heinous that heathens recoiled from its very name, and in sisted upon the excommunication of a, convert who had violated that rule (see supra p. 385). — It is a well- known practice of Eastern usurpers to marry the wives and concubines of their predecessors, all whose rights and prerogatives they are deemed to have secured by that act. Thus David married the wives of Saul, his father-in-law, and he did so with the approval of the best of his contemporaries and of a much later age (2 Sam. XH. 8). Similar was the object of Absalom in openly dishonouring his own father's con cubines, and of Adonijah in demand ing Abishag, his father's wife, in marriage (2 Sam. XVI. 20—23 ; 1 Ki. II. 17). Absalom acted as he did on the advice of Ahitophel, whose wis dom was in his time deemed oracular, and who was certain that the usur per's authority would be strengthened by a deed which in the age of our legislator was held incestuous, and which already in the last address of Jacob is condemned with indigna tion (Gen. XXXV. 22; XLIX. 4). — Marriages with step - mothers seem to have been common among the an cient Arabs, but were interdicted by Mohammed (Koran IV. 27). — With respect to the African Kytch tribe a recent traveUer relates that "when a man becomes too old to pay sufficient attention to his numerous young wives, the eldest son takes the place of his father, and becomes his substitute" (Baker, Albert Nyan- za, p. 74). 9. Marriage with a half-sister was indeed, in remoter periods, not unusual among the Hebrews (p. 357), as it was, with certain restrictions, permitted among the Spartans and Athenians (p. 388) ; but it was by the levitical authors stamped as an "ac cursed" and "ungodly" crime (iBn), inexorably to be visited with public execution, whether the half-sister be born in wedlock or out of it (fin, comp. XX. 17; Deut. XXVH. 22). It is difficult to decide when this severer view was adopted; certain it is , that it was still unheeded in the earlier times of the monarchy, as is proved by the narrative of Genesis 392 LEVITICUS XVIII. 9, 10, 11. — their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 10. The nakedness of thy son's daughter or of thy daughter's daughter — their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; for theirs is thy own nakedness. 11. The nakedness of thy with respect to Abraham and Sarah, and of the Book of kings in reference to Amnon and Tamar (see supra p. 358); but it was already in force in the Assyrian period, since it is embodiedinDeuteronomy(l.c. ; comp. notes on ver. 1 1). According to the Canons of St. Basil (about 370), a man who had married his half-sister was forbidden to enter any place of worship ; if he continued the offence, he was, for three years, compelled to stand at the portals of his church, and to implore the faithful to inter cede for him by their supplications ; for the next three years he was per mitted to listen to the sermons and the readings from Scripture, but not to take part in the public pray ers ; during an equal period he was only allowed todo so while kneeling; and then at last, he was re-admitted into the community, after a public penance of eleven years (comp. Rhal- lis and Potlis, Siivxayp-a T(Dv Upuiv xavovujv, Athens 1854, IV. 88 sqq.). lO. A man's grand-daughter is his own flesh and blood (niis) ; how much more then his daughter; the prohibition of marrying the latter is, therefore, a fortiori implied in that of marrying the former, though it is nowhere expressly stated (p. 359; comp. Talm. Sanh. 76a). 11. If the received Hebrew text be correct, this verse must relate to the full sister, though it is surprising that she should be mentioned after the half-sister (ver. 9), and that the law concerning the grand- daughter should have been inserted between the one and the other (see PhUol. Rem.). According to the Canons of St. Basil, the Church looked upon incest with a sister in exactly the same light as upon murder (comp. also Manu XI. 171). Philological Remarks. — The 9th and the 11th verses, taken in con junction, present no inconsiderable difficulty: if interpreted by the or dinary usage of Hebrew, they seem to be identical in sense, both of them interdicting the marriage with the half-sister , so that either one verse or the other would be superfluous. For in ver. 9, ^as-na is -pas-na -pirns "thy sister, the daughter of thy fa ther or (is) the daughter of thy mo ther", can only be half-sister; and in ver. 11, the words '-pas nius-na -pas miia "the daughter of thy fa ther's wife , begotten of thy father", appear to mean the same, since nsis as, wherever it occurs, signifies the step-mother (comp. ver. 8; XX. 11; Deut. XXIH. 1; XXVH. 20). This strange repetition may, however, be removed by the foUo wing alternative — either by reading in ver. 9 i instead of is ; or by taking in ver. 11 as nsis as mother; understood in this man ner, either of the two verses would prohibit the marriage with the, full sister, while the other might be taken to refer to the half-sister. The former expedient would in itself be decidedly preferable ; for it would give the na tural precedence to the germane sister, and it would aUow us to take as nt^is in ver. 11 in its usual sense of step-mother. However, if the reading n,as-nai, instead of -jas-n a is, which is indeed not countenanced by the ancient versions, be objected to, nothing remains but to translate LEVITICUS XVIII. 11, 12—14. 393 father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 12. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister; she is thy father's near kinswoman. 13. Thou shalt not as nws by mother ; so that in ver. 9 the half-sister and in ver. 11 the full sister would be interdicted. Some interpreters, by assuming the most unusual elliptical constructions, sup pose the meaning of the two com mands to be almost the reverse of that just stated; Luzzatto, f. i., renders ver. 5 le vergogne di tua so- rella , figlia (anche) di tuo padre , o figlia (soltanto) di tua madre; and ver. 11 le vergogne della figlia deUa moglie di tuo padre, generata da tuo padre (ma da altra madre) etc. Some again understand ver. 9 of the half- sister, and ver. 11 of the step-sister (Gerlach); and others consider that both verses apply to the half-sister, ver. 9 to one born in a first marriage of the father or mother, and ver. 11 to one born in a second marriage of the father (so Clericus, Pfeiffer, De Dieu,Keil,a.o.) : but such a distinction can hardly be intended , nor can it easily be deduced from the words of the text. Lengerke(Kenaan,p. 229) renders ver. 11, "Thou shalt not un cover the nakedness of the daughter of thy father's wife, if the latter bears a child to thy father" (niiia -pas), whereas if she bears him no child, her daughter of a former mar riage is allowed to marry the son of her second husband: but the words ¦pas miia bear no such construction, and the explanation introduces a novel and questionable principle: matrimony in itself, not its fruitful ness, constitutes relationship. — The signification of step-sister is, in ver. 1 1 , excluded by the qualification miia ¦pas "begotten of thy father" (Ut. "the offspring of thy father" ; comp. Gen. XL VHI. 6 ; the words cannot mean "reared up by thy father" nii3» -pas, as they were understood by some interpreters, see Ebn Ezra in loc). — Nor can step-sister be in tended, in ver. 9, by the words is •pn niiia (so St. Augustine a. o.), since she is neither of the same father nor of the same mother with her step-brother (comp. Augustin. Quaest. LIX in Levit.; Michael. Mos. R. §§ 114, 115). The words is ma miia •pin miia are translated by Onkelos, "one who is born of thy father with another wife, or of thy mother with another husband"; which is no doubt the correct meaning of the terms. Targum Jonathan seems to go too far in including both the half-sister and the full sister, "one that thy father begets with another wife or with thy mother, or one that thy mother brings forth with thy father or with another husband" (and so Rosenmiiller a.o.); while Ebn Ezra explains, without probability, "one who is born by parents married ac cording to the statutes of Israel, after betrothal and marriage rites, and one who is born in a marriage concluded contrary to established customs" — niiia is, prop, birth, then the con crete offspring, child; or if taken in its original and verbal force, it stands for the Hophal niiia, though it is by no means necessary to adopt this reading (as some propose; comp. also Ewald,Tiehrbuch,p. 297); the render ing of Rosenm. "cum nulla prole, quae apatre tuo descenderit, congredia- ris", is too wide, for niiia is evidently meant to explain the preceding na. 13—14. Not only does the He brew law forbid the alliance with the father's and mother's sister, or 394 LEVITICUS XVIII. 14, 15, 16. uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister; for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. — 14. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife; she is thy aunt. 15. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughterrin-law ; she is thy son's wife, thou shalt not uncover her naked ness. 16. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy the real aunt, but also with the un cle's wife, who is properly no blood- relation of her nephew, but becomes his near kinsman by her becoming one with his uncle; in the former case, the law threatens that the of fenders "shall bear their iniquity" (XX. 19), which probably implies punishment , and even death , at the discretion of the worldly tribunals, and in the latter case, that they shall remain "childless" (B^is) to the end of their lives (XX. 20), which hea venly visitation proves that their conduct was deemed a moral offence against the Divine order of things : so consistently was the chief prin ciple which underlies all these sta tutes carried out. Is it, then, probable that the author should have meant to legalise the marriage between uncle and niece, who stand in the same near relation of consanguinity as the nephew and his real aunt? (see supra p. 359). 15. The cases of consanguinity being completed, those of affinity follow. Marriage with a daughter- in-law is described as detestable "pollution" (ian) meriting death, since according to the strictest levitical view, it is almost like mar riage with a daughter (comp. XX. 12). It was by many other nations regarded with similar abhorrence (comp. Manu XI. 171; Koran TY. 27). 16. In this and another passage of Leviticus, the marriage with a deceased brother's wife is forbidden as incestuous "defilement" (nia), and menaced with the curse of childless ness (XX. 21), whereas in Deutero nomy, it is in certain cases enjoined as a moral and civil duty (comp. XX. 21; Deut. XXV. 5—10; Targ. Jon. in loc): we have above attempted, if not to reconcile, at least historically to account for, this contradiction (see pp. 361 — 363). Such an alliance was abominated by the first Christian teachers (comp. Matth. XIV. 3, 4); the Council of Nicaea decreed that a woman who married successively two brothers should be excommuni cated until her death; and Protestant legislations punished the same of fence with public disgrace and ex pulsion from the country (Corpus Juris Saxonici, Dresd. 1673, p. 124; Richter, Evangelische Kirchenord- nungen, I. p. 125). Never during the first fourteen centuries were dispen sations granted for such alliances; the Pope Martin V (1417—1431) was the first who ventured to break through the old barriers; the third dispensation given was that fatal one which Pope Julius H accorded to king Henry VHI for marrying Ca tharine of Aragon, the widow of his elder brother Arthur ; and from the middle of the eighteenth century such marriages were frequently per mitted (comp. N. Knopp, Katholisches Eherecht, I. 350). The Roman law did not expressly forbid them, but the early Romans regarded them as indecorous. LEVITICUS XVIII. 17, 18. 395 brother's wife; it is thy brother's nakedness. — 17. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, nor shalt thou take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness ; for they are her near kinswomen; it is wickedness. 18. And IS1. A man was not to marry "a woman and her daughter"; for if both were his wives at the same time, or if he took the mother after the death of her daughter, he would marry his mother-in-law, which was considered an execrable offence (see supra on ver. 6); and if he took the daughter after the death of her mo ther, he would marry his step daughter, and this marriage was considered almost as a marriage with his own daughter, since he and his former wife were virtually one ; it was denounced as "wickedness" (nat), and punished with death by fire (XX. 14). For similar reasons the alliance with the wife's grand daughter was objectionable, for, as^ a rule, the matrimonial laws were fuUy applicable in the ascending and descending line. 18. We have before expressed our opinion on the much vexed ques tion of the marriage with the wife's sister (supra p. 363): by the wording of the Hebrew text, a man is permit ted to marry his deceased-wife's sister, but not to have two sisters for wives at the same time, or one after the other wMle both are living — this is the logical inference to be drawn from the qualifying addition "in her life time" (n^na) ; and yet by the spirit of the levitical law, the former aUi- ance also is like an aniance with a sister, and therefore no less objec tionable. Such scruples were in deed unknown to the Hebrews of earlier times , since even in Genesis Jacob is represented as the husband of the sisters Rachel and Leah; but they followed with necessity from the severe theory of marriage gra dually worked outand adopted. Philo, in the oldest explanation of our law that has come down to us, observes that it is impious (oiij( 8mov) for one sister to usurp the place of the other, and to make the misfortune of the latter a stepping-stone of her own happiness ; thus bitter jealousies and implacable enmities must be engendered; and it would be as if the different members of the body, abandoning their natural harmony and fellowship, were to quarrel with one another, thus inevitably causing incurable diseases and endless mis chief (Philo, Specc. Legg. IK. 5). In this sense the prohibition has com monly been understood, and if the words of our verse alone are weighed, it can hardly be understood other wise : and yet the matrimonial laws, taken as a whole, were not prompted by considerations of mere expediency, such as the prevention of unsisterly rivalry, since their main object was to warn against alliances between near relations (ver. 6). Prom whatever side we weigh the question, we can not help being struck by the incon gruity of a code which permits a woman to marry, at least under cer tain conditions, her sister's husband, but expressly forbids a man to marry his brother's wife. If the wife dies, her husband does not cease to be the brother of that wife's sister ; yet practical life seemed to demand some relief from the rigour of abstract logic, and the prohibition was limited to the lifetime of both sisters. It 396 LEVITICUS XVIII. 18. thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to cause en- has been contended that this was a concession analogous to the levirat and the permission of divorce; but the cases are not quite parallel : the levitical legislators are entirely silent with regard to the levirat and divorce; for in their own time the former was unnecessary, and the latter was strongly opposed by con temporaries, such as Malachi (see p. 378); a direct repeal of the two sta tutes, known to the people as a part of Deuteronomy or "the Book of the Law", was unfeasible ; and silence on these subjects was sufficiently signi ficant. We need hardly add that these remarks are merely designed to eluci date the meaning and intention of the command, without attempting ¦to decide upon its value or its binding force ; the latter points must be left to individual judgment and feel ing, which in no other sphere claim greaterrespectandfreedom. The pre vailing laws of matrimony may pos sibly , in the course of time, call for revision; and progress and liberty of action should not be checked by a misconception of Biblical autho rity. The very verse under con sideration affords the strongest proof that the ordinances of the levitical code are not final and un alterable; for this verse involves the sanction of polygamy, which, not even abrogated by Christ and the apostles, is now regarded by western Jews and Christians not merely as inexpedient, but as immoral. It is well known that from com paratively early times, many chiefs of the Christian Church indeed trans lated the words of our verse literaUy, yet weighing the spirit of the law, were strongly opposed to the mar riage with the deceased wife's sister . By the Apostolic Canons (about 300) persons contracting such an alliance were for ever incapacitated for cleri cal functions. The Council of Hli- beris (about 305) excluded them from holy communion for five years; St. Basil (375) imposed upon them for seven years the ecclesiastical penal ties fixed for adultery; his celebrated letter on the subject proves that, in the Church "a custom equivalent to a law, and handed down by holy men" had been established against such marriages ; it was in his time pro bably that the Septuagint (in Deut. XXVH. 23) received the interpolation found in the Vatican copy of that version, "Cursed be he who lies with his wife's sister" (liuxaxapa-ro; 6 xoip.cbp.evo; p.£Ta dSeXepf]; ttjs yuval- xo? aiiTou); and similar views were enforced by the emperors Constantius and Theodosius, Honorius, Theodo- ' sius II, and Justinian, and by all the leaders of the Greek and Latin Church : the only notable exception is Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus ;-but he was indignantly opposed by his contemporary St. Basil, who declared that such marriages are indeed per mitted to the Jews because they are under the Law and aU its ceremonial enactments, but not to the free Christians, and asked how the off spring of the two sisters would be related to each other, whether they should be called cousins or brothers, sincebyadeplorable"confusion"(auY- /uot;) they could claim both names. In England, those marriages were forbidden in 1603 by the Convocation of the province of Canterbury in a Canon whichhas never been formaUy ratified by Parliament. Dispensa tions were, however, readily granted in the Roman Church; and since the last century many Protestant theo- LEVITICUS XVIII. 18. 397 mity, to uncover her nakedness, beside her, in her life time. logians and jurists, and among the first those of the pietistic schools, as Philip Jacob Spener, declared mar riage with the deceased wife's sister unobjectionable,sincetheprohibition is not unequivocally enjoined in the Bible. It was disapproved of by the Karaites ; but among the bulk of the Jews it has at all times not only been tolerated but encouraged (comp. Mishn. Yevam. IV. 13, inia nna» mas 'ai nninsa; comp. HI. 7, 9;X. 4; Mai- mon. Hilch. Issur. Biah II. 7, 9). Philological Remarks. — Prom the sixteenth century down to our time many interpreters have supposed that - this verse enforces the prohibition of polygamy, and have rendered the words npn s'i nnins-is nasi, " Thou shalt not take one wife to another". This translation was first proposed by Junius and Tremellius in 1575, and it is also given in the margin of the Authorised English version. But polygamy was not, and could not be, interdicted in the Pentateuch, which often refers to it as to an established and lawful institution (see supra p. 373). The words nmns is n»s, like the corresponding masculines, are indeed occasionaUy "one to or with another" (Exod. XXVI. 3, 5, 6, 17; Ezek. I. 9, 23 ; III. 13), but in aU such passages they have reciprocal or distributive force, a plural noun with a plural verb invariably pre ceding (f. i. nnins-is hbs Piisn BrpE;s " their wings were straight one toward the other", Ezek. I. 23), whereas no such mutual relation exists in our passage ; moreover, nins occurs here repeatedly in its usual signification of sister (vers. 9, 11 — 13), and can in our context not be understood differently. Onk. renders nnns as snnsi , whereas he translates the same words in Exodus sin as sin or in iapi in, evidently taking those words in our passage literally, but in Exodus figuratively (comp. also Targ. Jon. in Ezek. I. 23 and III. 13); Sept. yuvatxa in dSsX- cp-jj oujttjs; and so Syr., Ital., Vulg. (sororem uxoris tuae), Theodor., etc., etc.; Philo 1. c 86 o dSeAtpai; and St. Augustine already (Quaest. LXIIL in Lev.) distinctly observes, "Hie non prohibuit superducere, quod licebat antiquis propter abundantiam pro- pagationis". Indeed symmetry and completeness seem to require, that the list shouldinclude the prohibition of marriage with the wife's sister (see supra on ver. 7). — In 1 Sam. I. 6 the word nis is plainly used for rival wife ; it is, therefore, probable that liaai in our verse means "to be hostile", that is, to cause jealousy or enmity (comp. Arab, yi IH to be jealous, IV to take a second wife); and not " to bind or tie together" (comp. Exod. XII. 34; 1 Sam. XXV. 29 ; Isai. VHI. 16; etc.). Onkel. and Jonath. have ni spssi "to afflict her"; Rashi iii nia; it ns miosi niaa -ji»i, similarly Rashb. and others (Nicol. de Lyra "ad anxiandum", Pagninus and Leo de Juda "ad lacessendum", Luther "ihr zuwider", Vatablus "ut affligas earn", Cranmer "to vex her", Luke Osiander " ad af fligendum ", Clericus "ut dolorem huic crees"). The Sept. has cIvtiCtjXov (a rival, Zunz als Nebenbuhlerin ; comp. Sir. XXVI. 6 ; XXXVII. 11), and Ital. in zelum; and so Hesych., Seb. Munster (in aemulationem sive tribulationem), Seb. Schmidt (ad aemulandum), Le Maistre de Sacy and Calmet (pour la rendre sa rivale), Dathe (ad aemu lationem ejus excitandam), Michaelis 398 LEVITICUS XVIII. 18, 19, 20. 19. And thou shalt not approach to a woman to uncover her nakedness during the uncleanness of her monthly impurity. 20. And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her. — (dass sie ihr Eifersucht verur- sache), De Wette (zur Erregung der Eifersucht), Gesenius (ita ut zelotypae fiant, una alterius ae- mula sit); but Vulg. in peUicatum illius (i. e. ut sit pellex sororis). The quarrels of durrahs or feUow-wives are proverbial in Egypt and else where (comp. Lane Mod. Eg. I. 240). — --is is "besideher",not"uponher", as the Bishops' Bible and others render; for the phrase nns nia is complete in itself, without requiring the complement of n^is or -jmis. — The word rpjna has indeed a rather ano malous position at the end of the verse (comp. Gramm. II. § lxxiv. 5), for it evidently relates to the first part of the injunction — "thou shalt not take a woman besides her sister . . . in her life-time"; some, however, as Calvin and Patrick, anxious to proscribe the marriage with a de ceased wife's sister unconditionally, connect n^na with the nearer verb nsi ; but this would yield the very feeble sense — "thou shalt not take a woman besides her sister, to vex her ... in her life-time". Others again, as Dr. Pusey, refer the suffix in n-;na not to nnins, but to nros, that is, the second sister, and translate — "thou thalt not take a woman besides her sister ... as long as she (the former) lives", so thattheverse would simply contain an emphatic com mand never to marry a second sister (comp. Ps. CIV. 33, ™rt3 nwi ni-ws, "I will sing to the Lord as long as I live", that is, always ; LXIIL 5 ; CXLVI. 2): but so poetical an ex pression would not harmonise with the simple style of these legal enact ments ; and the word was never so understood by those to whom Hebrew was a living or a familiar tongue. %9. The matrimonial laws are followed by a few ordinances con cerning sexual intercourse which throw a strange light upon the moral condition of the age in which they were promulgated. Our verse simply forbids connec tion with a menstruating woman, without alluding either to the ritual consequences or the punishment of such intercourse ; this omission is supplied in two other laws, the, one enjoining that the man shall be unclean for seven days, the other, that both the man and the woman shall suffer death (XV. 24; XX. 18): whether these commands imply a contradiction or not, and if they do, how it maybe historically explained, has been pointed out before (p. 264 ; see also p. 262 ; comp. Manu XI. 174). 20. Nor does the author mention, with respect to adultery, the punish ment of death, which among the Hebrews as among other Eastern nations, was inexorably inflicted uponboth criminals, but he intimates the heinousness of the offence by branding it as a " defilement " (na nsatai). The laws of stuprum and adulterium were fixed among the Hebrews on inteUigible and judicious principles contrasting favourably with the doubtful and wavering prac tice of other Eastern nations. A be trothed woman was regarded as if she were married (see, in general, Comm. on Exod. pp. 422 — 425 ; comp. also Maim. Mor. Nev. III. 8; Lane, Mod. Egypt, I. 147, 148; II. 129 sqq.). Philological Remarks. — The LEVITICUS XVIII. 20, 21. 399 21. And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to let him pass to Molech, and thou shalt not profane the "name words siji> spiaaa ¦jnn si are literally, "thou shalt not give thy discharge, as regards semen", i.e., thy discharge of semen (Sept. xoix-rjv <57tepp.aT6s oou), or thou shalt have no sexual intercourse; for naaio is, like naaw (XV. 16, etc.), effusion (see p. 258)j and is, like it, used with or without Si; (comp. ver. 23; XX. 15; Num.V. 20). The Vulg. renders the whole verse freely, cum uxore proximi tui non coibis, nee semin^s commistione maculaberis. — na nsatai.lit.fo become unclean by her, that is, to commit with her an act of defilement. On the infin. nsao with n, in the manner of a nomen verbale, see Gramm. § 31. The denunciation of the atrocious worship of Moloch, though interrupting the tenour of these laws, harmonises weU with the spirit of our chapter ; it is solemn and im pressive, and points atonce to Godthe Holy one, and to God the Judge, who is sure to punish the heathen practice with personal and national calami ty. Children were by the Hebrews Burnt to Moloch at all periods, down to the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and later; and therefore, the public teachers who legislated for the new commonwealth organised after the Babylonian exile, still found itneces- sary to forbid and to inveigh against that iniquity. A subsequent part of this section is even more explicit, and ordains : "Anyone of the children of Israel, and of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives of his seed to Moloch, shall surely be put to death; thepeopleof the land shall stone him with stones; and I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people ; because he has given of his seed to Moloch, to defile My Sanctu ary, and to profane My holy name" (XX. 2, 3). We have discussed this subject, and human sacrifices gene rally, in a former volume, to which we refer the reader (Comm. on Lev. I. 365—367, 381—396, 401, 402). To the opinions there reviewed, we may add the recent suggestion, that " in the time of Moses" the rites of Moloch "belonged to the region rather of magic than of definite idolatrous worship, and that it may have been practised as a lustral charm, or fire- baptism, for the children of incest and adultery" (Cook's Holy Bible on Lev. XX. 2 — 5). The only argument advanced in support of this view is the circumstance thatthe prohibition of the service of Moloch is, in this and in a later chapter (the 20th), in troduced together with laws of incest and magic; but such an inference can hardly be drawn from discon nected ordinances; and a lustral charm cannot fitly be called "giving one's seed to Moloch". Philological Remarks. — "If ma trimony is not held sacred, it easily happens that children are sacrificed"; in this manner Jewish commentators endeavour to establish a connection between this and the preceding verse ; similarly Baumgarten (Comment, p. 205), a. o., and Salomon observes: "This verse forbids, as it were, spirit ual adultery, revolt and faithlessness against God" (comp. XVH. 7).— The term -^»i l^Xni is elliptical, and means to make the boypass through the hands of the figure of Moloch, and then to let him fall into the fire within that statue, for the " passing through" the idol's arms was the proper actof dedication (Vulg. aptly, ut consecretur; see Comm. on Lev. 400 LEVITICUS XVIII. 21, 22, 23. of thy God: I am the Lord. —22. Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination. 23. And thou shalt not lie carnally with any beast to defile thy- I. p. 381 note 19). It is unnecessary and unwarranted to consider i-asni in this and analogous passages as a later and intentional corruption in stead of i^sani to burn (comp. 2 Ki. XVI. 3, and 2 Chron. XXVIH. 3), as the term i^asn is quite a-ppropriate if understood in the sense indicated (comp. Geiger, Urschr. pp. 303 — 305 ; Jiid. Zeitschr. IV. 55). Some ancient translators, anxious to remove, or at least to veil, the abominable offence of child-murder in honour of Moloch, either read i^asni "to serve" or to worship, instead., of i-usni (so the Samaritan and the Septuag. xal d-nh tou <3Tt£pp.a-r6;aou ou Sdbaen; Xaxpeuetv apj(ovTt), or they understand i-^asn in the sense of ias, "to fructify, to cause to be with child" (comp. Job XXI. 10), so that the sense would be, "thou shalt not give thy seed to beget children for idolatry", that is , thou shalt not intermarry with the heathen (so the Targ. Jonath. -jnn si ^sit -]Bi saniisi siasai paas na i-si nn-u-a^na smis, the Syriac sain si -sii -jai smiaia laiaaai), and the same is the meaning of an old explanation of our passage quoted but rejected in the Mishnah (Megill. IV. 9), "thou shalt not give any of thy seed to beget a child for Aramaism"(sniiaisasiassi), the latter term being commonly used to denote idolatry in general (comp. Siphre, III.171, p.l07aed.Eriedmann, 'si mais isian). The "profanation" of God caused by the worship of Mo loch, is self-evident; and we need not search for recondite explanations, which cannot be otherwise than arti ficial; f.i. "Idolatrous nations will say, the Israelites, well aware of the inferi ority of their own God, sacrifice to Him animals, but to another deity their own sons" (Luzzatto). Michaelis (Suppl. p. 774) unnecessarily takes iin in the sense of '¦'¦renouncing or deserting" ; and others, not more hap pily, suppose that it involves " some particular form of profane swearing", with which the service of Moloch is asserted to have been associated (Cook's Holy Bible on Lev. XX. 2— 5). 83, 33. The code concludes with two ordinances which, even more than any of the preceding com mands, disclose the abyss of de pravity into which the Hebrews had sunk, or were apt to sink. The two unnatural crimes emphaticaUy stig matised as an "abomination" (nas:n) and "a pollution" (ian), prevailed in the ancient world to an incredible extent; the first flourished among the Canaanites and the Hebrews (Gen. XIX. 5; Judg. XIX. 22; 1 Ki. XIV. 24), among the Greeks and Romans (Rom. I. 27; 1 Cor. VI. 9), among the Egyptians and Arabs, the Hindoos and Parsees (Manu XI, 175 ; Vendid.YTK. 98—106), but was, in nearly all instances, not only ab horred by thelegislators, but severely punished, as a rule with the death of both delinquents (XX. 13; Deut. XXIII. 18, 19; Vendid. 1. c; Euseb. Praep. Ev. VI. 10; etc.); and the second enormity seems to have been so deeply rooted among the Hebrews that it is hardly passed over in any collection of laws; it is denounced in the old "Book of the Covenant"; it is execrated inDeuteronomy which reflects the reforming zeal of the latest kings of Judah; and it is con demned with vehement emphasis in the still later levitical ordinances (Exod. XXII. 18; Deut. XXVH. 21; Lev. XX. 15, 16); both the perpetra- LEVITICUS XVIII. 22, 23. 401 self therewith; nor shall any woman stand before beast to have connection with it: it is pollution. tor and the instrument of his crime were inexorably to be removed by death. Philological Remarks. — Sodomy, the Vendidad observes, is always practised on the instigation of the devs, who are especially addicted to it, and in this manner multiply their own accursed race (Kleuker, Zend Av. II. 342; Spiegel, Avesta, I. 146). Solon enacted a series of laws for the protection of boys ; he fixed the age of the masters, the school hours, and the rules for the admission of strangers; he ordained that a child who had been hired out by his father, was not bound to support him in his old age, though he must bury him, and observe the usual rites of mourn ing; and he ordained that a man who ill - treated a free-born boy (£Aeufl-spov rcatSa) should instantly be put to death, or be heavily fined, and on no account whatever was he at any time allowed to fill a higher ma gistracy or a priestly office, whether at home or abroad, to be judge, ad vocate, or witness, "since he could not speak with a pure body"; nor was he permitted to be present at the public sacrifices, or to appear within the consecrated boundaries of popu lar assemblies : if he disregarded any of these injunctions, he was to suffer capital punishment. To avoid dan gerous examples, slaves were to be subjected to precisely the same regu lations as free citizens (Aeschin. Adv. Timarch. §§ 9— 21, ed. Becker; comp. also Plularch, Institt. Lacon. c. 7, 6 iz kfxkt\freii (us etc ' afa^uvfl itAYjaiaEojv cqap.04 8td fiiou -rjv). No less severe was the Roman law; any person who disgraced a boy against his will was put to death; and any one who readily consented was fined in half his property, and at his death forfeited half of the remainder to the state (comp. Buschke, Jurisprud. Antejustin. p. 547).' — As to coition with beasts, the testimonies of both ancient and modern writers are abun dant; and as they refer chiefly, though by no means exclusively, to Egypt, where the atrocious vice was palliated and encouraged by superstition, we may understand the necessity of cau tioning the Hebrews again and again, especially as these also, like other ancient nations, long adhered to the worship of "goat-deities" (Bii*Si!, XVH. 7); comp. supra p. 345; Pindar, Fragm. HI. 122, ed. Heyne (MevSvjxa napd xp-fjp.v6v ftaXdaoa?, eo^axov Nel- Xou x£pa<;,aqi|3dxaio'{hxpdYoi yuvai£l p-layovxai); Aelian, Nat. An. VII. 19 (dxoAaaxa Se xuvoxecpaAoi X£ xal xpd- Yoi, xal pJvxoi xal 6p.iA£iv Yuval£' cpaaiv auxoii? . . . xalxuvesSs -pvai^lv £7uxoXp.av £Ae}(9Tjaav. Kal p-evxoi xal xpid-jjvai Aeyexai yuv-f] ev x-fj 'Piup-l] p.ot)feias uTto xou •j-q^a^-os, xal 6 p-oi^os iv xrj cixtq xuuiv slvai eAeyexo. Hxouaa 8s xuvoxetptRou? xal izap^i- voi« £Tttp.avf)vai xal p.svTOi xal pidaaa- ftai); Plut. GryU.c.5 ; Sonnini, Voyage, IH. 297 (C'est sur les rives fangeuses du NU que les crocodiles deposent leurs oeufs; c'est la aussi qu'ils s'ac- couplent. La femelle, qui dans l'ac- couplement est renversee sur le dos, a beaucoup de peine a se relever. Croira-t-on quedans la haute Egypte il se trouve des hommes qui . . . profitent de cette position forcee de la femelle du crocodile, mettent au fuite le male, et le remplacent dans de monstrueux ebats ?") ; Manu XI. 174 (" whosoever wastes that which might have produced a human being, upon irrational beasts, must perform the penance of santapana; for a dis- DD 402 LEVITICUS XVIII. 24—30. 24. Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you. 25. And the land was defiled, and I visited its iniquity upon it, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and you shall not commit any of these abominations, neither the native nor the stranger that sojourns among you; 27. For all these abominations have the men of the land done who were before you, graceful act with a cow the penance ought even to be much severer" : the same code forbids several other ex cesses not mentioned in the laws of the Pentateuch, and probably not unusual among the lower and un educated classes of the Hindoos, XI. 171, 174); Yajnav. II. 289; Khorda Avest. XL VI. 21 (Spiegel, Avesta, HI. p. 217) ; Virgil, Aen. VI. 24 (Hie cru- delis amor tauri, suppostaque furto Pasiphae mixtumque genus prolesque biformis Minotaurus inest, etc) ; Ovid, Ars Am. n. 23, 24 (semibovem- que virum semivirumque bovem); Her. X. 101, 102; Philo,T>e Spec. Legg. III. 8 (cu? Auxxav . . . dXoyoui Ccuous, rSjeSTtsp Iv Kp-^x^] (pool x6 TtaXaiov x-^jv yuvaixa Miviu xou $aa\kiws, 6'vop.alla- oi(pd-fjv,xa6pou£pao9EiaavxxX.). — The absolute case nias ^aa»a (ver. 22) quali fies the preceding verb aasn, assiT naa» does in XV. 18 (see p. 260).— Sal, kindred with pi (comp. Ps . CXXXIX. 3), is properly to crouch or to lie down, then to lie or sleep with some one (Onk. na taifflai), and is construed with the accusative, like its synonym aau>(ver.22; XV.18; seep. 260); comp. XIX. 19; XX. 16; Sept. and Vulg. veiling thesensehavefii|3a<39vjvai, nee miscebitur ei; while Ebn Ezra a. o. connect the term with nsais ("ex figura quam corpora eorumsic copu- lata efformant, ad quadratam non nihil accedente", Gusset, quoted by Rosenm. in loc.).— ian is pollution, from iia in the sense of staining or blotting; Sept. p.uaapov, and in XX. 12 'qaz^-q-Aaai ; Vulg. scelus; Rashi t]isai niisi »'ip fob, and in XX. 12 ''saa ; others simply confusion (Rashi, nana sin bis su aiaisi ni-'ia yob, and in XX. 12 "the seed of the father is mixed up with that of the son" ; Luz zatto, turpe mescolanza; comp. also Ebn Ezra in loc), or perversion of the Divine order of things (Keil, a. o.); Luther Grauel, andin XX. 12 Schande (Schandthat). 31 — SO. A most impressive warning, concludes this group of laws ; it evidently points back to the introductory exhortation, which resembles it in import, though not in power (vers. 2 — 5) ; and it applies, therefore, notmerelytothe iniquities forbidden immediately before (vers. 19 — 23), but to the ordinances of the whole chapter, which forms a little code in itself: the legislator stamps the neglect of the matrimonial re strictions as an offence not less cul pable and fatal than adultery, human sacrifice, bestiality, and every other execrable crime; and he takes care to enforce: "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things (nis iaa); for by all these the nations are defiled". Nothing would, therefore, be more arbitrary or more foreign to our section, than to make a distinction in the importance of the different laws, and to assume that, taken in LEVITICUS XVHI. 24—30 ; XIX. 403 and the land was defiled; 28. Lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 30. There fore shall you keep My ordinance, that you do not act according to any one of these abominable statutes, which were acted upon before you, and that you do not defile yourselves therewith: I am the Lord your God. their totality, they are meant to be binding upon the Israelites only, whereas other nations have merely to observe a certain portion of them, such as the prohibition of marriage between parents and children, and between brothers and sisters (so f. i. Ebn Ezra on ver. 18; Michael. Mos. R. § 112; Eheges. §§ 119—126). Though gradations are established in the penalties of the various of fences (ch. XX.) , none are made in the description of the offences them selves ; the enumeration is uniform, and the same cautions and menaces apply to aU. The holy land is the special abode of God and the place of His Sanctuary; and as it would be desecrated by any act of immora lity committed within its boundaries, the stranger is included in the ordi nances like the native Hebrew ; and it is for this reason that the moral and religious obligations of both were, in the course of time, more and more equalised. Philological Remarks. — The verbs satanl, ipEsi, etc. (ver. 25) have the signification of the past, not of the future or present (see on vers. 1 — 5 ; Eng. Vers, "and the land is defiled, therefore I do visit", etc.). Keil ob serves, "The preterites are prophetic, and the diction is poetical"(similarly Brentano, Salomon, a. o.); but how can either prophecy or poetry be ex pected in a series of penal laws ? Comp. also Michael. Orient. Bibl. II. 214. — s^pn sii (ver. 28) Vulg. ne evo- mat, Targ. Jon. taisn sii, Onk., Rashi pplin sii; others less distinctly, as Sept. ?va p.^j TtpojoyJHa^ (lest He be wroth).— "^a is to be taken coUective- ly "the nations" or "the people" (yisn nuas ver. 27; comp. XX. 23). — is (ver. 27) instead of nis, see Oramm. § XX. 1. — In ver. 29 the subject is emphaticaUy repeated ('ai nnusan). CHAPTER XIX. Summary. — This section contains a variety of moral and ceremonial precepts admitting of no systematic classification, namely, after a general exhor tation (ver. 2), 1. a command on filial duty (ver. 3a); 2. on the obser vance of the Sabbaths (ver. 3b); 3. against idolatry (ver. 4a),and against worship of images (ver.41'); 4. on thank-offerings (vers. 5—8); 5. on the portions to be left for the poor in gathering the produce of fields and vineyards (vers. 9, 10); 6. on truthfulness and honesty (ver. 11); 7. against perjury (ver. 12) ; 8. against oppression and violence (ver. 13a) ; 9. against delay in paying the labourer's hire (ver. 13b); 10. on the con sideration due to the deaf and the blind (ver. 14); 11. on judicial justice 404 LEVITICUS XIX. 1, 2. and. fairness (ver. 15); 12. against slander and bearing false witness (ver. 16); 13. on the love we owe to our fellow-men (vers. 17, 18); 14. against unnatural combinations of beasts, of seeds, and of stuffs for gar ments (ver. 19); 15. on punishing and expiating seduction ofa maid servant (vers. 20 — 22) ; 16. on the use of the fruit of newly-planted trees (vers. 23 — 25); 17. against eating blood (ver. 26a) ; 18. against enchant ment and magic (ver. 2651); 19. against mutilating the hair or body (vers. 27, 28); 20. against unchastity (ver. 29); 21. on keeping the Sab baths and reverencing the Sanctuary (ver. 30); 22. against necromancers and wizards (ver. 31); 23. on respect due to old age (ver. 32); 24. on kindness towards the stranger (vers. 33, 34) ; 25. on probity in judgment, in meteyard, weight, and measure (vers. 35, 36) : and then follows a brief conclusion (ver. 37). 1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2. Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and 1. This remarkable chapter is perhaps the most comprehensive, the most varied, and in some respects the most important section of Leviticus, if not of the Pentateuch ; it was by the ancient Jews regarded as an epitome of the whole Law; it was adapted and paraphrased by the best gnomic writers, such as Pseudo-Pho- cylides ; and it has at all times been looked upon as a counterpart of the Decalogue itself. It includes the chief moral laws of all the earlier codes, both of Exodus and Deuteronomy, and it exhibits at aglance the height of that ethical and spiritual refine ment at which the Hebrews arrived within the Biblical times. But though it is the latest in date, it was compiled independentlyof those earlier codes, from which it differs partly in spirit and partly in style. Its chief defect is a complete want of arrangement; for it is irregular almost to confusion, and so desulto ry that its practical value as a mo ral guide is not immaterially dimi nished. In this respect especially it contrasts unfavourably with the Decalogue, which, beginning with man's duties towards God, advances tohis obligations towards his fellow- men, filial obedience forming the link between both , while each half rises to a climax, and both parts to a certain extent correspond with each other: thus the Decalogue is so admirably systematic in structure that its teaching was readily and universally received as the corner stone of a righteous life. Philological Remarks. — The chapter contains parallels to nearly every one of the ten Commandments, but in terms almost entirely origi nal; viz. I. Existence and Hnity of God, ver. 4a ("turn not to the idols . . . I am the Lord your God") ; H. Against Images and Idols, ver. 4b ("do not make to yourselves molten gods"); HI. Against Perjury, ver. 12 ("you shall not swear by My name falsely, so that thou profane the name of thy God") ; IV. Holiness of the Sabbath, vers. 3, 30 ("you shall keep My Sab baths"); V. Veneration of Parents, ver. 3 ("you shall fear every one his mother and his father") ; VI. Against Murder, ver. 16 ("thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neigh bour"); VII. Against Adultery, ver. 29 ("let not the land become un chaste — nam — , so that the land become full of wickedness"; comp. LEVITICUS XIX. 1, 2. 405 say to them, you shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. ver. 20); VIII. Against Theft, ver. 11 . ("you shaU not steal") ; IX. Against false Witness, vers. 11, 16 ("you shall not lie one to another" ; "thou shalt not go about slandering among thy people") ; and though the chapter contains no exact equivalent to the tenth Commandment — against co vetous desires — ithas some other and evenmore comprehensive injunctions which include that precept (comp. ver. 18, "thou shalt love thy neigh bour as thyself"). — The promis cuous nature of the contents will be more striking if we attempt some sequence in the arrangement, like the following: — Vers. 1, 2 (intro duction); 4a (first Commandment), 26b and 31 (against enchantment and witchcraft); 4b (second Com.); 12 (third Com.) ; 3b, 30 (fourth Com.) ; 3a (fifth Com.); 32 (reverence of old age); 16b (sixth Com.); 29, 20 — 22 (seventh Com.) ;lla,13a(eighth Com.); llb, 16a (ninth Com.); 17, 18 (love of the neighbour); 14 (regard for the blind and the deaf); 9 and 10 (cha rity towards the poor and the stranger at harvest time), 33 and 34 (affectio nate treatment of the stranger ge nerally), 13b (ready payment of hire to the labourer); 15, 35a (judicial justice); 35b, 36 (honesty and good faith in weight and measure) ; 27, 28 (against mutilating or disfiguring the body); 26a(against eating blood); 23—25 (on the early fruit of newly planted trees); 5 — 8 (on thank-offer ings); 19 (against mixing different kinds of seeds, threads, and animals) ; 37 (conclusion). — It is impossible to imagine that this misceUany of ordinances should have been written down by the same author , whether at the same or at different times ; we must suppose that it was gradually collected, enlarged, and finally in corporated in Leviticus — unfortu nately in a very inappropriate place, since it separates two chapters , the 18th and the 20*1>, which treat of the identical subject, the laws of chastity; and it thus increases the inorganic dis memberment of the Book (see Comm. onLev.Lp.XVIII). — "This section", Jewish Rabbins teach, "was read in public, because it includes most of the fundamental precepts of the Law" (na p^iir nun -Eia ana "oeb), or "because the Ten Commandments are comprised in it" (niaasia •'asa naina piia nuain, Siphra fol. 86b ed. Schlossb.; Midr. Rabb.Iiev. XXIV. 3). Sagacious Rabbinical expositors, par tially foUo wing older traditions, have endeavoured to point out a logical connection between the various com mands. A few specimens will suffice. The fruit of newlyplantedtrees must only be eaten when a part of it has been offered on the altar; so must meat not be eaten before the blood of the animal has been sprinkled on the altar (vers. 23 — 26). Or, Israelites do not mourn on Sabbaths, nor High- priests when officiating in the Tem ple; necromancers (niais) consult the dead, old men are physically like the dead, and strangers are helpless like old men (vers. 30 — 33 ; see Ebn ¦ Ezra in loco.). — No less artificial are the kindred efforts of recent theo logians, such as Baumgarten (Lev. pp. 206 — 212), Keil, a. o. Bertheau (Gruppen,pp.201— 206) insists indeed that our chapter contains just three decads of laws , but he admits that "a fixed plan in the arrangement is not discoverable, and was impossible on account of the heterogeneous na ture of the commands". 3. The section begins with that 406 LEVITICUS XIX. 2, 3. 3. You shall fear every man his mother and his doctrine which may well be consi dered as the ripest fruit of Hebrew culture, and which raises the Hebrew creed high above the tenets of other ancient nations : — "You shaU be holy,for I the Lord your God am holy ". Thus guided, man's actions flow from the noblest motive and are directed to the loftiest aim ; they are almost hallowed into priestly functions, and a Divine element is infused into the common concerns of Hfe. Such a prin ciple necessarily leads to the highest forms of morality, and the following laws prove that this notion , ab stract and subtle as it might appear, is well calculated to engender practi cal piety and the tenderest humani ty. It is indeed introduced in other parts of the Pentateuch also; but it is usually connected with ceremo nial purity ; while in our chapter it is made the foundation of a moral code which is of universal application,* and is therefore expressly addressed to "all the congregation of the chil dren of Israel" ('ai msia; see supra pp. 106, 184; comp. XI. 44; XX. 26; Exod. XXII. 30; Deut. XIV. 2, 21; also Exod. XIX. 6; Lev. XX. 7; Deut. Vn. 6; XXVI. 19; XXVHI. 9; and the illustrations in Maim. Mor. Nev. I. 54 ; III. 33, 47). 3. The ordinances commence with a group of religious laws (vers. 3 — 8), the first of which relates to filial obedience — "You shall fear every one his mother and his father". Pre cedence is given to this command, becauseparents shared, in some mea sure, Divine honours, and children were taught to regard them as God's earthly representatives; hence in the Decalogue the same law forms a part of the Eirst Table , which comprises man's duties towards God; andin an other remarkable composition, de tailing the crimes which were brand ed on Mount Ebal with a public male diction, it follows immediately after the prohibition of idolatry (Deut. XXVII. 16). To the observations made before on this subject (Comm. on Exod. pp. 363 — 366) we add here a few supplementary remarks. Itmight seem strange that filial disrespect on the part of Ham brought down a curse not only upon himself, but upon his descen dants for ever (Gen. IX. 25); but parallelsarenot wanting amongEastern nations. InChina, such an offence causes the utmost alarm throughout the province in which it has been committed; the relations of the culprit are punished like him self; and the Mandarin , whose ma gistracy has been disgraced by the misdeed, is often compelled to retire. In fact , in China "man's duties are not merely based upon, they are comprehended under filial duty" ; fa thers are permitted to sell the children with whose conduct they are dissa tisfied ; they retain their authority, not merely , as among the Hebrews and other nations, till the children's marriage, but during their whole life time; and they can at pleasure compel their sons to marry certain women or to divorce them. Among the Hin doos, parents may still sell their children to strangers; and heavy penalties are imp"bsed upon the per son who comes forward as witness or as bail in a law-suit between fa ther and son (Yajnav. II. 239). In Greece, the father had the right to decide upon the life or death of his child within six days'of its birth, though Solon and other legislators considerably limited the privileges of parents for the protection of the children. The Roman law of the Twelve Tables gave to the father LEVITICUS XIX. 3. 407 father; and you shall keep My Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God. unrestricted power over the life and property of their children — "patri familias jus vitae et necis in liberos esto"; and "quicquid filius acquirit, patri acquirit" — ; and children were expected to accord almost Divine honours to their departed parents: "When I am dead", wrote Cornelia to her son Gracchus , "thou wilt sa crifice to me and invoke thy goddess- mother" (Corn. Nep. Pragm.). There was a terrible earnestness in the warning that men should "fear" (isi*) their parents ; for a previous command incorporated in Deutero- nomy(XXI. 18—21) ordained, that if parents had vainly endeavoured to bring a rebellious son back to his duty, they were to take him by force before the elders of the people , and their simple declaration that he had been heedless of their admonitions sufficed to bring down upon him the death of lapidation by the whole community: the Chinese tribunals also require in such cases no proof, but condemn the child on the father's statement; and among the Parsees, a son who has three times shown dis obedience to his father, forfeits his life (Spiegel, Avesta, H. p. XXXH; Bu Halde, Chine, HI. 155). That fathers were entirely at liberty to act with their children as they pleased , may be gathered from the history of Abra ham and Jephthah; and even at so late a time as that of Nehemiah — or about the period when our chapter was compiled — they were entitled to sell them as slaves, or to mortgage them for their debts (Nehem. V. 5 ; comp. Exod. XXI. 7 ; Num. XXX. 6 ; 2 Ki. IV. 1; Isai. L. 1; Matth. XVHI. 25; see also the beautiful remarks of Plato on filial affection in his "Laws" IV. 8; Heliod. Aeth.I. 13; Diog. Laert. VHI. 23; Priaulx, Quaestiones Mo- saicae, pp. 232—236). The injunction of filial obedience is, as in the Decalogue, strangely coupled with the command to keep God's holy days; but here the "Sab bath" of the Decalogue is changed into "the Sabbaths" (•'nha-ij); for now the system of Hebrew festivals was completely developed — the agricultural, the historical, and pe nitential — , and they had become the most effectual means of cement ing the new commonwealth and of permanently securing to it a speci fic and national character (see supra, pp. 266 sqq. ; comp. ver. 39). Phooy- lides, in his didactic poem, thus joins the two precepts: itpuixa Oeov xip.a, p.£X£iteixa hz oeio yovea? (ver. 8). The verse concludes, "I am the Lord your God" — which words point to God at once as the Holy One and as the Judge ; . they are meant both to encourage and to awe, both to exhort the Hebrews to vigUance, and to menace them with punishment. They occur frequently in this chapter, of which they are characteristic; but they have not always the samepower- ful emphasis. Philological Remarks. — Jewish expositors deem it necessary to ex plain why in our passage the first place is given to the mother , and in the fifth Commandment to the father, and they offer this reason that , as a rule, children fear the father, but love the mother more particularly ; they contend that fearing parents means, not to sit or to stand in the place set apart for them, not to speak in their stead, and not to contradict them; and that honouring parents consists in providing for them food, drink, and raiment, and in accompanying 408 LEVITICUS XIX. 3, 4, 5—8. 4. Turn not to the idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the Lord your God. 5. And if you offer a thank-offering to the Lord, you shall offer it for your acceptance. 6. It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the morrow; and that which remains until the third day shall be burnt in the fire. 7. And if it. yet be eaten on the third day, it is an abomination, it shall not be accepted; 8. And every one that eats it shall bear his iniquity, because them home and from home (comp. Talm. Kethuv. 1 03a; Kiddush. 31b, 32b; Siphra fol. 87a; Mechilta fol. 77 ed. Weiss; Yor eh Deah § 240); and they account for the double com mand of our verse by paraphrasing it thus: "Although I warn thee to fear thy father , yet if he should or der thee to profane the Sabbath, thou must not listen to him" (comp. Talm. Bab. Mets. 32a; Siphra I.e.). —Though the plural -n;naia is in Exod. XXXI. 13 undoubtedly employed in the sense of "Sabbath", it seems in our pas sage to signify "Days of rest", or fes tivals in general. 1. The preceding verse corres ponds with the fourth and fifth, this verse with the first and second Com mandments, and the combination is quite logical : God is one and all- powerful, and God is incorporeal ; it is therefore as sinful and perverse to worship many deities, all of whom are "non-entities"(o^is), as it is to re present them by images and molten figures ; the latter crime is more ex plicitly denounced among the male dictions of Mount Ebal: "Cursed be the man that makes any graven or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, the work of the hands of the artificer, and puts itin a secret place : and all the people shall answer and say, Amen" (Deut.XXVH. 15; comp. Exod. XXXIV. 17 ; see Comm. on Lev.I.pp. 397 sqq.; also Talm. Shabb. 149a; Maimon. Avod. Zar. II., IH.; Yor. Deah § 141). 5 — 8. Now follows, abruptly, a law concerning thank-offerings (naf a^aia), which seems to have been de rived from some older document, since it is less stringent than a similar ordinance embodied in Leviticus (VH. 15 — 18); it disregards, or is unacquainted with, the division of that class of sacrifice in praise-offer ings (nun nar) and the less holy vow and voluntary offerings (naia is na) ; and it uniformly permits the flesh to be eaten both on the day of the sa crifice and on the foUowing day, whereas the more rigorous law re stricts the time for the consumption of praise-offerings to the day of the sacrifice itself, under penalty of ex cision. This subject, and the probable reasons of this severe law, which was not merely directed against the eating of "old and putrid meat", but was prompted by the idea of the holiness of sacrifice, have been dis cussed in another place (Comm. on Lev. I. 40, 211, 245—248, 547—551; see infra XXII. 21—23). Philological Remarks. — On aaa'afii for your acceptance (ver. 5), that is, so that the offering be favourably received by God, see notes on I. 3, Comm. on Lev. 1. 475 (Rashi explains here and in XXH. 19, ta "sa-ni-ss or i" tasais^BS apaisement, for atonement, which sense is too specific ; and Ebn LEVITICUS XIX. 5—8, 9, 10. 409 he has profaned the hallowed thing of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 9. And when you reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, nor shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. 10. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, nor shalt thou ga ther the scattered grapes of thy vineyard; thou shalt Ezra, strangely, of your own free will, not by compulsion) ; and on ias?. ibsn and iiss (ver. 7), see notes on VH. 18, Comm. on Lev. I. 550,551. In VH. 18 the Sept. translates iias sin literally by p.(aop.d eoxiv, but in our passage aftuxov eo'iv "it ought not to be offered up", that is, prob ably, if it is the intention of the worshipper to eat the flesh on the third day, the victim ought not to be sacrificed, which is in accordance with the Jewish acceptation of the words ias^ iasn (see Comm. on Lev. I.e.; Frankel, Vorstudien zur Septuag. p. 190). The Vulgate, questionably referring ii3E to the worshippers, translates profanus erit, and so Lu ther, so ist er ein Grauel. — On the distributive singular in isis and sia? after the plural inviasi (ver. 8) "and those who eat of it — he shall bear his iniquity", i. e., everyone who eats of it, see Gramm. § 77. 9; comp. Exod. XXXI. 14 (nai-' nia n-iina) ; etc. O, lO. The next command refers to what may be caUed the legal rights of the indigent, which were precisely defined by Hebrew legislators, and which, withdrawn from the arbi trariness of individuals, were con trolled by the community. Thus they passed from the purely ethical to the civil and penal sphere. And this was both their excellence and their weakness; they effectually provided for the poor, and prevented abject andhelpless beggary; but by restrict ing spontaneity and personal good will, and by imposing as a compul sory duty what is a double blessing only when exercised freely and gener ously, they converted charity into a poor-rate, analogous to that by which modern communities have found it necessary to protect the helpless. Yet being partly moral and partly political, they must be considered practical in the highest sense (see Comm. on Exod. pp. 428—435). Our verses seem to be a thoughtful extension of former enactments; they include both the produce of corn-fields and of fruit-trees, and they apply alike to the stranger and the poor, the orphan and the widow (comp. XXHI. 22; Deut. XXIV. 19 — 22) ; but they derive also light from those earlier provisions ; the general injunction, "Thou shalt not gather the gleanings of thy harvest", is else where explained, "When thou hast forgotten a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back to fetch it" ; and we find there this reason adduced, "Por thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt; therefore I command thee to do this thing" (Deut. 1. c.) — ¦ which pathe tic appeal to the painful experience of the past is in another part of our chapter also employed for exhorting the Hebrews to kindness and hospi tality (ver. 34; comp. Exod. XXHI. 9 ; Deut. XV. 15 ; see also Lev. XXV. 5, 6, 35; Deut. XIV. 28, 29; XVI. 11, 12; Phocylid. vers. 22—30). In the Mishnah, the extent of the "corner" (nsE) to be left for the poor is enu merated among those things which, 410 LEVITICUS XIX. 9, 10. leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the Lord your God. like charity, filial duty, and the study of the Law, "have no limit" or "fixed measure" (iwtu) ; but it is never to be less than the sixtieth part of the field, and the size of the property and the number of the local poor are al ways to be taken into account. The law applies to such edible produce of cultivated land, which is gathered in at the same time, and is preserved or garnered up, especially to all kinds of grains and legumes, to fruit-trees, such as the vine, the olive-, the nut-, the almond-, the'pomegranate-, and the palm-tree ; and some other plants, as onions and garlick. In addition to this, the most minute instructions are given with reference to every conceivable contingency that may arise in connection with this precept; one specimen may suffice: "What is gleaning? (tapi). If a person, in cut ting off or tearing out a handful of ears, is pricked by a thorn, and thus lets the stalks fall to the ground, they are not considered as gleaning, and belong to the proprietor of the field. Again , that which falls from the hand and from the sickle is left to the poor; but that which faUs be hind the hand and behind the sickle, belongs to the proprietor. That which faUs before the extreme point of the hand and before the extreme point of the sickle , is, according to Rabbi Ishmael, given to the poor, but can, according toRabbiAkivah,be claimed, by the proprietor" (Mishn. Peah IV. 10 ; comp. I. 1 sqq.; Talm. Bab. Kam. 94; Mace. 16b; Maimon. a^as niana vi. I ; Yor. Deah § 332). — In heathen times, it was customary among the German husbandmen, when cutting their corn, to leave on the field a heap of sheaves, adorned with rib-- bons, as an offering to the gods (comp. Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, p. 32). Philological Remarks. — ssiaap for BSiasg, comp. XXHI. 22 ; see Gramm. § LIV. la. Irregular combinations of the singular and plural, as in saispai and nisn, are in Hebrew a frequent form of anallage (comp. vers. 12, 15, 26, 33 ; esp. XX. 19 and notes in loc. ; see Gramm. § LXXVII. 21. 2). The construction ispV"- nian s'i lit. "thou shalt not complete. . ..in reaping", that is, thou shalt not wholly reap, the finite verb having adverbial force, is not unusual (see Gramm. § 103. i), but has been misunderstood by some interpreters, as St. Jerome, who renders non tondebis usque ad solum superficiem terrae ; and similarly in XXHI. 22, non secabitis usque ad so lum ; Luther, ihr sollt es nicht gar auf dem Eelde einschneiden, etc. In Deu teronomy (XXIV. 20) the command is expressly applied to olive-planta tions ("[mt) , which may be included in the term bi? used in our passage (comp. Judg. XV. 5 , mt aia). — bib from bib, kindred with »1E, yis, and us, lo scatter, is properly "the scat-, tering", hence Sjais bib is "the scat tering of thy vineyard", that is , the grapes which after the regular vin tage lie about on the ground scattered; and this sense is even more appro priate for "beating off" the fruit of the olive trees (Deut. XXIV. 20, -a •jmt uann); Onk., Jonath., and Syr., Tjaiai sinai that which has fallen off from thy vineyard (comp. Mishn. Peah IV. 10; VH. 3, ns»a iiuian bib inns m,'3an,andni'-jo.i. LEVITICUS XIX. 11, 12. 411 11. You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie one to another. 12. And you shall not swear by My name falsely, so that thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord. 11. Theft has before been tre ate from various points of view — as a moral transgression in theDecalogue, as a penal offence in the "Book of the Covenant"(Exod.XXI. 37— XXH. 3), and as a theocratic trespass in the sacrificial codes of Leviticus (V. 21 sqq.) : on reference to the remarks made on those passages, it will be seen how the laws on the violation of the rights of property gradually became more defined, and were sur rounded with greater religious solem nity (Comm. on Exod. pp. 372, 413 — 417 ; on Levit. pp. 517—525). In our context the command "You shall not steal" is simply a moral warning, as nearly all the injunctions of this section. Hebrew teachers extended it to receiving and purchasing goods that are known, or maybe presumed, to have been stolen (comp. Prov. XXIX. 24; Mishn. Bab. Kam. VII. 1 sqq.; fate. Bab. Kam. 118; Sanh. 87; Maimon. Hilch. Genev. c I. ; Chosh. Mishp. § 348). It was certainly not superfluous to enforce truthfulness, for which qualityEastern nations are not con spicuous : a remarkable exception were %ne ancient Persians, among whom, as we know from various sources, lying was considered the most disgraceful misdemeanour, and next to it contracting debts, because this easily leads men to teU untruths (comp. Herod. I. 91; Spiegel, Avesta, I. p. 91 ; II. p. cxvi.); we can, there fore, well understand why our sec tion, finally revised in the Persian period, lays such stress on the duty of veracity, and impresses it upon the Hebrews in many different forms (comp. vers. 16, 35, 36; also Isai. LXIIL 8). Philological Remarks. — The words 'si lipion sii are by Jewish tra dition referred to defalcations of trusts and deposits, and they have been sinularly rendered by Phooy lides (ver. 13) — Ilap{)£ai7]V ^euhf] (f euyeiv, xd Sixata (3pa(3£'j£iv (for so, it seems, the first word must read, according to Bernays and others, in stead of Trop&EviTjv, virginity; comp. Talm. Shevuoth 36b; Maim. Hilch. Shevuoth I. 7; Heilpern, Mitsv.Hash. p. 36). 13. Perjury, the worst and most detestable form of falsehood, follows not illogically upon the preceding command, to which it is indeed closely joined (si?); as an iniquitous profanation of the Divine name, it was forbidden in the first part of the Decalogue, and menaced with the direct punishment of heaven (see Comm. on Exod. pp. 352 — 355); we win only remind the reader in this place of the extreme reluctance felt by the Persians to any oath whatso ever, and their deep abhorrence of false oaths, since "the speech of a pure man should only be yes and no" (comp. Spiegel, Avesta, II. p. lvi). Phocylides also expresses our verse with great emphasis (Mt) 8' sTiiopx-f]- o--{]« p-ijx' dyvui; p-r^x' £ixaio;' lieuSop- xov oxuyEEi Seos dp.|3poxo; 8 Jerem. XXII. 13 ; Mai. III. 5 ; Philo, De Humanit. c. 7). In the reproduc tion of this command, Phocylides is less happy and faithful than usual (ver. 19, Mlaftov p-o^-OVjoavxi 8£8ou- p.rj 8-M|3e Tt£vT)xa); but Rabbinical teachers, always eager to render the laws of charity most effectual, in terpreted it in the most generous spi rit, and declared that "he who treats a hireling with harshness sins as grievously as if he were taking away his life, and violates many laws" (comp. Talm. Bab. Mets. 110b— 113a; Maim. Hilch. Sechiroth XI; Choshen Mishp. §§ 89, 339). 11. Persons stricken with some defect which renders them helpless, stand under God's special protection; it would be heartless and impious to -'curse the deaf", who is unaware of the attacks made upon him, which may involve calumnies, and which he is unableto rebut(comp.Ps.XXXVIII. 14, 15); and it would be cruel indeed to "put a stumbling block before the blind", to whom every right-minded man should be eager to "serve as eyes" (Job XXLX. 1 5) ; a crime like the latter was publicly cursed on Mount Ebal (Deut. XXVH. 18); and in both cases the Law warns the of fender, "Thou shalt fear thy God", who hears if there is no other ear to listen, who sees if there is no other eye to see, and who, to punish thy wickedness, can strike thee with the same afflictions (comp. Exod. IV. 11): hence the same menace, "Thou shalt fear thy God", is repeated with re spect to the treatment ofoldand infirm men, of poor persons, of dependents, and servants (ver. 32; XXV. 17, 36, 43). Philo inveighs vehemently against the inhumanity here forbid den, and observes that those who are guilty of it, "would not spare even the dead, in the excess of their cruel ty , but according to a common pro verb, would slay the slain again" (De Justit. H. 10). Jewish tradition LEVITICUS XIX. 14, 15, 16. 413 15. You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not favour the person of the poor, nor coun tenance the person of the powerful ; in justice shalt thou judge thy neighbour. 16. Thou shalt not go about slandering among thy applies the second command of our verse figuratively to insidious advice or false information given to a man who is in ignorance or perplexity, whether on some question of learning or on some matter of business (comp. Talm. Avod. Zar. 15b; Maim. Hilch. Rotseach, SII ; Heilpern 1. c. p. 37). The lawof Manu inflicts a pecuniary fine upon any one who taunts a per son with being one-eyed or lame or deformed (Manu VIH. 274). IS. In a series of precepts enjoin ing tenderness and commiseration, it was doubly necessary to insist upon the strictest and most rigid justice, the main piUar of society and of na tional life; it was especially neces sary to warn the judges against ill- advised leniency towards humbler offenders ; the feeling of charity was not to confound the notions of right and wrong, and private bene volence was not to pervert public morality. How great and remarkable must have been the refinement of the legislator who deemed it his duty to check the impulses of charity, because he feared it might disturb the balance of reason and justice, and thus become mischievous and dangerous ! The command "Thou shalt not favour the person of the poor in his cause", coupled as it is with the command, "Thou shalt not countenance the person of thepower- ful", bespeaks an age of no ordinary culture , and a writer of uncommon clearness andharmony of mind(comp. ver. 35; Exod. XXHI. 2, 3, 6—8; Deut. I. 16, 17; XVI. 18— 20; Comm. on Exod. pp. 442—444). Phocylides admonishes the judges not to be op pressive to the poor, but he fails to reproduce the more characteristic command not to be partial to them, a command which is found in no other legislation (vers. 10, 11, Mrj OXld^s 7t£v(-r)v, d8(x(o; pA\ xptv£ uposomov, xxX.) ; whereas Jewish tradition per fectly understood and well developed its spirit(comp.7Wm.Cbull.l34a; Mai mon . Hilch. Sanhedr.I ; Choshen Mishp. §. 17; see also Hotting er , Jur. Hebr. Legg. pp. 319—321). 16. It is not improbable that this verse also refers to duties connected with the administration of justice, although both the first and the se cond part may have a wider scope: it may relate to slander uttered in private and in law-courts, and it may allude to secret plotting as well as to bearing false witness in public; it denounces, therefore, like so many previous ordinances, insidious defa mation and false testimony in what ever form, because calumny tends to imperil the honour and the interests, and it may be the lives , of innocent fellow-men (comp. Exod. XXIII. 1, 7 ; Deut. XIX. 16 sqq.). Horace re commends (Epist. I. xviii. 68—70): "Quid de quoque viro, et cui dicas saepe videto ; Percontatorem fugito ; nam garrulus idem est; Nee reticent patulae commissa fideliter aures". The Rabbins are particularly severe with regard to the offence of calum ny ; this, they declare, devastates the world; three sins remove man from this world, and deprive him of hap piness in the next — idolatry, incest, and murder; but slander outweighs 414 LEVITICUS XIX. 16. people; thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord. them all; it is like denying the foun dations of faith; it kills three per sons at a blow — the slanderer, the slandered, and the listener; andthere- fore the Targum of Jonathan thus paraphrases our passage, "Do not fol low the thrice- cursed tongue, for it is more fatal than the double-edged and devouring sword" (comp. Talm. Ke thuv. 46a; Sot. 15, 42; Kiddush. 70; Sanhedr. 31a, 103a; Avod. Zar. 18; Erach. 16b; Maimon. Hilch. Deoth c VII; Heilpern, 1. c. p. 38). The Hindoo law has a* series of very severe provisions with respect to backbiting and defamation, gradu ating the fines and penalties in ac cordance with the position of the of fender and the offended, whether they be priests, soldiers or merchants, ar tisans or servants : if a servant, who is only "once-born", commits the of fence against a "twice-born", his "tongue shall be cut asunder, be cause he has been generated from the meanest part of Brahma"; if he in sults a priest, "a red-hot iron rod, ten digits long, shall be put into his mouth", or "boiling oil shall be in stilled kito his mouth and ears". It teaches also, "The guilt of him who falsely accuses another, is twice as great as the guilt of one who divul ges a crime that has actually been committed ; the calumniator has to bear the punishment of the calum niated ; and to purify himself, he must for a month remain in seclusion, re peat prayers in silence, and subdue his passions" (Manu VHI. 267—277; Yajnav. II. 204—207, 210, 211, 234, 285 — 287). According to Jewish tra dition, the second half of our verse intimates that, if we see any one in danger, we ought to try to save him, whether from drowning or from at tacks of robbers and wild beasts; and that a man who happens to wit ness a crime or injustice, is bound to come to the rescue of the attacked, either by personal assistance or by bearing testimony before the judges ; and the same sense is expressed by Phocylides (ver. 21, M^x' d.8ix£iv k%k- Xot?, p-vjx' ouv doixouvxa kdai^s; comp. Targ. Jon. in loc. ; Talm. Sanh. 74a; Maim. Hilch. Rotseach I; Choshen Mishp. § 426). Philological Remarks. — -The noun i-ai (from iai, kindred with isi to go about, to traffic, whence iaimerchant) is properly walking about, then doing so without a legitimate object, or tale-bearing (according to Rashi for espionage B"aaa^E»s ; comp.iai to espy, to explore) ; and i-ai -in is to move about slandering, i-ai being joined to the verb in the absolute case (si milarly f$> Tin XXVI. 21, 23, lit. to go in a hostile encounter, that is, to act inimically, like -ipa "jin XXVI. 24, 27, etc.; see Gramm. § 86.4.c); i-ai h»3s is, therefore, slanderers (Ezek. XXn. 9; comp. Prov. XL 13; XX. 19); and this term proves that i-ai is indeed tale-bearing, and not, as some suppose, tale-bearer (so f. i. Ewald, Gr. §§ 149e, 279c). Onk. has forcibly 'psiip iia-n si "thou shalt not indulge in slander" (lit. thou shalt not consume pieces, as in the Prench jargon to denounce is manger le mor- ceau; comp. Dan. III. 8; VI. 25; Talm. Berach. 58a); Sept. not quite accurately, oil 7iop£UOT) 86Xoi; Vulg. explicitly non eris criminator nee su- surro ; Luther correctly as to the sense, Du sollst kein Verlaumder sein; Jewish interpreters, starting from the root yip used by Onkelos, explain , "thou shalt not make dam natory insinuations by winking with LEVITICUS XIX. 17, 18. 415 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, so that thou bear not sin on his account. 18. Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge thy eyes" (comp. Prov. VI. 13; X. 10). fSl Bi is lasnsiis literally, "thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour", that is, thou shalt not scheme against his life, whe ther by cunning or violence, by speech or deed (comp. Dan. VIH. 25 ; XL 14). IS. We hardly know whether to admire more the practical wisdom of the next injunction or its exalted mo rality : the faults of others should not engender in our hearts an unconquer able aversion ; we should, on the con trary endeavour so to work upon the sinners by generous admonition, that theymay become worthy of ourfriend- "ship; for it is equally wrong to feel hatred, and to withhold correction. "Open rebuke is better than secret love", says a HebrewProverb (XXVn. 5); Christ enjoined upon his disci ples, "If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault be tween thee and him alone ; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy bro ther"; and he advised, if this remon strance should prove ineffectual, to repeat it before one or two witness es, and if necessary before the whole congregation (Matth. XVIH. 15— 17); and the Rabbins declared that a man who does not reprove an offender when it is in his power to do so, shares his sin ; yet he must take heed not to humble himbefore others, "it would be better for him to throw himself into a burning furnace", and "those who do so have no share in a future life"; an exception, however, is per mitted when matters of faith are concerned, or whe'n impostors must be unmasked in the interest of pub lic virtue (comp. Mishn. An. III. 11, Talm. Berach. 31b, 43b; Shabb. 54b; 56b; Yom. 86b; Kethuv. 67b; Sot.lOb; Bab.Mets.31a,58s, 59a; Maim. Hilch. Deoth VI, VII; Hotlinger, Jur. Hebr. Legg. pp. 321—323). Philological Remarks. — The Vul gate, in rendering n-ain nam publice argue eum, adds a notion which is probably not intended in the text. — The words SBn vis s»n si mean no doubt, "thou shalt not bear sin on his account" (comp. XXII. 9 ; Num. XVIH. 32; see Comm. on Lev. I. 514), and not "thou shalt not suf fer sin upon him" (Engl. Vers., Marg_ Read, however, "that you bear not sin for him") ; is signifies not unfre quently "for the sake of" (Ps. XLIV. 23; LXIX. 8; etc.; Gramm. § 105. 5). 18. "Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people , and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself : this noble precept has long been recognised as the fairest flower of Hebrew ethics, and as the essence of the religion taught in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was by Christ declared to be, next to loving God with all our power, the great commandment upon which hang aU the Law and the prophets (Matth. XXH. 39; comp. XIX. 19; Mark XII. 31 ; Luke X. 27); St. Paul called it "the very fulfilling of the Law" (Rom. XIII. 8—10; Gal. V. 14; comp. Col. III. 12—14; 1 Tim. I. 5) , and others the ''royal command" (paoiXixoc vop-os, James II. 8). It was by Jewish sages, as Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, and Ben Soma, expressed in the negative injunction, "What thou dost not wish that others should do 416 LEVITICUS XIX. 18. against the children of thy people; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. to thee , that do not thou to others ; this is the whole Law, the rest is only its interpretation; now go and learn" ( 'ai i-asn si "pani -3D -isi ; Talm. Shabb. 31a; Talm. Jer. Nedar. IX; see supra p. 117); and this was by Christ repeated in the positive form, "All things whateveryou would that men should do to you, do you even so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets" (Matth. VII. 12; Luke VI. 31). It was by later Rab bins variously applied and developed. When God had created the world, they allegorised, it rocked, unstable, to and fro, and could not find its equipoise ; He took love and made it the foundation of the universe, which then at once stood firm, and grew into order and beauty (Yalk. Shim. Ps. § 702). — It cannot be supposed that principles of such loftiness as those set forth in our verse gained ground at a very early stage of He brew history ; the Greeks and other ancient nations considered it the most enviable lot "to be able to be useful to one's friends and to do harm to one's enemy" ; and the Jews probably adhered for a long time to similar views ; at least Saul is re ported to have said, "If a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away?" (1 Sam. XXIV. 20); and gen erous conduct like that of David was regarded as most remarkable, and was praised as exceptional (comp. Ps. XLL 5 sqq., etc.). But gradually purer notions took root; already "the Book of the Covenant" in Exo dus enjoins the utmost consideration towards an enemy's beast, which is to be restored to him if it goes astray, and whose burdens are to be lightened if found to be above its strength (Exod. XXHI. 4, 5); and similar provisions, though more gen eral in form, are made by the Deu teronomist (Deut. XXH. 1, 4). With regard to the enemy himself, a pro verb in the collection prepared in king Hezekiah's reign, prescribes, "If thy enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink; for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee" (Prov. XXV. 21, 22); and another proverb inculcates the lesson, "Re joice not when thy enemy falls , and let not thy heart be glad when he stumbles ; lest the Lord see it, and it displease Him, and He turn His wrath from him" (Prov. XXIV. 17, 18). We have, therefore, no reason to doubt that in the command of our verse, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", the term "neighbour" com prises both kinsmen and strangers, both Israelites and non-Israelites; indeed that same command is in a later portion of this chapter express ly repeated with respect to the stranger (ver. 34); and it is unwar ranted to infer , by an assumed rule of the contrary, that "thou shalt love thy neighbour, but hate thy enemy", as we read in the Sermon on the Mount (Matth. V. 43 ; see supra p. 1 1 9). National animosity engendered in deed among the Hebrews , as it did almost everywhere else, hatred and implacable bitterness , and gave rise to sentiments like the following ut tered against the Ammonites and theMoabites, "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever" (Deut. XXIII. 7); but national animosity is no test of individual morality, and however fierce, it is compatible with the ten- derest feeling (comp. Ps.CXXXVII). LEVITICUS XIX. 18. 417 Nor should we be justified in assert ing that the difference between na tive and stranger was ever effaced among the Hebrews; it was upheld with decision and consistency by the Deuteronomist; and it was in sisted upon , even with some harsh ness, by one as noble-minded and as generous as Philo. The former or dained that money might be lent on usury to a stranger, but not to an Israelite ; that in the Sabbath-year a loan might be exacted from a for eigner, while it should be remitted to a Hebrew debtor; and that a He brew, but not a heathen servant might claim freedom after six years of service (Deut. XV.' 3 , 12; XXIH. 21 ; comp. Exod. XXI. 2). And Philo observes: "The Hebrews called their fellow countrymen , with great feli city of expression, their brothers ; but those who were not their fellow countrymen, were called strangers, as is very natural, for the fact of being a stranger shows that a person has no right to a participation in anything, unless, indeed, anyone out of an ex cess of virtue should treat even strangers as kindred and related" (Philo, De Septen. 8, 9, 16 ; but see in fra p. 436). ' However, the differences referred to , though affecting import ant social rights, do not seem to have caused oppression or humiliation. The Talmud, partially compiled in times when the Jews suffered cruel persecution, and moral degeneracy prevailed in the Roman world , has indeed some intolerant maxims such as this : "You Hebrews are called men, but the idolatrous nations are not called men" (Yevam. 61 a; Bab. Mets. 114b), which distinction was applied to defilement by a. corpse (comp. supra p. 111). But the Talmud has also sentiments of a very different na ture; f. i. "A non- Jew who studies the Law is like the High-priest" (Bab. Kam. 3 8a) ; or "The good men of all the nations of the earth have a share in the happiness of the future world" (Sanh. 105a; comp. Acts X. 34, 35); or "Peed alike the Jewish and the gen tile poor, nurse alike the Jewish and the gentile sick, and bury together the Jewish and the gentile dead, for the sake of peace" (Gitt. 61a). It de clares that interest on money ought not to be taken even from a gentile (Mace. 24a) ; -and we find this note worthy utterance : " 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself — Rabbi Akiva said, This is a mo'st import ant principle of the Law; but Ben Azai contended, that the words, 'This is the book of the generations of men' (Gen. V. 1), which declare the equal ity of all human beings , because all alike bear the image of their com mon Pather, involves a principle even more momentous than the former" (Talm. Jer. Nedar. IX; Siphra fol. 89a ed. Schlossb.; comp. also Mishn. Avoth IH. 14, aisa s-iaaai bis a-un). Jewishsages explained that "aven ging" (Bpa) means returning evil for evil; while "bearing grudge" (iaa) im plies remembering anoffencereceived, though good be returnedfor evil ; they held that it is permitted to "hate" no one except only sinners who, having been duly warned and admonished, do not repent, but persevere in their evil ways ; and they ordained that, if a man finds both a friend and an ene my in distress , he should first assist his enemy, "in order to subdue his evil inclination" (liar ns S)iai -ns; comp. Talm. Yom. 23a; Bab. Mets. 32b;Erach. 16b; etc.). It might perhaps be possible to propound a rule more ideal and one in volving greater self-abnegation than the maxims, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", or "Do to others as you would th at others should do to you", which adages, making EE 418 LEVITICUS XIX. 18, 19. 19. You shall keep My statutes: thou shalt not self-love the basis and guiding prin ciple of our actions , do not seem to aid us materially in the attainment of the supreme object of all moral training, the subjugation of self ; yet theyappear tobethehighestthat can be expected from humannature , and are therefore the most expedient and the most practical, provided that con stant and strenuous care be taken that they do not result in cold justice de void of mercy and generosity : forman cannot carry his sacrifices for others to the point of utterly forgetting of his own interests, without finally endangering his dignity, if not his usefulness. "Owe no man anything but to love one another", explains St. Paul (Rom. XIII. 8). Nor do mo dern moralists condemn or underva lue self-love as a motive power for our actions — "Two principles in human nature reign; "Self-love, to urge, and Reason, to restrain ; "Nor this a good, nor that a bad we call, "Each works its end, to move or govern all". (Pope, Essay on Man, II. 2.) Othernations werenotunacquaint- ed with precepts analogous to those here enjoined. The Spartans com monly prayed to the gods to make them bear injuries with meekness (Plul. Instt. Lacon. c. 26). A Hindoo code declares: "Virtue is not in a hermit's life; it appears only when it is practised; therefore men must not do to others what is disagree able to themselves" (Yajnav. III. 65). Confucius writes : "Do to another what you would he should do to you ; and do not to another what you would not like to be done to you". Aristotle remarks : "We should behave to wards our neighbours , as we would wish them to behave towards us". Cicero dweUs upon the idea that "when a wise man has displayed be nevolence, which is so widely diffused, towards one who is endowed with equal virtue, then that effect is pro duced which might appear incredible to some people, . . . that he loves him self not more than he loves his friend", and he adds, that this would be the general rule among men, if they remained true to nature in its ge nuine purity (De Legg. I. 12 or 34; comp. De Offic I. 11 or 33). And Se neca advised, "Live for another as you would live for yourself". Philological Remarks. — It is true that the terms ns and •'isa are occa-- sionally placed in clear juxtaposition to denote "Israelite" and "foreigner" (Deut. XV. 3; XXIH. 21); but it is at least doubtful whether in our verse sjsi is intended to be under stood as a synonym of s;»s 133, and to mean also Israelite (comp. Talm.Hab. Kam. 38, -w •••spn insi "s -posa naa 'ai spn isi insi). As a parallel to our verse and several preceding com mands , may be quoted a passage of Zechariah (VIII. 16, 17) written at about the same period as our chap ter: "These are the things that you shall do, Speak every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judg ment of truth and peace in your gates ; and let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neigh bour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, says the Lord". 19. We believe that the reason of the strange laws contained in this verse is implied in the very words with which they are prefaced, — "You shall keep My statutes" (¦npn) ; but then the Hebrew term usually LEVITICUS XIX. 19. 419 let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind ; thou shalt not sow rendered "statute" must be taken in its original and most pregnant sense asthatwhichis "engraven" and unal terably ordained: you shall not de viate from the appointed order of things, nor abandon the eternal laws of nature as fixed by Divine wisdom; for all things and living creatures, as they came perfect from the Crea tor's hand, were pronounced by Him to be "very good"; and every animal and plant was decreed to produce other animals and plants "after their. own kind" (Gen. I. 11, 12, 21, etc.). These ideas were, by the Deuterono mist, worked out even more fuUy than in our passage; for though omitting the command with regard to the beasts, he declared it to be an abomination to the Lord, if a man wears garments of a woman, or a woman garments of a man, which Philo calls "adulteration of the coin age of nature" (De Sacrif. c 13); he enacted that the produce of vine yards growing between corn "be comes holy" (Bipn), or as Jewish tra dition explains it, must be "burnt" (as ipin ; see notes in loc.) ; and he forbade ploughing with an ox and an ass together (Deut. XXII. 5, 9—11), "lest the weaker animal, being com pelled to exert itself to keep up with the superior power of the other, should become exhausted, and sink under the effort" (Philo, De Justit. H. 11); and the same notions were by the later Rabbins thus allegorically expressed with reference to our law : "There is nothing in the world, not even the smallest herb , over which an angel is not appointed as guar dian, according to whose command everything is ruled; therefore it is unlawful to mix together differ ent sorts and species, for thus the supreme government of things would be confounded" (iia s-^ias iaiaa sin --a nisa; Yalkut Chadash 147. i; Eisen- menger, Entd. Judenth, H. 376). Our laws were, theref ore,hardly prompted by expediency; and yet many such motives have been assigned for them from early down to recent times. It was supposed that mixing the breeds of animals was forbidden "from fear that this unnatural abuse might ex tend from beasts of different kinds to men" (Joseph. Antiq. IV. viii. 20 ; Philo, Specc. Legg. HI. 8; a,, o.); or as an indirect hint to the Hebrews to avoid intermarrying with foreigners (Philo, De Justit. II. 11; Cleric, Wi ner, Kitto, a. o.). A variety of pro duce in the same field or vineyard was believed to have been objected toforthe following reasons: — one spe cies injures the other(Philo, De Justit. II. c. 12); "the land ought not to be oppressed with burdens beyond its strength, out of mere covetousness" (Philo 1. c), and having supplied nourishment for one plant, ought not to be harassed by ploughing" (Philo Josephus, 11. cc); again, the He brews were to be weaned from de testable habits like those of the Za- biiwho, whilstsowing different seeds and grafting trees of different kinds", performed disgraceful acts of super stition and immorality (Maim. Mor. Nev. IH. 37, and the notes of Munk in loc ; similarly also Spencer, Legg. Hebr. Ritt. II. xxx. 2, pp. 529 sqq.); or they were to be taught "fully to trust in the providence of God, and not to make provision for a dry or wet season by sowing their fields with mingled seed", as is done in In dia and elsewhere (Roberts a. o.) ; and lastly, they were to be accustomed to a careful selection and separation of seed-grain , so useful for prevent ing the growth of weeds, and so es- EE2 420 LEVITICUS XIX. 19. thy field with mingled seed; nor shall a garment that sential for securing good crops (Mi chael. Mos. R. IV. § 218 ; comp. Virg. Georg. 1.19?, sqq.; Farro.R.R. 1. 52). A mixture of woollen and linen threads was considered inappropriate for rea sons like these:— "wool and linen were appointed for the priests alone" (Jos. Ant. IV. viii. 1 1 ; Mishn. Kelaim IX. l)i which statement is at least of doubt ful truth (see Comm. on Exod. pp. 487—489); "the difference of those substances prevents their union, and the superior strength of the one is calculated rather to tear the other than to unite with it , when the ma terial is used" (Philo, De Justit. n. 11); they were costly and led to ex travagance; they were often inter woven with symbolical figures of plants and animals recallingthe worst features of Egyptian idolatry ; or the people were to be warned against the superstitions of heathen priests, who believed that, by wearing mixed garments of wool and linen under certain conjunctions of the planets, their sheep and their flax would be blessed and thrive (Maimonides). However, the idea underlying our laws is so abstract and speculative, and it is applied with so much logi cal consistency, that it is impossible to suppose that these ordinances ori ginated in early and untutored times. In fact, we find traces in the Hebrew Scriptures that they were entirely unknown nearly during the whole of the monarchical period. We will not lay great stress upon the fact that the Hebrews largely kept and used mules (2 Sam. XIH. 29; XVHI. 9; 1 Ki. I. 33, 38; X. 25; XVHI. 5; Ezra n. 66; etc.), although the reasons brought forward to explain the em ployment of these hybrids , are very unsatisfactory; it is asserted that the Israelites imported them from other countries (Winer, Knobel), or that they permitted an exception in favour of the horse and the ass (Ewald); it seems more probable to suppose that if a precept like that of our verse had existed, the Hebrews would have deemed it un lawful not only to breed but to use mules, just as they abhorred both the breeding and the keeping of swine (p. 1 10). But we turn to a more decisive proof. We read in Isaiah (XXVHI. 25) : "When the ploughman has made even the surface of the field, does he not cast abroad fennel and scatter cummin, and cast wheat in rows, and barley on the appointed place, and spelt for its border?" Here evidently a large variety of grains is described as being sown on the same field, with an enclosure of a different kind forming part of the same piece of land; whereas the Mishnah (Kilaim IX. 9) expressly forbids a woollen border round a linen texture. It is a matter of expe rience that mixed seeds yield more abundant crops than single ones; because the former, as has been sup posed, resist more successfully all injurious influences often fatal to the latter; different kinds protect each other, as various herbs and grasses do in fields ; thus " clover may be frozen in winter and dried up in summer, but if mixed with other plants, it will indeed languish under the same conditions of temperature, but it will rise again luxuriantly in a more favourable season"(Ergdnzungs- blatter,!. 509). Whether the Hebrews were acquainted with this circum stance or not , they do not appear to have felt much disposed to comply with our law even long after its pro mulgation; a parable in the New Testament begins with the words: LEVITICUS XIX. 19. 421 is a mixture of linen and wool (shaatnez) come upon thee. "A certain man had a fig-tree planted in his vine-yard" (Luke XHI. 6); and the doctors of the Mishnah and Talmud, though most minutely work ing out our ordinances from every conceivable point of view , found it necessary to interpret them,in several respects, very leniently, and to make many important concessions. Por they taught, partially even against the spirit of the Biblical commands, that the mixing of seeds is prohi bited only in the Holy Land; although grafting different kinds of trees is strictly forbidden, the fruit so ob tained may be eaten; a certain num ber of plants, such as beans and peas, spelt and rye (liinc), are not to be con sidered as heterogeneous (Mishn. Ki- laim 1. 1 — 4) ; a garden bed about six hand-breadths square,may be planted with five kinds of vegetables, four on the four borders, and the fifth in the middle; the law is not infringed, un less three different kinds of grain are sown on the same field, for inst., two sorts of wheat and one of barley, or oneof wheat, of barley, and of spelt; or unless, in a vineyard, besides pip pins of raisin, two grains, such as wheat and barley, are sown at the same time. Maimonides indeed finds this decision surprising because not founded on Biblical authority, but he explains it by one of his favour ite theories, namely, that the simul taneous sowing of three kinds was a pagan usage (comp. Mishn. Kilaim I. 1—4, 9; H. 6, 7; III. 1—5; V. 8; VI. lsqq. ; TX.lsqq.; ra/m.Shabb.IX.2 ; Be rach. 22a; Kiddush. 38, 39a; Chull.82b, 136b; etc. Maimon. Mor. Nev. HI. 37 fin.; HUch. Kilaim I, V, IX; Yor eh Deah §§ 295—304; Hottinger, Jus Hebr. pp. 374—378). It must, therefore, be concluded, that our laws are the result of a phi losophical or religious theory, which could not well be realised in prac tical life; and it will be easy to esti mate the opinion of Talmudists that they formed a, part of those com mands which were already enjoined upon Noah, either assuming ten such precepts , or differently defining the seven usually specified (Talm. Sanh. 56b, 60a; see supra pp. 9, 10). Philological Remarks. — ¦ Some observations of Josephus seem indeed to involve more profound reasons, but they are vague and indistinct. "The seeds", he states, "ought to be pure and unmixed, and two or three kinds should not be sown together, since nature does not delight in the union of dissimilar things . . . Nor is anything to be allowed, out of which, by imi tation, any subversion might arise in matters relating to the common wealth " (Jos. Ant. rv. viii. 20). The same may be said of Philo's explana tion : "No Jewish shepherd will en deavour to cross a sheep with a he- goat, or a ram with a she- goat, or a cow with a horse; and if he does, he must pay the penalty for dissol ving an ordinance of nature, that is anxious to preserve the original kind's of animals free from spurious ad mixture" (Philo, Specc. Legg. HI. 8). The notion of purity, "mixture caus ing uncleanness" (Knobel,~Ley. p. 511), is but remotely associated with our laws. — The term -i» thy field must here, no doubt, be taken in the most extended sense, and includes the vine yard, which word is used in the corres ponding law of Deuteronomy (XXH. 9), and which the Septuagint, unjusti fiably narrowing the scope of our law, has in our passage (xov dp.us- Xuiva aou): if "seed is sown" on the vineyard, the latter becomes thereby, in some measure, a field. — The mean- 422 LEVITICUS XIX. 19; 20—22. 20. And if a man lies carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a man, but has not been redeemed, nor has received her freedom; punish ment shall take place, but they shall not be put to ing of tataso is certain, for in our pas sage the word is explained by "mix ture" (=:si:) , and in Deuteronomy (XXII. 11) still more distinctly by "wool and linen together" (Jonath. in our passage -jmal ias -sis) , which were among the Hebrews the ordi nary materials for garments (comp. XIII. 47); but no plausible etymology has hitherto been discovered; the term seems hardly of Hebrew origin, a quinquelitera consisting entirely of strong letters being against Shemitic formation; it may be Egyptian, and the word may have been introduced into Palestine together with the tex ture for which the Egyptians were famous. According to the Mishnah (Kilaim IX. 8), it is » compound of sua, heckled, iiib spun, and Tia corded or woven, and denotes a material variously manufactured of wool and flax (comp. Kimchi sub voc) ; which derivation is as improbable as that of modern linguists who believe that it signifies " a garment mixed with thread," and consider it a compound of s» mixture (comp. Arab. £&*& to mix), BS garment (comp. ntas to put on a garment), and ta thread (comp. Chald. na to twist threads) ; or that ofBoohart who translates "mixed texture" (from k^orfcU, and fa). In Coptic, coloured material spun from wooland linen is called 2XQNTNE2. The ancient versions afford no clue ; the Sept. has xl(387]Xov (adulterated, false — being neither the one species nor the other), the Vulg. merely veste qua? ex duobus texta est; the Samar itan version B^iaaa dotted, of varie gated colours, perhaps following a custom or law of the Samaritans of wearing only garments of one colour ; Saad. ad Abu-Said "of wool andlinen" (yjUtT. i-Jyo; comp. Buxt. Lex. Chald. Talm. p. 2483 ; Boch. Hieroz. I. pp. 486, 487; Jablonski, Opusc I. 291— 295; Gesen. Thesaur. p. 1456). — We may observe, that theordinance with respect to mixed materials was by Jewish tradition not applied to the shrouds of the dead (nan -^a-nan), since the dead are free from the obligations of the Law (Mishn.Kil. IX. 4 ; comp. Ps. LXXXVIII. 6, a^iin laa "otn a-naa 'si) ; and upon this view is based the argument of St. Paul, "You also are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ ; . . . now we are delivered fromtheLaw, that being dead wherein we were held"; or "I through the Law am dead to the Law, that I might live unto God" (Rom. Vn. 4, 6; Gal. II. 19). — Niebuhr (Beschrei- bungvonArabien,p. 159) relates that Jewish agriculturists in Arabia, though refraining from blending different kinds of trees by grafting or inoculation, which is forbidden in the Mishnah (Kilaim I. 7, 8), do not scruple to grow heterogeneous crops on the same field, and to eat the pro duce, which, according to the Rab bins, Jews are permitted to do in any country except Palestine (see supra ; comp. Hottinger, Jus. Hebr. p. 377). SO — 33. If we were not pre pared to find in our chapter a mis cellaneous collection of laws, it would be difficult to account for the intro duction, in this place, of the provi sions contained in these verses : their proper position would either have been among the laws of sacrifice or among the laws of marriage; and they derive, therefore, no light from the context in which thev occur. LEVITICUS XIX. 20—22. 423 death, because she was not free. 21. And he shall bring his trespass-offering to the Lord, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, a ram for a trespass-offering; 22. And the priest shall make an atonement for him They belong no doubt to the same period as the commands of this sec tion generally; for in Ezra's time an expiation by means of sacrifice simi lar to that here prescribed was de manded of those who had married foreign wives (comp. Ezra X. 19); and we are not surprised to find even in this late enactment the same in vidious and degrading conceptions with regard to slaves, which are re flected in some of the earlier ordi nances (comp. Exod. XXI. 20,21,32). For the slaves are here still regarded essentially as property, and not only are they inferior to other Israelites in social rights, but also in moral and religious duties : if a female slave is faithless to her betrothed, neither she nor her paramour suffers death, which is the legal punishment if the seduced is a free woman (XX. 10 ; Deut. XXII. 22—24) ; she has to per form no religious ceremony what ever , . since she is no full member of the theocratic community ; "her marriage with a free man is no per fect marriage" (viiaa visnp nnunp vs, Rashi),but is rather "like the 'hetero geneous mixture' (a^sia) just treated of" (Ebn Ezra); and the man has simply to present a ram for a tres pass-offering, which is the ordinary atonement for offences against the rights of property (Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 267 sqq.). Yet we notice, in this enactment, a progress in two direc tions : in opposition to the ordinances of previous codes, the seducer was not compelled to marry the slave, without theliberty of everdismissingher; and he paid the fine for the infringement of the laws of property not to the be trothed or the master of the slave, but to God (comp. Deut. XXII. 28, 29). Both the notions of marriage and of atonement had become more re fined; a forced alliance was deemed immoral, because it is no union; and it was considered a, supreme duty to restore the holiness of the commu nity which had been disturbed by the offence. Whether any reparation was made to the injured bridegroom, or to the master whose property had been depreciated, and which was the penalty inflicted upon the woman, is not stated in our law; the matter was probably left to the discretion of the judges, to whom the legislator gave sufficient liberty by the general injunction "punishment shall take place" (mnn nipa). Jewish tradition deduced from these terms that the slave was punished with flagellation (Mishn. Kerith. II. 4). Philological Remarks. — To estab lish a connection with the preceding verse, we should not be warranted in describing the laws under discussion as directed "against the interming ling of different classes," and in considering the particle i with which they begin (iu'-si) as » proof that "a kindred subject" follows (Ebn Ezra, Knobel,a.o.): a freeHebrew was indeed allowed to marry a Hebrew slave, whe ther she obtained her liberty or not ; and the particle i very frequently be gins laws and sections which have no affinity whatever with the preceding ones (comp. f. i. ver. 23, isan isi). — A learned critic has observed that "verses 19 to 22 give the impression of being later additions; atleastthey are ill suited to the other and more general subjects, and certainly vers. 21 and 22 do not stand in their right 424 LEVITICUS XIX. 22, 23-25. with the ram of the trespass-offering before the Lord for the sin which he has done; and the sin which he has done shall be forgiven him. 23. And when you shall come into the land, and shall plant all manner of trees for food, you shall count the Rabbinical interpretation, ren ders "she shall be scourged" (nipia liga its wsia), and has, in the Mar ginal Reading, even more question ably, "they shall be scourged"; and so the Vulg., Dathe, a. o. vapulabunt ambo. — Jewish doctors curiously in ferred from the words nmsa si niEni — a very common use of the infini tive for emphatic expression — that the woman referred to in our law is one that "is half slave and half free" (¦pun nanism nnEio msnc ia), and is betrothed to a Hebrew slave (Mishn. Kerith. H. 5); all which views are reproduced in the Targum of Jona than : "If she is a servant and a free woman betrothed to a free man, . . . there shall be searching inquiry (wieibb) for her judgment", etc 38—35. This is one of the few laws peculiar to our chapter, and found in no other code of the Penta teuch: assuming, therefore, that it originated at a very advanced age, we can well understand, that, though based upon an old usage and upon practical observation, it is spiritual and levitical in tendency : Hebrew agriculturists may have known, as was known to the husbandmen of other ancient nations, that by strip ping fruit-trees of their blossoms in the earlier years, they will thrive better, and bear more abundantly afterwards; but our legislator was not satisfied with merely sanctioning a practice of rural economy; he brought it into connection with the laws of firstfruits; and since, as a rule, the produce of the first three years is tasteless, stunted, and im perfect, or as he calls it "uncircum- place" (Graf, Geschichtliche Bucher, p. 78): however, the laws of ver. 19 seem to accord well with the spirit of the chapter, and the mode of atonement prescribed in vers. 21 and 22 can hardly be separated from the statement of the offence itself in ver. 20. — The words snsi nEina (ver. 20) are properly given up to a man, that is, betrothed to him (comp. nin in Judg. V. 18 ; Isai. LIH. 12 ; and n|ii- in Talm. Kiddush. 6a, where it is declared equivalent with nous; Onk. aptly kitts destined or intended, Jonath. soisna , Saad. L.kius, Rashi mnvai msva, Rashb. nmvai niiea) ; the Septuaginthas indistinctly Siarce- (puXayp.£vi]dv&poj7i:ur>(DeWette"einemManne vertraut"), Vulg. incorrectly nubilis, Luther a. o. against the He brew usage "die von dem Manne ver- schmaht ist" (Ebn Ezra "despised"; comp. nsin disgrace) ; Maimonides (Mor. Nev. 1. 39), connecting jpn with the Arabic i_Ka., takes it as "turning away", and translates unsi nEina nnEB "a servant changed from the condi tion of bondage to the condition of marriage"; and Schultens (Animad- vers. Philol. et Crit. pp. 57—68), fol lowing a no less doubtful Arabic analogy, renders "serva vilis alicui (sc. domino) reddita"; which Dathe modifies thus, qua alius pro lubitu utitur; comp. Comm. on Lev. I. p. 267 note 15. — ninn nips is properly there shall be visitation, for the root ipa includes, like the analogous one ipE, both the notion of searching ex amination (XIII. 36) and correction, exactly like the Greek emaxoTn^, as the Septuagint translates in this pas sage. The Author. Vers., following LEVITICUS XIX. 23—25. 425 their early fruit as uncircumcised; three years shall it be as uncircumcised to you; it shall not be eaten. 24. And in the fourth year all their fruit shall be holy, a praise to the Lord; and in the fifth year shall you cised," and' therefore unfit for sacred gifts, he enacted that that produce should not be eaten ; that the crop of the fourth year should be "holy, a praise to the Lord"; and that fromthe fifth year only the proprietor should be allowed to enjoy the produce of his trees. The firstfruits were, according to the Deuteronomist (XXVI. 1—11), consumed by the owner in common meals together with the Levite and the stranger; but according to the later ordinance of Numbers (XVIII. 12, 13), they belonged exclusively to the priests, and formed no insignifi cant part of their revenues (see Comm. on Lev. I. 613, 614). It is probable that the latter meaning is implied in the terms "holy, a praise to the Lord," and that the fruits of the fourth year belonged to the priesthood alone ; they could, according to tradition, be redeemed by their equivalent of money, with the addition of the fifth part of their value (comp. XXVH. 31 ; Deut. XIV. 22—26; Mishn. Peah VII. 6; Terum. VI. 2 sqq.; Maas. Shen.V. 1 sqq.) ; or they were taken to the holy city, together with the tithes of other fruits, and there consumed by the master in the company of in vited, especially needy guests (Jos. Ant.IV.vin. 19). Our text prescribes merely that the produce of the three first years " shall not be eaten"; but Jewish teachers assert that it must be burnt or buried in the ground, since it ought to yield no advantage or benefit whatever; and working out the Biblical precepts with their usual minuteness, they partially extend, and partially contract their scope. Some are of opinion that even at present Jewish producers ought to redeem the fruit of the fourth year for a nominal coin, and to throw this "into the Dead Sea", that is to "a forlorn place", where no one is likely to find it (See Mishnah Treat. Orlah; Talm. Berach. 35; Pesach. 22b; Rosh Hash. 2b ; Kiddush. 38, 54b; Bab. Kam. 101a; Maim. De Cib. Vetit. X. ; Mor. Nev. HI. 37 ; Yor. Beah § 294; Hottinger, 1. c pp. 324—327). Philological Remarks. — The words ins ns miis aniisi are literally "you shaU declare as uncircumcised its uncircumoision, its fruit," that is, the earliest fruits of a tree, which are, as it were, its prepuce, shall be considered unclean ; for W uncir cumcised is used metaphorically in many connections, especially in refer ence to the heart, the lips, and the ear (XXVI. 41; Ex. VI. 12, 30; Deut.X. 16; Jer. IV. 4; VI. 10; Ezek. XLIV. 9; see Comm. on Exod. p. 106); hence Onk. spnii -]ipnin, the Sept. itspixa- 8-apiefxe x^v dxaSapaiav auxou, and Philo in his allegorical manner, "he orders us to cut away vain opinions, which are impure by nature" (De Alleg. I. 15, oi-qais §£ dxdflapxov (pu- oei; comp. also the curious and ela borate aUegorical exposition of our precept, which he describes as a Y_pT|Gp.6s, in De Plant. Noae cc. 27 — 33; see De Abrah. I. 2).— BiiiVn ss'ip nimi " holy, » praise to the Lord," that is, an offering of praise and gra titude ; though fliiiin is also used for festivals of thankfulness (Judg. IX. 27; comp. Hengstenb. Authent. des Pentat. II. 99). The Sept. renders the word indistinctly aivExo? xip xupicp, and so the Vulg. laudabilis Domino ; and Luther heilig und ge- priesen ; but the Samaritan codex and 426 LEVITICUS XIX. 25; 26, 31. eat of their fruit, that they may yield to you their in crease: I am the Lord your God. 26. You shall not eat anything with the blood. You shall use no enchantment nor magic. version have B-iiin "redemption,'' in timating that the produce of the fourth year might be redeemed by money given to the priests (see supra ; comp. Deut. XX. 6; XXVHI. 30; Jer. XXXI. 5) ; and similarly Targ. Jonath. (sana -ja p-Ena "redeemedfrom the priest"), and others (see Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 181—184). 36,31. Though from early times thoughtful Hebrews felt a repug nance to the eating of blood of ani mals, since they considered blood as the soul or life breathed into the beasts by God and therefore sacred, the bulk of their countrymen could not easily be weaned from a habit which seems to have been general and deep-rooted, and was combated by arguments per haps too speculative for their com prehension. The interdiction of eat ing blood was therefore repeated at different times, and was deemed ne cessary even in the Persian period; yet it is here introduced in a form so brief and elliptical — am is liasn si — that it is evident that the subject had become familiar to all. Butinthat period no warnings were more urgently needed than those against sooth-saying, enchantment, and sorcery of every description; for then the Jews, scattered throughout Babylonia, the ancient home of the divining arts, and living under the rule of the Persians, the consummate adepts in the mysteries of the spirit world, were in the utmost danger of adopting views and practices abso lutely opposed to the doctrines of monotheism, and of thus "defiling themselves" (ver. 31). How imper fectly the Jews escaped this danger, has been pointed out before 'rsrs. 987 sqq.); and we have, in another place, also reviewed the various forms of sooth-saying which flourished among the Hebrews at all times (see Comm, on Lev. I. pp. 374 sqq.). Philological Remarks. — The com mand "You shall not eat anything with the blood," is sufficiently clear ; but Jewish teachers, translating "you shall not eat so as to cause your own death",curiously referred those words to the law about the rebellious and gluttonous son, who was to be stoned to death (Deut. XXI. 18—21) ; or they explained, "you shall not eat the flesh of sacrificial animals while the blood is still in the sprinkling vessel" (Targ. Jon.; Talm. Sanh. 63a; Berach. 10). Maimonides, on this point as on some others at variance with Jewish tra dition, asserts, at least in his Moreh Nevochim (IH. 46), that thecommand applies merely to the Zabian practice of eating the flesh of slaughtered beasts at the pit into which they pour the blood as food for the de mons; and he translates therefore, "You shall not eat near the blood" (see supra p. 3; comp. however, Mai mon. Seph. Mitzv., negat. prec 195; Hilch. Mamrim VII ; Heilpern, Mits. Hashem p. 40). But the preposi tion is means likewise "in addition to" or "together with" (comp. XXHI. 18, 20; Exod. XII. 8, BTlia is nisai iniiasi) ; it stands here instead of the more usual a or BS (Gen. IX. 4; Deut. XII. 23), or instead of is (1 Sam. XIV. 34, in which passage the phrase Bin-is ias also occurs, vers. 32, 33). An ancient reading instead of Bin is seems to have been Biin is, for some Greek manuscripts have the trans- LEVITICUS XIX. 27, 28. 427 27. You shall not round the corners of your head, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 28. And you shall not make any cuttings in your flesh not to eat sacrificial meals on the heights, which would, however, be too abruptly and enigmatically in troduced. — On tin; to practise en chantment "by muttering spells in a mysterious whisper", see Comm. on Lev. I. 375 notes 15, 16, and on -pis ibid. p. 376 note 1; on nias necro mancers ibid, notes 5 — 9, and on Dia'sii wizards ibid. p. 374 note 11. The Sept. renders o(a>vi££